Bill Overview
Title: Member SECURE Act
Description: This bill restricts Members of Congress who do not hold a top secret (or higher) security clearance from accessing information classified at the Sensitive Compartmented Information level. The bill also requires the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate and the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives to implement information systems that enable Members of Congress and staff with appropriate security clearances to securely access classified information.
Sponsors: Rep. Phillips, Dean [D-MN-3]
Target Audience
Population: Members of Congress and related Security Staff
Estimated Size: 545
- There are 535 members in the US Congress, comprising 100 senators and 435 representatives.
- Each Member of Congress currently has access to various levels of classified information, depending on their role and committee assignments.
- The legislation would apply to all members of Congress who do not currently hold a top secret or higher security clearance. It is possible that a significant number of them do not hold this level of clearance.
- The bill mandates systematic changes which will affect both current members and future members of Congress, requiring screening and clearances.
- Senate and House Sergeants at Arms along with associated staff will be responsible for implementation of new systems.
Reasoning
- The policy specifically applies to 535 members of Congress and related security personnel, a small and targeted population.
- The budget constraints of $50 million in the first year mean significant investment per person, indicating deep background checks and secure IT infrastructure costs.
- Only a subset of Congress members currently falling short of the security clearance requirements would see a direct impact.
- For most Americans, this policy may not impact daily life directly but affects their trust and transparency in governance.
- Perceptions of trust in government can influence the well-being scores, although directly impacted individuals are few.
Simulated Interviews
Congressional staffer (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a congressional staffer, my role in facilitating briefings is critical, and having a member without the right clearance can be challenging.
- I believe this policy will streamline access to necessary information and improve our efficiency.
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 | 8 | 6 |
Citizen, former military officer (Montana)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe in strong national security measures but also the importance of checks and balances.
- This policy seems like common sense but how it’s implemented and how transparent the process is will matter to me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Retired lobbyist (Albany, New York)
Age: 72 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- From my experience, ensuring that all members are adequately cleared will prevent mishaps, but it shouldn't obstruct their duties.
- I'm interested in how this is implemented.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Local government worker (California)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While this doesn't impact me directly, I'm always concerned about taxpayer money being spent wisely.
- I'll be watching for accountability and the tangible benefits of this policy.
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 | 7 | 7 |
Senator (Texas)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I already hold a top secret clearance, so this doesn't change much for me personally.
- However, I advocate for clarity and security in communication among members and staff.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Congresswoman (Georgia)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is critical for me as it affects how effectively I can perform my duties.
- Getting the clearance could enhance my ability to contribute to key decisions.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Political analyst (Ohio)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this as a necessary step towards better governance.
- It will be constructive if it leads to more informed decision-making without delays.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Graduate student in political science (Florida)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As someone studying the field, I find this policy a case study for balancing security and governance.
- Students and academics will be watching how it’s executed.
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 |
Journalist (Kentucky)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring that all members have the requisite clearance is crucial for informed reporting.
- Public access to governmental actions remains my top priority—this policy should not serve as an unnecessary barrier.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
IT Specialist (Illinois)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved security protocols like this policy should streamline processes.
- However, I worry about the balance between security and efficiency.
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 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 3: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $10000000)
Year 10: $2000000 (Low: $500000, High: $5000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring secure systems are in place without disrupting access to necessary information for Congress members.
- Monitoring and updating security clearance processes regularly to ensure compliance and proper access for all members.
- Evaluating initial infrastructure investment versus long-term administrative costs and the efficiency of maintaining new systems.