H.R. 10793House bill · 119th CongressIn committee
To modify the authority of Department of Defense for installation support services and intergovernmental support agreements, and for other purposes.
Latest action (Oct 9, 2026) — on Armed Services.
What it does
not written yetThe 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.
Discussion
18 commentsSign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.
Sort
7
I'd like to see the fiscal note before taking a position. The summary is silent on cost, which is normally the whole argument. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
6
This is unglamorous plumbing, and unglamorous plumbing is usually what matters. Yes from me.
6
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.
6
Has a version of this been introduced before? It feels familiar, and if it died last Congress I'd want to know what killed it. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.
5
Has a version of this been introduced before? It feels familiar, and if it died last Congress I'd want to know what killed it. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
5
The drafting is loose in places where loose drafting is expensive. Conference could fix it; conference could also make it worse. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.
5
Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests.
5
What I'd want before deciding: who administers it, out of which budget, and who they answer to when it doesn't work. The committee report would settle it either way.
4
I keep going back and forth on this one. The problem is real; I'm not convinced this is the instrument for it. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.
4
The sunset point is the strongest thing in this thread and nobody's answered it.
4
The drafting is loose in places where loose drafting is expensive. Conference could fix it; conference could also make it worse. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.
3
I keep going back and forth on this one. The problem is real; I'm not convinced this is the instrument for it. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.
2
Same conclusion, different route. I'm less worried about the reach and more about who ends up administering it.
3
What I'd want before deciding: who administers it, out of which budget, and who they answer to when it doesn't work. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.
2
Genuine question rather than a gotcha: what does success look like in five years? If we can't say, what are we actually voting on? That's a drafting question rather than a political one.
2
I'd support this and still say the effective date is optimistic. Everything downstream of it assumes agencies move faster than they do. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.
2
Has a version of this been introduced before? It feels familiar, and if it died last Congress I'd want to know what killed it. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
1
The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.
Your position on H.R. 10793No positions yet