Critical Infrastructure Manufacturing Feasibility Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/1872
Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA]

ID: E000295

Follow the money

The bill

Critical Infrastructure Manufacturing Feasibility Act

S. 1872, 119th Congress — read as touching Construction & Engineering.

The sponsor

Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA]

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

The money

$383,500 raised

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

The alignment

85% 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

Held at the desk.

November 9, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House 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

(sigh) Oh joy, another congressional bill that's about as useful as a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. Let's dissect this mess.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Critical Infrastructure Manufacturing Feasibility Act (CIMFA) is a masterclass in bureaucratic doublespeak. Its main purpose is to conduct a study – because, you know, the government loves studies almost as much as it loves wasting taxpayer money. The objective? To determine if it's feasible to manufacture products for critical infrastructure sectors in the United States. Wow, what a revolutionary idea.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill directs the Secretary of Commerce to conduct this study within one year (because urgency is not exactly Congress's strong suit). It defines "critical infrastructure sector" using an existing presidential directive from 2013 – because who needs original thought? The study will identify products necessary for critical infrastructure, analyze costs and benefits, and recommend manufacturing locations. Oh, and it'll also identify any federal policies that might inhibit manufacturing in the United States. How convenient.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The usual suspects: manufacturers, industry lobbyists, and politicians looking to score points with their constituents. But let's be real – this bill is a gift to special interest groups who will use it to justify protectionist policies and subsidies for their pet industries.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill is a classic case of "legislative theater." It looks like something substantial, but it's just a smokescreen. The study will likely conclude that manufacturing in the United States is feasible (shocker), and then Congress will use this as an excuse to pass more protectionist laws, tariffs, or subsidies for favored industries.

The real disease here is the politicians' addiction to crony capitalism and their inability to address the root causes of America's manufacturing decline. This bill is just a symptom – a feeble attempt to treat the symptoms rather than the underlying illness.

In short, CIMFA is a waste of time and money. It's a cynical ploy to appease special interests and pretend that Congress is doing something about America's manufacturing woes. Don't be fooled – this bill is nothing more than a placebo for the terminally stupid.

Related Topics

Transportation & InfrastructureEnergy Production & Conservation
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$383,500
22 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$7,700
Committees
$0
Individuals
$375,800

No PAC contributions found

1
SAC & FOX TRIBE OF MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA
2 transactions
$6,700
2
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
1 transaction
$1,000

No committee contributions found

1
ABEL, ANDREA MS.
1 transaction
$50,000
2
MCINERNEY, THOMAS E. MR.
1 transaction
$50,000
3
NICOLLS, BOB MR.
1 transaction
$25,000
4
GRAY, C. BOYDEN
1 transaction
$25,000
5
CATSIMATIDIS, JOHN A. MR.
1 transaction
$25,000
6
KOTICK, ROBERT MR.
1 transaction
$16,600
7
VINCZE, CHRISTOPHER
1 transaction
$15,800
8
FRANCE, BRIAN Z. MR.
1 transaction
$15,000
9
BAKER, BERNARD J. MR. III
1 transaction
$15,000
10
HEGYI, ALBERT P. MR.
1 transaction
$15,000
11
DAVISON, JAMES E. MR.
1 transaction
$15,000
12
BROIN, JEFF MR.
1 transaction
$15,000
13
SHERRILL, STEPHEN C. MR.
1 transaction
$15,000
14
GLEESON, JOHN W. MR.
1 transaction
$12,500
15
RAY-GLEESON, KAREN S. MRS.
1 transaction
$12,500
16
POPOLO, JOE
1 transaction
$11,800
17
PFAUTCH, ROY MR.
1 transaction
$11,600
18
GOLDMAN, MARC STANLEY
1 transaction
$10,000
19
SCHLOEMER, JAMES H. MR.
1 transaction
$10,000
20
SABIN, ANDREW MR.
1 transaction
$10,000

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 2 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Blunt Rochester, Lisa [D-DE]

ID: B001303

Top Contributors

36

1
PHAROS CAPITAL GROUP LLC
OrganizationBRENTWOOD, TN
$3,300
Dec 15, 2023
2
TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LA
OrganizationMARKSVILLE, LA
$3,300
Dec 29, 2023
3
POMO BAND OF THE HABEMOTOLEL INDIANS
OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA
$3,300
May 17, 2024
4
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationMADILL, OK
$3,300
May 30, 2024
5
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationMADILL, OK
$3,300
May 30, 2024
6
THE DANIEL INITIATIVE, LLC
OrganizationSTAFFORD, VA
$3,300
Jul 24, 2023
7
TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LA
OrganizationMARKSVILLE, LA
$2,500
Sep 30, 2024
8
PHAROS CAPITAL GROUP LLC
OrganizationBRENTWOOD, TN
$2,300
Dec 15, 2023
9
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$2,000
Mar 31, 2024
10
1634 ASSOCIATES
OrganizationPHILADELPHIA, PA
$2,000
Sep 30, 2023

Sen. Ossoff, Jon [D-GA]

ID: O000174

Top Contributors

20

1
THOMAS, TORI
IndividualMCLEAN, VA
$9,100
Jun 30, 2024
2
MCCLURE, RODERICK
RODFATHER PRODUCTIONS • BUSINESS OWNER
IndividualALPHARETTA, GA
$6,600
Nov 25, 2024
3
MCCLURE, RODERICK
IndividualALPHARETTA, GA
$6,600
Dec 23, 2024
4
HOLLANDER, ELLEN
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualROSWELL, GA
$5,000
Oct 6, 2024
5
HOLLANDER, ELLEN
IndividualROSWELL, GA
$5,000
Oct 14, 2024
6
MILLER, KRISTIE
SELF EMPLOYED • WRITER
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Jun 5, 2024
7
RECHNITZ, JOAN
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualRED BANK, NJ
$3,300
Apr 22, 2024
8
HOPPER, HEIDI
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualMENLO PARK, CA
$3,300
May 3, 2024
9
BRASCH, JOHN
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualLINCOLN, NE
$3,300
Apr 16, 2024
10
ARNOLD, JOHN
ARNOLD VENTURES • CO-FOUNDER
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$3,300
Apr 2, 2024

Donor Network - Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 42 nodes and 39 connections

Total contributions: $39

Top Donors - Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA]

Showing top 22 donors by contribution amount

2 Orgs20 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 helped.

  • Section 2(b)(1) identifies products necessary for construction, maintenance, operation, or restoration of critical infrastructure sectors, which could lead to increased demand for construction and engineering services.

  • Section 2(b)(1) includes products for critical infrastructure sectors such as energy, which could benefit energy infrastructure companies.

  • +Electric Utilitiesconfidence 0.60

    Section 2(b)(1) mentions products necessary for the operation of critical infrastructure sectors like energy, potentially benefiting electric utilities.

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

Strong
Vector: 65%
Pages: 789-791AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill's focus on studying domestic manufacturing feasibility for critical infrastructure aligns closely with Project 2025's SBA goals of expanding capital access for small manufacturers, strengthening domestic production, and enhancing economic resilience, though the bill is a study rather than direct SBA reform."

Key themes:domestic manufacturingcritical infrastructuresmall business supportcapital accessjob creation

— 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: 64%
Pages: 789-791AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns strongly with Project 2025's focus on revitalizing domestic manufacturing, particularly for small businesses in capital-intensive sectors, by directing a feasibility study to identify and promote U.S.-based production of critical infrastructure goods, which addresses supply chain vulnerabilities and supports economic resilience."

Key themes:domestic manufacturingsmall business supportcritical infrastructuresupply chain resiliencecapital access

— 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

21

Strong
Vector: 64%
Pages: 699-701AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns strongly with Project 2025's emphasis on securing critical supply chains, countering adversarial economic influence (particularly China), and promoting domestic manufacturing for national security and economic resilience. Both prioritize reducing reliance on foreign production of essential goods and enhancing U.S. industrial competitiveness through strategic policy review and action."

Key themes:domestic manufacturingsupply chain securitycountering Chinacritical infrastructureeconomic resilience

— 666 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Advisory Committees. Due to the nature of the Department of Commerce’s portfolio, many of its advisory committees are populated by activists from organi- zations openly hostile to conservative principles who use the committees to impede conservative policy. Upon entering office, all such committees should be reviewed regarding whether they are required by statute and abolished if they are not. Mem- bership of the remaining committees should be reconstituted to ensure they are sources of genuine expert advice and productive contributions to the policy-making process. Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) compliance and awareness of any ways the committees have been written into regulations should be considered. INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION The International Trade Administration is centrally placed to craft and implement U.S. trade policy. Core to ITA’s mission is the expansion of trade and investment and the fostering of job creation, innovation, and economic growth, while also providing research and analysis that support USTR’s trade negotiations. ITA carries out this mission on behalf of American workers, ranchers, and families. As discussed elsewhere, historically, conservatives have argued that many fed- eral government trade and investment-oriented functions amount to corporate welfare or protectionism. There is a growing counterargument within the conser- vative movement contending that, in a world in which managed trade is the norm rather than the exception, and in which authoritarian governments, especially China, continually seek to undermine U.S. interests, the U.S. cannot unilaterally disarm. To do so would harm the cause of free trade in the long term, and, in any event, Congress is not likely to drastically change the composition or authoriza- tion of the ITA. Thus, a policy and management agenda that serves conservative priorities is crucial. In a conservative Administration, the ITA should operate with the follow- ing priorities: l Counter the malign influence of China and other U.S. adversaries; l Enforce agreements vigorously and defend against trade violations; l Secure access to critical supply chains and technology; and l Enable the private sector to drive innovation and remain globally competitive. It is important to note that a deeply entrenched set of career Senior Executive Service officials have managed the ITA for over a decade. While most are truly non-partisan civil servants, some are not. Political leadership must manage accord- ingly. Strong political leadership is needed in ITA’s policymaking positions from — 667 — Department of Commerce Day One to ensure the bureau is fully implementing Administration policy. An incoming Administration should ensure that Assistant Secretary and Deputy Assis- tant Secretary positions are staffed by appointees as quickly as possible. Enforcement and Compliance. Strong enforcement of trade agreements is an indispensable function of the ITA carried out by Enforcement & Compliance (E&C). Free and fair trade is impossible without energetic enforcement of exist- ing agreements and without strong defense against dumping and illegal subsidies. Many free trade advocates consider antidumping and countervailing duty laws (AD/CVD) to be protectionist and thus antithetical to the conservative free market position. In their view, AD/CVD laws are overused, abused by certain industries, and harmful to American economic competitiveness by increasing costs to down- stream industries. Other conservatives maintain that AD/CVD tariffs are not conventional tariffs, but rather corrective actions meant to address anti-free market activities by other governments—a scalpel, not a hammer. In the short term, this may mean higher costs for U.S. businesses and consumers on a limited number of products from cer- tain offending countries, but those higher prices correct existing price distortions in the marketplace and ultimately ensure the healthy operation of market forces in the long term and a level playing field for U.S. manufacturers. Whatever the case, improvements to the current system must be made to both protect U.S. consumers and companies from improperly applied duties and defend against trade-distorting actions by other governments. Procedures governing the day-to-day administration of proceedings, as well as policies driving critical deci- sions in proceedings, require a fresh look. Ultimately, E&C’s mandate is to conduct a rigorous but also fair, objective, and balanced review of the record in each pro- ceeding and to make decisions without bias. It is exceedingly unlikely that Congress would abolish or limit the activity of E&C. Therefore, the proposals below are made under the assumption that an incoming Administration will operate E&C within its current legal, institutional, and political confines and set a path forward to wield E&C’s considerable power to achieve the goals of a conservative Administration. These proposals can be broken into three categories: process, policy, and addressing China. Process l Re-establish and expand suspended in-person pandemic-related verifications, particularly regarding the People’s Republic of China. Ensure that verifications are rigorous. l Implement advanced analytics and artificial intelligence to identify opportunities for self-initiation, detect circumvention, and prevent bad actors from gaming the system.

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