Bill Overview
Title: Army FUTURES Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Department of the Army to submit a plan to Congress that comprehensively defines the roles and responsibilities of officials and organizations of the Army with respect to the force modernization efforts of the Army. In the event the report is not submitted within the required 180-day period, the Commanding General of the Army Futures Command must have the roles, responsibilities, and authorities assigned pursuant to Army Directive 2020-15 and any provision of Army Directive 2022-07 that modifies or contravenes Army Directive 2020-15 must have no force or effect.
Sponsors: Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]
Target Audience
Population: Army servicemembers and associated personnel
Estimated Size: 1300000
- The bill focuses on the Department of the Army and the Army Futures Command, indicating that army officials and organizations involved in modernization efforts will be impacted.
- By defining roles and responsibilities related to modernization, the bill affects strategy and operations within the Army.
- The ultimate users and beneficiaries of modernization efforts are army servicemembers, whose equipment, technology, and resources may be affected by this bill.
- If modernization leads to changes in capability, safety, or efficiency, it can have broader implications for servicemembers' working conditions and operations.
Reasoning
- The policy's direct effects are primarily on the Department of the Army and its officials, focusing on modernization roles and strategies.
- Servicemembers may experience indirect effects through enhancements in technology, resources, and equipment, potentially improving their working conditions.
- The budget constraint implies that significant immediate changes may be limited, and gradual improvements might occur over the 10-year period.
- It's essential to consider the spread across various positions in the Army, including those not directly affected by the Army Futures Command.
- The high number of servicemembers compared to the policy's budget suggests that most will experience negligible to low personal impacts at first.
Simulated Interviews
Infantry Officer (Fort Hood, Texas)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Modernization is crucial for maintaining operational effectiveness and safety on the field.
- I'm optimistic that defining roles will streamline decision-making processes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Logistics Specialist (Fort Bragg, North Carolina)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Clarifying roles can improve workflow in logistics and reduce material shortages.
- Concerned about the timely implementation given the budget constraints.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is a step towards a more coordinated Army structure.
- Expecting improved efficiency in modernization efforts.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Vehicle Mechanic (Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any improvements in equipment support would be beneficial.
- Skeptical about immediate impacts on my daily job from this policy.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Senior Non-Commissioned Officer (Fort Bliss, Texas)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Implementation might standardize training programs with newer technologies.
- Budget constraints could delay benefits to servicemembers.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Army Strategist (Pentagon, Virginia)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could enhance clarity in modernization processes.
- Concerned about the impact of delays due to the funding limitations.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Communications Officer (Fort Campbell, Kentucky)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Clarified roles should enhance training and equipment integration in communication.
- Visibility into the outcome of modernization efforts could affect morale.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Training and Simulation Specialist (Fort Carson, Colorado)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy supports my work in integrating new technologies into training.
- Expecting gradual but positive changes depending on funding scope.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Civil Engineer (Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy may streamline procurement and project initiation processes.
- Expecting moderate improvement in project timelines as roles become clearer.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Combat Medic (Fort Riley, Kansas)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any improvements in medical support equipment are welcomed.
- Realistic about the slow pace of change given budget constraints.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Year 2: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Year 3: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Year 5: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Year 10: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Year 100: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Key Considerations
- The bill focuses on role definitions within the Army, which may result in minimal upfront costs related to administrative reorganization.
- Long-term impacts of modernization, while not directly costed, include potential enhancements in Army efficiency and capability.