Bill Overview
Title: KESSLER Act
Description: Keeping Everyone Safe and Securing Lives by Emergency Readiness Act or the KESSLER Act This bill directs the President to supplement disaster response plans to account for catastrophic incidents. Specifically, the President must supplement each Federal Interagency Operational Plan to include an annex containing a strategy to ensure the health, safety, and general welfare of the civilian population affected by catastrophic incidents by providing for the basic needs of the civilian population that is impacted by catastrophic incidents in the United States; coordinating response efforts with state and local governments, the private sector, and nonprofit relief organizations; promoting personal and local readiness and non-reliance on government relief during periods of heightened tension or after catastrophic incidents; and developing international partnerships with allied nations for the provision of relief services and goods. The strategy must include specified elements, including a description of actions the President will take to ensure the basic needs of the U.S. civilian population in a catastrophic incident are met. The Department of Homeland Security shall lead an exercise, as part of a national exercise program, to test and enhance the operationalization of the strategy. The President must provide recommendations for (1) actions that should be taken to prepare the United States to implement the strategy, increase readiness, and address preparedness gaps; and (2) additional authorities that should be considered to more effectively implement the strategy.
Sponsors: Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]
Target Audience
Population: Global civilian population affected by catastrophic incidents
Estimated Size: 331000000
- The KESSLER Act aims to improve disaster response strategies for catastrophic incidents, directly impacting how government agencies protect civilian populations during such events.
- The focus is on ensuring the health, safety, and general welfare of civilians, which means anyone in a region affected by a disaster could be impacted by the legislation.
- The act mandates improved coordination between federal, state, local governments, and non-governmental entities, suggesting the involvement of a wide array of stakeholders affecting many lives.
- By promoting personal and local readiness, the act indirectly impacts the entire population of disaster-prone areas by encouraging them to prepare individually for disaster scenarios.
- Developing international partnerships indicates that foreign nationals or expatriates might also be affected during instances requiring international coordination.
Reasoning
- The KESSLER Act focuses on enhancing disaster preparedness, response, and coordination across various government levels and with international partners. This policy mainly targets the U.S. civilian population, especially in regions prone to catastrophic incidents.
- The limited budget suggests a focus on strategic planning and infrastructure enhancements rather than large-scale immediate changes, affecting primarily regions with existing disaster risks.
- To simulate realistically, individuals from different regions and backgrounds should be included, considering both directly impacted individuals (those in disaster-prone areas) and indirectly impacted individuals (general awareness and preparedness improvements).
- Given the budget constraints, the impact, though broad in potential reach, may reflect low to medium individual impacts, especially initially. Long-term effects may enhance personal and local readiness.
Simulated Interviews
teacher (Miami, FL)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The act seems crucial for those of us living in disaster-prone areas. We often worry about the efficiency of response systems.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
software developer (Denver, CO)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The increased readiness could benefit citizens traveling abroad if international disasters occur.
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 |
nurse (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved disaster response plans give me hope that we won't repeat the chaos of Katrina.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
construction worker (Dallas, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The Act could lead to more job opportunities in strengthening infrastructure against disasters.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislation is in alignment with my studies and offers a proactive stance on disaster management.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
retired (Kansas City, MO)
Age: 67 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad to see a focus on readiness, but I hope it reaches individuals quickly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
emergency services coordinator (Seattle, WA)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Coordination with federal plans aligns with my goals at the state level.
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 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
environmental engineer (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The Act's coordination aspects are likely to support the projects I’m involved with.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
small business owner (Salt Lake City, UT)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I expect this policy could increase business as more people seek to be prepared.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
park ranger (Anchorage, AK)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate the focus on safety and welfare during catastrophic events.
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 | 9 | 8 |
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: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The initial setup and operational costs of the KESSLER Act are substantial, given the scale and complexity of federal, state, and international coordination required.
- The long-term benefits in disaster response efficiency may potentially offset some initial costs through minimized disaster impacts.
- Political and public buy-in for the emphasis on personal and local readiness is crucial for the effectiveness of the policy.