Bill Overview
Title: United States NATO Force Deployment Policy Act of 2022
Description: This bill states that it is U.S. policy that the NATO-Russia Founding Act, signed in 1997, does not constrain the deployment of U.S. or NATO forces in any way.
Sponsors: Rep. Bacon, Don [R-NE-2]
Target Audience
Population: People under potential impact of changes to NATO force deployments
Estimated Size: 12000000
- The bill relates to the deployment of U.S. and NATO forces, which can impact military personnel directly.
- Military families are affected since changes in deployment policy can affect their lives.
- NATO member countries' citizens might experience changes in military presence.
- Host countries where NATO forces might be deployed could be impacted due to increased foreign military presence.
Reasoning
- The target population includes active military members and their families, as they are the most directly impacted by NATO force deployment policies.
- Individuals living in NATO host countries or areas likely to see U.S. troop deployment would also be affected, although indirectly unless they have family in the military.
- There's a significant portion of the U.S. population unaffected directly, considering the specific nature of this policy.
Simulated Interviews
Army Officer (Virginia)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy may lead to more frequent deployments, which is challenging for family life.
- There's always a tension between duty and being away from family for extended periods.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Military Spouse (California)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Frequent deployments and relocations disrupt family stability.
- I worry about the effects on our children's education and stability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Defense Contractor (Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could increase my workload, but it also stabilizes job security.
- It may have budget implications but beneficial for business.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Air Force Pilot (North Carolina)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More deployments could enhance my career, but I enjoy being stateside due to family connections.
- There is a sense of duty, but personal life might take a hit in terms of social relationships.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Teacher (Illinois)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am indirectly affected as I see the stress in students from military families facing frequent relocations.
- The policy is beyond my direct control, but community impacts concern me.
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 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Retired Military (Florida)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe supporting NATO with flexible force deployment is critical for global stability.
- As a retiree, I'm less affected personally, but I view the policy as strategically necessary.
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 |
Social Worker (New York)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More deployments mean more strain on families and potential mental health issues.
- I see the fallout from policies that increase deployment stress on families.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Veteran Affairs Officer (Georgia)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies affecting deployment don't impact me directly now, but they shape future veteran needs.
- Maintaining a robust presence with allies is key, but it comes at a potential personal and economic cost.
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 |
Public Policy Analyst (Washington)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy reflects strategic flexibility which I see as positive for international security.
- I don't expect any personal impact, but its implications are broader, affecting defense strategy.
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 |
Student (Colorado)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm aware of the strategic importance, but worry about my cousins' deployments and its effects on their family.
- This amplifies existing stress due to potential increased deployments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $450000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $550000000)
Year 2: $470000000 (Low: $360000000, High: $570000000)
Year 3: $490000000 (Low: $370000000, High: $590000000)
Year 5: $510000000 (Low: $390000000, High: $630000000)
Year 10: $540000000 (Low: $410000000, High: $670000000)
Year 100: $1000000000 (Low: $750000000, High: $1250000000)
Key Considerations
- Deployment policy changes might strain U.S.-Russia relations, affecting international diplomatic dynamics.
- Increased military presence could lead to economic ripple effects in host countries.
- Operational readiness expenses for modified deployment patterns need to be considered.
- Long-term military commitments necessitate budgetary and strategic planning adjustments.