PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Ezell, Mike [R-MS-4] · R–MS
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 Natural Resources.
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.
Source last updated: Oct 16, 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.10756 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.10756 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.10756 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.10756 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 · 2026-10-06 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 proposed Regional Ocean Partnerships Reauthorization Act would update federal law governing regional ocean partnerships and add funding figures for fiscal years 2028–2031. It would restrict partnerships’ use of covered funds for developing regulations and compliance programs, and add a reporting deadline. Several changes amend existing language that is not reproduced here, which limits what this bundle establishes about their effects.
This Act may be cited as the Regional Ocean Partnerships Reauthorization Act.
(C) $10,630,812 for fiscal year 2028. (D) $10,743,428 for fiscal year 2029. (E) $10,858,296 for fiscal year 2030. (F) $10,975,462 for fiscal year 2031.
No amounts made available under this subsection may be used by a Regional Ocean Partnership, including any Regional Coastal Partnership or Regional Great Lakes Partnership, to develop any regulatory proposal, model regulation, or compliance program.
in paragraph (1), by inserting and not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of the Regional Ocean Partnerships Reauthorization Act, after this Act,
Section 2 would amend section 10202 of the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023. It would make capitalization changes to references to coastal states; the surrounding statutory language is not supplied.
Section 10202 of the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (16 U.S.C. 1468) is amended—
(1) in subsection (a)(2), by striking the term Coastal state in section and inserting the term coastal state in section;
(3) in subsection (c)(1), by striking coastal state each place it appears and inserting coastal State;
The bill would insert “or enforcement” after “regulatory” in subsection (b)(2)(D). Without the existing paragraph, the bundle does not establish the scope or practical effect of this change.
(2) in subsection (b)— (A) in paragraph (2)(D), by inserting or enforcement after regulatory;
The bill would replace “Mexico” with “America” in subsection (b)(3)(A) and remove “Vermont,” from subsection (b)(3)(B). The complete provisions are absent, so these edits alone do not establish changes to geographic coverage, eligibility, or funding.
(B) in paragraph (3)— (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking Mexico and inserting America; and (ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking Vermont,;
The bill would delete “natural and human-induced” from subsection (f)(2)(B). The supplied text does not show what those words describe, so the resulting scope cannot be determined.
(4) in subsection (f)(2)(B), by striking natural and human-induced;
The bill would add a report deadline no later than five years after its enactment and change “The report” to “Each report” in the following paragraph. The existing reporting provisions are not reproduced, leaving the responsible party and required contents unspecified in this bundle.
(5) in subsection (g)— (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting and not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of the Regional Ocean Partnerships Reauthorization Act, after this Act,; and (B) in paragraph (2), by striking The report and inserting Each report;
The bill would revise the funding schedule in subsection (j)(1), removing three existing subparagraphs, relabeling two others, and adding $10,630,812 for fiscal year 2028, $10,743,428 for 2029, $10,858,296 for 2030, and $10,975,462 for 2031. These proposed figures do not establish that funds have been appropriated—provided for spending—or spent.
(6) in subsection (j)— (A) in paragraph (1)— (i) by striking subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C); (ii) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) and (E) as subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively; and (iii) by adding at the end the following: (C) $10,630,812 for fiscal year 2028. (D) $10,743,428 for fiscal year 2029. (E) $10,858,296 for fiscal year 2030. (F) $10,975,462 for fiscal year 2031.
The bill would replace the period “2023 through 2027” with “2026 through 2031” in subsection (j)(3). The missing paragraph prevents determining exactly what that period governs; this edit alone does not establish when the entire program would end.
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking 2023 through 2027 and inserting 2026 through 2031;
Regional Ocean Partnerships, including Regional Coastal Partnerships and Regional Great Lakes Partnerships, would be prohibited from using funds made available under subsection (j) to develop regulatory proposals, model regulations—templates for rules—or compliance programs. The restriction is tied to those funds.
(4) Funding limitation No amounts made available under this subsection may be used by a Regional Ocean Partnership, including any Regional Coastal Partnership or Regional Great Lakes Partnership, to develop any regulatory proposal, model regulation, or compliance program.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated October 16, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Natural Resources on October 6, 2026. It supplies no later action or enactment record.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-16T18:08:07Z. 2026-10-06: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. 2026-10-06: Introduced in House 2026-10-06: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-10-06. 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 what appears 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; formal earmark status cannot be established without relevant accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Evidence is limited
The complete supplied introduced text does not establish a narrow preferential benefit. However, the underlying eligibility and geographic provisions being amended are missing, preventing a confident assessment of whether those changes create preferential treatment.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 16, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI