Bill Overview
Title: Ukraine Emergency Appropriations Act of 2022
Description: This bill provides emergency supplemental appropriations for assistance to Ukraine and for other related purposes. Specifically, the bill provides appropriations to the Department of Defense (DOD) to (1) provide specified weapons and equipment to the government of Ukraine, (2) provide NATO member countries with certain weapons and defense articles to bolster deterrence efforts against Russia and to replace items such countries have donated to Ukraine, (3) enhance DOD capabilities to defend against a cyberattack originating from Russia or Belarus and targeting U.S. critical infrastructure or the ability of the United States to retaliate against a nuclear attack, and (4) deliver humanitarian assistance to Ukraine. The bill also provides appropriations to the Department of State to (1) address humanitarian needs in Ukraine caused by Russia's invasion, (2) assist refugees from Ukraine, (3) rebuild infrastructure in Ukraine damaged by Russia's invasion, and (4) support the revitalization of Ukraine's economy after Russia's invasion.
Sponsors: Sen. Rubio, Marco [R-FL]
Target Audience
Population: Citizens of Ukraine
Estimated Size: 331000000
- The bill provides humanitarian assistance to Ukraine and addresses humanitarian needs caused by Russia's invasion. This includes providing humanitarian aid directly to individuals impacted in Ukraine.
- There are refugees from Ukraine who will be assisted, and efforts to rebuild infrastructure and revitalize the economy are likely to benefit the general population living in Ukraine.
- The assistance to NATO member countries to bolster deterrence efforts also has implications for populations in those countries, particularly in Eastern Europe, who face security concerns due to potential aggression.
- The bill includes enhancing DOD capabilities to defend against a cyberattack, which protects U.S. critical infrastructure and can impact the wellbeing of the American population by ensuring national security.
Reasoning
- The policy has a direct focus on Ukraine, providing military and humanitarian aid. Therefore, it impacts U.S. citizens primarily through national security enhancements and secondarily through economic implications. This influence varies among individuals based on proximity to military, cybersecurity fields, and overall economic conditions.
- Some Americans may feel more secure knowing that the policy aims to enhance defense capabilities, possibly leading to a slight improvement in the general sense of security and wellbeing among such individuals.
- There is likely minimal direct financial impact on individual U.S. citizens except potentially those connected directly with military or associated industries. The broader economic impact might be indirect and long-term due to defense spending influencing federal budgets and priorities.
Simulated Interviews
retired school teacher (Des Moines, Iowa)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel more secure knowing our government is taking actions to protect us from potential cyberattacks.
- I'm concerned about how much money the government is spending and whether this will affect my pension or social security.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
cybersecurity analyst (Austin, Texas)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy directly impacts my work because we're getting more contracts aimed at bolstering cybersecurity.
- It's a relief to see measures being taken to prevent cyber threats, which are a huge concern in my industry.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
graduate student (Brooklyn, New York)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Understanding the importance of this policy in terms of international stability makes me supportive.
- However, I worry about the allocation of resources being diverted from domestic education funding.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
small business owner (San Diego, California)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My business is likely to see increased demand due to this policy, which is good for me.
- There's always uncertainty in relying on government contracts, though, so it's a mixed bag.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
factory worker (Columbus, Ohio)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see this policy impacting my job directly.
- I'm more worried about rising costs of living and how my pay isn't keeping up.
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 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 3 |
nurse (Miami, Florida)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any policy that aids in global stability is a good step, given my family background.
- I hope it also means less tension and better diplomatic results in my relatives' countries.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
software engineer (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The focus on cybersecurity is reassuring, given that my field is often targeted for breaches.
- I support measures that protect both our national security and corporations like mine.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
auto mechanic (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't really see how this policy helps me in my day-to-day life.
- Concerned about the national budget deficit and how it impacts domestic programs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 3 |
software developer (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm pleased to see investment in cybersecurity which is vital for our industry.
- Policies like this help maintain global stability, indirectly benefitting everyone's peace of mind.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
government employee (Houston, Texas)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy is necessary for our geopolitical interests.
- However, there is also concern about the financial implications on future budgets and taxes.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $34000000000 (Low: $30000000000, High: $38000000000)
Year 2: $20000000000 (Low: $18000000000, High: $22000000000)
Year 3: $15000000000 (Low: $14000000000, High: $16000000000)
Year 5: $10000000000 (Low: $9000000000, High: $11000000000)
Year 10: $5000000000 (Low: $4500000000, High: $5500000000)
Year 100: $1000000000 (Low: $500000000, High: $1500000000)
Key Considerations
- Current geopolitical tensions with Russia could escalate, impacting the subsequent costs and allocations in future appropriations.
- The effectiveness of disbursed aid and military assistance in achieving strategic political objectives such as European stability and successful Ukrainian defense is uncertain.
- The proposed financial figures for rebuilding and humanitarian aid might evolve based on situations on the ground, including recovery pace and political developments.