Bill Overview
Title: USACE Military Personnel Augmentation Act of 2022
Description: This bill expands the types of Army personnel entitled to receive certain pay and allowances while assigned to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on nonmilitary public works projects. Currently, regular Corps officers and reserve Army officers assigned to the Corps are entitled to receive pay and allowances from funds appropriated for the project that they are working on. The bill entitles warrant officers and enlisted members of the Army, whether regular or reserve, to receive such pay and allowances when assigned to the Corps.
Sponsors: Rep. Napolitano, Grace F. [D-CA-32]
Target Audience
Population: Army warrant officers and enlisted members assigned to USACE
Estimated Size: 10000
- The bill affects Army personnel who are assigned to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
- The specific change involves entitlement to pay and allowances for these personnel when working on nonmilitary public works projects.
- Currently, only officers and reserve officers are covered by this entitlement.
- The bill adds warrant officers and enlisted members, whether regular or reserve, to the list of those entitled to such pay and allowances.
- This means that any warrant officer or enlisted member assigned to USACE for nonmilitary projects will be financially impacted.
- The U.S. Army has over 1 million active duty, reserve, and National Guard members, among which warrant officers and enlisted members form the majority.
- Not all members will be assigned to USACE, but a segment of these personnel will be affected over time as they rotate through such assignments.
Reasoning
- The policy specifically targets Army personnel, specifically warrant officers and enlisted members, assigned to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for nonmilitary public works projects.
- This not only impacts their financial well-being by ensuring they receive specific allowances but may also affect their work satisfaction and career satisfaction positively.
- There are budget constraints indicating that not all personnel can be covered simultaneously and that the policy will have a limited reach each year.
- The target population size of 10,000 personnel suggests a small but focused impact within the much larger Army personnel pool.
Simulated Interviews
Army Warrant Officer (Fort Bragg, NC)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's a great move; it ensures fairness.
- This will definitely help cover costs when I'm away from my usual base.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Army Enlisted Personnel (Fort Hood, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It levels the field for those of us who are involved in long-term projects alongside officers.
- Additional pay helps manage household expenses when I'm on assignment.
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Army Officer (Washington, DC)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a good step for enlisted folks, but it doesn't change much for officers.
- Morale might improve with fair compensation for all ranks working together.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Army Reservist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reserve service comes with unpredictable financial stress.
- This policy ensures we are covered financially like active duty counterparts during assignments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 2 |
Army Enlisted Personnel (New York, NY)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've not been on a USACE project yet, but this means a lot to us in terms of financial security if it happens.
- Fair pay policies show the Army values our commitment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Army Engineer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Mostly benefits enlisted colleagues, happy to see positive changes.
- This policy won't impact me unless my role shifts in the future.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Army Warrant Officer (San Antonio, TX)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It gives a sense of fairness and reduces financial worries during extended projects.
- Ensures we stay motivated and focused on our tasks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Army Enlisted Personnel (Chicago, IL)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a relief to know we are recognized for our work outside typical duties.
- This policy should have been in place earlier.
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Army Reservist (El Paso, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy provides a cushion when we have to drop civilian work for Army projects.
- Peace of mind knowing my family won't have to worry when I'm serving the Corps.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 2 |
Army Officer (Miami, FL)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It boosts unit morale when everyone is equally compensated for similar work.
- Though not directly beneficial to me, it impacts team dynamics positively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $18000000, High: $32000000)
Year 2: $26000000 (Low: $19000000, High: $33000000)
Year 3: $27000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $34000000)
Year 5: $28000000 (Low: $21000000, High: $35000000)
Year 10: $30000000 (Low: $23000000, High: $38000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $60000000)
Key Considerations
- The measure primarily affects military personnel benefits, increasing Department of Defense obligations under USACE projects.
- Monitoring the cost implications of expanded personnel assignments should be prioritized to manage budget impacts.
- Layered with other defense appropriations, this act complicates immediate fiscal tracking due to entitlements being dependent on project-specific appropriations.