Bill Overview
Title: Bombing Prevention Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) an Office for Bombing Prevention. The office shall advise DHS on matters related to terrorist explosive threats and attacks in the United States, coordinate DHS efforts to counter such threats and attacks, and take other specified steps, including promoting security awareness. The bill also requires DHS to provide to the public and private sector technical assistance to counter terrorist explosive threats and attacks that pose a risk in certain jurisdictions to critical infrastructure facilities or to special events. The office shall develop a strategy to align the office's activities with the threat environment and stakeholder needs, and to make the public and private sector aware of the office's capabilities. DHS must also ensure coordination and information sharing regarding nonmilitary research, development, testing, and evaluation activities relating to terrorist explosive threats and attacks in the United States.
Sponsors: Rep. Malinowski, Tom [D-NJ-7]
Target Audience
Population: People concerned about terrorist threats and safety at public events globally
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The bill focuses on preventing terrorist explosive threats and attacks, which primarily target urban areas, critical infrastructures, and special events.
- Major cities with dense populations are typically at higher risk for terrorist attacks, hence their populations are more likely to benefit from enhanced protection.
- Critical infrastructure includes airports, power grids, and transportation networks, meaning any individuals relying on these infrastructures would be impacted.
- Special events such as concerts, sports events, and large gatherings are targeted by similar threats, affecting attendees across various demographics.
- While the bill's specific actions take place within the United States, terrorism is a global threat, and the strategies and technologies developed could indirectly impact global security measures.
Reasoning
- The Bombing Prevention Act of 2022 is primarily expected to benefit residents of urban areas, where the risk of terrorist attacks is higher due to dense populations and critical infrastructure.
- The policy's focus on securing critical infrastructure means that people relying heavily on services like transportation will see direct benefits in terms of enhanced security and reduced anxiety.
- Participants in large public events may experience increased security measures, directly impacting their sense of safety and wellbeing during these events.
- Those in rural or less densely populated areas might feel less immediate impact, though the overall national security improvements could indirectly affect their general sense of safety.
- The budget must be judiciously allocated to ensure all high-risk areas receive adequate resources without diminishing the policy's effectiveness in lower-priority regions.
Simulated Interviews
Public Transit Operator (New York City, NY)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel constantly worried about the potential for terrorist attacks, especially on public transit during peak hours.
- Knowing that the government is taking steps to prevent such incidents gives me some reassurance.
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 | 9 | 6 |
Government Employee (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's crucial for the safety of our national events and federal operations that bombing threats are minimized.
- I support measures that provide technical assistance to secure high-profile metropolitan areas.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Event Coordinator (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Every year, security concerns grow at the events I coordinate.
- The policy can aid in planning more secure events, which would definitely improve my peace of mind.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Retired School Teacher (Rural Wyoming)
Age: 72 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel fairly safe in my day-to-day life, but it's good to know the government is prepared for threats in larger cities.
- This kind of policy doesn't affect me much directly, but it might help my grandkids who live in bigger cities.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Security Consultant (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Security at critical infrastructure sites is a major concern, and this policy addresses some of those issues.
- It should help me offer better advice and strategies to my clients.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Freelance Writer (Austin, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I often attend tech conferences in large venues where security can be a concern.
- It's reassuring that more attention is being paid to preventing attacks at such events.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Airport Manager (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Airport security is always under threat, so any policy that helps reduce the threat of bombings is beneficial.
- This act could help improve real-time threat analysis and response at our airport.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Software Developer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I use public transit daily, and the thought of terrorist threats is always at the back of my mind.
- Implementing this policy may help me feel more at ease commuting.
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 | 5 |
Police Officer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Bomb threats at large city events are a constant concern.
- This policy can lead to better preparation and quicker response times.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
University Professor (Boston, MA)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- In my field, we're always discussing potential threats, and bombings are high on that list.
- It feels reassuring that there's a focused effort to mitigate these threats across the country.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1200000000 (Low: $1100000000, High: $1300000000)
Year 2: $1250000000 (Low: $1150000000, High: $1350000000)
Year 3: $1300000000 (Low: $1200000000, High: $1400000000)
Year 5: $1350000000 (Low: $1250000000, High: $1450000000)
Year 10: $1400000000 (Low: $1300000000, High: $1500000000)
Year 100: $1500000000 (Low: $1400000000, High: $1600000000)
Key Considerations
- The effectiveness of the office in achieving its security objectives will heavily influence cost, GDP, and tax revenue estimates.
- Cost estimates may have variations due to potential changes in scope, scale, and unforeseen security developments.
- Security measures from this office could lead to broader international cooperation, sharing costs and knowledge globally though that remains speculative.