HR-675-119
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 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 H. Griffith (R-VA)
What it does
The bill would direct HHS, working with other agencies, to set up a program of purchasing agreements with U.S.-headquartered manufacturers to keep protective equipment (PPE) supply and production lines available for public health emergencies. Eligible manufacturers would have to phase in 50% (2026), 75% (2027), and 100% (2028) U.S. production of products supplied to the government, be majority U.S.-citizen owned, and attest to quality standards. It would also bar federal, state, and local agencies from using federal funds to buy infection-prevention clothing or equipment made outside the United States, subject to existing exceptions, and require a report on PPE requirement changes and physician safety during 2020-2021.
Who benefits
U.S.-based PPE manufacturers that meet the ownership and production criteria and could gain guaranteed government purchase contracts. Domestic manufacturing workers and communities where production lines are kept active. Federal, state, and local emergency planners who may gain more reliable supply during a declared emergency. Health care workers who may face fewer shortages in a future emergency, and policymakers who would receive the required report.
Who is hurt
Foreign PPE manufacturers and importers who would lose access to federally funded purchases. State and local agencies, hospitals, and other federal-fund recipients that may face higher prices or fewer suppliers under the domestic-only rule. Manufacturers that are foreign-owned, headquartered outside the continental U.S. (including in Alaska, Hawaii, or territories), or unable to reach 100% domestic production by 2028. Taxpayers who could bear higher procurement costs, and HHS, which would take on new administrative duties.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that shortages of masks, gowns, and gloves during COVID-19 showed the danger of depending on foreign supply chains, and that guaranteed purchasing agreements keep domestic production lines ready for emergencies. They contend that requiring quality attestations and FDA 510(k) clearance protects safety, and that the exceptions carried over from existing Buy American law give agencies flexibility when domestic supply is unavailable.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a domestic-only purchasing rule may raise prices and limit supply during the very emergencies the bill targets, since surge demand has historically been met partly through imports. They contend that a 100% U.S. production requirement by 2028 and a ban extending to state and local purchases impose costs and compliance burdens on manufacturers and governments, and that guaranteed contracts may reduce competition.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority rests on the Spending Clause and the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8), which allow it to set conditions on federal funds and regulate procurement. Conditions on state and local use of federal money are generally permissible if clearly stated and not coercive, as in South Dakota v. Dole (1987) and NFIB v. Sebelius (2012). Foreign trade and treaty obligations, such as procurement agreements, could also be implicated.
Checks and balances
The bill gives the executive branch (HHS, with DoD and DHS) discretion over contract amounts, benchmarks, and product lists, while Congress retains oversight through the required report, appropriations, and its committees; the documented exception justifications provide a record for review.
Historical precedent
The Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 8301-8305) and Defense Production Act-based domestic manufacturing contracts during COVID-19 are directly analogous efforts to favor domestic sourcing.