PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Bacon, Don [R-NE-2] · R–NE
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Sep 22, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10482 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10482 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10482 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10482 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-17 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Dashboard for MILCON Projects Act would require the Defense Department to create a central dashboard tracking construction planning, design, and execution for military laboratories and testing facilities. It would bring together facility information, project values, unmet funding needs, and trends across military departments. Defense officials would report to Congress when it is operational and later recommend whether its use should continue.
This Act may be cited as the Dashboard for MILCON Projects Act.
shall establish a central dashboard to monitor and track Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation facility data related to military construction planning, design, and execution metrics across the military departments.
civil engineering projects programmed for the facility, and value of each such projects; (3) track unfunded facility requirements;
(6) display trends across any data included in the database.
shall submit to the congressional defense committees a certification that the dashboard is operational and meets the requirements of subsection (b).
shall submit to the Secretary of Defense a recommendation on whether use of the dashboard should be continued.
The term Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation facility means a laboratory facility or a test and evaluation facility.
Within one year after enactment, the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering would have to establish the dashboard in coordination with each military department secretary. Covered facilities would be laboratories and test and evaluation facilities.
Not later than one year after the enactment of this section, the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, in coordination with each Secretary of a military department, shall establish a central dashboard to monitor and track Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation facility data related to military construction planning, design, and execution metrics across the military departments.
The term Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation facility means a laboratory facility or a test and evaluation facility.
The database would have to use existing financial management tools. Its minimum facility information would include location, manager, building number, plant replacement value, age, size, building condition and mission dependency indexes, and programmed civil engineering projects and their values.
The database shall— (1) use existing financial management tools; (2) display relevant data for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation facilities including, at a minimum, facility location, manager of the facility, building number, plant replacement value, age, size, building condition index, mission dependency index, civil engineering projects programmed for the facility, and value of each such projects;
The database would also have to track unfunded facility requirements, summarize laboratory real property and non-real property data and metrics, and display trends across its data.
(3) track unfunded facility requirements; (4) summarize laboratory real property and non-real property data and metrics;
(6) display trends across any data included in the database.
For the Equipment Replacement Value of equipment that is not real property, the database would have to use Real Property Unique Identifiers or a similar identifier for real property or other assets authorized by the Secretary of Defense. The bill defines Equipment Replacement Value as the estimated cost to replace non-real property installed test equipment within a ground test infrastructure asset.
(5) use Real Property Unique Identifiers (or a similar identifier for real property or other assets authorized by the Secretary of Defense) for Equipment Replacement Value of equipment that is not real property;
The term Equipment Replacement Value means the estimated cost to replace the non-real property installed test equipment within a ground test infrastructure asset.
Within 30 days after establishing the dashboard, the Under Secretary would have to certify to the congressional defense committees that it is operational and meets the database requirements.
Not later than 30 days after the date on which the dashboard required by subsection (a) is established, the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering shall submit to the congressional defense committees a certification that the dashboard is operational and meets the requirements of subsection (b).
Within three years after enactment, the Under Secretary would have to recommend to the Secretary of Defense whether dashboard use should continue. The Under Secretary would then have 15 days to notify the congressional defense committees of that recommendation.
Not later than three years after the enactment of this section, the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering shall submit to the Secretary of Defense a recommendation on whether use of the dashboard should be continued. Not later than 15 days after making such submission, the Under Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees a notice of such recommendation.
The authority under section 2 would terminate on December 30, 2030.
The authority under this section terminates on December 30, 2030.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated September 22, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Armed Services on September 17, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-22T20:56:49Z. 2026-09-17: Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services. 2026-09-17: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-17. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified after reviewing the supplied complete introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified after reviewing the supplied complete introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials. Formal earmark status cannot be fully assessed without accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, preferential treatment, or exception warranting a finding was identified after reviewing the supplied complete introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 22, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI