Bill Overview
Title: RETURN Act
Description: This bill prohibits the U.S. government from charging U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents for their evacuation related to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Specifically, the Department of State must waive repayment for travel expenses incurred on behalf of such an individual as part of the evacuation from Ukraine. Similarly, no federal employee may solicit or accept funds from such an individual as a condition of using government-provided transportation to repatriate the individual to the United States. No traveler may be denied State Department-sponsored air travel related to such an evacuation due to a failure to provide proof of a negative COVID-19 test or recovery from COVID-19.
Sponsors: Rep. Barr, Andy [R-KY-6]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by evacuation efforts due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, specifically U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents
Estimated Size: 50000
- The bill targets individuals who are being evacuated due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
- The individuals affected are those who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.
- This specifically concerns those who incurred travel expenses due to evacuation efforts.
- The bill also affects federal employees involved in the evacuation process, as it changes conditions under which they can solicit or accept funds.
Reasoning
- Given the policy's target, most impacted individuals will include U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents who were in Ukraine during the evacuation due to the Russian invasion.
- Many people may not feel the policy has a direct personal impact, especially if they were not directly involved or did not have close family affected.
- A range of wellbeing impacts include relief from financial burden for those directly evacuated and involved, to minimal impacts for those not directly involved.
- Including federal employees who manage evacuations in interviews may reflect administrative or operational changes affecting their roles and organizational stress.
- The allocation for year one must be sufficient to cover expenses for approximately 100,000 people at an average cost of $2,500 per person, which is feasible within the budget limit.
Simulated Interviews
Software Engineer (New York, NY)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy gave me peace of mind. The stress of figuring out travel expenses was immense, but knowing they will be covered helps significantly.
- I think this was a very humane decision to help those of us who were in a real pinch.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
State Department Official (Washington, DC)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Operationally, it's a challenge to adapt to new funding rules but it’s necessary.
- This alleviates a lot of the stress citizens face when they're in crisis situations.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Freelance Journalist (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy was a huge relief; the financial aspect was overwhelming.
- Being able to evacuate without worrying about costs was incredibly helpful to my mental well-being.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Retired (Chicago, IL)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Knowing my son could travel without us scraping for funds was a huge relief.
- I support the policy because it ensures safety over financial worries.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Nurse (Houston, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It doesn't affect my wellbeing directly, but it's good to see the government supporting our citizens in difficult times.
- It encourages a sense of national responsibility and community.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Artist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy eased some stress for my friend, which indirectly relieved me too.
- I believe prioritizing people over profit is crucial in crises.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy was a lifesaver. Paying back debt from the evacuation would have been a nightmare on a student budget.
- I hope similar policies support students in future emergencies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
University Professor (Miami, FL)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy is essential for ensuring the safety and support of citizens abroad.
- It removes a huge financial burden from unexpectedly risky research trips.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Defense Contractor (Austin, TX)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy secures a crucial safety net for professionals like me who travel often.
- More companies should support their employees, but this government action is a good start.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Travel Agent (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It doesn't change my personal well-being but makes my role in helping evacuees easier.
- I am glad the government recognizes the pressure evacuations put on individuals.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 2: $260000000 (Low: $210000000, High: $320000000)
Year 3: $270000000 (Low: $220000000, High: $330000000)
Year 5: $290000000 (Low: $240000000, High: $360000000)
Year 10: $340000000 (Low: $280000000, High: $420000000)
Year 100: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Key Considerations
- Estimating the number of individuals utilizing evacuation services annually is challenging due to geopolitical uncertainties.
- Coordination with the Department of State is critical to ensure accurate cost tracking and process oversight.
- Potential increase in operational demands on federal employees involved in evacuation procedures.