Bill Overview
Title: A bill to establish the CCP Initiative program, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill reestablishes an initiative related to China within the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and outlines the goals and requirements for this initiative. In 2022, DOJ ended a program named the China Initiative. This bill reestablishes and renames it the CCP Initiative to (1) counter nation-state threats to the United States; (2) curb spying by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) on U.S. intellectual property and academic institutions; (3) identify and prosecute individuals engaged in trade secret theft, hacking, and economic espionage; and (4) protect U.S. critical infrastructure from foreign threats. DOJ must annually brief specified congressional committees on the progress and challenges of the initiative. The initiative terminates six years after enactment of this bill.
Sponsors: Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals connected to U.S.-China academic and intellectual properties, including Chinese nationals and U.S. citizens working in sensitive areas
Estimated Size: 500000
- The bill targets initiatives that focus on countering threats from the Chinese Communist Party, which suggests its direct impact on those involved in related espionage or intellectual property theft activities globally.
- Academic institutions in the United States are a direct focus as they may have partnerships or researchers with links to China, thus they will feel the impact of the initiative.
- Businesses and industries that hold critical infrastructure and intellectual property in the U.S. will be impacted by the protection and legal actions initiated to guard against espionage and theft.
- Researchers and academics, particularly those of Chinese nationality or working with Chinese entities, will likely experience increased scrutiny and potential legal implications.
- The broader U.S. population is indirectly impacted as the initiative aims to protect U.S. national security, which is of general interest to all citizens.
Reasoning
- The bill specifically focuses on identifying and reducing espionage and intellectual property theft related to China, which directly affects individuals who are part of academic institutions, businesses with critical infrastructure, or are Chinese nationals involved in research in the U.S.
- Our interviews will span a range of individuals with different connections to this policy, from those directly affected, such as Chinese nationals involved in sensitive research, to U.S. citizens working in critical infrastructure industries.
- Not all individuals in the U.S. are directly impacted by this policy; therefore, the simulated interviews include some individuals with minimal to no impact, representing the broader population.
- Cost and program size limits indicate that although the policy has a substantial budget, its direct influence is more targeted, affecting specific populations rather than all U.S. citizens.
- The Cantril Wellbeing Scale will provide a numerical understanding of how individuals perceive their overall future wellbeing under the two scenarios: with and without the policy.
Simulated Interviews
Software Developer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm a little worried about increased scrutiny on my Chinese colleagues—they're vital to our project.
- Security is a priority, but so is maintaining a collaborative work environment with global talent.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Cybersecurity Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This initiative is crucial to protect our national infrastructure from foreign threats.
- It might mean more work, but it’s necessary.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Research Scientist (New York, NY)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I fear this will create hurdles in my research due to increased scrutiny.
- Might face complications with visas or funding.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
CEO of a Biotech Firm (Houston, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This initiative could help protect our IP, but it could also lead to complications with international partners.
- Staying compliant will require more resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Graduate Student (Boston, MA)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this will protect academic integrity, but I worry it will discourage international collaboration.
- I'm concerned about increased tension.
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 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
University Dean (Chicago, IL)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy could create tighter controls which might impact our international programs.
- Administration and compliance might become more cumbersome.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Intellectual Property Lawyer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is beneficial for our clients who face risks from international IP theft.
- It might increase our workload significantly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Data Analyst (Seattle, WA)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our company has always prioritized security; however, this policy could require more stringent measures.
- Might lead to increased job stability but also more stress.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Academic researcher (Austin, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This initiative could disrupt collaborative work with foreign universities, which is crucial for my research.
- There's a risk of academic isolation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Journalist (Miami, FL)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is important for cybersecurity, but transparency in its implementation will be key.
- It's essential that civil liberties are protected despite heightened 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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Year 2: $155000000 (Low: $125000000, High: $185000000)
Year 3: $160000000 (Low: $128000000, High: $192000000)
Year 5: $170000000 (Low: $136000000, High: $204000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The longevity of the initiative is limited to six years, requiring an assessment of its impact before possible renewal.
- Increased scrutiny and legal implications for Chinese nationals and U.S. researchers may raise legal and ethical considerations.
- Resource allocation and representation within the DOJ should ensure effective execution of the initiative without detracting from other necessary activities.