Ro Khanna (D-CA)
To establish in the Department of Defense a program to support the expansion of domestic bioindustrial manufacturing capacity.
A Democratic bill with 2 Democratic cosponsors · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill proposes a program within the Department of Defense to grow the United States' domestic capacity for bioindustrial manufacturing. The program would provide competitive awards to private entities to establish, upgrade, or retool facilities that produce critical biomanufactured products. The Secretary of Defense will select recipients based on criteria like supply chain resilience and geographic distribution. Recipients must provide periodic progress reports to the Department of Defense. The Secretary must also submit regular reports to Congress regarding funding and award activities. The program is scheduled to terminate after 10 years unless extended by the President.
Yes· 3 of 27
- Scored +7
Would business owners be better off under this?
Provides direct financial awards to private entities to establish, upgrade, or retool facilities.
- Scored +5
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
The bill encourages wide geographic distribution and proximity to input materials, which often occur in rural areas.
- Scored +5
Is this likely to create jobs?
Funding for establishing and upgrading manufacturing facilities is likely to create new industrial jobs.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill authorizes the expenditure of funds for competitive awards to private entities.
- Scored -3
Does this reduce what is spent on the military?
The bill establishes a new spending program within the Department of Defense.
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
The creation of a new funding program for private entities increases government spending.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Domestic Resilience and Supply Chains: The program considers the potential of technology to improve domestic resilience and protect critical supply chains for biomanufactured products (Section 1(b)(3)(A)).
-
Geographic Distribution: The Secretary will consider whether a facility supports the goal of wide geographic distribution of bioindustrial manufacturing across the United States (Section 1(b)(3)(D)).
-
Support for Private Entities: Private entities can receive awards to fund the establishment, upgrading, or retooling of manufacturing facilities, including the development of technical or business plans (Section 1(b)(4) and Section 1(f)(4)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Limited Eligibility: Only private entities that meet the Secretary's criteria and apply through the specific process are eligible for awards (Section 1(f)(4)).
-
Competitive Restrictions: Awards are not guaranteed and must be made in a competitive manner, meaning many applying entities may not receive funding (Section 1(b)(2)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — Provides direct financial awards to private entities to establish, upgrade, or retool facilities. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The bill encourages wide geographic distribution and proximity to input materials, which often occur in rural areas. Would farmers be better off under this? — Bioindustrial manufacturing relies on biological inputs often provided by the agricultural sector. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Benefits owners of large-scale bioindustrial firms. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Provides financial opportunities for owners and investors of eligible private entities. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Benefits those who invest in bioindustrial technology companies. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Benefits high-level investors in the bio-manufacturing sector. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Provides potential for business growth and professional opportunities for established technicians and managers. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Job creation in specialized manufacturing tends to benefit middle-class skilled labor. Would students be better off under this? — Creates a stronger domestic pipeline for STEM and biotechnology degrees to translate into jobs. Would union members be better off under this? — New manufacturing facilities may provide opportunities for unionized industrial labor. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Bio-tech clusters are often located in urban research hubs. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Creates potential career opportunities in emerging high-tech bio-manufacturing sectors. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Potential for indirect benefit through job creation in new manufacturing facilities.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — The bill explicitly considers wide geographic distribution and proximity to input materials, which often benefit rural areas. Does this put more money into wind, solar and other renewable power? — Biomanufacturing is closely linked to the development of biofuels and bio-based materials. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Bioindustrial manufacturing often provides more sustainable alternatives to petrochemical processes. Does this reduce how much oil, gas and coal is produced? — Expanding bio-based production may reduce reliance on fossil-fuel-derived chemicals.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — Funding for establishing and upgrading manufacturing facilities is likely to create new industrial jobs. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Investment in domestic bioindustrial capacity stimulates high-tech manufacturing growth. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Private entities can apply for awards to upgrade or retool facilities, potentially benefiting small bio-tech firms. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill authorizes the expenditure of funds for competitive awards to private entities. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — The creation of a new funding program for private entities increases government spending.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The Secretary of Defense is given authority to select award recipients and set eligibility criteria. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill requires annual reports to Congress including a list of award recipients and the rationales for selection. Does this make it easier to do business across state lines? — Expanding domestic manufacturing capacity generally facilitates domestic trade and commerce.
- Healthcare
- Does this make the country readier for the next outbreak? — Increasing domestic capacity for critical biomanufactured products can enhance response capabilities during health crises. Does this put more money into medical research? — The program supports the development of technical plans and the use of new bioindustrial technologies.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — The program funds the development of technical plans and the application of bioindustrial technology.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this reduce what is spent on the military? — The bill establishes a new spending program within the Department of Defense.
- 9/8/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Donald DavisDemocrat · North Carolina
John GaramendiDemocrat · California