HR-9080-119
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H4088)
Sponsored by Glenn Thompson (R-PA)
What it does
This bill would require the General Services Administration (GSA) and the Department of Defense (DoD) to give priority to using mass timber and other innovative wood products when constructing, altering, acquiring, or leasing federal buildings and military installations. The wood products used would have to be sourced from U.S.-based facilities and harvested from U.S. forestlands under certified responsible practices. The bill would also require GSA to conduct a lifecycle environmental assessment of new federal buildings using innovative wood products and report the results to Congress within 180 days of completing that assessment.
Who benefits
U.S. mass timber and engineered wood product manufacturers, who would gain a preferred position in federal contracting. Domestic timber harvesters and sawmill workers, particularly in timber-producing states like Oregon, Washington, Montana, and the Southeast. Small family forest owners and Tribal forest owners, who receive explicit contracting preference. Communities near federal forests that benefit from wildfire-risk-reduction logging. Architects and construction firms specializing in mass timber design. Rural economies dependent on the forestry sector.
Who is hurt
Steel, concrete, and other conventional building material manufacturers and suppliers, who would face reduced competitiveness in federal construction contracts. Foreign timber and wood product producers, who are excluded by the domestic sourcing requirement. Federal contractors currently specializing in conventional construction methods who may need to retool. Taxpayers, if mass timber construction proves more expensive than conventional alternatives in certain project types. Buildings in regions with limited access to certified domestic mass timber supply chains may face higher costs or delays.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that mass timber is a proven, commercially available building material — used in projects like the 18-story Brock Commons building in Vancouver — that sequesters carbon in building structures and can reduce a building's embodied carbon footprint compared to steel and concrete. They contend that directing federal procurement toward domestic mass timber would strengthen rural forestry economies, support wildfire-risk-reduction efforts by creating markets for forest thinning byproducts, and help grow a nascent U.S. industry that currently lags behind European competitors.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that mandating a contracting preference for a specific material type could increase federal construction costs and limit design flexibility, potentially conflicting with the government's obligation to seek best value in procurement. They contend that mass timber may not be appropriate for all building types — particularly high-security military installations or facilities requiring specific fire-resistance ratings — and that a blanket preference could override site-specific engineering and cost judgments that experienced contracting officers are better positioned to make.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority to set terms and conditions for federal procurement under the Property Clause (Art. IV, §3) and the Spending Clause (Art. I, §8). Domestic sourcing requirements in federal contracting have a long statutory history under the Buy American Act and are generally upheld as conditions on government spending rather than regulations of private commerce, placing them on firm constitutional footing. No active constitutional tension area is directly implicated.
Checks and balances
Congress sets the procurement preference; GSA and DoD gain discretionary authority to implement it on a project-by-project basis; the "maximum extent achievable" standard preserves agency flexibility and limits judicial reviewability of individual contracting decisions.
Historical precedent
The Buy American Act of 1933 and subsequent executive orders have long established domestic sourcing preferences in federal procurement; the 2018 Farm Bill (Agriculture Improvement Act) previously created programs to promote innovative wood products in federal construction, making this bill an extension of existing policy rather than a novel departure.