Latest action: Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Expands Department of Defense authority for installation support services and agreements with other agencies.
The problem
DoD needs clearer authority to manage support services at military installations and work with other government agencies on shared services.
The proposal
Modifies DoD powers to provide installation support services and enter intergovernmental support agreements with more flexibility.
The impact
Military installations, other federal agencies, and taxpayers affected through changes in how defense services are managed and funded.
Allows DoD to share resources and services with other government agencies more easily. This could reduce waste and duplication when multiple agencies work at the same locations. Cooperation might save taxpayer money.
Gives military leaders more ability to adjust how installation support services work. They can respond faster to changing needs without waiting for new laws or approvals.
Streamlined processes could lower administrative costs and reduce overhead. Shared services between agencies might mean better prices and less duplication of work.
More efficient support services free up military resources for core defense missions. Simpler processes help installations focus on security and operational readiness.
Expanding DoD authority with fewer restrictions means less direct Congress review of decisions. Congress may have harder time monitoring how taxpayer money is spent on these services.
Without clear limits, DoD spending on installation services could grow without approval. Other agencies losing negotiating power might pay more for shared services.
Broader intergovernmental agreements might happen without public notice or input. Citizens and watchdog groups may struggle to track how decisions get made.
The bill lacks specifics about how these new powers work in practice. This could lead to confusion and inconsistent application across different military installations.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.