Domestic SUPPLY Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Griffith, H. Morgan [R-VA-9]
- Committees
- Oversight and Government Reform Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 23, 2025
Bottom line
The bill aims to bolster the domestic supply chain for personal protective equipment by creating federal purchasing partnerships and mandating 'Buy American' rules for PPE procurement using federal funds.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a program for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to partner with eligible domestic manufacturers to ensure a reliable supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) for national health emergencies. It mandates that federal funds, including those used by state and local governments, cannot be used to procure foreign-manufactured PPE, with limited exceptions. The bill also requires a report on the impact of changes to PPE requirements on frontline worker safety during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is a critical step to prevent future shortages of essential medical supplies like PPE, drawing lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. They contend that strengthening domestic manufacturing capabilities for PPE is vital for national security and public health preparedness, reducing reliance on foreign supply chains that can be vulnerable to disruption. Furthermore, supporters emphasize that this legislation will create American jobs and ensure high-quality equipment for frontline workers.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that strict domestic manufacturing mandates could lead to higher costs for PPE, potentially straining federal, state, and local budgets, especially during an emergency when rapid procurement is essential. They may also contend that such mandates could limit the availability of certain specialized equipment if domestic capacity is insufficient or unable to scale quickly enough, potentially hindering response efforts. Some critics might also raise concerns about potential trade implications and reduced competition.
The bill is short and clearly written, making it accessible for a quick read and easy to understand its core provisions.
Section 2(a)-(b)
National Defense and Health Security Domestic Manufacturing Partnership Program
This provision directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in coordination with other federal agencies, to create a program. This program will involve entering into contractual purchasing agreements with domestic manufacturers. The goal is to guarantee a consistent supply of qualified personal protective equipment (PPE) and maintain manufacturing lines to produce specified amounts of PPE for public health emergencies.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this program is essential for national security and public health preparedness, ensuring the U.S. is not reliant on foreign supply chains for critical equipment during crises. It stabilizes demand for domestic manufacturers, encouraging investment and growth in the sector.
Critics contend
Critics might suggest that guaranteeing purchases could lead to inflated prices for PPE compared to international markets, potentially increasing costs for taxpayers. Concerns could also be raised about the administrative burden of managing such a large-scale partnership program.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the desire for domestic supply chain resilience and national security with potential economic efficiency concerns related to guaranteed purchasing and potentially higher domestic production costs.
Section 2(c)
Eligible Domestic Manufacturers Criteria
This section defines specific requirements for a manufacturer to be considered 'eligible' for the partnership program. These include being headquartered in the continental United States, manufacturing an increasing percentage of their products domestically (50% by 2026, 75% by 2027, 100% by 2028 for federal supply), being majority owned by U.S. citizens, having secure supply agreements, and attesting to meeting all relevant quality guidelines.
Section 2(d)
Qualified Personal Protective Equipment Requirements
This section outlines the standards for PPE to be considered 'qualified' under the program. Products must meet or exceed quality guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), be cleared by the FDA under section 510(k) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and be priced using fair-market benchmarks established by the Secretary.
Section 3
Domestic Procurement Mandate for Infectious Disease Equipment
This section prohibits any federal agency, or state or local government using federal funds, from procuring clothing or equipment used to prevent infectious disease transmission if it is manufactured outside the United States. It includes exceptions for cases where domestic products are not available or if the public interest dictates, similar to existing 'Buy American' provisions, but requires detailed documentation for any exception used.
Section 4
Report on PPE Requirement Changes and Frontline Worker Safety
This section requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, to submit a report to Congress within one year. The report must detail changes to federal PPE requirements since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and assess the impact of these changes on the safety of physicians and other medical professionals providing face-to-face patient care in 2020 and 2021.
This clause specifies a phased-in domestic manufacturing requirement for eligible manufacturers: 50 percent of products by 2026, 75 percent by 2027, and 100 percent by 2028, specifically for products supplied to the Federal Government under the partnership.
Section 2(c)(2)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative technique to allow industries time to adapt to new requirements, but the specific targets are critical for manufacturers to plan their operations.
Case for: Supporters argue this phased approach provides a realistic timeline for manufacturers to re-shore production and establish fully domestic supply chains without immediately disrupting existing operations or supply. It ensures a gradual, sustainable transition.
Case against: Critics might argue that even with a phased approach, achieving 100% domestic manufacturing for all components and raw materials by 2028 is an aggressive target that could prove challenging and costly, potentially limiting the number of manufacturers who can ultimately participate.
Estimated impact: This provision will significantly reshape the supply chains of participating PPE manufacturers, requiring substantial investment in U.S.-based production facilities and sourcing.
This clause incorporates by reference the exceptions found in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (a)(2) of section 8302 of title 41, United States Code, to the domestic procurement mandate. These exceptions typically cover situations where the domestic product is not available or if applying the restriction would be inconsistent with the public interest.
Section 3(b)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative drafting practice to avoid reprinting lengthy statutory language and to ensure consistency with existing federal procurement law.
Case for: Supporters argue that incorporating existing exceptions provides necessary flexibility, ensuring that critical PPE can still be procured in emergencies if domestic options are unavailable or if strict adherence would harm the public interest. It prevents unintended consequences of an absolute ban.
Case against: Critics might argue that relying on broad exceptions could undermine the intent of the domestic procurement mandate, allowing agencies to bypass the 'Buy American' requirement too easily. The requirement for documentation helps, but the exceptions themselves could be a loophole.
Estimated impact: The exceptions provide a safety valve for procurement, potentially allowing for the purchase of foreign-made PPE in specific, justified circumstances, thereby mitigating potential supply shortages or excessive costs.