Bill Overview
Title: Preventing PLA Acquisition of United States Technology Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits U.S. companies and universities that receive federal assistance and federal agencies from engaging in certain research or technical exchanges with Chinese entities. Specifically, this prohibition applies to research or exchanges involving (1) certain Chinese entities, including universities that receive funding from China's military and Chinese state-owned enterprises; and (2) certain technologies identified by the Chinese Communist Party as priorities for its strategy to mobilize non-military resources and expertise for military application.
Sponsors: Rep. Banks, Jim [R-IN-3]
Target Audience
Population: People working in sectors engaging in research or tech exchanges with Chinese entities
Estimated Size: 5000000
- This bill will impact U.S. companies that engage in research or technical exchanges with Chinese entities because they will need to comply with the restrictions.
- U.S. universities that collaborate with certain Chinese entities will be affected due to the prohibition on research or exchanges involving technologies identified as priorities by the Chinese Communist Party.
- The bill will indirectly impact researchers in the United States who might have partnerships or collaborations with Chinese counterparts.
- The legislation may also influence companies and researchers globally, but the direct legal implications are on those in the U.S.
Reasoning
- U.S. companies focusing on cutting-edge technologies may face restrictions that limit their collaborations and research opportunities, potentially leading to a reduction in growth or technological advancement.
- Universities engaging in extensive international collaborations involving technology may need to restructure their programs, impacting faculty and students involved in related fields.
- Researchers who have partnerships with Chinese entities may lose opportunities for funding or collaboration, indirectly affecting their projects and career trajectories.
- The policy may result in reduced knowledge exchange and innovation if the collaborations were significant in pushing technological frontiers.
- It's likely that only a segment of the five million people in research and development will face significant changes.
- Not all universities or companies engage with the prohibited entities, so the impact may be localized to specific departments or companies.
Simulated Interviews
University Professor (Boston, MA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the security concerns, but the policy limits valuable academic exchange.
- Our department might lose funding previously supplemented by international grants.
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 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Tech company executive (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will complicate our existing projects and might stall some initiatives.
- It may lead to significant financial losses if we can't find alternative partners.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Research Scientist (Austin, TX)
Age: 35 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a setback for global science collaboration.
- We might have to scale down some of our research activities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Graduate Student (New York, NY)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I might have to change my research focus due to the new policy restrictions.
- This could delay my graduation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Policy Advisor (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy provides business opportunities as companies need consultancy for compliance.
- However, it may hinder technological development in some sectors.
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 |
Software Engineer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy canceled our potential collaboration, which is disappointing but understandable.
- We must now focus on domestic partnerships.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
University Administrator (Chicago, IL)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a complex policy that adds to our administrative burden.
- Certain partnerships might have to be revisited, but it's manageable.
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 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired Engineer (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems necessary given international tensions.
- Had I been working, it might have curtailed some of our operations.
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 |
Startup Founder (Miami, FL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy restricts potential investors and collaborators, slowing our growth.
- It's an interesting position given the competing geopolitical interests.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Corporate Lawyer (Houston, TX)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy means more advisory and legal work for me.
- However, it may be disruptive for tech firms relying on international collaboration.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 2: $8000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $12000000)
Year 3: $6000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $9000000)
Year 5: $4000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $6000000)
Year 10: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $3000000)
Year 100: $500000 (Low: $250000, High: $750000)
Key Considerations
- Legal and compliance costs for universities and businesses to align with new prohibitions.
- Potential economic impact on innovation due to restricted academic and technological exchanges.
- National security benefits from controlling critical technology transfers.
- Indirect effects on U.S. leadership in global technology development.