Overview
Title
To require the Secretary of Commerce to produce a report that provides recommendations to improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and impact of Department of Commerce programs related to supply chain resilience and manufacturing and industrial innovation, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The bill wants a special report to help make the part of the government that supports making things in factories work better and faster. It asks smart people to find out what's working, what needs fixing, and come up with ideas to help factories in America.
Summary AI
H.R. 8657, also known as the "Strengthening Support for American Manufacturing Act," requires the Secretary of Commerce to create a report with recommendations to improve the Department of Commerce's programs related to supply chain resilience and industrial innovation. The report must assess the roles of different offices within the Department, identify duplicative efforts or gaps, and suggest ways to enhance their effectiveness and efficiency. The Secretary will work with the National Academy of Public Administration on this report and submit it, along with any legislative suggestions, to appropriate Congressional committees. This aims to support and advance U.S. manufacturing and innovation efforts.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The bill, titled the "Strengthening Support for American Manufacturing Act," mandates the Secretary of Commerce to compile a detailed report evaluating the effectiveness, efficiency, and impact of various Department of Commerce programs related to supply chain resilience and industrial innovation. The report is to identify the responsibilities of different offices and bureaus within the department, assess their roles, and recommend improvements. The findings, compiled with the involvement of the National Academy of Public Administration, are to be presented to Congress along with suggestions for possible legislative actions.
Summary of Significant Issues
A few notable issues arise within the bill's framework:
Lack of Justification for Partner Selection: The bill directs the involvement of the National Academy of Public Administration without providing a rationale for selecting this particular partner, raising concerns about potential favoritism or lack of due diligence in partner selection.
Undefined Budget and Resources: There is no specified budget or designated resources for creating the report, which increases the risk of either excessive spending or insufficient funding.
Potential Overlaps and Redundancies: While the report aims to identify overlaps within the Department of Commerce, the bill does not offer clear mechanisms beyond general recommendations to address or mitigate these redundancies.
Broad Definitions: The term "critical supply chain resilience" is broadly defined, potentially leading to varying interpretations that could complicate the creation of standardized procedures or outcomes.
Lack of Accountability Measures: The bill does not outline any consequences or follow-up actions if the report’s recommendations are not implemented, reducing accountability.
Timeline for Reporting: The 180-day window allocated for submitting the report to Congress after its creation could delay prompt action on crucial findings, with no justification provided for this timeframe.
Criteria for Assessment: The bill lacks specificity in defining criteria for evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of covered offices and bureaus, which may lead to an inadequate assessment process.
Impact on the Public
The bill targets critical areas of supply chain resilience and manufacturing, which are vital for the country's economic health. By seeking to improve the functioning of these areas within the Department of Commerce, the bill could indirectly benefit consumers by making supply chains more robust and responsive. However, the potential vague definitions and lack of precise measures in the bill could hamper these improvements, potentially leading to ineffectual changes.
Impact on Stakeholders
For businesses and industries reliant on supply chains and manufacturing innovation, the bill could hold significance by potentially streamlining and focusing government programs and support mechanisms. Effective implementation might make industries more competitive and secure, translating to reduced operational risks and enhanced innovation.
Conversely, the lack of clear plans and definitions could lead to administrative inefficiencies, which might dilute the intended benefits and leave businesses in prolonged uncertainty. The involvement of a specific partner—without articulated justification—may also hinder transparency and trust in the process for external stakeholders and policymakers.
In summary, while the bill aims to address essential aspects of supply chain and manufacturing resilience, the identified issues highlight possible areas where further refinement might help ensure successful implementation and tangible benefits for both the public and specialized stakeholders.
Issues
The report requires contracting with the National Academy of Public Administration without providing justification for why this organization is best suited for the task, potentially indicating favoritism or lack of due diligence in choosing a partner. (Section 2(b))
The section lacks specificity regarding the budget or resources allocated for producing the report, which could lead to wasteful spending or insufficient funding. (Section 2(a))
There are potential overlaps in responsibilities between different offices and bureaus, yet the section does not clearly address this issue, which might lead to inefficiencies beyond general recommendations. (Section 2(a)(4))
The broad definition of 'critical supply chain resilience' allows for numerous interpretations, leading to inconsistent applications and potential issues in achieving standardized outcomes. (Section 2(d)(4))
There is no clear outline of the consequences or follow-up actions if the recommendations in the report are not implemented, weakening accountability measures. (Section 2(a)(5))
The timeline for submission to Congress is set at 180 days after the report production, but this length could be considered excessive without any justification, potentially delaying action on crucial issues. (Section 2(c))
The section lacks clarity in the criteria for assessing the effectiveness, efficiency, and limitations of each covered office and bureau, which could lead to inadequate assessment and misinformed recommendations. (Section 2(a)(3))
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 specifies its short title, which is “Strengthening Support for American Manufacturing Act.”
2. Report on Department of Commerce programs related to critical supply chain resilience and manufacturing and industrial innovation Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Department of Commerce must create a report identifying its offices' roles and effectiveness related to improving the resilience of critical supply chains and advancing industrial innovation. The report should highlight strengths, weaknesses, and offer recommendations for better coordination, with input from the National Academy of Public Administration, and is required to be submitted to Congress within a year.