Bill Overview
Title: RESILIENCE Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to establish a pilot program to train state, local, tribal, and territorial government officials to carry out security vulnerability or terrorism risk assessments of critical infrastructure. CISA must also maintain one or more clearinghouses for critical infrastructure owners and operators to access security guidance and other relevant information.
Sponsors: Rep. Underwood, Lauren [D-IL-14]
Target Audience
Population: People utilizing or benefiting from improved security infrastructure
Estimated Size: 40000000
- The bill primarily targets government officials at the state, local, tribal, and territorial levels, who will be directly involved in training and implementation of security measures.
- Critical infrastructure owners and operators will also be impacted as they will have access to new resources and guidance to secure their facilities and operations.
- The general population will benefit indirectly by having improved security measures in place to protect against threats and vulnerabilities.
Reasoning
- The policy aims to enhance security measures through training and infrastructure support, impacting government officials tasked with its implementation and indirectly affecting the general population, especially those in critical infrastructure sectors.
- The budget constraints will limit the scope of training and the number of officials involved, potentially creating a prioritized implementation in regions with high critical infrastructure needs.
- Most individuals will see no direct personal score change initially unless they are directly involved in critical infrastructure or live in areas where improvements are quickly realized.
- It is reasonable to anticipate varying impacts from entirely unaffected populations to those seeing new jobs or improved safety, with potential for the local economy to see small boosts from increased government spending on security infrastructure.
Simulated Interviews
City Infrastructure Planner (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems like a good initiative. It will offer us tools and knowledge to prevent threats.
- The funding could help improve the city's defenses, but we need more long-term support.
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 | 7 | 6 |
Data Analyst for Critical Infrastructure (New York City, NY)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act might significantly enhance our data's reach and application in improving urban security.
- If it leads to better integration of data systems, it could make a big difference.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I hope this policy helps us feel safer, the past has shown that such projects often don't directly reach every neighborhood.
- Follow-through and continued assessment will be critical for success.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Farmer (Rural Kentucky)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see any immediate benefits to my daily life, though if our utilities are safer, it's a positive.
- I'd prefer to see more direct support for small communities and their infrastructure instead.
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 |
Cybersecurity Specialist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 24 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is likely to increase demand for our services, which is great for business.
- I'm hopeful it will lead to more collaboration and resource sharing in the industry.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Energy Sector Safety Officer (Houston, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Finally, we have resources focusing on improving our understanding and responses to potential threats.
- It aligns well with our sector's push for improved safety protocols.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Local Government Official (Chicago, IL)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The pilot program could be crucial in enhancing our existing coordination frameworks.
- It's essential that the funds are allocated smartly to ensure long-term viability.
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 | 7 | 7 |
Software Developer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This can catalyze innovation in security technology and integration.
- Additional challenges might arise if the policy's scope or funding changes unexpectedly.
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 | 9 |
Critical Infrastructure Operator (Boston, MA)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act should make it easier to maintain secure and reliable service within our facilities.
- The changes will possibly increase operational efficiency and compliance.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Small Business Owner (Detroit, MI)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm optimistic that this initiative will increase demand for our products, improving business prospects.
- Nevertheless, economic fluctuations always affect how policies trickle down to us.
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: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)
Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)
Year 3: $13000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $16000000)
Year 5: $13000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $16000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Coordination among multiple government levels is crucial for effective implementation of the training and resources provided.
- Adapting to evolving infrastructure threats will require continuous updates to training materials and security protocols.
- Interagency collaboration will determine the clearinghouses' success in offering relevant and timely security guidance.