Bill Overview
Title: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2023
Description: This bill provides FY2023 appropriations for the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies. The bill provides appropriations to USDA for agricultural programs, including the Office of the Secretary, Executive Operations, the Office of Civil Rights, the Economic Research Service, the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the Agricultural Research Service, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the Agricultural Marketing Service, and the Food Safety and Inspection Service. The bill also provides appropriations to USDA for farm production and conservation programs, including the Farm Production and Conservation Business Center, the Farm Service Agency, the Risk Management Agency, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The bill provides appropriations to the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund and the Commodity Credit Corporation Fund. For USDA rural development programs, the bill includes appropriations for Rural Development Salaries and Expenses, the Rural Housing Service, the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and the Rural Utilities Service. The bill provides appropriations to the Food and Nutrition Service for Child Nutrition Programs; the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); the Commodity Assistance Program; and Nutrition Programs Administration. The bill provides appropriations to the Foreign Agricultural Service for (1) Food for Peace Title II Grants, and (2) McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program Grants. The bill also provides appropriations for (1) the Food and Drug Administration, and (2) the Farm Credit Administration. Additionally, the bill sets forth requirements and restrictions for using funds provided by this and other appropriations acts.
Sponsors: Sen. Baldwin, Tammy [D-WI]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals globally involved in or affected by agriculture, rural development, and food-related programs
Estimated Size: 150000000
- The bill affects numerous USDA programs such as farm production, rural development, and nutrition programs, impacting people involved in agriculture, rural communities, and those relying on food assistance programs.
- It allocates funds for food nutrition services like SNAP and WIC, affecting beneficiaries of these programs, including low-income families, women, infants, and children.
- USDA-related agencies affected include those involved in economic research and agricultural statistics, impacting workers in these fields and policy development.
- It impacts approximately 43 million SNAP beneficiaries in the US and those involved in agriculture production and development projects.
Reasoning
- The policy significantly impacts those involved in agriculture, rural development, and nutrition programs, which include a wide swath of the population, but the degree of impact will vary.
- Funding enhancements for SNAP and WIC will provide improved support for low-income families, potentially reducing food insecurity and improving wellbeing.
- Rural development programs could boost infrastructure and economic opportunities in rural areas, influencing the wellbeing of those communities positively.
- Agricultural research and support services may see marginal increases in wellbeing for those directly involved, through job security and technological advancement.
- The broader population not involved in or benefiting directly from USDA programs might experience little to no impact from this policy.
Simulated Interviews
Farmer (Rural Ohio)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think more funding for the USDA services will help sustain our farming operations and ensure we stay afloat, especially with market fluctuations.
- Rural development funds can improve infrastructure, which our community desperately needs for better access and connectivity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Data Analyst (New York)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased funding for agricultural economic research can lead to better data and analysis, ultimately influencing policy positively.
- However, my personal wellbeing won't change much as my job is secure with or without this policy.
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 |
Single Mother (Texas)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful that this policy means more support for programs like SNAP, which my family heavily relies on.
- Access to affordable nutrition is crucial for me and my kids, so this increased funding should help reduce some stress.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Retired Farmer (Farm in Iowa)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Rural development could enhance our community's facilities, making life more convenient for seniors like me.
- My wellbeing is not directly tied to these funds, but community improvements may bring indirect benefits.
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 |
Environmental Scientist (California)
Age: 35 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The funding will allow more comprehensive research into sustainable practices, which aligns with my passion and work.
- Financially, I'm stable already, so my personal gain is more professional satisfaction and impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Rural Business Owner (Rural Mississippi)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased economic activity from USDA investments could spell growth for my business as more farmers have resources.
- Stable customer flows support my wellbeing, clearly influenced by these federal funds.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Social Worker (Georgia)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy provides reassurance as the families I work with depend on SNAP and WIC.
- Professionally, more resources could mean better assistance and outcomes for clients.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Grocery Store Manager (Chicago)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy-driven increases in SNAP purchases could slightly boost our sales, but overall, I don't expect major life changes.
- Rural parts see more impact than urban areas in my opinion.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Agricultural Student (Nebraska)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.5 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Investment in research positively influences my field of study and career prospects.
- I hope for internships or projects backed by this additional funding.
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 |
Veteran (Kansas)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improvements in rural services could enhance our facilities, though direct benefits are unclear to me.
- Veterans like myself may see secondary benefits through community enhancements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25100000000 (Low: $24000000000, High: $26200000000)
Year 2: $26000000000 (Low: $25000000000, High: $27000000000)
Year 3: $26500000000 (Low: $25500000000, High: $27500000000)
Year 5: $27100000000 (Low: $26100000000, High: $28100000000)
Year 10: $28300000000 (Low: $27200000000, High: $29300000000)
Year 100: $31500000000 (Low: $29500000000, High: $33500000000)
Key Considerations
- The breadth of USDA programs covered suggests significant administration and coordination efforts.
- Flexibility in fund allocation might impact specific program effectiveness.
- Potential long-term benefits from rural development investments could mitigate the immediate budget implications.