H.R. 10182House bill · 119th CongressIn committee

To amend the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 to require eligible recipients of certain grants to develop a comprehensive economic development strategy that directly or indirectly increases the accessibility of affordable, quality care-based services, and for other purposes.

Sponsored byNikema WilliamsD-GA-5Introduced Aug 27, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Aug 27, 2026) — on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Financial Services, 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.

What it does

not written yet

The Congressional Research Service writes the plain-English summary for every bill, usually a few weeks after it's introduced. This one doesn't have one yet. It will appear here when it does.

In the meantime the most reliable description is the bill's own official title, which is the heading above — written by its sponsor, and the only account of the bill that exists at this stage. The full text is on congress.gov ↗

We don't write our own summaries. Everything else on this site links back to a record you can check, and a description of a bill that came from us rather than from the bill would be the one thing here that didn't — on the page that asks you to take a position on it.

Discussion

16 comments

Sort

sylvie_civicDemoFL-11voted Yea3d ago

I'd like to see the fiscal note before taking a position. The summary is silent on cost, which is normally the whole argument. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.

kbmontroseDemoNM-2voted Yea3d ago

This is unglamorous plumbing, and unglamorous plumbing is usually what matters. Yes from me. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.

rustbelt_rayDemoLA-2voted Yea6d ago

The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.

hollow_porchDemoHI-1voted Nay4d ago

The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.

marisol_qDemoPA-14voted Nay4d ago

That's true of almost every bill though, isn't it? At some point the objection stops being about this one.

RedRiverRonDemoNJ-1voted Nay6d ago

This looks like it codifies practice that already exists informally. Worth doing — informal practice evaporates when an administration changes. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.

AnnaLeeCDemoCA-386d ago

That's the part I can't get past either — broad authority, thin guardrails.

notmyfirstrodeoDemoCO-1voted Yea5d ago

Against, and not because the goal is wrong. It stacks a new process on top of two that already don't talk to each other. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.

nadia.hartleyDemoNV-2voted Nay3d ago

No from me. Pushing the cost to states without saying so is still an unfunded mandate.

b_haverfordDemoLA-6voted Nay5d ago

Against, and not because the goal is wrong. It stacks a new process on top of two that already don't talk to each other. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.

clay_commuterDemoCA-7voted Nay5d ago

What I'd want before deciding: who administers it, out of which budget, and who they answer to when it doesn't work.

notmyfirstrodeoDemoCO-1voted Yea5d ago

You're right about the drafting, but that's fixable in conference. Killing it means starting over next Congress.

marisol_qDemoPA-14voted Nay4d ago

The summary reads clearly enough, but the enforcement mechanism is doing all the work and it's the part with the least detail. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.

avery.nbDemoWA-3voted Yea4d ago

Genuine question rather than a gotcha: what does success look like in five years? If we can't say, what are we actually voting on?

quietriverbendDemoCA-21voted Yea5d ago

I keep going back and forth on this one. The problem is real; I'm not convinced this is the instrument for it. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.

OldLineStateDemoOH-1voted Nay6d ago

This is unglamorous plumbing, and unglamorous plumbing is usually what matters. Yes from me. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.

Your position on H.R. 101820% Yea · 1 VoteWire user