Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/9512

Bill Overview

Title: National Development Strategy and Coordination Act of 2022

Description: This bill establishes the Interagency Committee for the Coordination of National Development Financing Programs within the Executive Office of the President. The committee must develop a national strategy to (1) address vulnerabilities in the domestic supply chains of critical industries, (2) strengthen U.S. industrial and manufacturing capabilities, and (3) support targeted job growth and economic development. The bill authorizes the Federal Financing Bank to provide financing assistance to carry out certain directives made by the committee.

Sponsors: Rep. Khanna, Ro [D-CA-17]

Target Audience

Population: People employed or seeking employment in US industrial and manufacturing sectors

Estimated Size: 5000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Factory Worker (Detroit, MI)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy seems promising for the manufacturing sector. If it brings more stability or growth to the factory where I work, it could secure my job.
  • I'm hopeful for better job security and maybe even a pay raise.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 4
Year 2 6 4
Year 3 7 4
Year 5 7 3
Year 10 8 3
Year 20 8 2

Supply Chain Analyst (Houston, TX)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This bill could mean more permanent jobs in my field.
  • I'm optimistic about career growth opportunities.

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 5
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 7 4

Retired Steel Worker (Pittsburgh, PA)

Age: 58 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It's nice to see a push for manufacturing jobs. Maybe it helps my younger relatives.
  • I'm retired, so direct impact is minimal, but a better economy helps everyone.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Tech Startup Founder (San Jose, CA)

Age: 34 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The focus on supply chains aligns with my company’s vision. This policy could attract more investors.
  • I'm cautiously optimistic; the right funding could accelerate growth.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 8 6

Unemployed (Rural Kentucky)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 3

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • If this policy brings jobs back to my area, it could be life-changing.
  • It's hard to be hopeful, but I want to believe things can get better.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 3
Year 2 5 3
Year 3 6 3
Year 5 7 2
Year 10 8 2
Year 20 8 1

Logistics Manager (Chicago, IL)

Age: 40 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 18/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Improved supply chains should help my industry significantly.
  • I hope this policy also considers the human side of things, given automation trends.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 7 4

Community Organizer (Baltimore, MD)

Age: 62 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The funding might help job training initiatives in struggling areas.
  • It could empower local communities economically, which is crucial.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 7 5
Year 10 8 4
Year 20 8 3

Unemployed Recent Graduate (Phoenix, AZ)

Age: 25 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm desperate for work, and this policy gives me some hope.
  • If jobs open up, I can start planning my future again.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 4
Year 2 6 4
Year 3 6 4
Year 5 7 4
Year 10 8 3
Year 20 7 2

Eco-friendly Manufacturer (Seattle, WA)

Age: 38 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Concerned about environmental impact; I hope sustainability is considered.
  • The potential for growth in manufacturing might be a double-edged sword for small eco-friendly businesses.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

High School Teacher (Buffalo, NY)

Age: 47 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Educating students about such policies is important.
  • I'm curious about the real long-term effects on our local industries.

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 5
Year 10 5 5
Year 20 5 4

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)

Year 2: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)

Year 3: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)

Year 5: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)

Year 10: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)

Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Key Considerations