Bill Overview
Title: States Helping Apprehend Rogue Exports Act
Description: This bill requires states to enter into a data sharing agreement, upon request, with the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation to provide identifying information regarding any motor vehicle registered in such states in order to be eligible for grants under the Port Infrastructure Development Program, Port Security Grant Program, and the Airport Improvement Program.
Sponsors: Rep. Malliotakis, Nicole [R-NY-11]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals whose vehicle registration data may be shared
Estimated Size: 276000000
- This bill concerns the sharing of vehicle registration data by states with federal departments like the Department of Homeland Security and Transportation.
- The primary stakeholders include state governments and federal agencies involved in homeland security and transportation.
- Secondary stakeholders are U.S. citizens who own registered motor vehicles, as their data may be shared due to this bill. The privacy and handling of personal vehicle registration data could impact them.
- The legislation also affects state participation in federal grant programs, which could impact state budgets and funding for port and airport infrastructure, indirectly affecting residents relying on these services.
Reasoning
- The bill primarily impacts motor vehicle owners due to the potential sharing of their vehicle registration data.
- The main concern for individuals would be privacy implications and potential misuse of their data. However, there might also be indirect benefits from improved state infrastructure funded by federal grants.
- The federal budget constraints limit the immediate financial impacts but could incentivize state participation, thus indirectly impacting nearly every registered vehicle owner.
- The population impacted includes a broad demographic, spanning across different states and varying levels of concern regarding data privacy.
- Infrastructure improvements due to the policy could positively impact residents over the long term through enhanced transportation systems.
Simulated Interviews
software engineer (California)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about my vehicle data privacy with this bill.
- I understand the need for infrastructure grants but would like more transparency on data usage.
- The policy might improve roads and public transportation, which is a plus.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
truck driver (Texas)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm all for better roads and ports, but I worry about what happens with my data.
- The states getting more money could mean better highways which is good for my job.
- Overall, I'm cautious but hopeful.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
small business owner (New York)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a business owner, better infrastructure helps delivery times.
- I'm concerned about the privacy aspects and need clarity on data protection.
- If the outcome increases efficiency in delivery routes, it's a plus for my business.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
student (Florida)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Privacy is a big deal for me, but I also think the benefits could outweigh the risks.
- If it means better buses and roads, I can see the positive side.
- I'm curious about how data will be safeguarded.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
retired (Michigan)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Data privacy concerns me, although I'm less exposed now I'm retired.
- I'd like to see more state funding for rural areas.
- Overall, I hope the policy helps improve infrastructure where I live.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
nurse (Illinois)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better infrastructure means safer roads which is great for commuting to the hospital.
- I hope the data my state provides is well protected.
- I'm optimistic if this leads to more funding for public health programs too.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
teacher (Ohio)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Data-sharing worries me because of potential privacy intrusions.
- State grants could lead to better infrastructure which would be excellent.
- I would prefer stronger data protection policies with this initiative.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
social media manager (North Carolina)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about how my data is used, but environmental impacts matter a lot to me.
- If this policy funds greener public transport options, that's a win.
- I wish we had more guarantees on data privacy though.
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 | 10 | 9 |
part-time consultant (Arizona)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As long as my data is safe, better state roads are a good trade.
- I think older adults like me could benefit from improved infrastructure.
- I'd like close monitoring of data sharing practices.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
freelance writer (Georgia)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm skeptical about federal interference with my state's data.
- Infrastructure improvement is definitely helpful, but not if it compromises my privacy.
- Policy implementation should strictly regulate data handlers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 3: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 10: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Key Considerations
- States must be willing to collaborate and share data, facing potential opposition related to privacy concerns.
- Potential logistical issues in integrating state systems with federal data systems may impact the cost and timeline.
- The overall economic impact largely depends on the effectiveness of the DHS and DOT in utilizing shared data to improve security and operational efficiency at ports and airports.