Bill Overview
Title: Black Sea Security Act of 2022
Description: This bill authorizes the National Security Council to direct an interagency strategy to (1) increase coordination with NATO and the European Union, (2) deepen economic ties, and (3) strengthen the security and democratic resilience of partners in the Black Sea region in accordance with U.S. values and interests.
Sponsors: Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals in the Black Sea region
Estimated Size: 10000
- The legislation is focused on countries around the Black Sea, which includes Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria, Moldova, Ukraine, and Georgia.
- These countries together have a combined population of around 180 million people, all of whom may feel direct or indirect effects of changes in U.S. policy and related international relationships.
- The bill's focus on increasing military assistance and coordination with NATO and the EU may affect national security policies and military dynamics in those regions.
- Economic ties are expected to deepen, likely impacting many individuals in terms of economic opportunities and business partnerships.
- Security and democratic resilience building efforts could involve many citizens in civic and security-related engagements and projects.
Reasoning
- Many Americans will not be directly impacted by the Black Sea Security Act as it primarily concerns international relations and defense, and may not affect daily life in the U.S.
- The policy's impact is mostly on U.S. government employees engaged in international relations, defense, or economic initiatives related to the region.
- U.S. military personnel and contractors may see changes, mainly in roles that involve NATO cooperation or supporting Black Sea nations.
- Businesses that engage internationally with those regions might observe increased opportunities; however, this is a small fraction of the general working population.
- NGOs focusing on democratic resilience might see increased funding or program opportunities, impacting those involved in such fields.
- The general public’s awareness might only be slightly affected through news media, without direct personal well-being effects.
Simulated Interviews
Defense Analyst (Washington D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy strengthens necessary alliances and ensures our strategic interests are maintained.
- I expect more work and potential travel to the region.
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 |
Corporate Lawyer (New York)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could open new markets and legal work opportunities, which is promising for my career.
- I believe deeper economic ties can provide stability in the region.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Journalist (Los Angeles)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with current global trends in security.
- It's interesting from a reporting standpoint, but I won't be directly impacted.
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 |
Retired Military Officer (Texas)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm pleased to see continued U.S. support for NATO and partnership with key allies.
- The policy reaffirms our leadership role.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
NGO Worker (Chicago)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might lead to additional project funding and engagement.
- I anticipate potential challenges in increased workloads.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Software Developer (Seattle)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy doesn’t directly impact me unless related technology sectors get new contracts.
- Being aware of global developments is beneficial, but no direct effect.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
High School Teacher (Atlanta)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I can include this policy in class discussions, offering real-time examples in global politics.
- My life isn’t directly impacted beyond increased awareness.
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 |
University Researcher (Boston)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns well with my research, offering new study opportunities.
- I expect greater international collaboration in the academic sphere.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired Diplomat (Florida)
Age: 63 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The continuing efforts to stabilize the Black Sea region are commendable.
- Monitoring from afar as part of interest in global affairs.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
College Student (California)
Age: 21 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This type of policy is what I aim to work with in the future.
- Currently no direct impact, but educational value is significant.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $700000000)
Year 2: $600000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $800000000)
Year 3: $600000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $800000000)
Year 5: $700000000 (Low: $500000000, High: $900000000)
Year 10: $500000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $700000000)
Year 100: $200000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $300000000)
Key Considerations
- Geopolitical risks associated with engagement in a region bordering Russia.
- Scope and scale of military and economic assistance programs.
- Coordination complexities among multiple federal agencies and international partners.
- Evaluation of progress and adaption of strategies over time.