Bill Overview
Title: Homeland Acceleration of Recovering Deposits and Renewing Onshore Critical Keystones Act of 2022
Description: This bill authorizes the National Defense Stockpile Manager (the Department of Defense) to take certain actions to address industrial base shortfalls.
Sponsors: Rep. Slotkin, Elissa [D-MI-8]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals working in industries involving critical minerals, including mining, processing, and defense contracting.
Estimated Size: 2000000
- The bill affects those involved in the industrial sectors related to critical raw materials, specifically those that are classified as critical minerals.
- It will likely impact companies and workers within mining and related industries by changing availability or regulation of materials.
- Consumers and businesses that rely on products made with those materials may face changes in pricing, supply availability, and security resulting from national stockpiling strategies.
- The population involved in national defense sectors will be impacted due to changes in how the Department of Defense manages stocks of critical minerals.
Reasoning
- The HARD ROCK Act aims to bolster the industrial base through the management of critical mineral stockpiles. This primarily affects sectors dependent on critical minerals such as mining and defense.
- The policy implementation cost is substantial but stays within the proposed budget, targeting industrial sectors and affiliated workforce.
- The impact will vary across the population. Those employed directly in affected sectors might feel the change more acutely than others.
- Since the national economy and employment are interlinked, a change in these sectors can indirectly affect related industries through economic ripple effects.
Simulated Interviews
Mining Engineer (Nevada)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I expect the policy will create more jobs in the mining sector.
- Access to critical mineral resources will likely improve with government support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Research Scientist (California)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy should facilitate research developments and funding opportunities.
- However, regulatory changes could complicate procurement of certain materials.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Defense Contractor (Arizona)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With better stockpile management, supply chain issues could be lessened.
- Long-term benefits include potentially lower material costs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Automotive Industry Analyst (Michigan)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If successful, it could stabilize costs for electric vehicle production.
- It might also attract more investments into sustainable materials.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Small Business Owner (Texas)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I might notice trickle-down effects if material costs change.
- However, I don't expect this policy to directly affect my business.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Electronics Manufacturer (Florida)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the act ensures supply chain stability, it can improve production efficiency.
- However, any mismanagement can increase costs and delays.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Policy Analyst (New York)
Age: 46 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could streamline national security material stockpiling.
- Risk lies in potential misalignment between private and public sector goals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Metal Recycler (Ohio)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Recycling could become more important if extractive resources become scarce.
- Policies can create opportunities for sustainable businesses.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
University Professor (Georgia)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Students could benefit from understanding the policy's real-world implications.
- Government intervention in markets can have mixed results, economically and environmentally.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired Manufacturing Executive (Oregon)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Long-term benefits could strengthen the national economy and job markets.
- I'm concerned about potential bureaucratic inefficiencies that could accompany these policies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $750000000 (Low: $500000000, High: $1000000000)
Year 2: $600000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $800000000)
Year 3: $550000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $750000000)
Year 5: $500000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $700000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The international supply and demand dynamics of critical minerals may affect the cost and availability for stockpiling.
- The geopolitical climate might impact mineral sourcing and strategic relations.
- The coordination with private sector mining and processing operations is crucial for effectiveness.