S-97-119
Held at the desk.
Sponsored by Gary Peters (D-MI)
What it does
This bill would require the SelectUSA program — a Department of Commerce initiative that coordinates federal efforts to attract business investment to the U.S. — to solicit comments from state economic development organizations about federal strategies to increase foreign direct investment in semiconductor manufacturing. SelectUSA would then be required to report to Congress on those comments and on strategies it could use to increase such investment and secure the U.S. semiconductor supply chain.
Who benefits
State economic development agencies, which would gain a formal channel to influence federal semiconductor investment strategy. U.S. semiconductor manufacturers and their workers, who could benefit from increased foreign direct investment in the sector. Communities near potential semiconductor facilities, which could see economic development. Congress, which would receive structured information to inform future legislation. Domestic technology companies that rely on U.S.-made chips.
Who is hurt
Foreign semiconductor manufacturers who may face increased scrutiny or competition from a more coordinated U.S. investment strategy. Federal agency staff at SelectUSA who would bear the administrative burden of conducting outreach and producing the report. States or localities not well-positioned to attract semiconductor investment may find their input carries less weight in a competitive process. Taxpayers bear the modest administrative cost of the reporting requirement.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the U.S. semiconductor supply chain remains dangerously concentrated in foreign countries — a vulnerability exposed by the chip shortages of 2021-2022 that disrupted auto manufacturing, consumer electronics, and defense production. They contend that formally incorporating state-level economic development expertise into federal strategy fills a coordination gap, since states have direct knowledge of local infrastructure, workforce capacity, and investment incentives that federal agencies may lack.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that this bill is largely duplicative of existing efforts, including the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022, which already authorized tens of billions of dollars for domestic semiconductor manufacturing and directed Commerce to coordinate with states and industry. They contend that adding another reporting and comment requirement creates bureaucratic process without new resources or binding policy changes, and that the resulting report is unlikely to produce outcomes beyond what current law already enables.
Constitutional context
No significant constitutional issues are raised by this bill. Congress has broad authority under the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) to regulate foreign and interstate commerce, and directing an existing executive agency to solicit comments and report back to Congress is a routine exercise of that authority and Congress's oversight function. No active constitutional tension areas are implicated.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (Department of Commerce/SelectUSA) gains a modest new procedural obligation; Congress retains oversight through the required report, which creates an accountability mechanism but imposes no binding policy outcome on the agency.
Historical precedent
The CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 established a directly analogous framework, directing the Department of Commerce to coordinate with states and industry to attract semiconductor manufacturing investment and appropriating $52 billion for that purpose.