Bill Overview
Title: Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2023
Description: This bill provides FY2023 appropriations for several federal departments and agencies. It includes 6 of the 12 regular FY2023 appropriations bills: the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2023; the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2023; the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2023; the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2023; the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2023; and the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2023. The departments, agencies, and activities funded in the bill include the Department of Transportation, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the civil works projects of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Energy, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of the Treasury, the Executive Office of the President, the judiciary, the District of Columbia, the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Forest Service, Department of Defense military construction and family housing activities, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and several related and independent agencies. The bill also specifies restrictions and requirements for using funds provided by this and other appropriations acts.
Sponsors: Rep. Price, David E. [D-NC-4]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals utilizing or relying on hosted transportation infrastructures and public housing services
Estimated Size: 2800000
- The bill impacts funding for both transportation and housing sectors, which are fundamental to daily living and economic activities.
- DOT appropriations affect transportation infrastructure and safety, impacting all users of transport services.
- HUD appropriations impact public housing and urban development, which are critical for low-income individuals and communities in need of housing assistance.
- Funds allocated for safety administration and inspection likely enhance public safety across various transportation modes.
- The bill supports the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, indicating a focus on assisting homeless individuals.
- Programs under HUD like Public and Indian Housing and Community Planning and Development are focused on underserved and vulnerable populations.
Reasoning
- The policy impacts both transportation and housing sectors, influencing millions who rely on these services.
- DOT appropriations will particularly affect those using public transportation and highways.
- HUD appropriations target individuals and families using public housing and development programs, supporting low-income populations.
- The policy's focus on transportation safety enhances wellbeing by potentially reducing accidents and improving infrastructure reliability.
- The target population includes people experiencing homelessness, who might benefit from related agency actions.
Simulated Interviews
Retired (Chicago, IL)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful that increased funding will improve public bus and train services.
- Safer and more reliable transportation would make my daily errands less stressful.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Construction Worker (Kansas City, MO)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I expect the improvements in highway systems to ease my commute.
- Housing support gave my family a break growing up; more funds might help others like us.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Tech Industry Analyst (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Not much personal impact, but I support investments in public infrastructure.
- Better infrastructure benefits overall productivity and community wellbeing.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
School Teacher (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 44 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved road safety and maintenance would be welcome.
- Community development and housing are essential for student wellbeing too.
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 | 6 |
Farmer (Rural Texas)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More highway funding should improve road conditions for transporting goods.
- Little direct effect from housing appropriations.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Graduate Student (New York City, NY)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improvements in subway safety and reliability are crucial for my daily life.
- Support for homelessness reduction is personally significant.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Artist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Affordable housing shifts could ease rent burdens a bit.
- Funding for public transit could open up new job opportunities.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Social Worker (Portland, OR)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Vital funds for highway safety will improve caseworker efficiency.
- Housing and community funds are critical for the families I work with.
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 | 6 |
Retired Auto Worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 70 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More efficient transport is essential for errands and appointments.
- Subsidized housing improvements will significantly benefit retirees.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Bartender (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- An efficient bus system is crucial for my commute.
- Housing program expansions might make home ownership more achievable.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $180000000000 (Low: $170000000000, High: $190000000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The bill addresses both immediate and long-term infrastructural and housing needs.
- The allocations include both rural and urban regions, with potential variations in impact across different communities.
- Federal oversight and administration costs may slightly reduce direct funds available for community initiatives.
- The interaction of appropriations with other federal subsidies or investments should be considered to fully understand fiscal impacts.