PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Torres, Ritchie [D-NY-15] · D–NY
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 Foreign Affairs.
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: Oct 15, 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.10748 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.10748 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.10748 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.10748 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 · 2026-10-05 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 Defense Secretary, with the State Secretary’s agreement, to report to Congress on Western Balkan countries’ military and security relationships. The report would examine cooperation with Russia, China, the United States, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). It would be due within 180 days after enactment.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on security cooperation with respect to Western Balkan countries.
An assessment of security cooperation between each Western Balkan country and the Russian Federation
An assessment of security cooperation between each Western Balkan country and the People’s Republic of China
An assessment of security cooperation between each Western Balkan country and the United States
An assessment of security cooperation between each Western Balkan country and NATO.
Section 1 would name the proposal the Balkans Security Cooperation Act.
This Act may be cited as the Balkans Security Cooperation Act.
The reporting requirement would cover eight countries: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, and Slovenia.
the term Western Balkan countries means— (A) Albania; (B) Bosnia and Herzegovina; (C) Croatia; (D) Kosovo; (E) Montenegro; (F) North Macedonia; (G) Serbia; and (H) Slovenia.
For each covered country, the report would list Russian, Chinese, and United States weapons systems and other military hardware and technology valued at $1 million or more that were provided to or purchased by that country since 2012.
A list of Russian weapons systems and other military hardware and technology valued at $1,000,000 or more that have been provided to or purchased by each Western Balkan country since 2012.
A list of Chinese weapons systems and other military hardware and technology valued at $1,000,000 or more that have been provided to or purchased by each Western Balkan country since 2012.
A list of United States weapons systems and other military hardware and technology valued at $1,000,000 or more that have been provided to or purchased by each Western Balkan country since 2012.
The report would describe each covered country’s security forces’ participation in training or exercises with Russia, China, and the United States since 2012.
A description of the participation of each Western Balkan country’s security forces in training or exercises with the Russian Federation since 2012.
A description of the participation of each Western Balkan country’s security forces in training or exercises with the People’s Republic of China since 2012.
A description of the participation of each Western Balkan country’s security forces in training or exercises with the United States since 2012.
The report would describe security cooperation agreements and assess intelligence cooperation between each covered country and Russia, China, and the United States. These requirements do not specify a starting year.
(C) A description of any security cooperation agreements each Western Balkan country has entered into with the Russian Federation. (D) An assessment of intelligence cooperation between each Western Balkan country and the Russian Federation.
(C) A description of any security cooperation agreements each Western Balkan country has entered into with the People’s Republic of China. (D) An assessment of intelligence cooperation between each Western Balkan country and the People’s Republic of China.
(C) A description of any security cooperation agreements each Western Balkan country has entered into with the United States. (D) An assessment of intelligence cooperation between each Western Balkan country and the United States.
For cooperation with Russia and China, the report would assess effects on the security interests of the United States, NATO, the covered country, and NATO member states bordering that country. The proposal requests assessments; it does not establish what those effects are.
An assessment of how security cooperation between each Western Balkan country and the Russian Federation affects the security interests of the United States, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the Western Balkan country, and each NATO member state that borders the Western Balkan country.
An assessment of how security cooperation between each Western Balkan country and the People’s Republic of China affects the security interests of the United States, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the Western Balkan country, and each NATO member state that borders the Western Balkan country.
The report would assess each covered country’s security cooperation with NATO and describe its participation and activities in NATO’s Partnership for Peace program, where applicable.
(4) An assessment of security cooperation between each Western Balkan country and NATO. (5) A description of each Western Balkan country’s participation and activities in NATO’s Partnership for Peace program, if applicable.
The report would assess the Russian Humanitarian Center in Niš, Serbia, including any influence or coordination it may have with Russian intelligence agencies. This language calls for an assessment without establishing that such connections exist.
An assessment of the Russian Humanitarian Center in Niš, Serbia, and any influence or coordination it may have with Russian Federation Intelligence Agencies.
The report would have to be unclassified, but it could include a classified attachment containing restricted information. Its congressional recipients would be the defense committees defined in the cited federal statute, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
The report required by subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.
the term appropriate congressional committees means— (A) congressional defense committees (as such term is defined in section 101 of title 10, United States Code); and (B) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated October 15, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on October 5, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-15T21:16:02Z. 2026-10-05: Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. 2026-10-05: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-10-05. 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 does not extend to 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 does not establish the absence of earmarks in other versions or accompanying materials.
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 benefit was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 15, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI