Bill Overview
Title: Preventing PLA Acquisition of United States Technology Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits U.S. companies and universities that receive federal assistance and federal agencies from engaging in certain research or technical exchanges with Chinese entities. Specifically, this prohibition applies to research or exchanges involving (1) certain Chinese entities, including universities that receive funding from China's military and Chinese state-owned enterprises; and (2) certain technologies identified by the Chinese Communist Party as priorities for its strategy to mobilize non-military resources and expertise for military application.
Sponsors: Sen. Rubio, Marco [R-FL]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals involved in U.S.-China research and technical exchanges
Estimated Size: 750000
- The bill specifically targets U.S. companies and universities that receive federal assistance, impacting their research collaborations and exchanges.
- These prohibitions affect research or technical exchanges with certain Chinese entities, which implies a reduction in international collaboration with these entities for the U.S. entities involved.
- University researchers, faculty, and students involved in such exchanges or research programs may see changes in their work or study opportunities.
- The bill also impacts federal agencies by restricting their technical exchanges with Chinese entities, potentially affecting their operations and collaborations.
- Chinese organizations and individuals involved in these exchanges with U.S. entities will also be impacted as they lose access to potential collaborations and technological exchanges.
Reasoning
- The policy will primarily impact individuals involved in research and technical exchanges between the U.S. and China, focusing on specific technologies that could have military applications.
- University researchers and faculty might see a change in funding or collaboration opportunities, possibly affecting their research output and career advancement.
- Students and young researchers in fields related to the targeted technologies might face limitations in international exposure and job opportunities.
- U.S. companies that rely on certain technologies might experience setbacks in innovation or face difficulties in accessing certain markets.
- Federal agencies may have to restructure or limit certain collaborative initiatives.
- The policy budget is limited compared to the broad reach of affected individuals which suggests a need to prioritize segments of the population for direct impact estimation.
Simulated Interviews
University Researcher (California)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am concerned about losing valuable research partnerships that help advance my work in materials science.
- Collaboration on an international scale is crucial for solving complex scientific problems.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
PhD Student (Massachusetts)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This may limit my research opportunities and delay my degree completion.
- I am worried about the lack of exposure to diverse perspectives and methodologies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
Federal Agency Employee (Texas)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will make our work more challenging as we lose access to critical technical insights.
- Collaborations in technology assessments are key to staying informed about global advancements.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Software Developer (New York)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The restrictions might slow down our innovation cycle.
- It could deter talent from seeking roles in affected fields.
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 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
University Dean (Illinois)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy challenges our capacity to maintain key strategic partnerships.
- We need to diversify our international collaborations.
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 | 7 | 8 |
Research Scientist (Michigan)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy interrupts ongoing projects and complicates future planning.
- Our reliance on diverse inputs is crucial for effective outcomes.
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 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Cybersecurity Analyst (Florida)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might restrict the exchange of key cybersecurity insights.
- Global collaboration is essential for robust cybersecurity.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Policy Analyst (Washington)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could reduce our competitive advantage by limiting knowledge exchange.
- Balancing security and collaboration is key.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Entrepreneur (Ohio)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy limits our access to potential partners and markets.
- Innovative growth requires open channels of collaboration.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Educational Exchange Coordinator (Colorado)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Losing these exchanges means fewer opportunities for cultural understanding and educational growth.
- Finding alternative partnerships will take significant time and resources.
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 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $25500000 (Low: $20500000, High: $30500000)
Year 3: $26000000 (Low: $21000000, High: $31000000)
Year 5: $27000000 (Low: $22000000, High: $32000000)
Year 10: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $35000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill will require close monitoring and enforcement, adding to administrative costs for government agencies.
- Supporting alternative research collaborations and exchanges may be necessary to offset the loss of banned collaborations, which could add to federal research funding requirements.
- There will be implications for U.S. universities and companies that have collaborated with prohibited Chinese entities, affecting their research outputs and potentially requiring reallocation of human and financial resources.
- In the long run, the policy can affect the openness of U.S. research environments, potentially impacting innovation and competitiveness.