Bill Overview
Title: Russia and Belarus SDR Exchange Prohibition Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits the Department of the Treasury from engaging in any transaction involving the exchange of Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) held by Russia or Belarus. The SDR is an international reserve asset maintained by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) based on contributions from IMF member countries. SDRs may be exchanged between member countries and may also be exchanged for currencies. Treasury must also (1) vigorously advocate for IMF member countries to prohibit transactions involving the exchange of SDRs held by Russia or Belarus, and (2) direct U.S. representatives to the IMF to oppose any allocation of SDRs to Russia or Belarus. The bill's provisions shall be in effect until the earlier of (1) five years after this bill's enactment, (2) 30 days after the President reports to Congress that the governments of Russia and Belarus have ceased aggression directed at undermining Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, or (3) the date on which the President reports to Congress that termination of the provisions is in the national interest of the United States.
Sponsors: Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]
Target Audience
Population: People in Russia and Belarus
Estimated Size: 0
- The primary countries involved in this legislation are Russia and Belarus, which could face economic constraints due to the prohibition on exchanging SDRs.
- These constraints may affect the governments’ abilities to manage international reserves, potentially leading to broader economic impacts.
- The IMF member countries are involved because the U.S. Treasury is directed to advocate for similar prohibitions among them.
- SDRs are international financial instruments involved in global trade and finance, impacting economies dependent on these exchanges.
- Direct economic impacts are focused on the financial operations of Russia and Belarus assuming reliance on SDR exchanges for currency exchange or reserves.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily impacts Russia and Belarus, directly limiting their financial operations related to SDRs. The U.S. citizens might see indirect impacts via financial markets, trade, or military policies.
- The target population in the U.S. is not directly large. The groups affected are mainly those in sectors closely linked to international finance, political strategy, or global market business.
- Given the budget constraints, the policy's immediate effect on U.S. citizens' wellbeing would revolve around perceived geopolitical stability or investor confidence.
- A wide range of American's contexts should be considered, including financial professionals, political analysts, industry sectors related to global trade, and general public opinions.
Simulated Interviews
Financial Analyst (New York, NY)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think prohibiting SDR exchanges with Russia and Belarus is a necessary move to exert economic pressure.
- This policy may cause volatility in markets initially but could stabilize geopolitical tensions long-term.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Professor of International Relations (Austin, TX)
Age: 46 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a strategic move to curtail Russia's financial maneuverability.
- It could lead to heightened tensions, but serves as a strong stand for Ukraine's sovereignty.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Startup Founder (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems focused on financial systems; it’s unclear how directly it impacts tech markets yet.
- It highlights the importance of understanding political landscapes when expanding internationally.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Lobbyist (Washington, DC)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy aligns with ongoing economic sanctions and efforts to leverage diplomacy over military action.
- It may complicate trade negotiations with regions bordering Russia and Belarus.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Retail Manager (Chicago, IL)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This sort of policy seems distant but I worry about how trade tensions might trickle down to consumer prices.
- It's another puzzle piece in a complex global picture.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
International Business Consultant (Miami, FL)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy showcases financial strategies' impacts beyond immediate national interests.
- It’s an interesting case for currency management in geopolitics.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Film Industry Professional (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Financial policies like these seem detached from the arts sector.
- However, I recognize that broader stability might indirectly benefit global partnerships.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Retired Diplomat (Seattle, WA)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Returning to financial sanctions over military interventions is sensible.
- It might work better with broader coalition support from IMF members.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Graduate Student (Boston, MA)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Analyzing how financial policy shifts can ripple through economies is fascinating.
- This makes for an intriguing case study in international economics.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Public School Teacher (Minneapolis, MN)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry that international policies like these could shift educational funding priorities away from domestic needs.
- It's important for future generations to understand these complex topics.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $7000000)
Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $7000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $7000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The bill's primary focus is on limiting Russia and Belarus's ability to use international financial resources.
- U.S. diplomatic efforts to engage with IMF member countries and promote similar actions are vital components and potential cost drivers of this bill.
- The unpredictable geopolitical landscape could result in variable impacts on international relations and economic stability.