Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/3962

Bill Overview

Title: Quad Critical Minerals Partnership Act

Description: This bill requires the President to establish a comprehensive strategy to address the national security threat posed by China's dominant share of the global critical minerals market by developing a more reliable and secure supply chain of critical minerals. The bill also requires the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation to prioritize projects that will support the strategy, including projects that will facilitate cooperation with other countries in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue on investments related to critical minerals. (The dialogue is a coalition comprised of the United States, Japan, India, and Australia.) The U.S. Trade Representative must initiate multilateral discussions with other countries in the dialogue to support the strategy and facilitate cooperation on investments related to critical minerals.

Sponsors: Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK]

Target Audience

Population: People reliant on critical minerals industries and economies

Estimated Size: 300000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Electronics Engineer (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 34 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I hope this policy will stabilize our supply chain issues.
  • With a more reliable supply of minerals, our production can run more smoothly, reducing layoffs.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 8 5
Year 3 8 5
Year 5 9 4
Year 10 9 5
Year 20 8 4

Automobile Manufacturing Worker (Detroit, MI)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm relieved that there might be more job security with this new supply chain strategy.
  • Hopefully, we won't face layoffs like last year.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Oil and Gas Industry Consultant (Houston, TX)

Age: 52 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy might shift some focus onto critical minerals instead of oil but raises interesting possibilities for diverse energy conversations.
  • I see potential for collaboration in the energy sector concerning renewable resources.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Software Developer (New York, NY)

Age: 29 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could help reduce costs for essential components which we rely on heavily.
  • Improving mineral supply chains would alleviate some of our budget pressures.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Renewable Energy Analyst (Boston, MA)

Age: 39 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This could be pivotal for the solar industry and secure more projects here.
  • By stabilizing supply chains, solar technology can grow more sustainably.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 9 5
Year 5 9 5
Year 10 10 5
Year 20 9 4

University Professor (Raleigh, NC)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I am interested in the geopolitical shifts this policy might cause.
  • It will be important for my classes as a case study in international economic policy.

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 8
Year 20 9 8

Environmental Scientist (Seattle, WA)

Age: 26 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I worry about the environmental impact of increased mining efforts.
  • Innovation in mining methods is necessary to balance policy goals with environmental health.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Logistics Coordinator (Omaha, NE)

Age: 57 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could stabilize long-term logistics operations.
  • Reducing dependency on uncertain sources will be good for business.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 8 5
Year 5 9 5
Year 10 9 4
Year 20 8 4

Policy Analyst (Phoenix, AZ)

Age: 41 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It's a strong policy from a strategic point of view.
  • The cooperation between international allies could shift market dynamics favorably for the U.S.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

College Student (Chicago, IL)

Age: 22 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 4.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm curious to see how this policy affects international relations.
  • It might provide new case studies for my research papers.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $600000000 (Low: $500000000, High: $700000000)

Year 2: $550000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $650000000)

Year 3: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)

Year 5: $450000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $550000000)

Year 10: $300000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $400000000)

Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $150000000)

Key Considerations