Overview
Title
To direct the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a study on the feasibility of manufacturing in the United States products for critical infrastructure sectors, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H. R. 1721 asks a special person from the government to check and see if it’s possible to make important things used for big jobs in America, instead of bringing them from other places. This is to see if doing this can be done easily and if it would be good for places like small towns.
Summary AI
H. R. 1721 proposes that the Secretary of Commerce should conduct a study to assess the feasibility of manufacturing products in the U.S. that are crucial for critical infrastructure. The study aims to identify products currently imported due to manufacturing constraints, analyze their potential benefits if made locally, and assess the feasibility of making these products in areas like rural areas or industrial parks. The bill requires the findings to be reported to Congress within 18 months and made accessible to the public. It does not grant the Secretary the power to compel anyone to provide the required information for the study.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Overview of the Bill
The bill, referred to as the "Critical Infrastructure Manufacturing Feasibility Act," is a legislative proposal aimed at strengthening the manufacturing capacity for critical infrastructure in the United States. Introduced in the House of Representatives, it directs the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a comprehensive study within one year of its enactment. The goal is to evaluate the feasibility of manufacturing high-demand products, which are currently being imported due to constraints in the U.S., within the country's borders. This study will also explore the potential of manufacturing these products in rural areas or industrial parks. The findings of this study, along with any recommendations, are to be reported to Congress and made publicly available within 18 months of the Act's enactment.
Significant Issues
There are several significant issues highlighted in the bill's text that merit consideration:
Lack of Specificity: The bill does not define what constitutes "high demand" products, leading to potential ambiguity in identifying which products will be considered in the study. This lack of specificity could result in disagreements and inefficiencies in the study's focus.
Feasibility Analysis: While the bill mandates a feasibility study, it lacks clarity on what kind of feasibility will be assessed—whether economic, technical, or logistical. This could lead to confusion regarding the study's scope and objectives.
Timeline Concerns: The timeline for reporting back to Congress is set at 18 months from the bill's enactment. This period might be perceived as lengthy, especially if urgent insights and actions are needed to bolster national manufacturing capacities.
Resource and Budget Transparency: The bill does not specify the budget or resources allocated for conducting the study, raising concerns about potential wasteful spending and the transparency of funding allocation.
Voluntary Data Collection Limitations: A provision in the bill limits the Secretary of Commerce's authority to compel information from individuals or entities, which may affect the study's comprehensiveness and reliability.
Impact on the Public and Specific Stakeholders
Broad Public Impact
The bill aims to enhance national security by reducing reliance on imported products for critical infrastructure, potentially leading to more stable supply chains and job creation within the United States. By focusing on domestic manufacturing, the bill could stimulate economic growth, particularly in rural areas and industrial parks, aligning with larger economic and industrial policy objectives.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Manufacturers and Supply Chain Professionals: Domestic manufacturers may benefit from increased opportunities to produce goods that are currently imported. However, the lack of clarity in the study parameters may result in uncertainty about where to invest resources or how to align with the study's findings.
Rural Communities: The bill encourages the examination of manufacturing feasibility in rural areas, which could spur regional economic development and job opportunities, fostering growth in areas that might otherwise be economically stagnant.
Policy Makers and Government Agencies: The study's findings could guide future policy decisions and influence legislation related to manufacturing and infrastructure. However, challenges in data collection and resource allocation might complicate the implementation of resultant recommendations.
In conclusion, the "Critical Infrastructure Manufacturing Feasibility Act" seeks to bolster U.S. manufacturing in crucial sectors, but it faces challenges due to its current ambiguity and lack of defined parameters. If these issues are addressed, it has the potential to significantly impact national economic strength and security.
Issues
The section 1 of the bill, titled 'Short title', is very brief and does not provide detailed information about the specifics of the Act, leading to a lack of clarity about the Act's purpose or objectives, which might result in misunderstanding and misinterpretation by the general public and stakeholders.
Section 2(a)(1) of the bill lacks specificity in defining what constitutes 'high demand' products, leading to potential ambiguities and disagreements over product selection during the study.
Section 2(a)(4) does not specify the types of feasibility being considered, such as economic, technical, or logistical, creating potential confusion over the study's scope and objectives.
The report submission timeline in Section 2(b) is set at 18 months after enactment, which might be considered lengthy without justification, delaying the potential implementation of insights gained from the study.
The budget and resources required for the study are not specified in Section 2, presenting concerns about potential wasteful spending or lack of funding transparency, which can be a significant concern for taxpayers.
Section 2(c) mentions a limitation on the Secretary’s authority to compel information, but lacks clarity on how data collection will be conducted if participation is voluntary, raising concerns about the study's comprehensiveness and reliability.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the Act states that it can be referred to as the “Critical Infrastructure Manufacturing Feasibility Act.”
2. Study on critical infrastructure manufacturing in the United States Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section mandates the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a study within one year to identify high-demand products in critical infrastructure sectors that are imported due to manufacturing constraints in the U.S. and analyze the feasibility of making them domestically. It also requires a report to Congress within 18 months, while clarifying that the Secretary cannot mandate information sharing from others and defining “critical infrastructure sector.”