PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Kaptur, Marcy [D-OH-9] · D–OH
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 Transportation and Infrastructure.
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 29, 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.10385 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.10385 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.10385 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.10385 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 · 2026-09-15 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 bill proposes increasing a dollar amount in existing law concerning water and wastewater infrastructure in Toledo and Oregon, Ohio, from $1 million to $16.5 million. The supplied text does not establish whether that change would make money available to spend.
1. Toledo and Oregon, Ohio, water and wastewater infrastructure modification Section 219(f)(558) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3125) is amended by striking $1,000,000 and inserting $16,500,000.
Section 1 would replace $1,000,000 with $16,500,000 in section 219(f)(558) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992, an increase of $15.5 million.
Section 219(f)(558) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3125) is amended by striking $1,000,000 and inserting $16,500,000.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated September 29, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on September 15, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-29T15:50:11Z. 2026-09-15: Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 2026-09-15: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-15. 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 was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish the contents of other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
Evidence is limited
The text supports a possible geographically directed funding provision, but the missing statutory context and supporting materials prevent determining whether it constitutes congressionally directed spending outside competitive or formula allocation.
The proposal names Toledo and Oregon, Ohio, and increases a statutory dollar amount for water and wastewater infrastructure. This is a candidate for earmark review, but the supplied text does not establish its allocation mechanism or formal earmark status.
1. Toledo and Oregon, Ohio, water and wastewater infrastructure modification Section 219(f)(558) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3125) is amended by striking $1,000,000 and inserting $16,500,000.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No separate narrow exemption, carve-out, or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text beyond the geographic funding question addressed under earmarks. This conclusion is limited to this version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 29, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI