PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.R.10387 / 119th Congress

To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to authorize the Secretary of the Army to carry out additional Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration projects not eligible under current policy of the Department of the Army, and for other purposes.

Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1001)

Official summary

No official summary is available in the imported record yet.

Who introduced it

Rep. Kaptur, Marcy [D-OH-9] · D–OH

Committees

  • Natural Resources Committee
  • Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
0 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

    Actions

    A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

    1. Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1001)

    2. Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

    3. Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

    4. Introduced in House

    5. Introduced in House

    Bill text & related measures

    Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.

    Related bills identified by Congress.gov

    Source last updated: Oct 2, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

    Explore the bill from different angles

    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.

    Neutral evidence review

    Objective

    Analyze H.R.10387 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.

    View full prompt & sources
    Fairness and public impact

    Progressive lens

    Examine H.R.10387 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.

    View full prompt & sources
    Institutions and government scope

    Conservative lens

    Examine H.R.10387 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.

    View full prompt & sources
    Individual rights and government power

    Liberty lens

    Examine H.R.10387 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.

    View full prompt & sources

    Read the proposal in plain language

    AI-generated · Source-checked by AI · Oct 24, 2026

    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.

    What it would do

    This bill would limit total federal spending to $20 million for each project covered by an existing Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration provision. The limit would apply to individual projects, rather than the program as a whole. This is a proposed change, not evidence of an enacted spending limit.

    Check the source
    1. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration Section 506 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–22) is amended by adding at the end the following: (g) Limitation The total Federal amount expended for a project carried out under this section shall be not more than $20,000,000.
    Official bill text · Introduced in House · 2026-09-15

    How it would work

    The bill would add subsection (g) to section 506 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. It would impose a mandatory ceiling on total federal spending for a covered project; it does not itself provide $20 million in funding for any project.

    Check the source
    Section 506 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–22) is amended by adding at the end the following: (g) Limitation The total Federal amount expended for a project carried out under this section shall be not more than $20,000,000.
    Official bill text · Introduced in House · 2026-09-15

    What the record shows

    The supplied actions snapshot, updated October 2, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the Transportation and Infrastructure and Natural Resources committees on September 15, 2026. It also records sponsor introductory remarks on October 1, 2026.

    Check the sources
    Source snapshot updated 2026-10-02T14:30:04Z. 2026-10-01: Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1001) 2026-09-15: Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
    Official legislative record · 2026-10-02T14:30:04Z
    2026-09-15: Introduced in House
    Official legislative record · 2026-10-02T14:30:04Z

    Riders & Targeted Benefits

    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.

    Riders

    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.

    Earmarks

    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 a particular recipient or place was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.

    Other targeted benefits

    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.

    What this analysis cannot establish

    • The existing section 506 is not reproduced. The bundle therefore does not establish current spending limits, project eligibility, administration, or how the proposed ceiling would interact with existing requirements.
    • The supplied bill text specifies no effective date, transition rule for existing projects, exception to the ceiling, or termination date.
    • The actions snapshot does not establish passage or enactment. Its omission of later actions does not prove that the bill never advanced or became law.
    • No member requests, earmark disclosures, committee reports, or conference materials are supplied; formal earmark status cannot be independently assessed.

    Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 2, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI