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. Courtney, Joe [D-CT-2] · D–CT
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 18, 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.10308 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.10308 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.10308 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.10308 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 · 2026-09-08 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 proposal would let the Coast Guard’s Commandant use existing legal authority for support agreements between government bodies that is assigned to the secretary overseeing the Coast Guard. It would require the Commandant to notify two congressional committees within 60 days after using that authority.
(a) In general The Commandant of the Coast Guard may exercise the authority of the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating under section 2679 of title 10.
(b) Notification Not later than 60 days after the date on which the Commandant exercises the authority described in subsection (a), the Commandant shall submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a written notification of such exercise of authority, including a description of any intergovernmental support agreement entered into under such exercise.
Section 2 would add a new section 506 to title 46 of the United States Code. It would permit, rather than require, the Commandant to exercise the department secretary’s authority under section 2679 of title 10.
Chapter 5 of title 46, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 506. Coast Guard intergovernmental support agreements authority (a) In general The Commandant of the Coast Guard may exercise the authority of the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating under section 2679 of title 10.
After exercising that authority, the Commandant would have to provide written notice within 60 days to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The notice would have to describe any intergovernmental support agreement entered into through that exercise of authority.
(b) Notification Not later than 60 days after the date on which the Commandant exercises the authority described in subsection (a), the Commandant shall submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a written notification of such exercise of authority, including a description of any intergovernmental support agreement entered into under such exercise.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated September 18, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on September 8, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-18T14:28:27Z. 2026-09-08: Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 2026-09-08: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-08. 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 particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; the bundle does not include earmark disclosures or committee and conference materials.
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 benefit 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.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 18, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI