PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Favorable Executive Comment Received from DOD.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 5, 1996
Repeals the following requirements with respect to the operation of Department of Defense (DOD) depots: (1) that not more than 40 percent of the funds made available in a fiscal year to a military department or defense agency for depot-level maintenance and repair workload activities may be used to hire non-Government personnel to perform such workload; and (2) that the Secretary of Defense ensure that the performance of such activities by current defense personnel is not changed to performance by a contractor or by another DOD depot-level activity unless such change is made using merit-based selection procedures or competitive procedures.
People & committees
Rep. Tejeda, Frank [D-TX-28] · D–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Favorable Executive Comment Received from DOD.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Readiness.
Executive Comment Requested from DOD.
Referred to the House Committee on National Security.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jun 6, 2025. 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.2852 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.2852 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.2852 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.2852 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.