PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 53 · Passed House · Nov 12, 2024
Federal Acquisition Security Council Improvement Act of 2024
This bill revises the structure and function of the Federal Acquisition Security Council (FASC), including by authorizing FASC to declare certain vendors associated with foreign adversaries ineligible to participate in federal procurement.
Specifically, Congress may designate for FASC review vendors (1) that are operating on behalf of, or are subject to the jurisdiction or control of, foreign adversaries; or (2) that pose a risk to national security based on their association with a foreign adversary’s military or intelligence forces. The covered foreign adversaries are China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
FASC must review each designated vendor to determine whether to issue an order excluding the vendor from executive agencies’ procurement actions or requiring covered articles produced or provided by the vendor to be removed from agencies’ information systems. (Currently, covered articles include telecommunications equipment and services, information technology and information processing, and other systems or devices that include information technology.) Vendors subject to an exclusion or removal order may submit information in opposition for FASC’s consideration before the order is finalized.
Separately, the bill broadens FASC’s functions related to supply chain risk to include a focus on acquisition security and risks associated with the procurement and use of covered articles.
The bill also reallocates authorized funding for FASC from the Office of Management and Budget to the Office of the National Cyber Director (ONCD), and establishes a FASC program office within ONCD to provide subject matter expertise and administrative and legal support.
People & committees
Rep. Comer, James [R-KY-1] · R–KY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5937-5939)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5937-5939)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 9597.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5937-5940)
Mr. Higgins (LA) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 39 - 0.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 9, 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.9597 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.9597 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.9597 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.9597 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.