Securing Semiconductor Supply Chains Act
Download PDFSponsored by
Sen. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI]
ID: P000595
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Introduced
đź“Ť 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
đź“š 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, folks! The Securing Semiconductor Supply Chains Act (S 97) - because what's more thrilling than a bill about semiconductors? Let me put on my surgical gloves and dissect this mess.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose is to create the illusion that Congress cares about securing semiconductor supply chains. In reality, it's just a thinly veiled attempt to funnel foreign direct investment into the pockets of select corporations and State-level economic development organizations. The objective? To make it seem like they're doing something about the "complex" global supply chain while actually accomplishing nothing.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 4 is where the magic happens - or rather, doesn't happen. SelectUSA will "coordinate" with State-level economic development organizations to increase foreign direct investment in semiconductor-related manufacturing and production. Wow, what a bold move! They'll also submit a report in two years that will likely gather dust on some bureaucrat's shelf.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects: corporations looking for handouts, State-level economic development organizations seeking more funding, and politicians eager to claim they're "doing something" about the economy. Meanwhile, actual workers and consumers will be left in the dark, wondering what this bill actually accomplishes.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It won't address the real issues plaguing the semiconductor industry, such as lack of investment in domestic manufacturing or the stranglehold of monopolies. Instead, it'll create more bureaucratic red tape and opportunities for crony capitalism. The only ones who will benefit are those with connections to the politicians sponsoring this bill.
In short, S 97 is a masterclass in legislative obfuscation, designed to confuse voters while enriching special interests. It's a disease masquerading as medicine - and I'm not buying it.
Related Topics
đź’° Campaign Finance Network
Sen. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.
Introduction
— 792 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise enhance our national security. Some Americans historically have supported open borders and offshoring under the flag of the Ricardian trade model, which assumes the free flow of both labor and capital. Yet it is equally true that open borders and offshoring also help American multinational corporations to maximize their profits by minimizing their labor and environmental protection costs. In particular, an open border policy, which allows for the unlimited migration of cheap labor, depresses American wage rates and thereby boosts corporate profits. At the same time, offshoring gives American corporations readier access to the sweatshops and pollution havens of Asia and Latin America. Our skies and water may be cleaner, and our products may be cheaper, Main Street manufacturers and workers bear the brunt of these policies. The obvious political problem in adopting many of the policies proposed here is that they will be opposed by the special-interest groups that benefit from open borders and offshoring and that contribute lavishly to both political parties. These special-interest groups range from the hedge funds of Wall Street and tech entre- preneurs of Silicon Valley to big-box retailers that stuff their aisles particularly with cheap “Made in China” goods. YES, TRADE DEFICITS MATTER [O]ur country has been behaving like an extraordinarily rich family that possesses an immense farm. In order to consume 4% more than we produce— that’s the trade deficit—we have, day by day, been both selling pieces of the farm and increasing the mortgage on what we still own. Warren Buffett37 Historically, one line of attack against attempts to implement fair trade policies in the name of reducing America’s massive and chronic trade deficit has been the claim that “trade deficits don’t matter.” The intellectual tip of this spear has often been think tanks that generate reams of analyses in support of a purely free trade (and open borders) American posture.38 Yet both common sense and several very good reasons tell us that trade deficits matter a great deal. Economic Security. The economic security argument that trade deficits matter begins with the observation that growth in any country’s real, inflation-adjusted gross domestic product (GDP) depends on only four factors: consumption, gov- ernment spending, business investment, and net exports (the difference between exports and imports). Reducing a trade deficit through implementation of the U.S. Reciprocal Trade Act, the application of tariffs, or renegotiating a bad trade deal like NAFTA all represent ways to increase net exports—and thereby boost the rate of economic growth.
Introduction
— 792 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise enhance our national security. Some Americans historically have supported open borders and offshoring under the flag of the Ricardian trade model, which assumes the free flow of both labor and capital. Yet it is equally true that open borders and offshoring also help American multinational corporations to maximize their profits by minimizing their labor and environmental protection costs. In particular, an open border policy, which allows for the unlimited migration of cheap labor, depresses American wage rates and thereby boosts corporate profits. At the same time, offshoring gives American corporations readier access to the sweatshops and pollution havens of Asia and Latin America. Our skies and water may be cleaner, and our products may be cheaper, Main Street manufacturers and workers bear the brunt of these policies. The obvious political problem in adopting many of the policies proposed here is that they will be opposed by the special-interest groups that benefit from open borders and offshoring and that contribute lavishly to both political parties. These special-interest groups range from the hedge funds of Wall Street and tech entre- preneurs of Silicon Valley to big-box retailers that stuff their aisles particularly with cheap “Made in China” goods. YES, TRADE DEFICITS MATTER [O]ur country has been behaving like an extraordinarily rich family that possesses an immense farm. In order to consume 4% more than we produce— that’s the trade deficit—we have, day by day, been both selling pieces of the farm and increasing the mortgage on what we still own. Warren Buffett37 Historically, one line of attack against attempts to implement fair trade policies in the name of reducing America’s massive and chronic trade deficit has been the claim that “trade deficits don’t matter.” The intellectual tip of this spear has often been think tanks that generate reams of analyses in support of a purely free trade (and open borders) American posture.38 Yet both common sense and several very good reasons tell us that trade deficits matter a great deal. Economic Security. The economic security argument that trade deficits matter begins with the observation that growth in any country’s real, inflation-adjusted gross domestic product (GDP) depends on only four factors: consumption, gov- ernment spending, business investment, and net exports (the difference between exports and imports). Reducing a trade deficit through implementation of the U.S. Reciprocal Trade Act, the application of tariffs, or renegotiating a bad trade deal like NAFTA all represent ways to increase net exports—and thereby boost the rate of economic growth. — 793 — Trade Suppose, for example, that under the USRTA the American President persuaded India to reduce its very high protectionist tariffs and Japan to lower its formidable nontariff barriers. America would surely sell more Florida oranges, Washington apples, California wine, Wisconsin cheese, and Harley-Davidson motorcycles. The resultant fall in the trade deficit would increase America’s GDP, and the real wages of blue-collar America would rise from Seattle and Orlando to Sonoma and Mil- waukee. But that’s not all. Consider, too, the investment term in the GDP growth equation. When U.S. companies offshore their production to chase cheap labor or manufacture in a “pollution haven” country like Communist China or India with lax environmental regulations, the result is reduced nonresidential fixed investment—and a GDP growth rate that is lower than it would be otherwise. Moreover, if such offshored production results in more foreign exports to the U.S.—for example, an American consumer buys a Made in Mexico Dodge Journey or Chevrolet Trax rather than a vehicle assembled in Detroit—the trade deficit rises along with the fall in invest- ment, further reducing GDP growth. National Security. The national security argument that trade deficits matter begins with America’s national-income accounting double-entry system and this accounting identity: Any deficit in the current account caused by imbalanced trade must be offset by a surplus in the capital account, meaning foreign invest- ment in the U.S. In the short term, this balance-of-payments equilibrium may indeed “not matter” as foreigners return our trade-deficit dollars to American shores by seemingly benignly investing in U.S. government bonds and stocks. Of course, this infusion of foreign capital lowers American mortgage rates and keeps the stock market bullishly capitalized, which appears to be all to the good. Over time, however, running large and persistent trade deficits leads to a massive transfer of American wealth offshore into foreign hands. This wealth transfer happens as foreigners use their export dollars to buy American real estate, companies, and financial assets like the aforementioned stocks and government bonds. The American investor Warren Buffett has referred to such wealth transfers offshore as “conquest by purchase.” To Buffett, the big danger is that foreigners will eventually own so many U.S. government bonds that Americans will wind up working longer hours just to survive and service that foreign debt. There is an even bigger national security danger, however, that Mr. Buffett has missed: an alternative conquest-by-purchase scenario. Suppose, for example, that one of the biggest holders of U.S. dollars is a rapidly militarizing strategic rival like Communist China that is intent on world hegemony. By buying up America’s com- panies, technologies, farmland, food producers, and key elements of the domestic supply chain, Communist China can thereby gain more and more control of the U.S. manufacturing and defense-industrial base.
Introduction
— 765 — 26 TRADE THE CASE FOR FAIR TRADE Peter Navarro For decades the world has struggled with a shifting maze of punitive tariffs, export subsidies, quotas, dollar-locked currencies, and the like. Many of these import-inhibiting and export-encouraging devices have long been employed by major exporting countries trying to amass ever larger [trade] surpluses. Warren Buffett, CEO, Berkshire Hathaway1 The Chinese government is implementing a comprehensive, long-term industrial strategy to ensure its global dominance…. Beijing’s ultimate goal is for domestic companies to replace foreign companies as designers and manufacturers of key technology and products first at home, then abroad. U.S.–China Economic and Security Review Commission2 The United States of America is the world’s dominant superpower and remains the world’s arsenal of democracy. To maintain that global positioning—and thereby best protect the homeland and our own democratic institutions—it is critical that the United States strengthen its manufacturing and defense industrial base at the same time that it increases the reliability and resilience of its globally dispersed — 766 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise supply chains. That will necessarily require the onshoring of a significant portion of production currently offshored by American multinational corporations. Trade policy can and must play an essential role in an American manufacturing and defense industrial base renaissance. However, several major challenges in the international trading environment are pushing America in the opposite direction. The first challenge is rooted in MFN: the “most favored nation” rule of the World Trade Organization (WTO). According to the MFN rule, WTO members must apply the lowest tariffs that they apply to the products of any one country to the products of every other country.3 However, WTO members can charge higher tariffs if they apply these nonreciprocal tariffs to all countries. The practical result has been the systematic exploitation of American farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and workers through higher tariffs institutionalized by MFN. In turn, this unfair and nonreciprocal trade has resulted in chronic U.S. trade deficits with much of the rest of the world. This systemic trade imbalance serves as a brake and bridle on both GDP growth and real wages in the American economy while encumbering the U.S. with significant foreign debt. The second challenge is part of the broader existential threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in its quest for global dominance. That chal- lenge is rooted in the CCP’s continued economic aggression, which begins with mercantilist and protectionist trade policy tools such as tariffs, nontariff barriers, dumping, counterfeiting and piracy, and currency manipulation. However, Com- munist China’s economic aggression also extends to an intricate set of industrial policies and technology transfer–forcing policies that have dramatically skewed the international trading arena. Both the unfair, unbalanced, and nonreciprocal trade institutionalized by the WTO and Communist China’s economic aggression are weakening America’s man- ufacturing and defense industrial base even as the fragility of globally dispersed supply chains has been brought into sharp relief by the COVID-19 pandemic with its associated lockdowns and other disruptions and by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Russian revanchism, in particular, has demonstrated once again how bad actors on the world stage can use trade policy (for example, export restraints on natural gas) as a weapon of war. LAYING THE TRADE DEFICIT PREDICATE The great football coach Bill Parcells once said, “You are what your record says you are.” America’s record on trade—specifically American’s chronic and ever-ex- panding trade deficit—says that America is the globe’s biggest trade loser and a victim of unfair, unbalanced, and nonreciprocal trade. During the first year of the Biden Administration, the overall U.S. trade defi- cit, including goods and services, soared by 29 percent, from $654 billion in 2020 to $845 billion in 2021.4 Over the same time period, imports of consumer goods,
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.