Bill Overview
Title: BOATS Act
Description: This bill prohibits Russian vessels from entering or operating in the navigable waters of the United States or transferring cargo in any port or place under U.S. jurisdiction, except for national security purposes. Violation of this prohibition subjects a vessel to seizure and forfeiture. Any Russian vessel seized and forfeited to the United States shall be sold at an auction to any entity that is not affiliated with Russia. The proceeds of such auction may only be used for humanitarian aid to Ukraine that is provided by other member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Sponsors: Rep. Young, Don [R-AK-At Large]
Target Audience
Population: People involved with Russian vessels
Estimated Size: 500
- The bill targets Russian vessels, which include commercial ships, fishing vessels, and possibly recreational craft registered in Russia.
- The impact extends to Russian shipping companies, individuals, or entities using these vessels.
- Given the U.S. jurisdictional reach, any Russian individual or entity utilizing or owning such vessels operating near U.S. waters will be affected.
- Russian export businesses relying on the U.S. port access for shipping will be directly impacted.
- Allied countries' shipping companies may benefit from reduced competition from Russian vessels in U.S. waters.
Reasoning
- The BOATS Act primarily focuses on restricting and seizing Russian vessels, which means direct impacts will be felt by people and businesses dealing with these vessels, including Russian ship owners, operators, and crews. In the U.S., the impact will extend to workers and companies that provide services to these vessels, though it is a niche market.
- Given the limited immediate U.S. target audience (500 estimated), most U.S.-based entities or individuals are likely to experience minimal direct impact. The policy, however, may create indirect economic opportunities as foreign and domestic ports look to replace Russian-operated routes and operations.
- The Cantril wellbeing score is influenced by job security, economic stability, and broader geopolitical dynamics, which might be affected if the policy leads to increased U.S.-European cooperation and bolsters local maritime industries.
Simulated Interviews
Dock Worker (Miami, Florida)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might mean fewer ships and therefore fewer hours for me.
- I understand the goal is to put pressure on Russia, but it can impact my livelihood.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Maritime Lawyer (San Francisco, California)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Legally, this policy will shut down a section of my practice.
- It might encourage diversifying my clientele and could mean long-term benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Shipping Company Executive (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could create more hurdles and increase costs if we lose access to part of our fleet.
- It could be an opportunity to partner with other international shipping lines.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Port Authority Manager (New York, New York)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The restriction might lead to fewer Russian ships, impacting cargo volumes temporarily.
- It could allow us to modernize infrastructure to attract more diverse shipping lines.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
International Trade Analyst (Houston, Texas)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There will be initial trade route shifts, impacting data analytics in interesting ways.
- It's an exciting time for trade analysts with changing dynamics.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Retired Naval Officer (Norfolk, Virginia)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy reinforces the security of our waters, something I'm passionate about.
- It might offer more consulting opportunities as firms adjust to new norms.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Import/Export Business Owner (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might mean reevaluating some partnerships.
- Long-term, we can establish better ties with U.S./European companies, which is beneficial.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Economic Policy Researcher (Boston, Massachusetts)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's an interesting case study for economic policy impacts in the current political climate.
- Data from this will be crucial for future research.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cargo Inspector (New Orleans, Louisiana)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will slightly reduce incoming cargo this year.
- Long-term effects seem manageable, possibly leading to more rigorous inspection standards.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Shipping Logistics Coordinator (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a challenge but could lead to better logistic frameworks without Russian routes.
- Initial disruption followed by new job opportunities.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 2: $155000000 (Low: $105000000, High: $205000000)
Year 3: $160000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $210000000)
Year 5: $170000000 (Low: $115000000, High: $215000000)
Year 10: $190000000 (Low: $130000000, High: $230000000)
Year 100: $300000000 (Low: $180000000, High: $350000000)
Key Considerations
- Increased enforcement costs for coastal and port security.
- Diplomatic implications related to asset seizure from a sovereign nation.
- Long-term savings through potential reduction in oversight needs for prohibited vessels.
- Potential becomes for revenue through increased U.S. and allied shipping activities.
- Altered trade patterns might impact logistics and supply chains initially.