Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/8610

Bill Overview

Title: Health Security and Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Act

Description: This bill makes changes to the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction (CWMD) office of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and provides statutory authority for and expands DHS's Office of Health Security (OHS). Specifically, the bill establishes the new OHS to advise DHS on medical, public health, and workforce safety matters; sets forth the responsibilities of the Chief Medical Officer and a Privacy Officer in OHS; repeals the terminating date for the CWMD office and sets forth the responsibilities of that office, including efforts to counter chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats, as well as other emerging terrorism threats; requires DHS to report to Congress regarding the Securing the Cities program (which seeks to reduce the risk of a successful deployment of radiological or nuclear weapons against major metropolitan areas in the United States); establishes a CWMD Advisory Council; and requires a biodefense review and issuance of a DHS biodefense strategy. The Government Accountability Office must report to Congress on efforts of the CWMD office to prioritize its programs and activities to safeguard against CBRN threats and on other activities of that office.

Sponsors: Rep. Demings, Val Butler [D-FL-10]

Target Audience

Population: Global population

Estimated Size: 335000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

DHS Employee (Washington, D.C.)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 1/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I think this policy is crucial for adapting our operations to new threats.
  • It's reassuring to see a continued emphasis on urban safety and CBRN preparedness.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Emergency Preparedness Coordinator (New York City, NY)

Age: 32 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It's great that there will be more resources for securing cities like ours.
  • Feeling safer due to increased CBRN threat mitigation directly impacts my work.

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 5
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 8 4

University Professor (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 55 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • These measures seem necessary but are far-removed from my everyday concerns.
  • Policies like this should enhance our safety timeframe, making big cities feel more secure.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Public Health Worker (Chicago, IL)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The biodefense strategy is overdue and adds comfort to our work responsibilities.
  • I hope the resources get allocated efficiently.

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 9 5
Year 20 9 5

Software Engineer (Houston, TX)

Age: 42 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I don't see how this will directly affect my life or wellbeing.
  • While important, I doubt the policy will change daily routines for people like me.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Public Safety Official (Atlanta, GA)

Age: 38 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The expanded authority in DHS is hopeful for improving our response capabilities.
  • It should bolster public trust in safety measures.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Government Policy Analyst (Seattle, WA)

Age: 58 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Such policies enhance our strategic capabilities, making our responses more robust.
  • I see potential benefits for major urban centers.

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 8 5
Year 20 8 5

College Student (Denver, CO)

Age: 21 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 1.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm not really sure how this affects a student like me directly.
  • I assume having better national safety policies is a good thing overall.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Nurse (Boston, MA)

Age: 47 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 4.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • There's always concern about bioterrorism, so better defense strategies are a relief.
  • Hopefully, it's something we never need to worry about.

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 8 6
Year 20 8 5

Retired Military (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 60 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 6.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Policies shifting towards greater urban safety are always welcome from a personal security standpoint.
  • Maintains the peace of mind I value.

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 8 7
Year 20 8 6

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $800000000 (Low: $700000000, High: $1000000000)

Year 2: $820000000 (Low: $710000000, High: $1030000000)

Year 3: $840000000 (Low: $720000000, High: $1060000000)

Year 5: $880000000 (Low: $740000000, High: $1120000000)

Year 10: $960000000 (Low: $780000000, High: $1220000000)

Year 100: $1700000000 (Low: $1400000000, High: $2000000000)

Key Considerations