Bill Overview
Title: Defense Infrastructure Support Act
Description: This bill extends to September 30, 2025, the authority of the Department of Defense to use a working capital fund for unspecified minor military construction projects to revitalize and recapitalize defense industrial base facilities.
Sponsors: Sen. Ossoff, Jon [D-GA]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals associated with or influenced by defense industrial base facilities worldwide
Estimated Size: 300000
- The bill affects military construction projects, which are inherently connected to defense infrastructure.
- The Department of Defense oversees numerous facilities globally that constitute the defense industrial base.
- Personnel working in defense industrial facilities will be directly impacted, as these facilities may be subject to revitalization and recapitalization.
- Broader military families may see indirect benefits as improved infrastructure can lead to enhanced operational capabilities and safety.
- Communities around military facilities may be economically impacted due to increased construction projects.
- Contractors and businesses involved in military construction projects will see increased opportunities.
Reasoning
- The population likely to be impacted includes service members, civilian workers in defense industrial facilities, and surrounding communities.
- The policy should benefit those directly working in and around military construction projects, enhancing infrastructure related to defense.
- Given the financial limitations and the substantial infrastructure that exists, improvements may be targeted and thus limited in immediate impact breadth.
- Some people will experience direct employment or work-related improvements, while others may see secondary community or safety benefits.
- Not everyone in the vicinity or associated with the defense sector will feel an impact, and those unrelated may not notice any change.
Simulated Interviews
Construction Worker (San Diego, CA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I expect more job opportunities with this policy.
- It could stabilize my income for a few years.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Defense Facility Manager (Norfolk, VA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved facilities will benefit our team's efficiency.
- It provides a necessary upgrade to our aging equipment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Logistics Coordinator (Fort Hood, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Facility updates should improve supply flow.
- I worry about disruptions during construction.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Civil Engineer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More projects means more work for my company.
- This could be a stepping stone to more military contracts.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Military Spouse (Killeen, TX)
Age: 34 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope the policy will improve base facilities.
- Changes might make daily life more comfortable.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Public School Teacher (Portsmouth, VA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Construction might boost the local economy.
- I doubt the effect will reach our school directly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Industrial Supplier (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could mean more robust business.
- It's uncertain how long the boost will last.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Retired Naval Officer (Norfolk, VA)
Age: 59 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Happy to see facilities improving for future service members.
- It's unclear how much will actually change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Columbus, GA)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased base activity could bring more customers.
- I'm cautious about counting on it too much.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Community Activist (Jacksonville, FL)
Age: 62 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More construction can improve local employment.
- Programs like this need more community involvement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 2: $525000000 (Low: $425000000, High: $625000000)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The scale and scope of construction projects using the working capital fund must adhere to DoD guidelines and fiscal oversight.
- Inflationary pressures on construction might escalate costs beyond preliminary estimates.
- Effective allocation and management of funds by the DoD to only necessary projects are crucial to maintain budget discipline.