Bill Overview
Title: Investing in American Defense Technologies Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Department of Defense (DOD) to implement a five-year pilot program to accelerate the development of advanced technology for national security by creating incentives for trusted private capital to invest in domestic small businesses or nontraditional businesses that are developing technology that DOD considers necessary to support the modernization of DOD and national security priorities. DOD must brief Congress on the implementation and outcomes of the pilot program.
Sponsors: Rep. Houlahan, Chrissy [D-PA-6]
Target Audience
Population: People employed in or invested with small and nontraditional US defense-related businesses
Estimated Size: 3000000
- The bill focuses on the acceleration of technologies relevant to national security, impacting businesses involved in such technologies.
- Small and nontraditional businesses in the US working on defense-related technologies are the primary focus, but the workforce within these businesses will also be directly impacted.
- This bill could impact the investment community by incentivizing private capital to support these technologies, potentially benefiting stakeholders in finance sectors involved with defense investments.
- The broader defense ecosystem, including contractors and research firms in the US, may see indirect benefits from increased innovation and modernization efforts.
Reasoning
- The primary target group consists of individuals working for small and nontraditional defense-related businesses, encompassing engineers, management staff, and technical specialists, which could total around 3 million people.
- A secondary group includes investors and finance sector employees who are incentivized to channel capital into these enterprises.
- Some people, such as those not directly involved with defense-related technologies, won't be impacted by this policy.
- Budget limitation means not every business or individual within this sector will feel a strong impact, so the variation in response impact will exist.
- Because the direct beneficiaries are specific business sectors, general public feedback won't show significant changes in wellbeing.
Simulated Interviews
Aerospace Engineer (Arlington, VA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could provide more resources and stability for my team.
- With extra funding, we can focus more on R&D, enhancing our competitive edge.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Venture Capitalist (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could open new avenues for lucrative investments.
- There's a potential risk window with the pilot getting extended or funding reallocations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Software Developer (Austin, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could lead to job stability and potential salary increases.
- I hope this policy supports long-term growth, not just immediate funding.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Financial Analyst (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy makes the defense sector more attractive to investors.
- I'm concerned about over-speculation if funds are mismanaged.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Executive Assistant (Seattle, WA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The additional funding might support new hires, reducing workload.
- I wonder if we'll focus too narrowly on defense to the detriment of other sectors.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Biotech Researcher (Boston, MA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Lack of clarity on how the policy impacts biotech directly.
- This might bring more scrutiny to our projects, either good or bad.
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 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Mechanical Engineer (Denver, CO)
Age: 31 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could stimulate growth and job security in startups.
- There may be competitive pressures if larger firms eye smaller ones.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Marketing Specialist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could diversify our client base and increase revenue.
- Dependence on defense projects may limit broader market appeal.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Investor (New York, NY)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Incentives present new opportunities but also create risks if mismanaged.
- I've seen similar policies not fully deliver on their promises.
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 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Operations Manager (Dallas, TX)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased funding can streamline operations and boost productivity.
- There's a concern about shortfall in long-term support after the pilot.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)
Year 2: $310000000 (Low: $260000000, High: $360000000)
Year 3: $320000000 (Low: $270000000, High: $370000000)
Year 5: $340000000 (Low: $290000000, High: $390000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The alignment between the government's priorities and the investments made by private capital may vary, affecting the program's success.
- Uncertainty in private investors' response to the incentives could affect the effectiveness and adoption of the technologies.
- Economic and geopolitical factors influencing defense priorities may alter the scope and scale of the investments.