Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/6475

Bill Overview

Title: To amend the International Financial Institutions Act to instruct certain United States Executive Directors to vote against any assistance to the People's Republic of China unless certain certifications are met, and for other purposes.

Description: This bill requires U.S. representatives to certain international financial institutions to vote and advocate against the institutions providing assistance to China unless the Department of the Treasury makes certain certifications to Congress. Specifically, Treasury must order U.S. representatives to the World Bank Group and the Asian Development Bank to oppose the relevant institution providing assistance to China unless Treasury certifies that (1) China's government (and any lenders it owns or controls) has credibly committed to taking certain actions, such as participating in multilateral debt relief initiatives on terms at least comparable to other Group of 20 governments; and (2) the assistance to China contributes significantly to a global public good that serves U.S. national interests, such as limiting the negative impacts of climate change.

Sponsors: Rep. Waters, Maxine [D-CA-43]

Target Audience

Population: People in China benefiting from international financial assistance

Estimated Size: 10000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Financial Analyst (New York, NY)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I am concerned about how this policy could disrupt the financial markets and the balance of investments.
  • Restricting aid could impact China's economy, which in turn would affect global markets.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 7
Year 2 6 7
Year 3 5 7
Year 5 4 6
Year 10 5 7
Year 20 6 8

Tech Entrepreneur (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 32 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Trade restrictions or financial tensions with China could complicate my business operations.
  • I hope for negotiation and cooperation rather than confrontation.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 8
Year 2 7 8
Year 3 7 8
Year 5 6 8
Year 10 7 8
Year 20 7 8

University Professor (Chicago, IL)

Age: 60 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy can serve as a strategic move to advance U.S. interests but might also strain diplomatic ties.
  • It's important for the U.S. to find a balance between assertiveness and cooperation with China.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 7 7

Oil Industry Executive (Houston, TX)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 8.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This legislation could indirectly affect the energy sector's global strategy and operations.
  • I believe long-term engagement is necessary even if it requires tough stances.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 8
Year 2 7 8
Year 3 6 8
Year 5 7 8
Year 10 7 8
Year 20 8 9

Small Business Owner (Miami, FL)

Age: 27 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I am worried about potential costs and import restrictions impacting my business.
  • I hope there will be more clarity on trade policies going forward.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 6
Year 2 5 7
Year 3 4 7
Year 5 6 7
Year 10 6 7
Year 20 6 8

Aid Worker (Seattle, WA)

Age: 41 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy may encourage China to adopt more cooperative debt relief strategies.
  • However, it could hinder necessary funding if not managed carefully.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 8 8
Year 5 8 8
Year 10 8 8
Year 20 8 8

Manufacturing Plant Manager (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 55 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 4.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I worry about potential supply chain issues and tariffs affecting production costs.
  • Collaboration with China is crucial for manufacturing in the U.S.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 7
Year 2 6 7
Year 3 5 7
Year 5 6 7
Year 10 7 8
Year 20 7 8

Graduate Student (Boston, MA)

Age: 24 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 9

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I find the policy an interesting case study on international diplomacy and economic policy.
  • It could become a significant discussion point in international economics.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 9 9
Year 2 9 9
Year 3 9 9
Year 5 9 9
Year 10 9 9
Year 20 9 9

Logistics Coordinator (San Diego, CA)

Age: 39 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I worry about how new policies might complicate our logistics and affect delivery schedules.
  • The uncertainty could increase costs and impact my job security.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 7
Year 2 6 7
Year 3 6 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 7 8
Year 20 7 7

Diplomatic Advisor (Washington, D.C.)

Age: 33 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy is a bold stance and could reshape diplomatic conversations.
  • Balancing national interests with international cooperation is critical.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 7 7

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)

Year 2: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)

Year 3: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)

Year 5: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)

Year 10: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)

Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)

Key Considerations