Bill Overview
Title: United States-Russian Federation Seafood Reciprocity Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits the importation of seafood and seafood products from Russia. The prohibition shall terminate on the date on which the President determines and certifies to Congress that the Russian government has terminated its prohibition on the importation of seafood products from the United States.
Sponsors: Sen. Sullivan, Dan [R-AK]
Target Audience
Population: People reliant on US-Russian seafood trade
Estimated Size: 1000000
- Many countries import seafood from Russia, but the primary focus of this bill is on US imports.
- The global seafood market involves many countries, including those that trade with both the US and Russia.
- The Russian seafood market is significant, with Russia being one of the leading suppliers of seafood globally.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects individuals and businesses directly involved in the import and distribution of Russian seafood. This includes importers, wholesalers, retailers who sell Russian seafood, and consumers dependent on these imports for variety and price.
- The Cantril well-being scale can show differences before and after policy implementation, reflecting impacts on economic stability, job security, and consumer satisfaction.
- A portion of the population may experience a notable impact whereas others, especially those not reliant on Russian seafood, will not see any significant change.
- Given the budget limitation, the financial assistance or economic adjustment programs can only cover a limited number out of the potentially impacted populace.
Simulated Interviews
Seafood Importer (Boston, MA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the political reasons for the policy, but it's going to hurt my business.
- I'll have to find new suppliers which might be more expensive or unreliable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Fishmonger (Seattle, WA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It might be difficult to source some products, but I can adapt by offering alternatives.
- Customers might not like price changes, though.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Consumer (Houston, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried that my favorite crab will become too pricey or unavailable.
- It’s not the end of the world, but it’ll change my buying habits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Seafood Distributor (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I will need to find new suppliers quickly or I risk losing contracts.
- This policy does not consider the logistic complications on the ground.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Restaurant Owner (New York, NY)
Age: 43 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Russian seafood provided a unique flavor that I now have to replace.
- I hope my customers are as excited about the alternatives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Retired Fisherman (Anchorage, AK)
Age: 67 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My life isn't directly affected, but I feel for those in the industry.
- Policies like this can disrupt traditional ways of doing things.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Grocery Store Manager (Miami, FL)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Adapting to supplier changes could boost variety or hurt sales.
- Customers expect constant seafood availability regardless of the source.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Trade Compliance Officer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Strict rules like this mean more work ensuring regulations are followed.
- The political landscape heavily influences our duties.
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 |
Economic Analyst (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm excited to see how market shifts will play out, but cautious of short-term disruptions.
- Such policies create ripple effects that can be studied deeply.
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 |
Seafood Market Consultant (Portland, OR)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad I retired; others will need to pivot rapidly.
- Consultation work might pick up as businesses seek advice.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 3: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 10: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Key Considerations
- The volatility of the global seafood market and reliance on Russian imports by the U.S.
- Potential impacts on U.S. seafood prices and availability for consumers.
- Administrative and enforcement costs for implementing the seafood import prohibition.