Bill Overview
Title: Service to the Fleet Act
Description: This bill provides funding for improvements to the facilities of the U.S. Coast Guard Yard in Baltimore, Maryland, including for preparation and construction of a floating drydock and phases one through three of the Coast Guard Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Plan. It also requires to the Coast Guard to submit to Congress a report outlining workforce development needs at the Coast Guard Yard with respect to its civilian employees and active duty members.
Sponsors: Sen. Van Hollen, Chris [D-MD]
Target Audience
Population: People employed and supported by the U.S. Coast Guard Yard in Baltimore
Estimated Size: 45000
- The bill focuses on funding for improvements at the U.S. Coast Guard Yard in Baltimore, affecting workers employed there.
- The improvements might specifically benefit civilian employees and active duty members of the Coast Guard associated with the Baltimore facility.
- The local community may experience economic effects due to increased employment opportunities and demand for local services following infrastructure enhancement.
- Groups involved in construction and infrastructure work related to the drydock will also be impacted.
- If this facility is a key component of the Coast Guard's operations, the broader Coast Guard missions could be indirectly impacted, influencing national security operations.
Reasoning
- The majority of those directly affected by the policy are workers at the U.S. Coast Guard Yard in Baltimore, including both civilian and active duty personnel.
- The policy may indirectly impact the surrounding community by boosting the local economy through increased employment and demand for services.
- The U.S. Coast Guard at large might experience operational benefits from improved infrastructure, indirectly impacting national security and efficiency.
- People not directly employed by or tied to the Coast Guard Yard might not see significant direct impacts from this policy.
- Workers involved in the construction phases of the project will see a temporary increase in employment and potentially improved economic status during construction.
Simulated Interviews
Civilian Engineer at Coast Guard Yard (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the improvements to the Coast Guard Yard will make my job easier and may improve job security.
- This kind of investment boosts morale among my colleagues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Local Business Owner (Annapolis, MD)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope the influx of workers and activity due to the Yard improvements will increase my customers.
- There needs to be careful planning for noise and traffic during construction.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Active Duty Member, Coast Guard (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The upgrades are crucial for our operations and effectiveness.
- I'm looking forward to seeing the better facilities and equipment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Construction Worker (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This work gives us steady income for next few years.
- Concerned about the working conditions and safety standards.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Policy Analyst (Washington, DC)
Age: 38 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This investment could be significant for future resource optimization of the Coast Guard.
- The effectiveness of the project will depend on execution and oversight.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Coast Guard Spouse (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am hopeful that these updates will make my husband's work more fulfilling.
- Concerned about potential impact of moves due to prolonged construction.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired Coast Guard Officer (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good to see continued investment in facilities, maintaining legacy.
- Worried there might be an underestimation of long-term budget needs.
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 | 7 | 8 |
University Graduate seeking employment (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These upgrades might open up new job opportunities for me in the maritime field.
- I'm unsure how competitive entry-level positions will be.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
IT Specialist at Coast Guard Yard (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the upgrades include IT improvements, it will greatly help streamline our processes.
- Hoping there will be increased opportunities for skill advancement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Environmental Activist (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 59 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Infrastructure projects must take environmental impacts seriously.
- I will be vigilant about the construction's impact on local ecosystems.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 2: $400000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $450000000)
Year 3: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)
Year 5: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 10: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Key Considerations
- Phased infrastructure improvements spread costs over multiple years.
- The Coast Guard's broader mission and national security implications; improvements might indirectly lower operational costs.
- Local economic benefits from construction and operational efficiency of the Coast Guard Yard.