PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Carey, Mike [R-OH-15] · R–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Oct 14, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10650 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10650 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10650 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10650 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-10-01 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed American Glove Act of 2026 would require covered federal purchases of non-surgical nitrile protective gloves through AbilityOne-related arrangements to use qualifying U.S. manufacturers. Those manufacturers would need majority U.S. ownership and control, protection from specified foreign influence, and enforceable supplier agreements lasting at least two years with purchase commitments. Agencies would be responsible for compliance, including updating existing purchasing arrangements. The proposal would preserve use of AbilityOne while imposing these sourcing requirements.
Covered nitrile gloves furnished under a covered procurement vehicle shall be manufactured exclusively by qualified domestic manufacturers.
(B) is majority-owned and controlled by United States persons; (C) is not owned, controlled, or subject to significant influence, directly or indirectly, by a foreign entity of concern, including through subsidiaries, affiliates, joint ventures, financing arrangements, licensing arrangements, or contractual arrangements;
(A) has a term of not less than two years; (B) includes a binding minimum purchase commitment, minimum order quantity, or other enforceable commercially reasonable demand commitment sufficient to support domestic production planning and investment;
The head of each covered agency shall implement this Act through existing procurement authorities and shall ensure that any covered procurement vehicle in effect on or after the date of the enactment of this Act, including any vehicle previously entered into, accepted, awarded, expanded, or made available for use by another Federal agency, complies with this Act.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit the use of the AbilityOne Program for the procurement of covered nitrile gloves.
Section 1 would name the legislation the American Glove Act of 2026.
This Act may be cited as the American Glove Act of 2026.
The bill would cover the Departments of Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, and Defense. Other executive agencies would also be covered when buying the specified gloves through shared purchasing arrangements.
The term covered agency means the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense, and any other executive agency that procures covered nitrile gloves through a governmentwide acquisition contract, blanket purchase agreement, indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract, prime vendor arrangement, AbilityOne contract, or other shared procurement vehicle.
Covered gloves would include nitrile examination gloves and other non-surgical nitrile gloves purchased for medical, public health, emergency, security, laboratory, biodefense, or other protective uses. The purchasing arrangements regulated by the bill would be those used through or in coordination with AbilityOne, including contracts, orders, distribution arrangements, and Procurement List designations.
The term covered nitrile glove means a nitrile examination glove, or other non-surgical nitrile glove procured by the Federal Government for medical, public health, emergency response, homeland security, laboratory, biodefense, or other protective use.
The term covered procurement vehicle means any contract, order, blanket purchase agreement, indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract, governmentwide acquisition contract, prime vendor arrangement, distribution arrangement, Procurement List designation, authorized distributor arrangement, or other acquisition mechanism used by a covered agency to procure covered nitrile gloves through or in coordination with the AbilityOne Program.
A qualifying manufacturer would have to make the covered gloves in the United States, be majority-owned and controlled by United States persons, and demonstrate U.S. production capacity at commercial scale. It could not be owned, controlled, or significantly influenced, directly or indirectly, by a foreign entity of concern.
The term qualified domestic manufacturer means an entity that— (A) manufactures covered nitrile gloves in the United States; (B) is majority-owned and controlled by United States persons; (C) is not owned, controlled, or subject to significant influence, directly or indirectly, by a foreign entity of concern, including through subsidiaries, affiliates, joint ventures, financing arrangements, licensing arrangements, or contractual arrangements; and (D) has the demonstrated capacity to manufacture covered nitrile gloves at commercial scale in the United States.
Manufacturing would mean performing the main production processes, including forming, dipping, curing, finishing, testing, and packaging. Primarily reselling, distributing, repackaging, inspecting, shipping, or otherwise handling gloves made by someone else would not qualify.
The term manufacture— (A) means performing the principal production processes necessary to produce covered nitrile gloves as the end item procured by the Federal Government, including forming, dipping, curing, finishing, testing, and packaging such gloves; and (B) does not include activities consisting primarily of resale, brokerage, distribution, warehousing, order fulfillment, relabeling, repackaging, reboxing, kitting, invoicing, shipping, inspection, or other administrative or logistical handling of gloves manufactured by another entity.
Supplier agreements would be written contracts between a qualifying manufacturer and an entity responsible for furnishing gloves to the government. They would last at least two years and contain a binding purchase commitment or another enforceable, commercially reasonable demand commitment sufficient to support domestic production planning and investment.
The term supplier agreement means a written agreement between an AbilityOne participating nonprofit agency, central nonprofit agency, authorized AbilityOne distributor, prime contractor, or other entity responsible for furnishing covered nitrile gloves to the Federal Government and a qualified domestic manufacturer that— (A) has a term of not less than two years; (B) includes a binding minimum purchase commitment, minimum order quantity, or other enforceable commercially reasonable demand commitment sufficient to support domestic production planning and investment;
Supplier agreements would set prices, delivery terms, quality assurance, and performance requirements; identify the manufacturer and U.S. factory; and be directly enforceable between the contracting entity and manufacturer. Substituting another manufacturer's products would require agency approval through an agreement modification.
(C) establishes pricing, delivery, quality assurance, and performance requirements; (D) identifies the qualified domestic manufacturer and the United States manufacturing facility that will manufacture the covered nitrile gloves; (E) provides that covered nitrile gloves furnished under the agreement may not be substituted with products manufactured by another manufacturer unless approved by the covered agency through a modification of the supplier agreement; and (F) is enforceable directly between the contracting entity and the qualified domestic manufacturer.
Section 3 would require covered purchasing arrangements to comply with the domestic sourcing and long-term contracting requirements referenced in section 70953 of the Make PPE in America Act. Gloves furnished through those arrangements would have to be made exclusively by qualifying domestic manufacturers.
If a covered agency procures covered nitrile gloves through a covered procurement vehicle, the agency shall ensure that such vehicle is structured to comply with the domestic sourcing and long-term contracting requirements contained in section 70953 of the Make PPE in America Act (subtitle C of title IX of Public Law 117–58; 135 Stat. 1313).
Covered nitrile gloves furnished under a covered procurement vehicle shall be manufactured exclusively by qualified domestic manufacturers.
Covered purchasing arrangements would need to include, or be modified to include, qualifying supplier agreements lasting at least two years. Agencies could incorporate them through existing arrangements, contract changes, ordering procedures, or other lawful purchasing mechanisms.
A covered procurement vehicle may be used to furnish covered nitrile gloves to a covered agency if the vehicle includes, or is modified to include, one or more supplier agreements with qualified domestic manufacturers that satisfy the requirements of this Act. Such supplier agreements may be incorporated through an existing AbilityOne arrangement, authorized distributor arrangement, prime vendor arrangement, contract modification, ordering procedure, or other lawful procurement mechanism.
Each supplier agreement required under subsection (b) shall have a term of not less than two years.
An agency could not count a contract with an intermediary as meeting the referenced law's long-term contracting purposes unless the actual qualifying glove manufacturer received a supplier agreement meeting this bill's requirements.
A covered agency may not treat the use of an AbilityOne contract, central nonprofit agency arrangement, authorized distributor arrangement, prime vendor arrangement, or other intermediary contract structure as satisfying the long-term contracting purposes of the Make PPE in America Act (subtitle C of title IX of Public Law 117–58) unless the qualified domestic manufacturer of the covered nitrile gloves receives a supplier agreement meeting the requirements of this Act.
Section 3(f) would generally require continued sourcing from the manufacturer named in the agreement throughout its term. It lists written manufacturer consent, an agency finding of material failure to perform, and other federal purchasing-law exceptions as grounds for departure. A fourth item addresses written modifications and contract-file documentation for substitutions, but its placement as another alternative makes the exception structure unclear.
A covered procurement vehicle shall continue to source covered nitrile gloves from the qualified domestic manufacturer identified in the applicable supplier agreement throughout the term of that agreement unless— (1) the qualified domestic manufacturer consents in writing; (2) the covered agency determines that the manufacturer has materially failed to perform under the supplier agreement; (3) another exception applies as provided by Federal procurement law; or (4) any substitution of the qualified domestic manufacturer shall require a written modification to the supplier agreement and shall be documented in the contract file.
Section 4 would reinforce the U.S. ownership requirement and screen for indirect foreign influence through corporate relationships, partnerships, contracts, financing, and technology licenses. It would also cover other arrangements an agency head determines pose a supply-chain, national-security, or domestic-manufacturing risk.
A manufacturer may not qualify as a qualified domestic manufacturer under this Act unless the manufacturer is majority-owned and controlled by United States persons.
A manufacturer may not qualify as a qualified domestic manufacturer if the manufacturer is owned, controlled, or subject to significant influence, directly or indirectly, by a foreign entity of concern, including through— (1) a parent company, subsidiary, affiliate, or holding company; (2) a joint venture or partnership; (3) a contractual arrangement that gives a foreign entity effective control over production, pricing, supply, intellectual property, or operations; (4) a financing arrangement that creates material foreign influence over the manufacturer; (5) a technology licensing arrangement that creates material dependence on a foreign entity of concern; or (6) any other arrangement determined by the head of the covered agency to present a supply chain, national security, or domestic manufacturing risk.
For each covered purchasing arrangement, the agency would have to keep a written compliance certification in its contract file. That certification would address U.S. manufacturing by qualifying suppliers, agreements lasting at least two years, and minimum purchase quantities, order volumes, or other commercially reasonable demand commitments.
For each covered procurement vehicle, the covered agency shall make and retain in the contract file a written certification that the vehicle is structured to comply with this Act, including that covered nitrile gloves are manufactured in the United States by qualified domestic manufacturers and that required supplier agreements have a term of not less than two years and include a minimum purchase quantity, minimum order volume, or other commercially reasonable demand commitment.
If an agency found noncompliance, it would have to take appropriate corrective action under applicable federal purchasing law. Section 5 would not impose a separate statutory certification duty on AbilityOne, participating nonprofit agencies, distributors, prime contractors, or qualifying manufacturers.
If a covered agency determines that a covered procurement vehicle is not in compliance with this Act, the agency shall take appropriate corrective action under applicable Federal procurement law.
Nothing in this section shall be construed as imposing a separate statutory certification obligation on the AbilityOne Program, a qualified nonprofit agency, a central nonprofit agency, an authorized distributor, a prime contractor, or a qualified domestic manufacturer.
Section 6 would preserve AbilityOne purchasing. It would not require removing gloves from the Procurement List or ending an AbilityOne arrangement solely because a qualifying domestic manufacturer supplies the gloves.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit the use of the AbilityOne Program for the procurement of covered nitrile gloves.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require a covered agency to remove covered nitrile gloves from the Procurement List or to terminate an AbilityOne arrangement solely because the covered nitrile gloves are supplied through a qualified domestic manufacturer.
AbilityOne-related law, regulations, contracts, list designations, and distribution arrangements could not be interpreted to let an agency avoid the bill's sourcing, ownership, certification, enforcement, or long-term supplier-agreement requirements.
Nothing in chapter 85 of title 41, United States Code, or any regulation, contract, Procurement List designation, or distribution arrangement under that chapter shall be construed to permit a covered agency to avoid the domestic sourcing, ownership and control, certification, enforcement, or long-term supplier agreement requirements of this Act.
Agency heads would implement the bill through existing purchasing authority. Every covered arrangement in effect on or after enactment would have to comply, including arrangements established earlier or made available for another agency's use.
The head of each covered agency shall implement this Act through existing procurement authorities and shall ensure that any covered procurement vehicle in effect on or after the date of the enactment of this Act, including any vehicle previously entered into, accepted, awarded, expanded, or made available for use by another Federal agency, complies with this Act.
Existing purchasing arrangements would not have to be terminated, canceled, or put through a new competition if they could be brought into compliance using modifications, supplier agreements, ordering procedures, or other existing purchasing authority.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the termination, cancellation, or re-competition of an existing covered procurement vehicle if the vehicle can be brought into compliance through modification, supplier agreements, ordering procedures, or other existing procurement authorities.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated October 14, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on October 1, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-14T18:30:23Z. 2026-10-01: Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 2026-10-01: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-10-01. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy rider attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for a particular recipient or place was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish formal earmark status or absence in accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow benefit separate from the main sourcing policy, its intended beneficiaries, or routine contract administration was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not extend to other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 14, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI