Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
This bill requires three military service Assistant Secretaries to submit reports within 120 days assessing use of intergovernmental support agreements (IGSAs) to carry out unspecified minor military construction under 10 U.S.C. 2805. Reports must evaluate feasibility of revised maximum dollar thresholds ($18,000,000 for laboratory revitalization; $8,000,000 for projects using Operation and Maintenance funds) and identify up to ten candidate projects from service facilities plans.
Use of O&M funds: oversight concerns versus administrative flexibility
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise, well-specified reporting requirement that identifies responsible officials, a firm deadline, statutory touchpoints, and concrete deliverables (threshold feasibility assessment and a short project list).
This bill requires three military service Assistant Secretaries to submit reports within 120 days assessing use of intergovernmental support agreements (IGSAs) to carry out unspecified minor military construction under 10 U.S.C. 2805.
Reports must evaluate feasibility of revised maximum dollar thresholds ($18,000,000 for laboratory revitalization; $8,000,000 for projects using Operation and Maintenance funds) and identify up to ten candidate projects from service facilities plans.
The provision is limited to an assessment and does not itself change law or appropriate funds.
Narrow, administrative, and nonbinding reporting requirement is low controversy and fits within routine defense oversight; adoption most likely via committee or inclusion in an NDAA.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise, well-specified reporting requirement that identifies responsible officials, a firm deadline, statutory touchpoints, and concrete deliverables (threshold feasibility assessment and a short project list).
Use of O&M funds: oversight concerns versus administrative flexibility
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Use of O&M funds: oversight concerns versus administrative flexibility
Generally supportive of modernizing military labs and speeding needed infrastructure work, but cautious about accountability.
Would welcome attention to lab revitalization while seeking safeguards for labor, environmental review, and congressional oversight.
Sees this as a low-risk, pragmatic management review to improve efficiency.
Supports assessing higher IGSA thresholds if accompanied by cost controls and clear accountability.
Favors removing bureaucratic barriers and empowering local/state partnerships to deliver projects faster.
Supportive of assessing higher IGSA thresholds but attentive to protecting congressional power of the purse.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, administrative, and nonbinding reporting requirement is low controversy and fits within routine defense oversight; adoption most likely via committee or inclusion in an NDAA.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Use of O&M funds: oversight concerns versus administrative flexibility
Narrow, administrative, and nonbinding reporting requirement is low controversy and fits within routine defense oversight; adoption most li…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise, well-specified reporting requirement that identifies responsible officials, a firm deadline, statutory touchpoints, and concrete deliverables (threshold…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.