Bill Overview
Title: Arms Exports Delivery Solutions Act
Description: This bill requires the Department of State and the Department of Defense to report to Congress on certain transfers of defense articles or defense services since October 1, 2017. The report must include a list of approved transfers to Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Australia, or New Zealand that are above a certain value threshold and that have not been fully delivered by the start of the fiscal year in which the report is being submitted.
Sponsors: Rep. Kim, Young [R-CA-39]
Target Audience
Population: People in Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand impacted by delayed arms exports
Estimated Size: 5000
- The bill affects countries that are involved in defense transfers with the United States, specifically focusing on Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand.
- These countries are likely to have significant defense partnerships with the United States and are recipients of defense articles and services.
- The bill may influence the timelines and transparency of arms exports, potentially affecting these nations' defense planning and procurement processes.
Reasoning
- The Arms Exports Delivery Solutions Act mainly affects government employees involved in defense exports and sectors in the defense industry, specifically around transparency and efficiency of delivery timelines.
- Given the US-based target population of 5,000, the impact is primarily around administrative work and reporting, with minimal direct impact on general citizens' day-to-day life.
- Wellbeing impacts might be marginal for government employees due to increased workload from reporting requirements, but more positive in the long term due to improved transparency and efficiency.
- Most of the population's wellbeing is expected to remain unchanged, as this policy is highly specific and technical in its focus.
Simulated Interviews
Defense Analyst (Arlington, Virginia)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy makes my job easier by increasing transparency.
- Initial increase in workload, but that might reduce over time.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Logistics Coordinator (San Diego, California)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More orderly and timely delivery assists my work.
- Potential initial delays in adapting to new reporting requirements.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Defense Contractor (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.5 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might drive better accountability.
- Remote impact, since our part involves only manufacturing.
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 |
Policy Advisor (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The bill improves transparency which is crucial.
- Additional work initially but leads to better data.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Military Liaison (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.5 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy impact seems positive for compliance.
- Little change in my day-to-day responsibilities.
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 |
Engineer (Austin, Texas)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- No direct impact on my work or wellbeing.
- I expect positive changes in overall delivery quality.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Defense Logistics Manager (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Timely deliveries will streamline operations.
- More regulations could cause initial inefficiencies.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Procurement Officer (Charlotte, North Carolina)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- No significant change anticipated in my role.
- Expect improved efficiency in the longer-term.
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 |
Senior Defense Analyst (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy enhances strategic clarity and reporting.
- Could increase strategic insights for decision-making.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Research Fellow (Miami, Florida)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will provide rich data for my research.
- Minimal direct impact but opens new research angles.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $4000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $5000000)
Year 2: $4000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $5000000)
Year 3: $4000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $5000000)
Year 5: $4000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $5000000)
Year 10: $4000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $5000000)
Year 100: $4000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $5000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill's primary cost is administrative, involving personnel and reporting expenses.
- No significant direct fiscal impact on defense sales or arms trade volumes is expected.
- There could be potential benefits in transparency and efficiency for foreign and U.S. defense departments through the improved oversight introduced by the bill.