S-4533-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Sponsored by Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
What it does
This bill would amend Title 10 of the U.S. Code to extend existing "Buy American" procurement requirements — which currently apply to the Department of Defense — to the Coast Guard. It would require the Coast Guard to purchase certain personnel equipment (such as clothing, individual equipment, and related articles) from American sources. When the Coast Guard is not operating as a service within the Navy, the Secretary of Homeland Security would assume the oversight and waiver authority currently held by the Secretary of Defense.
Who benefits
U.S.-based manufacturers of military and law enforcement personal equipment, clothing, and gear who would gain a larger guaranteed domestic customer base. American textile and apparel workers, particularly in states with significant domestic uniform and gear manufacturing. Coast Guard personnel who supporters argue would receive equipment made to domestic quality standards. Domestic supply chain businesses that supply raw materials to equipment manufacturers.
Who is hurt
Foreign manufacturers and their U.S.-based importers who currently supply Coast Guard equipment and would lose access to that market. The Coast Guard's procurement budget could be stretched further if domestic-sourced goods cost more than foreign alternatives, potentially reducing overall purchasing power. Taxpayers who may indirectly bear higher procurement costs. Free-trade-oriented businesses that rely on global supply chains and oppose domestic sourcing mandates as a general policy.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Coast Guard is a branch of the U.S. Armed Forces and that there is no principled reason to exempt it from the same domestic sourcing requirements that apply to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. They contend that relying on foreign suppliers for military personnel equipment creates supply chain vulnerabilities, and that aligning Coast Guard procurement with DoD standards strengthens both national security and American manufacturing jobs.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that extending Buy American mandates to the Coast Guard could increase procurement costs at a time when the service already faces significant equipment and staffing shortfalls, potentially reducing the total quantity of gear the Coast Guard can acquire. They contend that domestic sourcing requirements can limit competition, drive up prices, and slow procurement timelines — outcomes that could undermine Coast Guard operational readiness rather than enhance it.
Constitutional context
Congress holds explicit authority over military procurement under the Military Powers clauses (Art. I, §8, cls. 12–14) and the Appropriations Clause (Art. I, §9, cl. 7), which give Congress broad control over how military funds are raised and spent. This bill is a straightforward exercise of that legislative authority and does not raise significant constitutional questions.
Checks and balances
Congress gains no new power — it is clarifying existing statutory requirements; the Secretary of Homeland Security gains waiver and oversight authority over Coast Guard procurement when the service is not under the Navy, subject to the same statutory constraints that apply to the Secretary of Defense.
Historical precedent
The Berry Amendment (10 U.S.C. § 4862) has long required the Department of Defense to procure food, clothing, fabrics, and related items from domestic sources; this bill would extend that existing framework to the Coast Guard without creating a new procurement regime.