Commerce Department to map U.S. critical infrastructure manufacturing gaps

What it does

This bill directs the Secretary of Commerce to study whether the U.S. can manufacture products currently imported for critical infrastructure sectors (energy, water, transportation, etc.). The study will identify what's being imported due to U.S. supply-chain gaps, analyze the costs and benefits of making those products domestically, and assess whether manufacturing could happen in rural areas or industrial parks. The Secretary must report findings and recommendations to Congress within 18 months and post the report publicly.

Why we flagged it

The bill's sole operative mechanism is a fact-finding study on domestic manufacturing feasibility for critical infrastructure products. It is a straightforward information-gathering mandate with no regulatory, financial, or enforcement component.

What the text implies

• Study findings may inform future tariff, subsidy, or industrial policy decisions affecting manufacturing sectors and trade relationships.
• Public report on supply-chain vulnerabilities could influence private investment in domestic manufacturing and reshape competitive dynamics in critical-infrastructure supply chains.
• Identification of rural manufacturing feasibility may support future place-based economic development or infrastructure investment proposals.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

The bill creates transparency about critical infrastructure supply chains and manufacturing capacity without imposing costs or restrictions on citizens. It generates public information that can inform future policy decisions about domestic resilience and job creation, and explicitly protects privacy by barring compulsory information disclosure.

Named in the bill

Secretary of Commerce, Department of Commerce, Critical infrastructure sectors (16 designated sectors per PPD-21), Presidential Policy Directive 21

Where it stands

2 cosponsors: 1 Democrats, 1 Republicans.

• Feb 27, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Feb 27, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Energy and Commerce and Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce”
• Mar 4, 2025 — Markup held in committee · Congress.gov: “Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held”
• Mar 4, 2025 — Reported out of committee · Congress.gov: “Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote”
• Apr 28, 2025 — Passed the House · Congress.gov: “On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H1651)”
• Apr 28, 2025 — Floor vote scheduled · Congress.gov: “Mr. Bilirakis moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill”
• Sep 23, 2026 — Passed both chambers · Congress.gov: “Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S4892)”
• Oct 14, 2026 — Sent to president · Congress.gov: “Presented to President”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

1 lobbying clients named this bill on 2 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $6,870,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 31 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 0% of bills with at least one filing.

Mariannette Miller-Meeks, the sponsor, reported $2,407,952 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• Ncta - the Internet & Television Association — $6,870,000 on 2 filings

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.