Bill Overview
Title: Black Sea Security Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the National Security Council to coordinate with specified federal agencies to provide an interagency report to Congress on U.S. efforts and policy options towards the Black Sea countries (i.e., Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria, Moldova, Ukraine, and Georgia) and matters in the region, such as NATO engagement and Russia's aggression. Based on the report's findings, the council shall direct an interagency strategy for the region to (1) increase military assistance and coordination with NATO and the European Union, (2) deepen economic ties, and (3) strengthen the security and democratic resilience of Black Sea countries.
Sponsors: Rep. Keating, William R. [D-MA-9]
Target Audience
Population: People living in Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria, Moldova, Ukraine, and Georgia
Estimated Size: 10000
- The Black Sea Security Act of 2022 focuses on countries surrounding the Black Sea, specifically Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria, Moldova, Ukraine, and Georgia.
- The bill is likely to impact people living in these countries because it aims to increase U.S. military assistance, enhance economic ties, and strengthen security and democratic resilience.
- The population living in the Black Sea countries directly will be affected as the U.S. policy could lead to increased military presence and economic investment.
- Indirect impacts could be felt globally due to changes in international relations, especially between NATO, the United States, and Russia.
Reasoning
- The Black Sea Security Act of 2022 directly affects countries in the Black Sea region, but its domestic impact in the U.S. is limited.
- Primary U.S. beneficiaries could include defense contractors, military personnel, and their families.
- Indirect effects might include economic benefits from defense contracts and geopolitical stability, but these are speculative and dispersed.
- Given the budget, U.S. taxpayers may want to understand the long-term strategic benefits of foreign policy expenditure.
- It's important to capture a cross-section of those directly and indirectly affected, including military and diplomatic personnel, defense industry workers, and general civilians with opinions on government spending.
Simulated Interviews
Military Officer (Arlington, Virginia)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see the Act as an important strategic move.
- It indirectly affects my daily work with increased collaboration and planning with Black Sea countries.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Defense Contractor (San Diego, California)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The Act could increase our contracts, fostering job security.
- Defense spending is controversial but necessary sometimes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Diplomat (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 46 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The Act could improve international relations and stability.
- It's crucial for security, but challenging on the diplomatic front.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Software Engineer (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Not directly affected, but concerned about global security.
- Cyber threats could increase tensions.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Retired (Atlanta, Georgia)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe strong foreign policy is essential, but costs concern me.
- Hope this doesn't lead to new conflicts.
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 | 5 | 5 |
University Professor (Austin, Texas)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy implications are academically significant.
- Potential for research and educational discussions.
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 |
Journalist (New York City, New York)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could be a big story in international politics.
- Concerned about the implications of increased military focus.
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 |
Small Business Owner (Houston, Texas)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Indirect effects on the economy are hard to predict.
- Don't see an immediate impact on my business.
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 |
Educator (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 54 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Spending on foreign policy should be carefully scrutinized.
- Education and domestic issues are also important.
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 |
College Student (San Francisco, California)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Curious about how this affects international relations.
- Direct impact seems limited at my level.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 2: $750000000 (Low: $550000000, High: $900000000)
Year 3: $1000000000 (Low: $700000000, High: $1200000000)
Year 5: $1200000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1500000000)
Year 10: $800000000 (Low: $600000000, High: $1000000000)
Year 100: $500000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $800000000)
Key Considerations
- Heavy focus on security might limit funds for domestic programs in the U.S.
- The policy strengthens strategic alliances, which can contribute to global stability but require long-term commitment.