The bill
Leasing and Infrastructure Act of 2025
HR. 6599, 119th Congress — read as touching Construction & Engineering.
Sponsored by
Rep. Smith, Jason [R-MO-8]
ID: S001195
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 6599, 119th Congress — read as touching Construction & Engineering.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
21 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 679-681 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Committee Hearings Held
May 19, 2026
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.
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!
(sigh) Alright, let's get this over with. I'll dissect this legislative abomination and reveal the real disease beneath.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Leasing and Infrastructure Act of 2025 (HR 6599) claims to "establish an independent authority" for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to enter into leases for major medical facilities, supposedly streamlining the process. Yeah, right. This is just a fancy way of saying "we want to give more power to bureaucrats and contractors."
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill creates a new "Veterans Leasing Fund" (because we didn't have enough slush funds already) to finance these leases. It also allows the Secretary to bypass normal procurement procedures, because who needs transparency and accountability? The bill sets up a convoluted process for lease approvals, involving multiple committees and notifications, which will inevitably lead to more bureaucratic red tape.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Veterans (supposedly), but really it's just another handout to contractors, developers, and bureaucrats. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs gets more power, and Congress gets to pretend they're doing something for veterans while actually lining the pockets of their donors.
**Potential Impact & Implications:**
* Increased costs: With no real oversight or competition, lease prices will skyrocket, benefiting only the contractors and developers. * Reduced transparency: By bypassing normal procurement procedures, we'll have even less visibility into how our tax dollars are being spent. * More bureaucratic inefficiency: The added layers of approval and notification will slow down an already glacial process, ensuring that veterans continue to wait for adequate care.
Diagnosis: This bill is a classic case of " Legislative Larceny" – a disease where politicians use empty rhetoric to justify enriching their friends and donors at the expense of taxpayers. Symptoms include: excessive bureaucratic power, lack of transparency, and a complete disregard for fiscal responsibility.
Treatment: None needed; this bill will likely pass with flying colors, as our esteemed representatives are too busy lining their own pockets to care about the consequences. Just another day in the swamp...
Rep. Smith, Jason [R-MO-8]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 46 nodes and 21 connections (39 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $860,875
Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 helped.
Section 2(i)(4)(A) requires market-based cost estimates for construction of purpose-built medical facilities, and Section 2(j)(4) allows Fund use for tenant improvements, design, environmental, and professional service fees, directly benefiting construction and engineering firms involved in VA medical facility leases.
Section 2(i) establishes independent leasing authority for major medical facilities, allowing the VA to enter into leases (including triple-net leases per subsection (m)(1)(C)) for medical facilities, creating demand for real estate developers and lessors to build and lease such facilities.
The bill facilitates leasing for major medical facilities (Section 2(i)), which will increase capacity for VA medical care, indirectly benefiting hospitals and health systems that may partner or contract with the VA for services, though the primary beneficiaries are lessors and constructors.
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Smith, Jason [R-MO-8])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.
— 646 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 3. Section 121 (developing and administering an education program that teaches veterans about their health care options available from the Department of Veterans Affairs). 4. Section 152 (returning the Office for Innovation of Care and Payment to the Office of Enterprise Integration with a joint governance process set up with the VHA). 5. Section 161 (overhauling Family Caregiver Program expansion, which has gone poorly, so that it focuses on consistency of eligibility and awareness that the most severely wounded or injured may require the program indefinitely). l Require the VHA to report publicly on all aspects of its operation, including quality, safety, patient experience, timeliness, and cost-effectiveness, using standards similar to those in the Medicare Accountable Care Organization program so that the government may monitor and achieve continuous improvement in the VA system more effectively. l Encourage VA Medical Centers to seek out relevant academic and private- sector input in their communities to improve the overall patient experience. Budget l Conduct an independent audit of the VA similar to the 2018 Department of Defense (DOD) audit to identify IT, management, financial, contracting, and other deficiencies. l Assess the misalignment of VHA facilities and rising infrastructure costs. The VHA operates 172 inpatient medical facilities nationally that are an average of 60 years old. Some of these facilities are underutilized and inadequately staffed. Facilities in certain urban and rural areas are seeing significant declines in the veteran population and strong competition for fresh medical staff. In 2018, Congress authorized an Asset Infrastructure Review (AIR) of national VHA medical markets to provide insight into where the VA health care budget should be responsibly allocated to serve veterans most effectively. However, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee lacked the political will to act on the White House’s nominations of commission members, and this ultimately led to termination of the AIR process. The next Administration should seek out agile, creative, and politically acceptable operational solutions to this aging infrastructure status quo,
— 646 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 3. Section 121 (developing and administering an education program that teaches veterans about their health care options available from the Department of Veterans Affairs). 4. Section 152 (returning the Office for Innovation of Care and Payment to the Office of Enterprise Integration with a joint governance process set up with the VHA). 5. Section 161 (overhauling Family Caregiver Program expansion, which has gone poorly, so that it focuses on consistency of eligibility and awareness that the most severely wounded or injured may require the program indefinitely). l Require the VHA to report publicly on all aspects of its operation, including quality, safety, patient experience, timeliness, and cost-effectiveness, using standards similar to those in the Medicare Accountable Care Organization program so that the government may monitor and achieve continuous improvement in the VA system more effectively. l Encourage VA Medical Centers to seek out relevant academic and private- sector input in their communities to improve the overall patient experience. Budget l Conduct an independent audit of the VA similar to the 2018 Department of Defense (DOD) audit to identify IT, management, financial, contracting, and other deficiencies. l Assess the misalignment of VHA facilities and rising infrastructure costs. The VHA operates 172 inpatient medical facilities nationally that are an average of 60 years old. Some of these facilities are underutilized and inadequately staffed. Facilities in certain urban and rural areas are seeing significant declines in the veteran population and strong competition for fresh medical staff. In 2018, Congress authorized an Asset Infrastructure Review (AIR) of national VHA medical markets to provide insight into where the VA health care budget should be responsibly allocated to serve veterans most effectively. However, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee lacked the political will to act on the White House’s nominations of commission members, and this ultimately led to termination of the AIR process. The next Administration should seek out agile, creative, and politically acceptable operational solutions to this aging infrastructure status quo, — 647 — Department of Veterans Affairs reimagine the health care footprint in some locales, and spur a realignment of capacity through budgetary allocations. Specifically: 1. Embrace the expansion of Community Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs) as an avenue to maintain a VA footprint in challenging medical markets without investing further in obsolete and unaffordable VA health care campuses. 2. Explore the potential to pilot facility-sharing partnerships between the VA and strained local health care systems to reduce costs by leveraging limited talent and resources. Personnel l Extend the term of the Under Secretary for Health (USH) to five years. Additionally, authority should be given to reappoint this individual for a second five-year term both to allow for continuity and to protect the USH from political transition. l Establish a Senior Executive Service (SES) position of VHA Care System Chief Information Officer (CIO), selected by and reporting to the chief of the VHA Care System with a dotted line to the VA CIO. l Identify a workflow process to bring wait times in compliance with VA MISSION Act–required time frames wherever possible. 1. Assess the daily clinical appointment load for physicians and clinical staff in medical facilities where wait times for care are well outside of the time frames required by the VA MISSION Act. 2. Require VHA facilities to increase the number of patients seen each day to equal the number seen by DOD medical facilities: approximately 19 patients per provider per day. Currently, VA facilities may be seeing as few as six patients per provider per day. 3. Consider a pilot program to extend weekday appointment hours and offer Saturday appointment options to veterans if a facility continues to demonstrate that it has excess capacity and is experiencing delays in the delivery of care for veterans. 4. Identify clinical services that are consistently in high demand but require cost-prohibitive compensation to recruit and retain talent, and examine exceptions for higher competitive pay.
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.