HR-8038-119
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Sponsored by Joyce Beatty (D-OH)
What it does
This bill would amend the Defense Production Act of 1950 to require the relevant federal committee to build a publicly accessible online "one-stop shop" within one year of enactment. The hub would consolidate information on how to participate in DPA contracts, including solicitation processes, award descriptions, voluntary agreements, and agency contact information. Within a year after the hub is built, the committee would also be required to develop and annually update outreach plans for each federal agency to educate private-sector businesses — including small businesses — about commercial opportunities available under the DPA. The bill also makes a minor technical correction to the DPA's short title language.
Who benefits
Small businesses that currently lack the resources or connections to navigate federal DPA contracting processes. Businesses in sectors relevant to national defense and industrial production (e.g., manufacturing, logistics, materials). Companies in underserved or rural areas that may be unaware of DPA opportunities. Federal agencies that would gain a clearer channel for communicating contracting needs to the private sector. Taxpayers, to the extent that broader competition for DPA contracts could improve pricing and efficiency.
Who is hurt
Established defense contractors and large firms that currently benefit from informational advantages in DPA contracting may face increased competition from newly informed smaller competitors. Federal agencies would bear administrative costs to develop and maintain outreach plans and contribute to the online hub. Taxpayers would indirectly bear any implementation and maintenance costs, though these are likely modest.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Defense Production Act is a powerful tool for mobilizing the private sector during national emergencies, but that many businesses — especially small firms — are unaware of how to participate. They contend that centralizing information and requiring structured outreach would broaden the industrial base, increase competition, and reduce the federal government's reliance on a narrow set of established contractors, ultimately strengthening national supply chain resilience.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that creating a new online portal and mandating annual agency outreach plans adds bureaucratic overhead without guaranteeing meaningful results — agencies may produce pro forma plans that satisfy the letter of the law without substantively expanding small business participation. They contend that the real barriers to small business DPA participation are regulatory complexity and compliance costs, which an informational website alone would not address.
Constitutional context
No significant constitutional issues are raised by this bill. Congress has clear authority under the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) and the Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 18) to regulate federal contracting and direct executive agencies to conduct outreach activities. The bill does not delegate broad new rulemaking authority to agencies, so the major questions doctrine (West Virginia v. EPA, 2022) and post-Chevron scrutiny (Loper Bright v. Raimondo, 2024) are not meaningfully implicated.
Checks and balances
Congress gains a modest oversight tool by requiring annual reporting on outreach activities; the executive branch (via the DPA committee and delegated agencies) gains administrative responsibility for implementation, with no significant shift in the balance of power between branches.
Historical precedent
The Small Business Act and related procurement transparency laws (e.g., the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, which created USASpending.gov) established precedents for centralizing federal contracting information to broaden private-sector access.