PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Steube, W. Gregory [R-FL-17] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
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: Sep 11, 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.10117 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.10117 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.10117 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.10117 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 · 2026-08-17 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 GATOR Act of 2026 would require a federal study of how treating certain alligators and caimans as threatened because they resemble protected species affects their populations and state wildlife management. The study would also examine whether that treatment has made removing nuisance alligators or invasive caimans near homes and businesses more difficult.
This Act may be cited as the Gathering Alligator Treatment, Oversight, and Response Act of 2026 or the GATOR Act of 2026.
shall carry out a study regarding the effect of the treatment by the Secretary pursuant to section 4(e)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(e)(A)) of covered reptiles as threatened species by reason of similarity of appearance to a species listed as an endangered species or a threatened species under section 4 of that Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) on the size of the population of covered reptiles
(1) affected the management programs of covered reptiles of covered States;
(3) made it more difficult for nuisance American alligators or invasive common caimans or brown caimans to be removed from waterways in or around residential or commercial areas than before such treatment was implemented.
The Comptroller General would have to conduct the study in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. They would determine which covered states' wildlife agency heads are relevant to consult.
The Comptroller General of the United States, in consultation with the Secretary and the heads of wildlife agencies of covered States the Comptroller General and Secretary determine relevant, shall carry out a study
(3) Secretary The term Secretary means the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
The study would cover American alligators, common caimans and brown caimans. A covered state would be any state with at least one population of one of these reptiles.
(1) Covered reptile The term covered reptile means— (A) the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis); (B) the common caiman (Caiman crocodilus crocodilus); and (C) the brown caiman (Caiman crocodilus odilus fuscus; Caiman crocodilus chiapasius).
(2) Covered State The term covered State means a State that has at least 1 population of a covered reptile located within the State.
The study would examine whether, and how, the threatened-species treatment affected state management programs, led to American alligator recovery beyond what the bill calls “complete recovery,” or caused common or brown caimans to become invasive in Florida. These are questions for the study, not established findings.
including whether and, if so, how, such treatment has— (1) affected the management programs of covered reptiles of covered States; (2) resulted in— (A) more than a complete recovery of the American alligator; and (B) the common caiman or brown caiman becoming an invasive species in Florida;
The study would compare removal difficulties before and after the threatened-species treatment began. This question concerns nuisance American alligators and invasive common or brown caimans in waterways in or around residential or commercial areas.
(3) made it more difficult for nuisance American alligators or invasive common caimans or brown caimans to be removed from waterways in or around residential or commercial areas than before such treatment was implemented.
The supplied September 11, 2026 source snapshot records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Natural Resources on August 17, 2026, followed by referral to the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries on September 10, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-11T08:05:29Z. 2026-09-10: Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries. 2026-08-17: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. 2026-08-17: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-08-17. 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 what other versions or accompanying materials contain.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; accompanying spending disclosures and reports were not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow exemption, carve-out or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. A focused study subject alone does not establish such a benefit. This conclusion is limited to the supplied version.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 11, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI