Bill Overview
Title: HENRY Act
Description: This bill directs certain actions to allow federal officers and employees to bring dogs into the United States from countries that are considered high-risk for rabies. Among other provisions, the bill directs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to allow federal officers and employees who are stationed abroad, including members of the military, to bring up to three dogs into the United States per entry; the CDC may allow for more dogs through specialized waivers.
Sponsors: Rep. Phillips, Dean [D-MN-3]
Target Audience
Population: Federal officers and employees, including military personnel, stationed in high-risk rabies countries
Estimated Size: 220000
- The bill specifically targets federal officers and employees stationed abroad and allows them to bring dogs into the United States.
- It mentions that this includes members of the military, suggesting that military personnel stationed overseas are a primary group of interest.
- Specialized waivers could imply broader or future inclusion of other government personnel or even diplomats.
- High-risk rabies countries are specific geographic areas, indicating a distinct population of federal personnel geographically.
- There are about 1.3 million active-duty military members globally, but the number stationed abroad is less (approximately 200,000 at any given time), not all in high-risk rabies countries.
Reasoning
- The target population is mainly federal employees and military personnel stationed in countries at high risk for rabies. This population is relatively small compared to the general U.S. population.
- The budget constraints for the policy suggest the need for careful targeting to those most affected, which includes but is not limited to personnel in rabies high-risk areas.
- Wellbeing improvement from the policy may be significant for those directly affected due to ease of pet relocation, reducing stress and improving morale among personnel stationed abroad.
- Some U.S. citizens, such as family members or those working in relevant NGOs in the U.S., could have indirect benefits by being relieved of stress or logistical issues related to receiving relocated pets.
Simulated Interviews
Military Officer (Washington D.C.)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the HENRY Act will make it much easier for me to bring my dogs back home after my posting.
- It reduces my stress of separating from them or dealing with cumbersome regulations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Diplomat (New York)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This helps streamline processes for me as a pet lover and humanitarian.
- I hope waivers are granted for more than 3 dogs per entry, for special cases.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Federal Health Worker (Texas)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I don't have pets yet, I might consider adopting now that it's easier to bring them back.
- This policy adds peace of mind when considering life abroad.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Retired Military (California)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is too late to benefit me directly, but I support it for current servicemen and women.
- Would've reduced hassle for us back then.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
NGO Worker (Florida)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This might indirectly help NGOs like ours coordinate rescue and relocation efforts.
- Would like to see this policy extended to NGO workers.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Military (Hawaii)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's reassuring knowing I could bring more pets back under this policy.
- Even though Japan isn't high-risk, similar bans could happen.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
State Department Employee (Colorado)
Age: 59 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support this, as it simplifies logistics upon returning.
- It would be more beneficial with extended limits on pet numbers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
CDC Officer (Virginia)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Allows for better personal planning in case I am stationed abroad.
- It's supportive of service members' wellbeing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Veterinarian (Illinois)
Age: 46 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While not directly impacting me, this policy could align CDC pet safety procedures better.
- The risk-benefit should balance well with proper management.
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 | 6 | 6 |
Military K9 Unit Trainer (North Carolina)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is crucial for our unit's operations, ensuring safety of dogs post-tour.
- Reduces operational stress related to potential quarantines.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $5500000 (Low: $4500000, High: $7500000)
Year 3: $5900000 (Low: $4700000, High: $8000000)
Year 5: $6200000 (Low: $4900000, High: $8200000)
Year 10: $6700000 (Low: $5000000, High: $8500000)
Year 100: $7000000 (Low: $5200000, High: $8700000)
Key Considerations
- The CDC's capability and resources to handle additional waiver/approval requests effectively.
- Adequate health screenings for dogs being relocated from high-risk rabies areas to prevent health risks.
- Impact on federal employees' and military personnel's ability to bring pets, improving welfare and morale related to international deployments.