HR-10443-119
Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Steny Hoyer (D-MD)
What it does
The bill would amend chapter 85 of title 41 to rename the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled the "Commission for the Employment of Individuals Who are Blind or Have Significant Disabilities." It would require federal entities to buy listed products and services from authorized nonprofit agencies at Commission-set prices. It would set new criteria for those agencies (including at least 51 percent of direct labor hours performed by participating employees, professional development, and pay consistent with nondisabled peers), require public notice before list changes, and require annual public reports on each agency's share of contract spending bought from the list. It would also allow the General Services Administration to use a governmentwide contract vehicle, capped at $50,000,000 per order, when two or more such agencies perform the same service, and other limits apply.
Who benefits
People who are blind or have significant disabilities and work for AbilityOne nonprofit agencies, who would gain professional development, pay consistent with nondisabled peers, a grace period for vacancies, and coverage under labor laws as employees. Qualified nonprofit agencies, especially those serving blind individuals, which would receive purchase priority and clearer authorization and revocation rules. Federal agencies and contracting officers, who would get clearer processes and may use a consolidated contract vehicle. Taxpayers and the public, who would see annual transparency reports.
Who is hurt
Nonprofit agencies that cannot meet the 51 percent labor-hour, professional development, or pay-parity criteria, which could lose authorization. Agencies that would face added reporting, performance-notice, and compliance duties. Federal agencies that may pay Commission-set prices rather than the lowest price available. Competing commercial contractors that may lose access to contracts on the list. Nonprofit agencies that lose work when the GSA contract vehicle is used, and the Commission, which would take on new regulatory and monitoring duties with costs the bill does not quantify.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue the framework has not changed in over 50 years and needs modernizing to keep a program that provided more than 41,000 jobs in fiscal year 2025 effective. They contend that pay parity, professional development, termination monitoring, public notice, and annual spending reports add accountability while protecting employment for a group where only 22.7 percent of people with disabilities were employed in 2024. The bill's findings state that the program serves as a domestic manufacturing base and returns value to taxpayers.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue the bill bars the Commission from prioritizing the lowest price over its employment mission, which could raise federal costs without competitive discipline. They contend new eligibility criteria, monitoring duties, and mandatory rescission of authorizations could burden or disqualify small nonprofits and may even cost participating employees their jobs. The bill's findings state that the program yields a return to taxpayers, but opponents argue the bill adds no independent cost analysis, and the new contract vehicle may shift work among nonprofits.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to structure agencies and regulate federal procurement rests on the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Spending Clause (Art. I, §8). The bill raises no significant constitutional question; its Commission is a body of existing members, and the bill does not alter removal protections of the kind at issue in Seila Law v. CFPB (2020).
Checks and balances
Congress rewrites the statute and the Commission gains rulemaking and list-management authority, while agencies, GSA, and the Executive branch implement it; checks include required public notice, annual public reports, congressional oversight, and judicial review of regulations.
Historical precedent
The program traces to the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act of 1971, which expanded the earlier Wagner-O'Day Act of 1938; the bill states it is the first update to this framework in over 50 years.