Bill Overview
Title: Protecting Semiconductor Supply Chain Materials from Authoritarians Act
Description: This bill establishes an interagency working group to address semiconductor supply chain issues caused by Russia's attack on Ukraine. The working group must report to Congress on issues including (1) the impact of Russia's attack on Ukraine on the supply of various materials, including palladium, neon gas, and helium; (2) the attack's impact on supply chains and the global economy; and (3) recommendations for legislative steps that Congress can take to further bolster the supply of materials for the semiconductor supply chain that have been curtailed by Russia's actions. The working group must also report annually to Congress on future geopolitical developments that could severely disrupt global semiconductor supply chains in ways that could harm the United States.
Sponsors: Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1]
Target Audience
Population: People reliant on products and services using semiconductors
Estimated Size: 300000000
- Semiconductors are essential components in many electronic devices, including computers, smartphones, and cars. Thus, any disruption in their supply chain can have widespread implications across various sectors.
- Russia's attack on Ukraine has created global geopolitical tensions, especially affecting material supplies crucial for semiconductor production, such as neon gas, palladium, and helium.
- Ukraine is a significant producer of neon gas, which is vital for semiconductor manufacturing processes. The ongoing war affects this supply directly.
- The global semiconductor industry is a massive sector, integral to technological advancement and economic growth. It has a wide-reaching impact on both producers and consumers worldwide.
- The disruptions in the semiconductor supply due to geopolitical tensions could affect multiple industries like technology, automotive, healthcare, and more, impacting billions of consumers.
- The semiconductor supply chain is a global network involving multiple countries, including key players like the U.S., China, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan, thereby affecting their industries and economies.
Reasoning
- The target population for this policy greatly affects those in technology and manufacturing sectors, particularly those working in semiconductor-related industries or relying on their outputs.
- Due to the nature of semiconductors, a wide range of people indirectly experience effects from shifts in semiconductor supply, including consumers who depend on electronics in daily life.
- $50,000,000 USD in year one is a modest budget, reflecting a focus on strategic analysis and recommendations rather than direct consumer subsidies or large scale manufacturing shifts.
- Affected persons are likely unevenly distributed, with those in tech industry hubs or near semiconductor manufacturing sites feeling more direct impact.
- For many Americans, the effects might not immediately alter day-to-day life, but longer term, the implications for technology access and costs could become significant.
- Protecting semiconductor supply impacts national security, technological advancement, and economic vitality which are priorities for federal investment.
Simulated Interviews
semiconductor engineer (San Jose, California)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is an important step toward securing our materials and ensuring we can continue innovation.
- The potential long-term supply issues from geopolitical tensions make me uneasy, but the policy could mitigate this.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
automotive engineer (Austin, Texas)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe the policy is crucial, any delays in semiconductor supply can halt our projects.
- There should be more local investment to prevent such dependence.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
supply chain manager (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We're always nervous about disruptions; a strategic approach might help avoid headaches.
- I hope the policy will focus on diversifying our sourcing options.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
college student (New York City, New York)
Age: 19 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Still learning about these issues, but seems important for future tech security.
- I worry about the cost of electronics increasing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
electronics retailer (Boise, Idaho)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Fluctuations in supply can be damaging; anything that addresses that is good.
- I'm concerned about the costs trickling down to consumers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
university professor (Palo Alto, California)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies tracking geopolitical impacts on tech supply are essential in today's economy.
- We need more educational initiatives around this for better public awareness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
logistics coordinator (Miami, Florida)
Age: 38 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is reassuring, knowing that there might be a strategy if things go south.
- Efficiency and preparedness are valuable assets in our field.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
software developer (San Antonio, Texas)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any disruptions in tech could slow down our progress, so it's good to see steps being taken.
- I support fostering local semiconductor production.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
consumer electronics repair technician (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Repair services are sensitive to parts availability, so if supply is stable, it helps us a lot.
- I hope this policy can actually translate into tangible benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
IT consultant (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The semiconductor supply chain is critical for tech-driven startups.
- Policy like this is fundamental for stability in a turbulent world.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $51000000 (Low: $31000000, High: $71000000)
Year 3: $52000000 (Low: $32000000, High: $72000000)
Year 5: $54000000 (Low: $34000000, High: $74000000)
Year 10: $58000000 (Low: $38000000, High: $78000000)
Year 100: $78000000 (Low: $58000000, High: $98000000)
Key Considerations
- The geopolitical landscape can change, affecting estimates based on future developments.
- Technological advancements may either decrease or increase future policy costs related to semiconductor production.
- Integration with global supply chains means external factors, like international relations, could impact effectiveness.
- A clear policy alignment with other national initiatives, such as the CHIPS Act, is crucial for comprehensive impact.