Bill Overview
Title: A bill to prohibit the use by the Department of Veterans Affairs of funds to provide emergency assistance at the southern border of the United States resulting from the repeal of certain public health orders, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill prohibits the Department of Veterans Affairs from obligating or expending any amounts to provide emergency assistance in response to an emergency at the southern border directly resulting from the repeal of certain public health orders from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Specifically, the bill prohibits such emergency assistance in response to the repeal of the order issued on August 2, 2021, titled Public Health Reassessment and Order Suspending the Right To Introduce Certain Persons From Countries Where a Quarantinable Communicable Disease Exists ; the order issued on April 1, 2022, titled Public Health Determination and Order Regarding Suspending the Right To Introduce Certain Persons From Countries Where a Quarantinable Communicable Disease Exists ; and an order relating to the same public health concerns as the listed orders.
Sponsors: Sen. Boozman, John [R-AR]
Target Audience
Population: Communities and individuals affected by U.S. southern border emergency responses
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The bill will impact the operations of the Department of Veterans Affairs by restricting its fiscal activities related to emergencies at the southern border.
- Veterans who rely on services by the Department of Veterans Affairs may indirectly be affected if budget allocations are refocused entirely away from border operations, potentially leaving more resources for veteran-related services.
- Communities along the southern border could potentially be affected if they experience emergencies and rely on federal assistance which would normally extend to multiple departments, including the VA.
- Migrant populations at the southern border could be impacted due to possible reduced federal responses to emergencies, as resources from the VA wouldn't be available.
- Broader U.S. emergency response strategies at the southern border could see impact as it closes off a potential avenue for resource allocation, though the primary responsibility might not be with the VA.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily impacts budgets related to emergencies at the southern border, potentially relieving financial pressure on the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
- Veterans primarily reliant on VA services might experience indirect benefits if resources remain centralized on veteran issues.
- The indirect effects on communities at the border might translate to reduced emergency responses in those areas if other federal departments aren't compensating for VA's financial restrictions.
- The general U.S. population might not experience a direct impact, but areas with heavy veteran presence might notice budget reallocations positively affecting program funding.
- Migrant populations are not directly affected by VA policy but could feel the implications through resource allocation changes not supporting border emergency responses.
Simulated Interviews
Veteran Affairs Case Worker (Tucson, Arizona)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think keeping VA funds within the Department is crucial for supporting veterans.
- I understand emergencies at the border are important, but so is ensuring our veterans receive the benefits they deserve.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Nurse at a VA hospital (San Antonio, Texas)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The VA needs every bit of funding to provide adequate care for veterans.
- I hope that any budget shift away from emergency assistance will strengthen local VA services.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Border Patrol Officer (El Paso, Texas)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Federal aid during border emergencies is crucial for public safety.
- I'm concerned about the reduction of resources in emergencies affecting local security.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Community Health Worker (Houston, Texas)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried that limiting emergency responses will adversely affect vulnerable populations at the border.
- The policy seems to prioritize veterans, but we shouldn't ignore the needs at the border.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 4 |
Retired veteran (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 67 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any policy that strengthens VA's ability to focus on veterans is welcome.
- Taxes and resource allocation are complex, but I trust that VA priorities should come first.
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 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Lawyer specializing in immigration law (San Diego, California)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Limiting resources for border emergencies seems shortsighted to me.
- We must ensure that all people, regardless of status, have their basic needs met in emergencies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Community Volunteer (Austin, Texas)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Prioritizing VA funding means we can assist more veterans in need.
- I hope that resources will remain focused on systemic veteran issues instead of diverted to temporary crises.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Local Government Official (Brownsville, Texas)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems to leave local areas more vulnerable during emergencies.
- We need a balanced approach that considers all affected parties, not just one department's focus.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 2 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 2 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 3 |
School Teacher (Laredo, Texas)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Safety and preparation for emergencies at schools near the border are critical.
- I worry this policy will impact the resources and safety nets available to us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 4 |
Policy Analyst (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The redirection of funds could lead to inefficiencies if other departments don't compensate.
- We must look at holistic policies rather than isolating one department's restrictions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $-10000000 (Low: $-5000000, High: $-15000000)
Year 2: $-10000000 (Low: $-5000000, High: $-15000000)
Year 3: $-10000000 (Low: $-5000000, High: $-15000000)
Year 5: $-10000000 (Low: $-5000000, High: $-15000000)
Year 10: $-10000000 (Low: $-5000000, High: $-15000000)
Year 100: $-10000000 (Low: $-5000000, High: $-15000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill ensures clarity in fund allocation and limits the Department of Veterans Affairs from diverting resources away from its primary mission.
- Compliance costs for the Department of Veterans Affairs should be minimal, focused primarily on administrative checks.
- Potential effects on other federal emergency response strategies should be considered, although the VA's contributions might have been limited historically in these contexts.