Bill Overview
Title: Border Construction Materials Transfer Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the federal government to transfer, without reimbursement, materials purchased for the construction of roadways or barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border and located in the states of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, or California to the governments of those states.
Sponsors: Rep. Baird, James R. [R-IN-4]
Target Audience
Population: Residents of U.S.-Mexico border states impacted by construction materials transfer
Estimated Size: 45000000
- The bill involves the transfer of construction materials which indicates an impact on infrastructure projects along the U.S.-Mexico border.
- Residents of states on the U.S.-Mexico border (Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California) may experience changes in infrastructure projects either directly or indirectly.
- State governments in these four states will have a direct role in deciding the use of transferred materials, thus impacting state-level project planning and budgets.
- Potential labor market impacts, where construction and infrastructure projects could provide employment opportunities.
- The bill may indirectly affect border security and immigration control measures and thus have broader implications for communities involved in cross-border activities.
Reasoning
- The population size affected by the policy is large, as it targets residents of border states. However, the budget limitations suggest that the policy will have selective impacts, likely in specific communities with infrastructure plans aligning with the materials provided.
- The policy does not involve significant monetary exchanges but could relieve monetary burdens from state governments, potentially redirecting state funds to other community projects.
- Most immediate impacts are likely on state and local governments deciding on infrastructure projects, with minimal direct effects on individuals unless they are part of the construction workforce or live close to upcoming projects.
- Considering these factors, individuals in construction, local government, or those whose communities are directly involved in related infrastructure projects are more likely to perceive significant long-term wellbeing gains or losses.
- Some residents might hold opinions on border control that influence their perception of the wellbeing impacts despite direct or indirect effects.
Simulated Interviews
Construction Worker (Tucson, Arizona)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful that the policy will create more construction jobs in Arizona. With the materials being transferred, there might be new projects starting, and I could find more consistent work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
State Government Employee (San Diego, California)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could ease our department's budget constraints, allowing us to focus on essential housing projects rather than constantly scrambling for funds.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Border Patrol Agent (Las Cruces, New Mexico)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm cautious about the policy. If materials are misused, it could impact border security, but if used for proper infrastructure, it might enhance our patrol routes and facilities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
School Teacher (El Paso, Texas)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the materials are used for community projects like roads or schools, it would have a positive impact on the kids I teach. However, if it's all for roads, we won't see much of a difference.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see potential for the state to use these materials efficiently, benefiting from more robust infrastructure without incurring added costs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Business Owner (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any infrastructure improvements that streamline transportation could directly benefit my logistics operations, reducing costs and delays.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
University Student (Santa Fe, New Mexico)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about the environmental impacts of such large infrastructure projects. My hope is that the materials are used sustainably.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Contractor (Houston, Texas)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A policy like this could mean more state-funded projects, which translates to more work for my company.
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 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Community Organizer (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned that local communities might not get to decide how the materials are used, despite having potential benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Retired teacher (San Antonio, Texas)
Age: 68 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful the state will use these materials in a way that benefits local communities, but I'm cautious about possible misuse or political maneuvering.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Year 2: $100000 (Low: $50000, High: $150000)
Year 3: $100000 (Low: $50000, High: $150000)
Year 5: $50000 (Low: $25000, High: $75000)
Year 10: $10000 (Low: $5000, High: $15000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The cost is mainly due to administrative efforts to organize and execute the transfer of materials.
- There might be negligible ongoing costs for tracking and reporting.
- States' ability to effectively use the materials is crucial to realizing any indirect benefits.
- The policy does not generate revenue directly but could allow states to obtain materials without cost, potentially freeing up state resources.