Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/8782

Bill Overview

Title: Protecting Our Homeland from Chinese Espionage Act

Description: This bill requires Department of Homeland Security (DHS) contractors to disclose relevant commercial ties with covered Chinese entities. DHS must terminate a contract with a contractor if, based on a disclosure required by this bill, DHS determines that continuation of the contract violates federal law or is not in the public's interest. The bill defines covered entity to include the Chinese government, the Chinese Communist Party, the Chinese military, and entities that have certain connections to China.

Sponsors: Rep. Harshbarger, Diana [R-TN-1]

Target Audience

Population: DHS Contractors with Chinese Commercial Ties

Estimated Size: 100000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Project Manager at a defense contractor (Virginia)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm concerned about job security if contracts are terminated.
  • I believe in national security but hope the policy considers the economic impact on employees.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 8
Year 2 5 8
Year 3 5 8
Year 5 5 8
Year 10 6 8
Year 20 7 8

Owner of a tech startup (California)

Age: 34 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy doesn't directly impact me, but it could level the playing field against companies with unfair advantages.

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 8 8
Year 20 8 8

Software Engineer (Texas)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I think our company might see some restructuring, but I'm hopeful my team won't be affected directly.
  • National security is important, but so is job stability.

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 8 8

Supply Chain Analyst (New York)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm nervous about how our company's contracts with DHS might be affected.
  • This policy might necessitate finding new business partners.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 5
Year 2 4 6
Year 3 5 6
Year 5 5 7
Year 10 6 7
Year 20 7 7

Consultant (Maryland)

Age: 37 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Some of my clients are worried, which means I have to be adaptable to changing needs.
  • This might actually increase demand for consultancy services like mine.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 7 8
Year 20 8 8

Government Contractor (Washington)

Age: 42 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I feel confident this won't impact us since we don't have ties with covered entities.
  • It's a good move for national security.

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 8 8
Year 10 8 8
Year 20 9 9

DHS Policy Analyst (Massachusetts)

Age: 30 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy is necessary in strengthening our national security.
  • It's my job to ensure the smooth implementation of such policies.

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

HR Manager at a mid-sized contracting firm (Michigan)

Age: 53 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Potential restructuring worries me especially for how it impacts employee morale.
  • We must balance compliance with keeping our workforce steady.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 6
Year 2 4 6
Year 3 4 6
Year 5 5 6
Year 10 6 7
Year 20 7 7

Owner of a small IT firm (Florida)

Age: 48 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 9

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 13/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I see this policy as a safeguard, our firm is unaffected directly.
  • There's an opportunity to gain clients who need secure US-only solutions.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 9 9
Year 2 9 9
Year 3 9 9
Year 5 9 9
Year 10 9 9
Year 20 9 9

Junior Analyst (Illinois)

Age: 26 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 1.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I hope this won't negatively affect job growth in our industry.
  • It's good to be cautious but also support small businesses.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 8
Year 5 8 8
Year 10 8 9
Year 20 9 9

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)

Year 2: $180000000 (Low: $140000000, High: $230000000)

Year 3: $160000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $210000000)

Year 5: $150000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $200000000)

Year 10: $130000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $170000000)

Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)

Key Considerations