H.R. 10159House bill · 119th CongressIn committeeArmed Forces and National Security

To authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey to the State of North Carolina a certain parcel of real property located at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, on which the State shall construct a veterans' State home, and for other purposes.

Sponsored byRichard HudsonR-NC-9Introduced Aug 27, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Aug 27, 2026) — on Armed Services.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, Aug 27, 2026

This bill authorizes the Department of the Army to transfer, without compensation or other consideration, all right, title, and interest to a specified 20-acre parcel of land on Fort Bragg to the State of North Carolina for the purpose of constructing a state home under the jurisdiction of the North Carolina Department of Military and Veterans Affairs. (A state home is a home established by a state for veterans who are disabled by age, disease, or otherwise and are incapable of earning a living because of such disability. The term also includes a home that furnishes nursing home care for veterans.)

Specifically, the bill authorizes the conveyance of a 20-acre parcel of land situated on the Fort Bragg Training Area in Harnett County, North Carolina, that is commonly referred to as Parcel 3B.

The State of North Carolina must cover all costs to carry out the conveyance.

If the Department of the Army determines the property is not being used for activities related to a state home, all right, title, and interest in the property may revert to the United States.

Discussion

4 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
6
imogen.ferreiraDemoMA-7voted Yea1mo ago
No from me. Pushing the cost to states without saying so is still an unfunded mandate. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.
2
dustin_reyesDemoNJ-11voted Yea1mo ago
Agreed on substance, disagreed on timing. Doing this badly now makes doing it well later harder.
5
elena.papadakisDemoGA-5voted Yea1mo ago
I keep going back and forth on this one. The problem is real; I'm not convinced this is the instrument for it. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
4
dustin_reyesDemoNJ-11voted Yea1mo ago
Voting no on process rather than substance. This hasn't had a hearing I can find, which is a lot of reach for a bill nobody has questioned in public. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.
Your position on H.R. 10159No positions yet