PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 19, 2026
Homeland Security Capabilities Preservation Reporting Act of 2026
This bill requires the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to submit a report to Congress every three years (current law requires only one report) regarding urban areas’ security capabilities previously supported with funding from the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) and at risk of being reduced or eliminated without additional federal assistance. FEMA’s UASI grants assist designated high-risk urban areas with developing and sustaining capabilities to prevent, prepare for, protect against, and respond to acts of terrorism.
Each report must contain a proposal for FEMA to provide financial assistance for at least three consecutive years to urban areas previously receiving UASI funds to allow them to transition to other funding sources to preserve their security capabilities.
People & committees
Rep. Carter, Troy A. [D-LA-2] · D–LA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H4391)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H4391)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 8874.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4391-4392)
Mr. Garbarino moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 647.
Reported by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 119-743.
Reported by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 119-743.
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 30 - 0.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Subcommittee on Emergency Management and Technology Discharged
Referred to the Subcommittee on Emergency Management and Technology.
Referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 19, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.8874 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.8874 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.8874 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.8874 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.