Richard Hudson (R-NC)
To authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey to the State of North Carolina a certain parcel of real property located at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, on which the State shall construct a veterans’ State home, and for other purposes.
A Republican bill with 4 Democratic cosponsors · See all 13 cosponsors
Last activity — Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed both chambers, not yet sent to the President
Both the House and the Senate have passed it, though not necessarily the same text.
If the two chambers passed identical wording, the final copy is being prepared for the President. If they did not, one chamber must accept the other's version or the two negotiate a single one — nothing goes to the President until the text is identical.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House voice vote
- Passed Senate unanimous consent
No one's position on it was recorded: the House by voice vote (members called out yes or no together), and the Senate by unanimous consent (no one objected, so there was no vote).
What this bill would do
This bill allows the Secretary of the Army to give a specific piece of land at Fort Bragg in North Carolina to the State of North Carolina without charging them for it. The State must use this land to build a veterans' State home under the North Carolina Department of Military and Veterans Affairs. North Carolina is required to pay for or reimburse all costs the Secretary incurs to make this land transfer happen. If the State stops using the property for a veterans' State home, the property can go right back to the United States. The Secretary is also allowed to add extra terms and conditions to protect the interests of the United States.
Yes· 3 of 17
- Scored +9
Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together?
Directly enables the construction of a state home specifically for veterans' use.
- Scored +7
Does this help veterans get medical care?
Provides land for the construction of a veterans' state home, improving long-term care options for veterans.
- Scored +7
Does this increase the pay, pensions or support veterans receive?
Facilitates the creation of a state home specifically for veterans' use.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Section 1(a): This provision allows the Secretary of the Army to convey about 20 acres of land at Fort Bragg to North Carolina without charging them, specifically so the State can construct a veterans' State home. This is positive because it provides a dedicated location for a veterans' facility.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Section 1(c): This provision requires the State of North Carolina to cover all costs or reimburse the Secretary for costs incurred to carry out the land conveyance, including environmental and real estate due diligence and administrative costs. This could be viewed as a negative burden because it forces the State to pay out-of-pocket expenses to complete the transfer.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Directly enables the construction of a state home specifically for veterans' use. Would retired people be better off under this? — Increases availability of residential care facilities for retiring veterans. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Veterans' state homes typically serve elderly veterans requiring long-term care. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Veterans' homes provide essential support for those with service-connected disabilities. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Provides affordable or state-funded residential care for qualifying veterans. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Brings development and services to Harnett County. Would business owners be better off under this? — Local construction firms may benefit from the building of the facility. Would union members be better off under this? — Potential for unionized construction work on the new state home.
- Healthcare
- Does this help veterans get medical care? — Provides land for the construction of a veterans' state home, improving long-term care options for veterans. Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Increases the availability of specialized residential care for the veteran population.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this increase the pay, pensions or support veterans receive? — Facilitates the creation of a state home specifically for veterans' use.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — Construction of a new veterans' state home will create temporary construction jobs. Is this likely to grow the economy? — The development of the land for a state facility provides a minor local economic boost.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — Develops land in Harnett County, North Carolina for a new state facility. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Transfers underutilized military land for a specific public benefit.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Grants the state of North Carolina ownership and jurisdiction over the parcel for a state-managed facility.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Is this likely to reduce homelessness? — Providing state home facilities can reduce homelessness among elderly or disabled veterans.
- Enrolled Bill
The final version, on its way to the President
What changed from Referred in Senate: No change to the wording. Only the printed details that record the bill’s progress, such as the heading and dates, are different.
- 10/14/2026
- Message on Senate action sent to the House.
- 9/29/2026
- Senate Committee on Armed Services discharged by Unanimous Consent.
- Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5186)
- Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5186)
- 9/15/2026
- Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
- 9/14/2026
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
- On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5544)
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 10159.
- Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5544-5545)
- Mr. Harrigan moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
- 9/4/2026
- 11 Cosponsors added.
- 9/1/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/27/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Alma AdamsDemocrat · North Carolina
Donald DavisDemocrat · North Carolina
Chuck EdwardsRepublican · North Carolina
Virginia FoxxRepublican · North Carolina
Valerie FousheeDemocrat · North Carolina
Pat HarriganRepublican · North Carolina
Mark HarrisRepublican · North Carolina
Brad KnottRepublican · North Carolina
Gregory MurphyRepublican · North Carolina
Tim MooreRepublican · North Carolina
Addison McDowellRepublican · North Carolina
Deborah RossDemocrat · North Carolina
David RouzerRepublican · North Carolina