Made in America Manufacturing Finance Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/3174
Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Williams, Roger [R-TX-25]

ID: W000816

Follow the money

The bill

Made in America Manufacturing Finance Act

HR. 3174, 119th Congress — read as touching Construction & Engineering.

The sponsor

Rep. Williams, Roger [R-TX-25]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$98,700 raised

21 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

95% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Small Business Administration" section, p. 789-791 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Hearings held.

May 12, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of our esteemed Congress. Let's dissect this farce and expose the underlying disease.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The "Made in America Manufacturing Finance Act" (HR 3174) claims to support small manufacturers by increasing loan limits for loans made to these businesses. How quaint. The real purpose is to funnel more taxpayer money into the pockets of favored industries, while politicians pretend to care about American manufacturing.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to increase loan limits for small manufacturers. Specifically:

* Section 3(a) increases the loan limit from $3,750,000 to $7,500,000 (or $10,000,000 in some cases) for small manufacturers. * Section 4 raises the loan limit under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 from $5,500,000 to $10,000,000.

These changes are nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to provide corporate welfare to select industries. The increased loan limits will likely benefit large corporations with lobbying power, rather than actual small manufacturers.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill's proponents claim it will help small manufacturers, but the real beneficiaries are:

* Large corporations in the manufacturing sector * Lobbyists and special interest groups representing these corporations * Politicians who receive campaign donations from these industries

Meanwhile, taxpayers will foot the bill for these increased loan limits, while small businesses without lobbying power will be left behind.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The bill's impact will be negligible for actual small manufacturers, but significant for large corporations and their lobbyists. The increased loan limits will:

* Provide a windfall for favored industries, allowing them to expand their operations and increase profits * Create more opportunities for crony capitalism and corruption * Further entrench the influence of special interest groups in Washington

In short, HR 3174 is a classic case of "legislative lupus" – a disease where politicians prioritize corporate interests over the public good. The symptoms are clear: increased loan limits, favors for large corporations, and a complete disregard for the well-being of actual small businesses.

Diagnosis: Terminal stupidity, with a side of corruption and greed. Treatment: None, as this patient is beyond saving.

Related Topics

Small Business & Entrepreneurship
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Williams, Roger [R-TX-25]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$98,700
19 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$3,300
Committees
$0
Individuals
$95,400

No PAC contributions found

1
POARCH BANK OF CREEK INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300

No committee contributions found

1
FORD, GERALD J. MR.
2 transactions
$9,900
2
ZELTER, JAMES
2 transactions
$7,800
3
PRINCE, ZAN MRS.
1 transaction
$6,600
4
WOODARD, DONALD M. MR. JR.
1 transaction
$6,600
5
CARVALHO, ANNE MARIE MRS.
1 transaction
$6,600
6
ROWAN, CAROLYN
1 transaction
$6,600
7
ROWAN, MARC
1 transaction
$6,600
8
DUNIGAN, MIKE MR.
1 transaction
$6,000
9
LOWRANCE, DAN E. MR.
1 transaction
$5,000
10
NICHOLS, THOMAS B. MR.
1 transaction
$5,000
11
KLEINHEINZ, JOHN B. MR.
1 transaction
$5,000
12
KLEINMAN, SCOTT
1 transaction
$3,900
13
PATTERSON, DAN
1 transaction
$3,300
14
WEEKLEY, RICHARD W. MR.
1 transaction
$3,300
15
RODMAN, LANCE MR.
1 transaction
$3,300
16
REILLY, BEVERLY MRS.
1 transaction
$3,300
17
MCCLELLAND, MARK
1 transaction
$3,300
18
VINSON, JOHNNY H. MR. II
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Meuser, Daniel [R-PA-9]

ID: M001204

Top Contributors

22

1
PRIDE MOBILITY PRODUCTS CORP
OrganizationDURYEA, PA
$2,500
Sep 18, 2024
2
COTLER, YUDACUFSKI, HUEBNER
OrganizationSAINT CLAIR, PA
$1,000
Apr 23, 2024
3
DOWD, JOHN J
SUNDANCE VACATIONS • PRESIDENT
IndividualLEHIGHTON, PA
$6,600
Mar 25, 2024
4
PEYKOFF, ANDY
NIAGARA BOTTLING, LLC • CEO
IndividualLAS VEGAS, NV
$6,600
Mar 22, 2024
5
DOWD, JOHN J
SUNDANCE VACATIONS • PRESIDENT
IndividualLEHIGHTON, PA
$6,600
Sep 18, 2024
6
ROWAN, MARC J
APOLLO MANAGEMENT • MANAGEMENT
IndividualGREENWICH, CT
$6,600
Aug 23, 2023
7
ROWAN, CAROLYN
CAROLYN ROWAN COLLECTION • OWNER
IndividualGREENWICH, CT
$6,600
Aug 23, 2023
8
RICH, BRIAN R MR. JR
GILBERTON COAL CO. • EXECUTIVE SALES
IndividualCONSHOHOCKEN, PA
$6,600
Oct 24, 2024
9
VOLPE, ELLEN M
SELF • HOMEMAKER
IndividualWAVERLY TOWNSHIP, PA
$5,800
May 31, 2023
10
VOLPE, CHARLES J
EXCALIBUR INSURANCE MGMT • PRESIDENT
IndividualWAVERLY TOWNSHIP, PA
$5,800
May 31, 2023

Rep. Moran, Nathaniel [R-TX-1]

ID: M001224

Top Contributors

20

1
PELTIER, PATRICK
PELTIER AUTO GROUP • VICE PRESIDENT
IndividualTYLER, TX
$9,900
Jan 31, 2024
2
PELTIER, PATRICK
IndividualTYLER, TX
$6,600
Feb 22, 2024
3
MARSHALL, MATTHEW
DRAKE • REAL ESTATE
IndividualTYLER, TX
$6,600
Aug 22, 2024
4
MARSHALL, MATTHEW
DRAKE • REAL ESTATE
IndividualTYLER, TX
$6,600
Aug 22, 2024
5
ANDERSON, RICHARD M.
PAFFORD EMS • 911 PROFESSIONAL
IndividualMARSHALL, TX
$5,000
Apr 15, 2024
6
LEATHERWOOD, HARRY
SELF • SELF
IndividualTYLER, TX
$5,000
Sep 23, 2024
7
STOVALL, SCOTT
IndividualTROUP, TX
$3,300
Jan 18, 2024
8
PELTIER, MIKAH ANN
COMMUNITY VOLUNTEER • COMMUNITY VOLUNTEER
IndividualTYLER, TX
$3,300
Jan 31, 2024
9
PELTIER, PATRICK
PELTIER AUTO GROUP • VICE PRESIDENT
IndividualTYLER, TX
$3,300
Jan 31, 2024
10
STEVENSON, DAVID L
CUSTOM COMMODITIES TRANSPORT • OWNER
IndividualDIANA, TX
$3,300
Feb 1, 2024

Rep. Goldman, Craig A. [R-TX-12]

ID: G000601

Top Contributors

22

1
ALLEN BOONE HUMPHRIES ROBINSON LLP
OrganizationHOUSTON, TX
$3,300
Dec 21, 2023
2
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$3,300
May 23, 2024
3
BENDA, ROBERT D.
WESTWOOD CONTRACTORS INC. • CEO
IndividualFORT WORTH, TX
$6,600
Nov 9, 2023
4
BENDA, ROBERT D.
WESTWOOD CONTRACTORS INC. • CEO
IndividualFORT WORTH, TX
$6,600
Nov 9, 2023
5
CAMPBELL, CODY
DOUBLE EAGLE ENERGY • FOUNDER AND CO-CEO
IndividualFORT WORTH, TX
$6,600
Dec 31, 2023
6
CAMPBELL, CODY
DOUBLE EAGLE ENERGY • FOUNDER AND CO-CEO
IndividualFORT WORTH, TX
$6,600
Dec 31, 2023
7
HOLM, NELSON
RENEGADE SWISH • PARTNER
IndividualFORT WORTH, TX
$6,600
Nov 13, 2023
8
HOLM, NELSON
RENEGADE SWISH • PARTNER
IndividualFORT WORTH, TX
$6,600
Nov 13, 2023
9
KLEINHEINZ, BURKE
WELLTOWER • INVESTMENTS
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$6,600
Dec 21, 2023
10
KLEINHEINZ, BURKE
WELLTOWER • INVESTMENTS
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$6,600
Dec 21, 2023

Rep. Wied, Tony [R-WI-8]

ID: W000829

Top Contributors

22

1
WMC CONDUIT
COMMADISON, WI
$2,500
Sep 11, 2024
2
FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY
OrganizationCRANDON, WI
$3,300
Sep 23, 2024
3
UIHLEIN, RICHARD
ULINE • VP
IndividualHUDSON, WI
$6,870
May 14, 2024
4
SEIDENSTICKER, LAURA
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualLAKE FOREST, IL
$6,870
May 16, 2024
5
FISCHER, LAURIE
SELF-EMPLOYED • CONSULTANT
IndividualONEIDA, WI
$6,600
Jul 16, 2024
6
NINIVAGGI, ANGELO
PLEXUS • ATTORNEY
IndividualAPPLETON, WI
$6,600
Apr 8, 2024
7
NINIVAGGI, JENNIFER
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualAPPLETON, WI
$6,600
Apr 9, 2024
8
CHARLES, DAVID R
CASH DEPOT • PRESIDENT
IndividualNEW FRANKEN, WI
$6,600
May 16, 2024
9
GREENE, JAMES
WG&R FURNITURE CO • CHAIRMAN
IndividualDE PERE, WI
$6,600
May 1, 2024
10
GREENE, MEGHAN
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualDE PERE, WI
$6,600
May 1, 2024

Rep. Downing, Troy [R-MT-2]

ID: D000634

Top Contributors

21

1
REPUBLICAN MAINSTREET PARTNERSHIP PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$5,000
Sep 18, 2024
2
BILLION, JOSEPH C
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualBOZEMAN, MT
$13,200
Dec 31, 2023
3
BILLION, PEDER J
BILLION DODGE CHRYSLER JEEP RAM • OWNER
IndividualBOZEMAN, MT
$13,200
Dec 31, 2023
4
DURRETT, STEVEN
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualBILLINGS, MT
$13,200
May 1, 2024
5
BARNARD, MARY
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualBOZEMAN, MT
$6,600
Aug 1, 2024
6
BARNARD, TIMOTHY
BARNARD CONST. CO. • CHAIRMAN
IndividualBOZEMAN, MT
$6,600
Aug 1, 2024
7
GREGORY, JOSEPH R.
IndividualPINEY FLATS, TN
$6,600
Jul 15, 2024
8
PLANTE, THOMAS
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualHENDERSONVILLE, TN
$6,600
Sep 10, 2024
9
MENHOLT, DENNY
MENHOLT AUTO GROUP • AUTO DEALER
IndividualBILLINGS, MT
$6,600
Aug 12, 2024
10
GALT, SHARRIE
IndividualMARTINSDALE, MT
$6,600
Nov 1, 2024

Rep. Finstad, Brad [R-MN-1]

ID: F000475

Top Contributors

24

1
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
COMPRIOR LAKE, MN
$3,300
May 29, 2024
2
PRAIRIE ISLAND TRIBAL COUNCIL
COMWELCH, MN
$2,500
Feb 15, 2023
3
REPUBLICAN MAINSTREET PARTNERSHIP PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$1,000
Jul 28, 2023
4
WATONWAN COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY
COMSAINT JAMES, MN
$800
May 30, 2024
5
ANDERSON, ROLLIS H
ANDERSON TRUCKING SERVICE • CEO
IndividualSAINT CLOUD, MN
$13,200
Mar 20, 2024
6
KROLL, MARK W
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualCRYSTAL BAY, MN
$13,200
Mar 31, 2023
7
SONNEK, KATHLEEN M
SELF • WRITER
IndividualLAKE CRYSTAL, MN
$10,000
Sep 21, 2023
8
HALKYARD, JONATHAN
MGM RESORTS • CFO
IndividualLAS VEGAS, NV
$9,423
Mar 26, 2024
9
KING, RUSSELL S
KING CAPITAL LLC • CEO
IndividualMINNEAPOLIS, MN
$6,870
Dec 24, 2023
10
MILLER, HUGH L
RTP COMPANY • PRESIDENT
IndividualWINONA, MN
$6,600
Mar 28, 2024

Rep. Ellzey, Jake [R-TX-6]

ID: E000071

Top Contributors

34

1
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
2
BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS AGUA CALIENTE
OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Feb 9, 2024
3
INDIAN COMMUNITY AK-CHIN
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$3,300
Feb 9, 2024
4
BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS AGUA CALIENTE
OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Sep 30, 2024
5
PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS
OrganizationTEMECULA, CA
$3,000
Nov 6, 2023
6
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$2,500
Dec 11, 2023
7
TIGUA INDIAN RESERVATION TRIBAL COUNCIL GENERAL FUND
OrganizationEL PASO, TX
$2,500
Aug 9, 2023
8
INDIAN COMMUNITY AK-CHIN
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$2,000
Sep 30, 2024
9
ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE
OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX
$1,000
Oct 16, 2024
10
TALK FARMS
OrganizationITASCA, TX
$500
Dec 31, 2023

Rep. Jack, Brian [R-GA-3]

ID: J000311

Top Contributors

22

1
CHAPLAIN PAUL VOORHEES MINIST IN 04/13
OrganizationCOLUMBUS, GA
$500
May 10, 2024
2
JANICE W RILEY TRUST
OrganizationWOODSTOCK, GA
$300
Apr 3, 2024
3
HINTON, JONATHAN W
RAVENVOLT • FOUNDER
IndividualBALL GROUND, GA
$14,900
Apr 22, 2024
4
MACRICOSTAS, GEORGE
FLAT WILLOW FARM • OWNER
IndividualINCLINE VILLAGE, NV
$13,200
Jun 17, 2024
5
WINTERSTEEN, JAMES M
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualMILL VALLEY, CA
$13,200
Jun 18, 2024
6
GARCIA, CHRIS
SELF EMPLOYED • BUSINESSMAN
IndividualCAROLINA BEACH, NC
$9,900
Mar 28, 2024
7
GARCIA, KAT
SELF EMPLOYED • BUSINESSWOMAN
IndividualCAROLINA BEACH, NC
$9,900
Mar 28, 2024
8
KUMAR, SHALLI
KUMAR FAMILY LTD • CEO
IndividualBETTENDORF, ID
$9,900
May 15, 2024
9
FISHER, ARTHUR
FISHER REALTY • REAL ESTATE BROKER
IndividualBREVARD, NC
$6,870
Mar 27, 2024
10
RICKETTS, TODD
SELF • INVESTMENT MANAGER
IndividualWILMETTE, IL
$6,870
Apr 22, 2024

Rep. LaLota, Nick [R-NY-1]

ID: L000598

Top Contributors

0

No contribution data available

Del. King-Hinds, Kimberlyn [R-MP-At Large]

ID: K000404

Top Contributors

0

No contribution data available

Donor Network - Rep. Williams, Roger [R-TX-25]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 38 nodes and 39 connections

Total contributions: $39

Top Donors - Rep. Williams, Roger [R-TX-25]

Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount

1 Org18 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 4 helped.

  • Section 3 increases SBA 7(a) loan limits for small manufacturers, which includes construction and engineering firms classified under NAICS sectors 31-33, providing them greater access to financing.

  • +Chemicals & Plasticsconfidence 0.90

    Section 3 increases SBA 7(a) loan limits for small manufacturers, which includes chemicals and plastics manufacturers classified under NAICS sectors 31-33, providing them greater access to financing.

  • +Automotive (Legacy)confidence 0.90

    Section 3 increases SBA 7(a) loan limits for small manufacturers, which includes automotive manufacturers and parts suppliers classified under NAICS sectors 31-33, providing them greater access to financing.

  • Section 3 increases SBA 7(a) loan limits for small manufacturers, which includes semiconductor and hardware manufacturers classified under NAICS sectors 31-33, providing them greater access to financing.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Small Business Administration

Very Strong
Vector: 70%
Pages: 789-791AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 3174 directly implements the Project 2025 recommendations to increase SBA loan limits for small manufacturers and to reform the SBIC program to favor capital‑intensive manufacturing, thereby expanding private‑sector capital access for domestic manufacturing."

Key themes:small manufacturer loan limitsSBA 7(a) loan program expansionSBIC program reform for manufacturersdomestic manufacturing capital accessincreased financing for manufacturing facility upg

— 756 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Domestic Manufacturing and Small Business. Small businesses in the manufacturing sector face shortfalls in access to capital.61 As manufacturing employment, domestic business investment, and non–information technology output have declined,62 expectations for market returns and the capital available to small manufacturing enterprises have diminished. This is especially true for capital-intensive sectors like transportation and energy that require large up-front investments and relatively lower-margin sectors like plastics, textiles, furniture, and agriculture. Yet these industries and others like them traditionally have been the backbone of American manufacturing employment. They also are sources of self-sufficiency and resilience at a time when global supply chains are increas- ingly uncertain. The public policy problems that are caused by declining small manufacturing are especially acute when it comes to the production of advanced technologies. Other agencies and programs invest immense taxpayer resources in basic science and research. Over time, that research results in some breakthrough technologies, but when it is time to put these breakthroughs into practice by manufacturing goods and services, much of the necessary productive capacity is offshore.63 For many technologies, the American economy lacks the capacity to “scale up” inno- vations that might not be immediately profitable. Instead, those technologies are put into practice abroad. In this way, foreign companies and foreign productive sites buy and implement taxpayer-funded American technologies. The SBA’s existing programs should be reformed to expand the private market for capital in small-manufacturer expansion. The next Administration should: l Ask Congress to make available a category of Section 7(a) loans with a larger available principal that is used to finance manufacturing facility construction and equipment upgrading. The proposed SBA Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2019, for example, would have increased the maximum loan principal to $50 million for advanced manufacturing construction and upgrading.64 The Section 7(a) loan program operates through private lenders and guarantees a portion of private-sector loans made to qualifying small businesses. The maximum principal available is $5 million, but small businesses in capital-intensive sectors require significantly larger amounts of capital to finance up-front capital costs. l Reform the Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) program to refocus its support on small businesses rather than technology startups only. The SBIC program operates through private venture capital and private equity funds by providing eligible funds with guaranteed debt financing to support investments in small businesses. However, the program — 757 — Small Business Administration largely duplicates private-sector venture capital to the extent that the sector receiving much of its support is software and information technology, which already receive the lion’s share of venture capital investment.65 In addition, Congress should reform the SBIC program to make its financing more favorable to capital-intense investments and small manufacturers. The Health, Economic Assistance, Liability Protection, and Schools (HEALS) Act, introduced in 2020,66 and American Innovation and Manufacturing Act, introduced in 2021,67 would allow SBIC to offer longer-term financing to manufacturers and make the program more fiscally sustainable. Small-Business Size Standard Modernization. Many small-business pro- grams both inside and outside the SBA use the SBA’s definition of “small business.” Under the Small Business Act, the SBA is tasked with defining what counts as a small business and ensuring that the definition varies from industry to industry to reflect differences in regular size by industry. However, the SBA’s small-business size standards reflect a one-size-fits-all approach under which all businesses within its size standard are considered small businesses for all eligible purposes, from gov- ernment contracting preferences to eligibility for SBA loans through private banks. At the same time, the SBA is an outlier among competing economies in not considering medium-sized enterprises along with small businesses, often referred to collectively as small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Medium-sized and regional businesses are increasingly critical to maintaining competition. The next Administration should: l Encourage Congress to create a “medium-sized business” classification with its eligibility for programs confined to access to capital programs from projects for which credit elsewhere does not exist. SBA POLICY PRIORITIES FOR 2025 AND BEYOND Legislation. The new Administration can support SBA reform legislation pro- posed in Congress that aligns with key measures outlined in this chapter. It also can support legislative initiatives that would help SBA to focus on its core statutory activities such as capital access, federal contracting opportunities, and regulatory advocacy. For example: l The IMPROVE the SBA Act68 would strengthen accountability, transparency, and oversight of the SBA and aligns with many of the reforms outlined in this chapter.

Small Business Administration

Strong
Vector: 69%
Pages: 789-791AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 3174 directly addresses the Project 2025 objective of expanding access to capital for small manufacturers by increasing SBA loan limits, aligning with the goal of strengthening domestic manufacturing capacity and reducing reliance on offshore production."

Key themes:small manufacturer capital accessSBA loan program reformdomestic manufacturing supportadvanced manufacturing investmentsupply chain resilience

— 756 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Domestic Manufacturing and Small Business. Small businesses in the manufacturing sector face shortfalls in access to capital.61 As manufacturing employment, domestic business investment, and non–information technology output have declined,62 expectations for market returns and the capital available to small manufacturing enterprises have diminished. This is especially true for capital-intensive sectors like transportation and energy that require large up-front investments and relatively lower-margin sectors like plastics, textiles, furniture, and agriculture. Yet these industries and others like them traditionally have been the backbone of American manufacturing employment. They also are sources of self-sufficiency and resilience at a time when global supply chains are increas- ingly uncertain. The public policy problems that are caused by declining small manufacturing are especially acute when it comes to the production of advanced technologies. Other agencies and programs invest immense taxpayer resources in basic science and research. Over time, that research results in some breakthrough technologies, but when it is time to put these breakthroughs into practice by manufacturing goods and services, much of the necessary productive capacity is offshore.63 For many technologies, the American economy lacks the capacity to “scale up” inno- vations that might not be immediately profitable. Instead, those technologies are put into practice abroad. In this way, foreign companies and foreign productive sites buy and implement taxpayer-funded American technologies. The SBA’s existing programs should be reformed to expand the private market for capital in small-manufacturer expansion. The next Administration should: l Ask Congress to make available a category of Section 7(a) loans with a larger available principal that is used to finance manufacturing facility construction and equipment upgrading. The proposed SBA Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2019, for example, would have increased the maximum loan principal to $50 million for advanced manufacturing construction and upgrading.64 The Section 7(a) loan program operates through private lenders and guarantees a portion of private-sector loans made to qualifying small businesses. The maximum principal available is $5 million, but small businesses in capital-intensive sectors require significantly larger amounts of capital to finance up-front capital costs. l Reform the Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) program to refocus its support on small businesses rather than technology startups only. The SBIC program operates through private venture capital and private equity funds by providing eligible funds with guaranteed debt financing to support investments in small businesses. However, the program

Trade

Moderate
Vector: 64%
Pages: 834-836AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 3174 supports domestic manufacturing through increased access to capital for small manufacturers, which aligns with Project 2025's goal of strengthening American manufacturing. However, the bill does not address tariff repeal or trade policy reforms, which are central to the Project 2025 Trade section."

Key themes:domestic manufacturingsmall business supporteconomic growth

— 802 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise response to four rounds of tariffs plus an attempted Phase One agreement. The Biden Administration has left the tariffs in place and is expanding them to pursue progressive policy goals. The first order of business for a new Administration that is focused on American workers and consumers is to repeal all tariffs enacted under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 196251 and Sections 201 and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.52 The President can do this unilaterally, and Congress can do it through legislation. The second order of business requires Congress to pass legislation repealing Sections 232, 201, and 301. The U.S. Constitution places all taxing authority with Congress53 and none with the President. Congress used those provisions of law to delegate some of its taxing authority to the President because it was having trouble passing “clean” tariff legislation in the 1960s and 1970s. Unless and until this constitutional question about delegation is addressed, important reforms are available to the next Congress and the next President. Congress faced a problem of collective action in the 1960s and 1970s. As a whole, Members generally wanted to lower tariffs, but few individual Members were will- ing to remove tariffs that benefited special interests in their districts. Trade bills were invariably watered down through amendments and logrolling. The thinking was that the President, whose constituency is the entire nation, would be less prone to special-interest pleading than Members of Congress would be, so Congress del- egated some of its tariff-making authority to the President in 1962 and 1974 trade legislation. Delegating tariff-making might have worked in the short run, but in the long run, it was both constitutionally dubious and ripe for abuse. That came to pass in 2018. The Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, invoked in 2018 against Canada, Europe, and other allies on national security grounds, raised car prices by an aver- age of $250 per vehicle and gave America the world’s highest steel prices. They also harmed the construction, canned food and beverage, and other metal-us- ing industries. While this may have benefited the steel industry itself, each steel job saved cost an average of $650,000 per year that had been taken from elsewhere in the econo- my.54 That is no way to strengthen American manufacturing. The New York Federal Reserve estimated in 2019 that the Section 301 China tariffs cost the average house- hold $831 per year,55 a figure that has likely increased with inflation. The new tariffs have a clear record of failure—as conservative economists almost unanimously warned would be the case. Job number one for the next Administration is to return to sensible trade policies and eliminate the destruc- tive Trump–Biden tariffs. Strengthening American Manufacturing. The decline of American manu- facturing is a common political trope in both parties, typically invoked before a call for more government intervention. This narrative has several problems. One is that — 803 — Trade American manufacturing output is currently at an all-time high. The record was not set during World War II and not during the 1950s boom. Output did not peak when manufacturing employment peaked in 1979 or during the Reagan economic revival in the 1980s. It is actually higher now than it has ever been. American manufacturing is buoyant because each manufacturing worker’s pro- ductivity is also at an all-time high. The key to prosperity is doing more with less. The next President should ignore special interests and populist ideologues who want government to do the opposite through industrial policy, trade protectionism, and other failed progressive policies. It takes surprisingly few people to achieve America’s record-high manufac- turing output—currently about 13 million people out of a workforce of more than 160 million, compared to the 1979 peak of 19.5 million people out of a workforce of 104 million.56 Productivity growth has freed the time and talents of millions of people for other, additional uses. The belief that manufacturing has to shrink for services to grow is the zero- sum fallacy against which sensible economists often warn. It is anathema to the optimism, hope, and confidence that are the natural birthright of conservatives. Growing productivity enables more output of both manufacturing and services. That is why America continues to have sustained booms and record-setting real GDP despite the long-run decline in manufacturing employment. Economists distinguish between two types of growth: extensive and intensive. Extensive growth is the Soviet and Chinese model for manufacturing: If you have more people use more resources, they will create more output. Extensive growth is doing more with more; intensive growth is doing more with less. That is where America’s superpower lies. The story of American manufacturing is one of intensive growth dating back to our agricultural origins. Conservative leaders should draw on this history to position America for continued success. With intensive growth, it is not manufacturing or services; it is manufacturing and services. Retaliatory Tariffs. Raising tariffs on another country almost always invites retaliatory tariffs against the U.S. The latter tend to be directed at politically sen- sitive American exports. Retaliatory tariffs by both China and American allies in response to the 2018 steel tariffs were targeted primarily at American agriculture. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, those tariffs cost farmers $27 billion with losses concentrated particularly in heartland states.57 Retaliatory tariffs also targeted U.S. industries that were not protected by tar- iffs. Many imports become inputs into U.S. manufacturing. The motorcycle maker Harley-Davidson was already facing higher production costs as domestic steel producers raised their prices to accommodate the new steel tariff. A retaliatory tariff on its motorcycles imposed by the European Union further raised its prices and hurt its export business. Harm to such innocent bystanders was another unin- tended (though foreseen) consequence.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills