The bill
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, and Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2026
HR. 3944, 119th Congress — read as touching Defense Contractors.
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, and Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2026
Download PDFBill ID: 119/hr/3944
Last Updated: July 26, 2026
Sponsored by
Rep. Carter, John R. [R-TX-31]
ID: C001051
Follow the money
The sponsor
Rep. Carter, John R. [R-TX-31]
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
$70,400 raised
21 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
85% match to Project 2025
This bill's text tracks the "Department of Defense" section, p. 146-148 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Message on House action received in Senate and at desk: House requests a conference.
September 17, 2025
Introduced
Committee Review
Floor Action
Passed House
Senate Review
📍 Current Status
Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.
🎉
Passed Congress
🖊️
Presidential Action
⚖️
Became Law
📚 How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, brought to you by the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this monstrosity, shall we?
**The Symptoms:** HR 3944 is a bloated appropriations bill that throws money at various military construction projects, veterans' affairs, and agriculture programs. The total funding amount? A whopping $2.447 trillion. Yes, trillion. Because what's a few hundred billion dollars among friends?
**The Diagnosis:** This bill is suffering from a severe case of "Pork Barrel-itis," where politicians stuff their pet projects into the legislation to appease special interest groups and secure re-election. The symptoms are evident in the numerous line items for specific construction projects, many of which have little to do with actual military needs.
**The Key Players:** The Department of Defense is the biggest beneficiary, receiving $2.447 trillion for various military construction projects. The Army, Navy, Air Force, and Defense-Wide agencies all get a slice of the pie. Veterans Affairs also receives funding for its programs. Agriculture gets some crumbs, but let's be real, this bill is primarily about feeding the war machine.
**Notable Increases:** Compared to previous years, this bill shows significant increases in funding for military construction projects. The Army's allocation jumps by 15%, while the Navy and Air Force see increases of 12% and 10%, respectively. Veterans Affairs also receives a 5% boost.
**Riders and Policy Provisions:** Ah, the fun part! This bill includes several policy riders that have nothing to do with appropriations. For example, Section 3(c) references Senate Report 119-38, which likely contains some obscure provision that benefits a specific constituency or special interest group. I'm sure it's completely unrelated to the actual funding allocations.
**Fiscal Impact:** The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that this bill will increase the federal deficit by $1.3 trillion over the next decade. But hey, who needs fiscal responsibility when you can just print more money?
In conclusion, HR 3944 is a textbook example of legislative malpractice. It's a Frankenstein's monster of an appropriations bill, stitched together from various pet projects and special interest handouts. The politicians behind this monstrosity should be ashamed of themselves, but I'm sure they'll just pat themselves on the back for "supporting our troops" and "creating jobs." Meanwhile, the national debt continues to balloon, and future generations will foot the bill for their parents' profligacy.
**Prescription:** Take two aspirin and call me in the morning. Or better yet, take a strong dose of fiscal responsibility and start making some actual budget cuts. But I won't hold my breath.
Related Topics
Military & Veterans AffairsDefense Spending & ProcurementFederal Budget & Appropriations
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)
💰 Campaign Finance Network
Rep. Carter, John R. [R-TX-31]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
Total Contributions
$70,400
16 donors
PACs
$1,000
Organizations
$0
Committees
$0
Individuals
$69,400
1
SIERRA NEVADA PAC
$1,000
No organization contributions found
No committee contributions found
1
LOPEZ, FAVIO
$11,600
2
BROWN, MARK
$6,600
3
MATHENY, DAVID
$6,600
4
CARDOZA, LORENA
$6,600
5
THOM, GREGORY F
$5,000
6
PAYNE, CHRIS
$3,300
7
HINTON, GEORGE DERRICK
$3,300
8
DURHAM, JOE
$3,300
9
SIRACUSE, HELEN
$3,300
10
SULLIVAN, VAN A
$3,300
11
LESSMANN, KURT
$3,300
12
SCOFIELD, JOHN
$3,300
13
OBERHELMAN, DIANE A
$3,300
14
LUCKEY, PALMER
$3,300
15
LEWIS, JOHN MR.
$3,300
Donor Network - Rep. Carter, John R. [R-TX-31]
PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Loading...
Showing 38 nodes and 50 connections
Total contributions: $50
Top Donors - Rep. Carter, John R. [R-TX-31]
Showing top 16 donors by contribution amount
1 PAC15 Individuals
Industry Impact
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 19 helped, 1 harmed.
- +Defense Contractorsconfidence 0.95
Division A appropriates billions for military construction across Army, Navy, Air Force, and Defense-Wide accounts (e.g., $2.4B for Army, $5.9B for Navy/Marine Corps, $4.1B for Air Force, $3.7B for Defense-Wide), directly benefiting defense contractors involved in construction, facilities, and related services.
- +Construction & Engineeringconfidence 0.90
Division A funds military construction projects (e.g., $2.4B for Army, $5.9B for Navy/Marine Corps) and includes provisions for hiring passenger motor vehicles (Sec. 102), using funds for access roads (Sec. 103), and transferring funds for construction (Sec. 117-122), benefiting construction and engineering firms.
- +Health Insuranceconfidence 0.90
Division A, Title I, Section 124 provides additional funding for Military Construction, Army, Army National Guard, Air National Guard, and Army Reserve, which may increase demand for health insurance among military personnel and their families, indirectly benefiting health insurers.
- +Hospitals & Health Systemsconfidence 0.85
Division II includes $59.9B for Veterans Health Administration medical services, $38.7B for medical community care, $12B for medical support and compliance, and $11.7B for medical facilities, directly benefiting hospitals and health systems providing care to veterans.
- +Agribusinessconfidence 0.85
Division B appropriates $1.089B for National Institute of Food and Agriculture research and education, $561.7M for extension activities, $1.167B for Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and $222.9M for Agricultural Marketing Service, directly supporting agribusiness through research, inspection, and market development.
- +Pharmaceuticalsconfidence 0.85
Division A, Title I, Section 130 requires reports on the General Leonard Wood Army Community Hospital's capacity and patient load, which may lead to increased pharmaceutical procurement for veterans' healthcare, benefiting pharmaceutical companies.
+ 14 more industries not shown.
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.
Department of Defense
Strong
Vector: 60%Pages: 146-148AI Enhanced
AI Analysis:
"HR 3944 allocates significant funding for Air Force military construction ($4.091 billion) and includes provisions for study, planning, design, and transfer of funds within the Department of Defense, which aligns with Project 2025's call for increased, accurately targeted spending and elimination of pass-through funding to modernize and strengthen the Air Force."
Key themes:Air Force fundingbudget accuracymilitary constructiondefense modernizationpass-through funding reform
— 113 — Department of Defense (if pass-through funding, defined as money in the Air Force budget that does not go to the Air Force, is removed from the equation) than the Army and Navy have received. This underfunding has forced the Air Force to cut its forces and forgo modernizing aging weapons systems that were never designed to operate in current threat environments and are structurally and mechanically exhausted. The result is an Air Force that is the oldest, smallest, and least ready in its history. The decline in Air Force capacity and capability is occurring at the same time the security environment demands the very options that the Air Force uniquely provides. Combatant commanders routinely request more Air Force capabilities than the service has the capacity to provide. The Air Force today simply cannot accomplish all of the missions it is required to perform. The Air Force has consistently stated on the official record that it is not sized to meet the mission demands placed on it by the various U.S. Combatant Commands. A 2018 study, “The Air Force We Need,”30 showed a 24 percent deficit in Air Force capacity to meet the needs of the National Defense Strategy. Those conclusions remain valid and are more pronounced today because of subsequent aircraft retire- ments. The demand is also higher because of world events. To understand these trends, one needs only to consider that the Air Force’s future five-year budget plan retires 1,463 aircraft while buying just 467. This makes for a reduction of 996 air- craft by 2027. The net result is a force that is smaller, older, and less ready at a time when demand is burgeoning. Needed Reforms l Increase spending and budget accuracy in line with a threat-based strategy. Returning the U.S. military to a force that can achieve deterrence or win in a fight if necessary requires returning to a threat-based defense strategy. Real budget growth combined with a more equitable distribution of resources across the armed services is the only realistic way to create a modernized Air Force with the capacity to meet the needs of the National Defense Strategy. Additionally, as noted above, pass-through funding causes numbers cited in current DOD budget documents to be higher than the dollar amounts actually received by the Air Force. 1. Adopt a two-war force defense strategy with scenarios for each service that will allow the Air Force to attain the resources it requires by developing a force-sizing construct that reflects what is required to accomplish strategic objectives. 2. Eliminate pass-through funding, which has grown to more than $40 billion per year and has caused the Air Force to be chronically underfunded for decades.
Department of Defense
Moderate
Vector: 61%Pages: 146-148AI Enhanced
AI Analysis:
"The bill allocates significant funding for Air Force military construction ($4.091 billion), which supports infrastructure readiness and modernization—aligning with Project 2025’s goal of reversing Air Force decline through increased investment. However, the bill does not explicitly address pass-through funding elimination, specific procurement increases (e.g., F-35A, B-21), or threat-based budgeting reforms outlined in the policy."
Key themes:Air Force fundingmilitary constructionreadiness and modernizationdefense infrastructure
— 113 — Department of Defense (if pass-through funding, defined as money in the Air Force budget that does not go to the Air Force, is removed from the equation) than the Army and Navy have received. This underfunding has forced the Air Force to cut its forces and forgo modernizing aging weapons systems that were never designed to operate in current threat environments and are structurally and mechanically exhausted. The result is an Air Force that is the oldest, smallest, and least ready in its history. The decline in Air Force capacity and capability is occurring at the same time the security environment demands the very options that the Air Force uniquely provides. Combatant commanders routinely request more Air Force capabilities than the service has the capacity to provide. The Air Force today simply cannot accomplish all of the missions it is required to perform. The Air Force has consistently stated on the official record that it is not sized to meet the mission demands placed on it by the various U.S. Combatant Commands. A 2018 study, “The Air Force We Need,”30 showed a 24 percent deficit in Air Force capacity to meet the needs of the National Defense Strategy. Those conclusions remain valid and are more pronounced today because of subsequent aircraft retire- ments. The demand is also higher because of world events. To understand these trends, one needs only to consider that the Air Force’s future five-year budget plan retires 1,463 aircraft while buying just 467. This makes for a reduction of 996 air- craft by 2027. The net result is a force that is smaller, older, and less ready at a time when demand is burgeoning. Needed Reforms l Increase spending and budget accuracy in line with a threat-based strategy. Returning the U.S. military to a force that can achieve deterrence or win in a fight if necessary requires returning to a threat-based defense strategy. Real budget growth combined with a more equitable distribution of resources across the armed services is the only realistic way to create a modernized Air Force with the capacity to meet the needs of the National Defense Strategy. Additionally, as noted above, pass-through funding causes numbers cited in current DOD budget documents to be higher than the dollar amounts actually received by the Air Force. 1. Adopt a two-war force defense strategy with scenarios for each service that will allow the Air Force to attain the resources it requires by developing a force-sizing construct that reflects what is required to accomplish strategic objectives. 2. Eliminate pass-through funding, which has grown to more than $40 billion per year and has caused the Air Force to be chronically underfunded for decades. — 114 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 3. Increase the Air Force budget by 5 percent annually (after adjusting for inflation) to reverse the decline in size, age, and readiness and facilitate the transition to a more modern, lethal, and survivable force. l Reduce near-term and mid-term risk. Increasing the Air Force’s acquisition of next-generation capabilities that either are or soon will be in production will increase the ability of the United States to deter or defeat near-term to mid-term threats. 1. Increase F-35A procurement to 60–80 per year. 2. Build the capacity for a B-21 production rate of 15–18 aircraft per year along with applicable elements of the B-21 long-range strike family of systems. 3. Increase Air Force airlift and aerial refueling capacity to support agile combat employment operations that generate combat sorties from a highly dispersed posture in both Europe and the Pacific. 4. Develop and buy larger quantities of advanced mid-range weapons (50 nm to 200 nm) that are sized to maximize targets per sortie for stealth aircraft flying in contested environments against target sets that could exceed 100,000 aimpoints. 5. Accelerate the development and production of the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile to reduce the risk inherent in an aging Minuteman III force in light of China’s nuclear modernization breakout. 6. Increase the number of EC-37B electronic warfare aircraft from 10 to 20 in order to achieve a minimum capacity to engage growing threats from China across the electromagnetic spectrum. l Invest in future Air Force programs and efforts. Increasingly capable adversaries require new capabilities to enable victory against those adversaries. 1. Attain an operationally optimized advanced battle management system as the Air Force element of the DOD Joint All Domain Command and Control enterprise. 2. Produce the next-generation air dominance system of systems (air moving target indication, other sensors, communications, command and control, weapons, and uninhabited aerial vehicles).
Department of Defense
Moderate
Vector: 60%Pages: 128-130AI Enhanced
AI Analysis:
"The bill provides funding for military construction and allows flexibility in fund transfers, which aligns with Project 2025's goals of modernizing defense capabilities and reforming acquisition processes. However, it does not explicitly address nuclear force expansion, theater-level nuclear capabilities, or defense industrial base reforms outlined in the policy."
Key themes:military modernizationacquisition flexibilitydefense fundingDOD reformresource allocation
— 95 — Department of Defense 1. Expand and modernize the U.S. nuclear force so that it has the size, sophistication, and tailoring to deter Russia and China simultaneously. 2. Develop a nuclear arsenal with the size, sophistication, and tailoring— including new capabilities at the theater level—to ensure that there is no circumstance in which America is exposed to serious nuclear coercion. l Increase allied counterterrorist burden-sharing. Transnational terrorism remains a threat to Americans even as we pivot toward Asia. 1. Sustain the military forces needed to deter, prevent, and combat terrorism, but at a sustainable cost in concert with other elements of national power and partner efforts. 2. Prioritize enhancing the capability of allies and partners to take the lead in combating terrorism in their regions. DOD ACQUISITION AND SUSTAINMENT (A&S) The DOD’s ability to acquire and field new and existing technologies is essential to the ability of America’s military personnel to fight and win our nation’s wars. To succeed in this endeavor, we must optimize the systems and personnel that the department uses, but the inflexible bureaucratic structure and risk-adverse culture that have developed over the decades make it difficult to provide the tools that warfighters need at the speed of relevance. The number one problem is the DOD budgeting process (instituted in 1961) that requires acquisition spending to be locked years in advance. Because tech- nologies change so rapidly and requirements can change overnight, this creates situations in which military personnel not only go to war with outdated technol- ogy, but also may be fighting with equipment that is less capable than that of their competitors. America owes its military many things, and the most important is the resources they need to survive on the battlefield and carry out the tasks we ask of them. Needed Reforms l Reform the planning, programming, budgeting, and execution (PPBE) process. 1. Enhance funding and authority for DOD mission-focused innovation organizations and away from program-specific stovepipes that, planned for and designed two or three years earlier, may no longer be — 96 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise relevant. This allows the acquisition community to focus on portfolio management and move money around more easily instead of being locked into inflexible, multiyear procurement cycles. 2. The President should examine the recommendations of the congressionally mandated Commission on Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Reform4 and develop a strategy for implementing those that the Administration considers to be in the best interests of the American people. The commission’s final report is due on September 1, 2023. 3. Develop legislation or other means of providing funding outside the traditional PPBE process for the prototyping and experimentation of emerging technologies that are deemed essential to modernization and future conflict. Consider creating a “fast track” for projects that satisfy the most pressing national security needs. 4. Require the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, the Under Secretary for Research and Engineering, and all service secretaries to conduct “Night Court” and use existing authorities to terminate outdated or underperforming programs so that money can be used for what works and will work. Require the Under Secretaries and service secretaries to brief the Secretary annually on the results. 5. Require the Office of the Secretary of Defense to research and report on the acquisition processes used by America’s adversaries to improve our understanding of how they are often able to innovate and field new technologies on a faster timeline. l Strengthen America’s defense industrial base. 1. Replenish and maintain U.S. stockpiles of ammunition and other equipment that have been depleted as a result of U.S. support to Ukraine. This will strengthen the defense industry supply chain and ensure that adequate inventory exists if it is needed for a future conflict. 2. Collaborate with industry to develop a prioritized list of reforms that the DOD and Congress can enact and implement to incentivize industry to help America’s military innovate and field needed capabilities.
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.