PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.By Senator Cantwell from Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation filed written report. Report No. 117-78.
Congressional Research Service
Version 25 · Reported to Senate · Dec 17, 2021
Regional Ocean Partnership Act
This bill allows the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to designate and support Regional Ocean Partnerships between coastal states that share a common ocean or coastal area or border the Great Lakes. It also allows partnerships between coastal states and non-coastal states that share a common watershed or would contribute to the priorities of the partnership.
Specifically, NOAA may designate a partnership as a Regional Ocean Partnership if it (1) is established to coordinate the management of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources among state governments and Indian tribes; (2) focuses on the environmental issues affecting the ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes areas of the coastal states participating in the partnership; (3) complements existing coastal and ocean management efforts of states and Indian tribes on an interstate scale, focusing on shared regional priorities; (4) does not have a regulatory function; and (5) is not duplicative of an existing Regional Ocean Partnership.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill designates the following entities as Regional Ocean Partnerships:
the Gulf of Mexico Alliance,
the Northeast Regional Ocean Council,
the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean, and
the West Coast Ocean Alliance.
Each partnership must maintain mechanisms for coordination, consultation and engagement with the federal government, Indian tribes, nongovernmental entities, and other federally mandated regional entities.
A partnership may use provided federal funds to award grants and enter into contracts for certain purposes, including to monitor the water quality and living resources of multistate ocean and coastal ecosystems.
People & committees
Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS] · R–MS
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
By Senator Cantwell from Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation filed written report. Report No. 117-78.
By Senator Cantwell from Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation filed written report. Report No. 117-78.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 217.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Reported by Senator Cantwell with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Reported by Senator Cantwell with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 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 S.1894 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 S.1894 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 S.1894 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 S.1894 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.