Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/4731

Bill Overview

Title: SAFE Act

Description: This bill requires the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to develop a strategy for averting a global food security crisis. The bill also relaxes a law requiring that certain goods be transported by U.S. vessels. The bill authorizes USAID to procure life-saving food aid commodities to provide emergency food assistance to the most vulnerable populations in countries experiencing acute food insecurity. For certain commodities procured under this authority, the bill waives a requirement that a certain percentage of the commodities must be transported by U.S. vessels (such requirements are known as federal cargo preference laws). The bill also removes a mandate from a federal cargo preference law relating to goods obtained by the U.S. government.

Sponsors: Sen. Risch, James E. [R-ID]

Target Audience

Population: People in countries experiencing acute food insecurity

Estimated Size: 50000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Dockworker (Norfolk, VA)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I am concerned about potential job losses if fewer American ships are used.
  • This change might mean fewer working hours for many of us.

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 6 6
Year 10 6 6
Year 20 6 6

Shipping logistics manager (Seattle, WA)

Age: 34 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This law might make my job easier by loosening restrictions.
  • Could potentially open new avenues for international shipping deals.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 6 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 7 7

Ship captain (Houston, TX)

Age: 52 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm slightly worried about how this might affect my employment options.
  • The preference laws have been a stable part of our business.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 8
Year 2 7 8
Year 3 7 8
Year 5 7 8
Year 10 8 8
Year 20 8 8

Humanitarian aid worker (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 9

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could significantly enhance our response capabilities.
  • It's exciting to see policies align with urgent humanitarian needs.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 9 8
Year 2 9 8
Year 3 9 8
Year 5 9 8
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 9 8

Maritime lawyer (New York, NY)

Age: 62 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The relaxation may simplify some legal processes, but it could also lead to loss of certain legal protections for US shipping.

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

University professor (Miami, FL)

Age: 40 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This is a necessary adjustment considering the global pressures on food security.
  • The existing laws were outdated for the current crisis we face.

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

Food supply chain analyst (Chicago, IL)

Age: 48 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 4.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy might streamline supply chains for emergency aid.
  • We might see a shift in global distribution patterns.

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

Local business owner (Charleston, SC)

Age: 55 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy may not impact us directly, but a stable global situation can stabilize local economies.

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

Activist (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 37 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 7.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It's promising to see the US taking steps toward pragmatic solutions in global crises.
  • The removal of these trade barriers can speed up necessary aid.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 9 8
Year 2 9 8
Year 3 9 8
Year 5 9 8
Year 10 8 8
Year 20 8 8

IT Consultant (Atlanta, GA)

Age: 31 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 6.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I see potential for increased demands on logistics software solutions.
  • A change that large in operations can create opportunities for tech enhancements.

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: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)

Year 2: $255000000 (Low: $205000000, High: $305000000)

Year 3: $260000000 (Low: $210000000, High: $310000000)

Year 5: $270000000 (Low: $220000000, High: $320000000)

Year 10: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)

Year 100: $400000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $450000000)

Key Considerations