Bill Overview
Title: Stop CCP Infrastructure Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits certain entities related to China or the Chinese government from receiving federal funds for public works projects in the United States. Specifically, this prohibition applies to entities that are (1) headquartered in China; or (2) owned, financed, influenced by, or affiliated with the Chinese government, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), or the Chinese military. Further, state and local governments must verify that a recipient for federal funds for a public works project is free from any obligations, influences, or connections to any of these entities.
Sponsors: Rep. Tenney, Claudia [R-NY-22]
Target Audience
Population: People associated with affected Chinese entities in public infrastructure construction
Estimated Size: 1000000
- The legislation affects entities involved in public infrastructure construction in the United States that are connected to China.
- This includes Chinese companies and possibly some multinational corporations with ties to China.
- It could affect construction markets globally as Chinese companies are major players in international infrastructure projects.
- The bill could have economic implications on the construction industry in terms of competition and project costs.
Reasoning
- The target population includes a large number of workers and companies within the US construction and public infrastructure sector, especially those with current ties to Chinese firms and entities.
- The cost and size restrictions mean the policy might not cover all impacted entities within the first few years, leading to uneven impact distribution.
- Wellbeing scores could be influenced by job security, changes in wages, and project dynamics.
Simulated Interviews
Construction Project Manager (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could complicate our project timelines.
- I may need to find new partners, which can be stressful.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Engineer (Houston, TX)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about job security.
- This could reduce opportunities for my company here.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Local Government Official (New York, NY)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This adds a layer of bureaucracy.
- It might prevent some projects from starting due to delays.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Graduate Student in Civil Engineering (Seattle, WA)
Age: 26 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could limit my career options.
- I worry about fewer opportunities for innovation due to less diverse partnerships.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Construction Worker (Miami, FL)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This might secure more local jobs.
- The transition could be rough and impact my wages short-term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Retired Construction Executive (Chicago, IL)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Such policies can protect local industries.
- Concerns about retaliatory measures affecting overseas markets.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Logistics Coordinator (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There might be supply chain disruptions.
- I expect logistical challenges in the short-term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Urban Planner (Denver, CO)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This might spur innovation with domestic firms.
- There's potential for initial planning challenges.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Tech Specialist in Construction Firm (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Concerned about access to cutting-edge technology from China.
- This could limit the scope of projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Construction Firm Owner (Portland, OR)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could disrupt my business model.
- Potential for greater autonomy and expansion domestically.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $31000000, High: $72000000)
Year 3: $54000000 (Low: $32000000, High: $74000000)
Year 5: $58000000 (Low: $34000000, High: $78000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Verification processes might delay project commencements, leading to economic and operational disruptions.
- The bill could create an uneven playing field for foreign firms not related to China but with similar ownership structures.
- US reliance on international suppliers for critical infrastructure components may lead to bottlenecks.