Bill Overview
Title: GUAM Act
Description: This bill authorizes the Department of Defense (DOD) to use amounts available for operation and maintenance to remove munitions and explosives of concern from military installations in Guam. DOD must monitor and assess such removal and constantly update the processes for removal to mitigate any issues.
Sponsors: Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals residing on and military personnel stationed in Guam
Estimated Size: 150000
- The bill focuses on the removal of unexploded munitions from military installations in Guam, directly involving military personnel stationed there.
- Military operations often involve the local civilian population, especially in a small territory like Guam, where the munitions could pose safety risks.
- Guam has a population of approximately 170,000 people, who may benefit indirectly from increased safety and reduced risk of munitions-related incidents.
- The bill specifies the Department of Defense (DOD) operations, meaning military personnel involved in the removal processes will be impacted.
- Guam is a U.S. territory, so the primary entities affected would be U.S. citizens residing on the island and U.S. military personnel.
Reasoning
- The primary affected population is in Guam, mostly military personnel and local residents.
- Guam's population is around 170,000; many are U.S. citizens and military members.
- Not all U.S. residents will feel direct impacts; effects are concentrated in Guam; other regions may perceive higher safety awareness or distant concern.
Simulated Interviews
Military Officer (Guam)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy is critical for the safety of our personnel and our families.
- It's a relief that funding is being allocated for this purpose.
- I expect some disruption during the removal process but it's worth it.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Local Business Owner (Guam)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Safety improvements are good but I am concerned about how it might disrupt my business.
- If the area becomes safer, it might attract more customers eventually.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Military Logistician (Hawaii)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The allocation of resources to Guam is necessary.
- Financial management will be crucial to minimize impact on other operations.
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 | 7 | 7 |
Local Teacher (Guam)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Safety of students is my priority, and this policy might help.
- It's uncertain how the cleanup process will affect daily commuting and school activities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Retired Veteran (California)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think improving the safety at past stations is positive.
- Veterans may feel more acknowledged through such actions.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Policy Analyst (Washington D.C.)
Age: 34 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is a crucial part of maintaining military safety and operational readiness.
- It will require careful monitoring of financial and safety impacts.
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 | 7 | 7 |
Local Environmentalist (Guam)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Removing munitions is important, but I worry about environmental disruption.
- Engagement with environmental experts in the process would be beneficial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Defense Contractor (Texas)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like these can increase demand for our services.
- It assures me of potential business continuity in military contracts.
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 |
University Student (Guam)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm cautious about potential environmental impacts of the cleanup.
- Hoping for sustainable practices being implemented.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Military Spouse (Nevada)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While not directly in the crosshairs of this policy, I'm concerned about the safety of my spouse.
- The policy seems beneficial overall.
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 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $45000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 3: $40000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $65000000)
Year 5: $35000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $60000000)
Year 10: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $50000000)
Year 100: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $40000000)
Key Considerations
- Significant upfront costs due to the technical nature of clearing unexploded munitions.
- Operational safety imperatives limit cost-cutting opportunities.
- Dependence on the scale of unexploded munitions present on Guam's military bases.
- Need for continual assessment and update of processes, which might incur additional costs over time.