Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
Amends 10 U.S.C. 2466(d)(1) to require the annual report on depot-level maintenance and repair workloads to include, for each covered depot, the dollar amount of funds expended and projected. The change adds a facility-level disaggregation of funding in addition to the existing percentage metrics for each Defense Agency.
Transparency benefits versus increased administrative burden and costs
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory amendment to reporting requirements that is specific in its requested data addition but sparse on implementation, fiscal, and data-governance details.
Amends 10 U.S.C. 2466(d)(1) to require the annual report on depot-level maintenance and repair workloads to include, for each covered depot, the dollar amount of funds expended and projected.
The change adds a facility-level disaggregation of funding in addition to the existing percentage metrics for each Defense Agency.
Content is small and bipartisan-friendly, increasing chance if packaged into must-pass defense authorization; standalone progress is less certain.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory amendment to reporting requirements that is specific in its requested data addition but sparse on implementation, fiscal, and data-governance details.
Transparency benefits versus increased administrative burden and costs
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Transparency benefits versus increased administrative burden and costs
Sees the bill as a pro-transparency, accountability measure that can help protect public depots and their workers.
Values the facility-level data for oversight of outsourcing, workforce impacts, and equitable distribution of maintenance work.
Notes that the bill only mandates reporting, not policy changes, so further action might be needed to protect labor or reverse privatization.
Views the bill as a modest, pragmatic improvement to budgeting transparency for depot maintenance.
Appreciates more granular data to support evidence-based oversight, while wanting clarity on reporting burden and handling of sensitive information.
Sees it as a reasonable step that should be implemented efficiently and securely.
Skeptical of additional reporting mandates that increase bureaucracy and costs.
Concerned this could reduce managerial flexibility, add administrative overhead, or inadvertently reveal operationally sensitive financial details.
May accept modest transparency if implementation minimizes cost and protects classified information.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is small and bipartisan-friendly, increasing chance if packaged into must-pass defense authorization; standalone progress is less certain.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Transparency benefits versus increased administrative burden and costs
Content is small and bipartisan-friendly, increasing chance if packaged into must-pass defense authorization; standalone progress is less c…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory amendment to reporting requirements that is specific in its requested data addition but sparse on implementation, fiscal, and data-governance d…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.