PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. De La Cruz, Monica [R-TX-15] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 20, 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.10086 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.10086 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.10086 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.10086 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.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-08-13 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Diabetes Prevention Program Reauthorization Act of 2026 would update the National Diabetes Prevention Program’s funding authorization. It would replace an unspecified funding amount for fiscal years 2010–2014 with specific annual amounts for 2027–2031, starting at $39.3 million and rising to $59.3 million. A funding authorization does not itself provide the money.
This Act may be cited as the Diabetes Prevention Program Reauthorization Act of 2026.
2. Reauthorization of National Diabetes Prevention Program Section 399V–3(d) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280g–14(d)) is amended by striking such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014 and inserting $39,300,000 for fiscal year 2027, $44,300,000 for fiscal year 2028, $49,300,000 for fiscal year 2029, $54,300,000 for fiscal year 2030, and $59,300,000 for fiscal year 2031.
Section 2 would amend the Public Health Service Act to specify these funding authorizations: $39.3 million for fiscal year 2027, $44.3 million for 2028, $49.3 million for 2029, $54.3 million for 2030, and $59.3 million for 2031. These amounts would replace the wording allowing “such sums as may be necessary” for fiscal years 2010–2014.
Section 399V–3(d) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280g–14(d)) is amended by striking such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014 and inserting $39,300,000 for fiscal year 2027, $44,300,000 for fiscal year 2028, $49,300,000 for fiscal year 2029, $54,300,000 for fiscal year 2030, and $59,300,000 for fiscal year 2031.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated August 20, 2026, records that the bill was introduced in the House and referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on August 13, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-08-20T13:28:49Z. 2026-08-13: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 2026-08-13: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-08-13. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish anything about other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No earmark was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. A general program funding authorization is not automatically an earmark. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Aug 20, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI