Bill Overview
Title: Base Access Privileges Improvement Act
Description: This bill requires the Department of Defense (DOD) to maintain access standards applicable to all military installations in the United States that include specified screening requirements. The bill also requires DOD to address its policies and procedures for physical entrances to certain military installations, access cards, unescorted access for certain civilians, and protocol for certain deliveries.
Sponsors: Rep. Garamendi, John [D-CA-3]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals interacting with US military installations
Estimated Size: 2500000
- The bill directly pertains to military installations in the United States, including provisions for access standards, entrance procedures, and access cards.
- The primary group affected will be individuals seeking entrance to military installations, including military personnel and civilians.
- The changes to access policies could impact day-to-day operations for all staff working at these installations, as well as contractors, vendors, and visitors.
- There are approximately 1.3 million active duty service members and 800,000 reserve service members in the US, many of whom will be directly affected by base access regulations.
- In addition, there are millions of civilians, contractors, and delivery personnel who have reason to seek access to military installations for work or personal reasons.
- Globally, the legislation does not apply directly as it targets US installations within the borders of the United States.
- However, globally deployed US military personnel may be indirectly affected by how access standards change protocol for individuals returning to US bases from overseas.
Reasoning
- The distribution will include a variety of people directly and indirectly affected by military base access.
- Military personnel (active and reserve) will experience changes in access protocol potentially impacting their daily routine and operational security.
- Civilian workers and contractors often enter military installations for work, thus affected by entrance procedures.
- Policies on deliveries suggest implications for service providers who routinely visit bases.
- Family members of military personnel residing in or visiting bases also face potential impacts due to stricter access protocol.
Simulated Interviews
Navy Petty Officer (Norfolk, VA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think improving base security is always important.
- It might be a hassle at first but getting used to new procedures is just part of the job.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Civilian Contractor (San Diego, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about more delays getting on base for my job.
- Ensuring security is priority but I hope they streamline this process.
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 | 7 | 6 |
Department of Defense Official (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act aligns with our ongoing security objectives.
- Efficient implementation is key to minimizing disruption.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Air Force Reserve Member (Colorado Springs, CO)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Access protocols might make my reserve weekends a bit more cumbersome.
- I'd support it if it makes everyone safer.
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 |
Military Spouse (Fort Bragg, NC)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These changes might make travel on and off base more complicated.
- I'm used to adjustments like these given our lifestyle.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Army Private (Fayetteville, NC)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There's more focus on security and that's reassuring.
- Will just have to adapt as protocols change.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Delivery Driver (Honolulu, HI)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Changes could mean longer waits and increased delivery times.
- It's part of our job to adjust to these conditions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Security Contractor (El Paso, TX)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It means more responsibilities for us in implementing these protocols.
- Hope for efficient tech solutions to support these changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Software Developer (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 32 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More work opportunities if bases enhance their technology.
- Excited to contribute to national security through our innovations.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired Navy Officer (Jacksonville, FL)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Security protocols should balance convenience and safety.
- Open to changes as long as there's clear communication about new procedures.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $650000000)
Year 2: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $350000000)
Year 3: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $300000000)
Year 5: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $250000000)
Year 10: $100000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $200000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $100000000)
Key Considerations
- The immediate cost implications of updating infrastructure and procedures are significant, with substantial initial of outlays needed.
- There could be long-term savings if the upgrades lead to more efficient base operations, though such savings are not currently measurable.
- The security improvement may also indirectly save costs associated with breaches and unauthorized access incidents, but estimating such savings remains speculative.