Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/8237

Bill Overview

Title: Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2023

Description: This bill provides FY2023 appropriations for the legislative branch, including the House of Representatives and joint items such as the Joint Economic Committee, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Office of the Attending Physician, and the Office of Congressional Accessibility Services. In addition, the bill provides FY2023 appropriations for the Capitol Police; the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights; the Congressional Budget Office; the Architect of the Capitol; the Library of Congress, including the Congressional Research Service and the Copyright Office; the Government Publishing Office; the Government Accountability Office; Congressional Office for International Leadership Fund; and the John C. Stennis Center for Public Service Training and Development. (Pursuant to the longstanding practice of each chamber of Congress determining its own requirements, funds for the Senate are not included in the House bill.) The bill also sets forth requirements and restrictions for using funds provided by this bill.

Sponsors: Rep. Ryan, Tim [D-OH-13]

Target Audience

Population: Employees of the U.S. legislative branch

Estimated Size: 30000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Legislative Researcher (Washington D.C.)

Age: 34 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy is crucial for maintaining the quality of research and reports our team produces.
  • Adequate funding ensures we have the best tools and access to necessary data.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 6 4

Capitol Police Officer (Washington D.C.)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Our equipment is outdated, and additional funding is welcome, especially for safety gear and training.
  • This policy is a step in the right direction for enhancing our work conditions.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 8 5
Year 5 9 5
Year 10 9 5
Year 20 8 4

Budget Analyst (Maryland)

Age: 30 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Appropriations can stabilize our resources for better analysis and reporting.
  • The funding helps us maintain quality standards, which is crucial for accurate budgeting.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 6
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 5 4

Government Publishing Office Employee (Virginia)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Funding will help in upgrading old systems to a digital platform.
  • I hope the transition is smooth and resources are allocated efficiently.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 7 5
Year 3 7 4
Year 5 7 4
Year 10 6 3
Year 20 6 2

Government Accountability Office Auditor (New York)

Age: 28 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 8.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This will help us conduct more thorough investigations and audits.
  • Increased funds may allow for additional hires, alleviating some workload pressures.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 7 5
Year 10 7 4
Year 20 7 4

Chief Architect, Architect of the Capitol (California)

Age: 39 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 7.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Sustainable infrastructure improvements are much-needed and funds will help.
  • The appropriations are critical but frequently face political hurdles.

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 7 4
Year 10 6 3
Year 20 5 2

Retired Congressional Staffer (Illinois)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Experienced years of fluctuations in funding allocations.
  • Stable funding is crucial for effective tax policy analysis.

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 5
Year 20 6 5

Office of Congressional Accessibility Services Coordinator (Massachusetts)

Age: 46 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Funding helps us expand and improve accessibility services.
  • Important to keep up with technological advancements for accessibility.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 8 5
Year 5 7 4
Year 10 6 3
Year 20 6 3

Staff Attorney, Office of the Attending Physician (Texas)

Age: 29 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The funding affects quality and efficiency of medical services provided to legislators.
  • Ensures resources are available for emergencies and routine healthcare.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 6 5

Union Representative, Capitol Police (Georgia)

Age: 55 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy needs to effectively address safety challenges and equipment needs for Capitol Police.
  • Our safety is paramount, and any lapse can have serious implications.

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 8 5
Year 10 8 4
Year 20 7 3

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $5500000000 (Low: $5000000000, High: $6000000000)

Year 2: $5500000000 (Low: $5000000000, High: $6000000000)

Year 3: $5500000000 (Low: $5000000000, High: $6000000000)

Year 5: $5500000000 (Low: $5000000000, High: $6000000000)

Year 10: $5500000000 (Low: $5000000000, High: $6000000000)

Year 100: $5500000000 (Low: $5000000000, High: $6000000000)

Key Considerations