Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/7695

Bill Overview

Title: To amend title 10, United States Code, to prescribe the minimum number of operational amphibious battle force ships that must be included in the combat forces of the Navy, and for other purposes.

Description: This bill requires that the naval combat forces of the Navy include a minimum of 31 operational amphibious battle force ships, which are commissioned United States Ship warships capable of contributing to combat operations or United States Naval Ships that contribute directly to Navy warfighting or support missions. Such a ship that is temporarily unavailable for worldwide deployment due to routine or scheduled maintenance or repair counts towards the requirement.

Sponsors: Rep. Wittman, Robert J. [R-VA-1]

Target Audience

Population: People involved or influenced by policies regarding US Navy amphibious battle force ships

Estimated Size: 500000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Navy Officer (San Diego, CA)

Age: 35 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy ensures our readiness and capability to handle amphibious operations effectively.
  • More ships mean better security and job stability for my team.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 9 7
Year 5 9 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 7 5

Defense Contractor (Norfolk, VA)

Age: 42 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy gives us more contracts and helps maintain the workforce.
  • Long-term, it stabilizes operations for us.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 9 4
Year 20 7 4

Shipbuilder (Mobile, AL)

Age: 30 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Increased demand boosts employment and local economy.
  • It's great for job security and skills development.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 7 5
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 8 4
Year 10 8 4
Year 20 6 3

Defense Analyst (Washington D.C.)

Age: 55 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy strengthens our military preparedness.
  • There may be geopolitical repercussions or benefits.

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 7 6
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 6 5

Academic Researcher in Military Studies (Boston, MA)

Age: 28 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Increased operational ships offer more data and opportunities for research.
  • The policy aligns with strategic goals but needs careful assessment.

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 6 5
Year 10 5 4
Year 20 5 4

Environmental Activist (Seattle, WA)

Age: 47 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy could increase environmental risks if not managed well.
  • We need more focus on sustainable practices.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 4
Year 2 4 4
Year 3 4 4
Year 5 4 4
Year 10 4 4
Year 20 4 4

Retired Navy Veteran (Chicago, IL)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy signals strong government support for Navy veterans.
  • I feel more secure about my pension.

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 8 6
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 6 5

Navy Family Support Worker (Honolulu, HI)

Age: 33 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Improved operations mean more stability for Navy families.
  • It can foster better living conditions for the community.

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 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 6 4

Local Government Official (Gulfport, MS)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Policy can bolster local job market and infrastructure.
  • Challenges include managing increased demand on services.

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 8 6
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 6 5

International Relations Expert (Jacksonville, FL)

Age: 40 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 4.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The increased naval capacity can improve our global standing.
  • Could lead to shifts in international alliances.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 6 4
Year 20 5 4

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)

Year 2: $510000000 (Low: $410000000, High: $610000000)

Year 3: $520000000 (Low: $420000000, High: $620000000)

Year 5: $540000000 (Low: $440000000, High: $640000000)

Year 10: $580000000 (Low: $480000000, High: $680000000)

Year 100: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1200000000)

Key Considerations