H.R. 10482House bill · 119th CongressIn committee

Dashboard for MILCON Projects Act

Sponsored byDon BaconR-NE-2Introduced Sep 17, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Sep 17, 2026) — on Armed Services.

What it does

not written yet

The Congressional Research Service writes the plain-English summary for every bill, usually a few weeks after it's introduced. This one doesn't have one yet. It will appear here when it does.

In the meantime the most reliable description is the bill's own official title, which is the heading above — written by its sponsor, and the only account of the bill that exists at this stage. The full text is on congress.gov ↗

We don't write our own summaries. Everything else on this site links back to a record you can check, and a description of a bill that came from us rather than from the bill would be the one thing here that didn't — on the page that asks you to take a position on it.

Face Value

as introduced
100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

Discussion

19 comments

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

Sort
9
j_okonkwoDemoNC-14voted Yea18d ago
The drafting is loose in places where loose drafting is expensive. Conference could fix it; conference could also make it worse. None of that is settled by the summary.
9
greta.okaforDemoTX-36voted Yea19d ago
This is unglamorous plumbing, and unglamorous plumbing is usually what matters. Yes from me. None of that is settled by the summary.
9
petra.lindqvistDemoTX-19voted Nay20d ago
In favour. The transparency provisions alone justify it, and they're the hardest part to undo later. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
7
OldLineStateDemoOH-1voted Nay16d ago
The pilot-programme framing is the part I'd watch. Pilots have a way of becoming permanent at the next reauthorisation.
7
OldLineStateDemoOH-1voted Nay17d ago
I'd like to see the fiscal note before taking a position. The summary is silent on cost, which is normally the whole argument. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.
7
OldLineStateDemoOH-1voted Nay20d ago
Support, without enthusiasm. A narrow fix now beats a comprehensive one that never arrives. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.
5
river_readerDemoIL-10voted Yea17d 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. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
5
civicsnerdDemoGA-10voted Yea17d ago
The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.
3
hollow_districtDemoCA-1317d ago
The sunset point is the strongest thing in this thread and nobody's answered it.
5
avery.nbDemoWA-3voted Nay18d ago
The drafting is loose in places where loose drafting is expensive. Conference could fix it; conference could also make it worse. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.
5
harbor_machinistDemoNY-14voted Yea20d ago
What I'd want before deciding: who administers it, out of which budget, and who they answer to when it doesn't work. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.
4
SierraTrailDemoCA-12voted Yea16d ago
The drafting is loose in places where loose drafting is expensive. Conference could fix it; conference could also make it worse. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
3
nadia.hartleyDemoNV-216d ago
Agreed on substance, disagreed on timing. Doing this badly now makes doing it well later harder.
3
district_watcherDemoTX-27voted Nay18d 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.
3
elena.papadakisDemoGA-5voted Yea19d ago
I'd like to see the fiscal note before taking a position. The summary is silent on cost, which is normally the whole argument. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.
4
hollow_districtDemoCA-1319d ago
"The states are doing it" cuts the other way for me. If it works there, why federalise it?
3
leona.nakamuraDemoIL-12voted Yea20d ago
This looks like it codifies practice that already exists informally. Worth doing — informal practice evaporates when an administration changes. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
3
OldLineStateDemoOH-1voted Nay20d ago
That's true of almost every bill though, isn't it? At some point the objection stops being about this one.
2
nell.ferreiraDemoNC-6voted Nay17d ago
In favour. The transparency provisions alone justify it, and they're the hardest part to undo later. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.
Your position on H.R. 10482100% Yea · 1 VoteWire user