Bill Overview
Title: State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Fiscal Recovery, Infrastructure, and Disaster Relief Flexibility Act
Description: This bill allows states, tribes, territories, and localities to use certain COVID-19 relief funds for new categories of spending, including for natural disasters and infrastructure projects. It also makes changes to expenditure deadlines and other aspects of this funding. Specifically, recipients may use funds for emergency relief from natural disasters and associated negative economic impacts of natural disasters. In addition, recipients may use a portion of their COVID-19 relief funds for designated infrastructure projects, such as nationally significant freight and highway projects. Furthermore, the bill allows recipients to expend COVID-19 relief funds on these types of infrastructure projects until September 30, 2026. Under current law, recipients must expend the funds by December 31, 2024. Other changes in the bill include (1) modifying eligibility and allocation requirements for funding set aside for counties and Indian tribes that are near public lands, (2) allowing Indian tribes an additional year to expend their COVID-19 relief funds, and (3) establishing a process for government entities to decline COVID-19 relief funds and requiring any declined funds to be used to reduce the federal deficit.
Sponsors: Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by changes in COVID-19 fund allocations for infrastructure and disaster relief
Estimated Size: 331000000
- The bill affects multiple levels of government including state, local, tribal, and territorial entities which directly impacts residents and businesses in these areas.
- It allows for expanded use of COVID-19 relief funds which indirectly impacts citizens by promoting infrastructure improvements and disaster recovery efforts.
- The infrastructure projects include significant freight and highway improvements, which can have a broad economic impact by improving transport routes and stimulating local economies.
- The bill also impacts individuals living near public lands by modifying funding eligibility and allocations, which could affect local economic conditions and services.
Reasoning
- The policy has a broad scope and it targets infrastructure, disaster relief, and funding management which can affect people differently based on their location and occupation.
- Infrastructure projects can enhance transportation routes significantly impacting truck drivers, logistics companies, and local businesses around new or improved infrastructure.
- Individuals in disaster-prone areas might see improved support and quicker recovery due to the extended deadline and use of funds for emergency relief.
- Residents near public lands or in areas primarily managed by tribes might experience changes due to modified funding allocations impacting local services and economic conditions.
- About 331 million Americans could indirectly benefit, but the direct impact involves more targeted groups affected by infrastructure and disaster relief efforts.
- Financial reallocation capabilities allow for more strategic and extended spending of COVID-19 relief funds which is critical for tribal, state, and local governments.
Simulated Interviews
Logistics Manager (New Orleans, Louisiana)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could significantly improve our supply chain efficiencies.
- Better infrastructure means faster deliveries and potentially lower costs.
- Expanded disaster relief fund usage will help us recover quicker from storms and hurricanes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Environmental Engineer (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased infrastructure spending will lead to better project opportunities.
- More jobs and economic activity are expected due to these projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Small Business Owner (Houston, Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is great as it extends disaster relief.
- Much needed improvements in infrastructure could lower logistic costs for my business.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Tribal Leader (Tulsa, Oklahoma)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The additional time to use funds is crucial for our projects.
- We hope it will bring more stability and development to our community.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Software Developer (San Francisco, California)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support the policy for its potential economic benefits.
- Personally, it doesn't directly impact my life or work.
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 |
Retired (Miami, Florida)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about the increasing severity of hurricanes, so improved disaster response is comforting.
- I think it will make my community more resilient.
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 | 7 | 6 |
Civil Engineer (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will support important infrastructure projects long overdue.
- Improved highways could stimulate more economic activity regionally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
College Student (Little Rock, Arkansas)
Age: 19 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I'm not directly involved, the policy inspires hope for better future planning.
- It's important to adapt fund use based on current needs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired Veteran (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Potential improvements on local economy and job creation are positive.
- Infrastructure projects could attract more visitors to nearby natural attractions.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
NGO Worker (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy aligns with climate adaptation strategies we promote.
- Extended deadlines give us more time to develop meaningful projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1550000000 (Low: $1350000000, High: $1750000000)
Year 2: $1600000000 (Low: $1400000000, High: $1800000000)
Year 3: $1650000000 (Low: $1450000000, High: $1850000000)
Year 5: $1700000000 (Low: $1500000000, High: $1900000000)
Year 10: $1800000000 (Low: $1600000000, High: $2000000000)
Year 100: $2200000000 (Low: $1800000000, High: $2400000000)
Key Considerations
- The extended timeline for spending relief funds allows more strategic planning by recipients, potentially enhancing the impact of the funds.
- The ability to use funds for infrastructure may shift state and local budget priorities, affecting other areas of public spending.
- Real economic benefits depend on the efficiency and effectiveness of fund use by local and state governments.