PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. James, John [R-MI-10] · R–MI
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 Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.
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: Jun 27, 2025. 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.2328 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.2328 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.2328 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.2328 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 · 2025-03-25 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.
This proposal would require the Secretary of Transportation, coordinating with the Coast Guard Commandant and the Secretary of Defense, to report to Congress on security at the Soo Locks in Michigan and how a malfunction or failure could affect the surrounding region and the United States. The report would examine threats, existing protections, and effects on the movement of goods and the economy. It would include any recommendations for improving security and reducing supply-chain impacts, with cost estimates for those recommendations.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation, in coordination with the Commandant of the Coast Guard and the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report
(1) highlights any security deficiencies that exist with respect to the Soo Locks in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan; (2) highlights the supply chain, logistical, and economic effects that would result in the event of a malfunction or failure of the Soo Locks and how such effects would impact the region surrounding the Soo Locks and the United States;
(3) highlights any potential domestic or international threats to the integrity of the Soo Locks; (4) details the current security structure of the Coast Guard and any other relevant Federal, State, or local agency to protect the Soo Locks; and (5) provides any recommendations, and cost estimates for such recommendations, for— (A) strengthening the security of the Soo Locks; and (B) reducing the impacts to the supply chain of the United States that would result in the event of a malfunction or failure of the Soo Locks.
Section 1 would name the legislation the Soo Locks Security and Economic Reporting Act of 2025.
This Act may be cited as the Soo Locks Security and Economic Reporting Act of 2025.
The Secretary of Transportation would have to submit the report within one year after enactment, coordinating with the Coast Guard Commandant and the Secretary of Defense.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation, in coordination with the Commandant of the Coast Guard and the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report
The report would identify any security weaknesses and potential threats from within the United States or abroad. It would also describe the existing arrangements of the Coast Guard and other relevant federal, state, or local agencies for protecting the locks.
(1) highlights any security deficiencies that exist with respect to the Soo Locks in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan;
(3) highlights any potential domestic or international threats to the integrity of the Soo Locks; (4) details the current security structure of the Coast Guard and any other relevant Federal, State, or local agency to protect the Soo Locks;
The report would examine how a malfunction or failure would affect supply chains—the networks that move goods—as well as transportation arrangements and the economy, both around the locks and nationally. This is a requirement to study possible consequences, not a finding that a failure or particular economic loss will occur.
(2) highlights the supply chain, logistical, and economic effects that would result in the event of a malfunction or failure of the Soo Locks and how such effects would impact the region surrounding the Soo Locks and the United States;
The report would include any recommendations for strengthening security and reducing national supply-chain impacts from a malfunction or failure, together with cost estimates for those recommendations. The provision does not require officials to implement those recommendations.
(5) provides any recommendations, and cost estimates for such recommendations, for— (A) strengthening the security of the Soo Locks; and (B) reducing the impacts to the supply chain of the United States that would result in the event of a malfunction or failure of the Soo Locks.
The report would go to three congressional committees: House Transportation and Infrastructure; Senate Commerce, Transportation, and Science, as named in the text; and Senate Environment and Public Works.
shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report
(b) Appropriate committees of Congress defined In this Act, the term appropriate committees of Congress means— (1) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives; (2) the Committee on Commerce, Transportation, and Science of the Senate; and (3) the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate.
The official-actions snapshot updated June 27, 2025, records introduction in the House and referrals to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and its Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, all on March 25, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2025-06-27T08:06:39Z. 2025-03-25: Referred to the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation. 2025-03-25: Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 2025-03-25: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-03-25. 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 absence in 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 congressionally directed spending for a particular recipient or place was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; it does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials. Formal earmark status cannot be established from the supplied source set.
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. Geographic focus alone does not establish such a benefit. 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: Jun 27, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI