Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2027
Download PDFSponsored by
Rep. Womack, Steve [R-AR-3]
ID: W000809
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 598.
June 4, 2026
Introduced
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
Committee Review
Floor Action
Passed House
Senate Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
📚 How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
Joy, another exercise in futility, where I get to dissect the latest abomination of a bill, HR 9170, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2027. Because, you know, the previous ones were such resounding successes (insert eye roll).
Let's start with the total funding amounts: $218,142,000 for the Office of the Secretary, because who doesn't love a good game of bureaucratic bingo? And, of course, there are the obligatory allocations to various agencies and programs, like the Office of Research and Technology ($48,500,000), because we all know that throwing money at problems solves them (just ask the Pentagon).
Now, let's play "Find the Pork Barrel"! We have $3,836,000 for the immediate Office of the Secretary, $1,374,000 for the Deputy Secretary, and a whopping $26,963,000 for the Office of the General Counsel. I'm sure these funds will be used for the most pressing transportation issues... like funding the Secretary's new office furniture or the Deputy Secretary's favorite coffee machine.
Notable increases? Well, there's the $17,000,000 for information technology development, modernization, and enhancement, because who doesn't love a good IT project to sink their teeth into? And, of course, the obligatory $5,724,000 for the Office of Public Affairs and Public Liaison, because someone has to spin this mess.
Riders and policy provisions? Oh boy, where do I even start? There's the drone infrastructure inspection grant program ($5,000,000), because who doesn't love a good drone-related earmark? And let's not forget the $10,000,000 for system reliability, operational efficiency, and resilience of inland waterway transportation, directed to a university in the south central region with an industrial engineering and operations analytics program. I'm sure this is just a coincidence and has nothing to do with the fact that said university is located in a key congressional district.
Fiscal impact? Ha! Don't make me laugh. This bill will, of course, contribute to our ever-growing deficit, but who's counting? It's not like we have a functioning budget process or anything. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that this bill will increase the deficit by $1.2 billion over the next five years, but hey, what's a few billion dollars between friends?
In conclusion, HR 9170 is just another example of the legislative theater that passes for governance in this country. It's a bloated, pork-filled monstrosity that will only serve to further enrich the already wealthy and powerful, while leaving the rest of us to foot the bill. But hey, at least we'll have more drones and better IT systems... said no one ever.
Diagnosis: Terminal case of bureaucratic bloat, with symptoms including excessive spending, earmarks
Related Topics
💰 Campaign Finance Network
Rep. Womack, Steve [R-AR-3]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No committee contributions found
Donor Network - Rep. Womack, Steve [R-AR-3]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 21 nodes and 25 connections
Total contributions: $104,550
Top Donors - Rep. Womack, Steve [R-AR-3]
Showing top 20 donors by contribution amount
Industry Impact
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 12 helped,1 harmed.
- +Construction & Engineering confidence 0.90
Title I includes $729,161,350 for Community Project Funding under Highway Infrastructure Programs, which funds construction and engineering projects (Sec. 11701(e) of Public Law 117-58 applies).
- +Real Estate confidence 0.85
Title II includes $5,849,707,616 for the Community Development Fund, which supports economic development activities, including grants for the Economic Development Initiative (EDI) that can involve real estate development (Sec. 202 of title II).
- +Hospitals & Health Systems confidence 0.85
Funding for public and Indian housing, including $7,068,650,000 for public housing operations and $1,061,930,000 for housing for the elderly, supports vulnerable populations who often rely on public hospitals and health systems, thereby reducing uncompensated care burdens.
- +Long-Term Care & Nursing Homes confidence 0.85
$1,061,930,000 for housing for the elderly (Section 202) directly supports seniors needing long-term care services, reducing pressure on nursing homes and enabling aging in place, which benefits long-term care providers by expanding demand for home- and community-based services.
- +Electric Utilities confidence 0.80
Title I allocates $200,000,000 for the Nationally Significant Multimodal Freight and Highway Projects program, which includes projects for public parking for commercial motor vehicles that may involve utility coordination and grid upgrades (Sec. 117 of title 23, United States Code).
- +Health Insurance confidence 0.80
The bill's housing assistance programs (e.g., Section 8 vouchers) improve housing stability, which correlates with better health outcomes and reduced reliance on emergency care, indirectly benefiting health insurers by lowering claim volatility.
+ 7 more industries not shown.
Who funds the sponsor on these industries
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Womack, Steve [R-AR-3]) received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.
Industries this bill HELPS
- Agribusiness$20,600from 19contributions
- TYSON, JOHN H$3,300
- TYSON, JOHN RANDAL$3,300
- DECKINGER, ADAM$1,500
- YORK, ANDREW$1,500
- KEES, DUANE A$1,500
- Meat & Dairy Processing$20,350from 18contributions
- TYSON, JOHN H$3,300
- TYSON, JOHN RANDAL$3,300
- DECKINGER, ADAM$1,500
- YORK, ANDREW$1,500
- KEES, DUANE A$1,500
- Electric Utilities$14,750from 22contributions
- BROWN, MARCUS$1,000
- COOK-NELSON, KIMBERLY$1,000
- FALSTAD, DANIEL$1,000
- GREEN, BARRETT$1,000
- HUDSON, JOHN$1,000
- Defense Contractors$13,100from 9contributions
- SILBEY, NEELY$6,600
- NOVAKOVIC, PHEBE$1,500
- ROUALET, MARK$1,500
- SCHMID, ELIZABETH$1,500
- STRIEBEL, ERICA$1,000
- Construction & Engineering$12,095from 2contributions
- STINSON, KENNETH E$11,600
- STRATMANN, KURT$495
- Crop Producers$2,500from 4contributions
- WRIGHT, DANNY B$1,000
- EDDINGTON, STEVE$500
- HILLMAN, RICH$500
- HILL, STANLEY L$500
- Health Insurance$1,000from 1contribution
- WHITE, P MARK$1,000
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.
Introduction
AI Analysis:
"The bill provides funding for various transportation programs, but it does not directly address the Project 2025 policy's focus on reforming the Department of Transportation's grant-making processes and promoting private-sector financing and user fees. The bill's allocations and provisions are largely unrelated to the policy's objectives."
— 620 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise and formula grants, known as obligations, annually in areas ranging from transit systems to road construction to universities and has lent or subsidized more than $60 billion since the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program,3 now managed by the Build America Bureau, was created in 1998. This evolved role as a major, and often primary, funding and financing source is far from the department’s original policy framework. It also removes incentives for state and local officials to ensure that investments are worthwhile, because federal money removes the need to get public buy-in to build and maintain infrastructure projects as funding becomes “someone else’s money.” Despite the department’s tremendous resources, congressional mandates and funding priorities have made it difficult for DOT to focus on the pressing trans- portation challenges that most directly affect average Americans, such as the high cost of personal automobiles, especially in an era of high inflation; unpredictable and expensive commercial shipping by rail, air, and sea; and infrastructure spend- ing that does not match the types of transportation that most Americans prefer. Transforming the department to address the varied needs of all Americans more effectively remains a central challenge. DOT is particularly difficult to manage because its 11 major components—nine modal administrations, the Office of the Secretary, and the Office of the Inspector General—all have their own sets of personnel including administrators, deputy administrators, chiefs of staff, and general counsels. Most grants flow through the modes, such as the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administra- tion, and Federal Aviation Administration. The Office of the Secretary contains its own grantmaking operation that funds research and some special grants, as well as a major lending operation, the Build America Bureau, that functions as an infrastructure bank. The Office of the Sec- retary has department-wide offices for such functions as Budget and Financial Management, the General Counsel, Policy, the Office of Research and Technology, Government Affairs, Administration, the Office of the Chief Information Officer, Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Public Affairs, Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance, and Civil Rights. The modal administrations include the: l Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); l Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); l Federal Railroad Administration (FRA); l National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA); l Federal Transit Administration (FTA); — 621 — Department of Transportation l Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (GLS); l Maritime Administration (MARAD); l Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA); and l Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). DOT’s fundamental problem is that instead of being able to focus on providing Americans with affordable and abundant transportation, it has become saddled with congressional requirements that reduce the department to a de facto grant- making organization. Yet there is little need for much of this grantmaking, for two reasons: l New technology enables private companies to charge for transportation in many areas, which could transform how innovation is financed. It is vital to consider the role of user fees and other pricing innovations with regard to transportation infrastructure. Airport landing fees for aircraft, toll charges on roads and bridges, and per-gallon taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel are all examples of user charges that affect the decisions of transportation system users. These changes could shift our nation’s transportation away from being a top–down system that is misaligned with the needs of so many Americans. Increasing private-sector financing could revolutionize travel and increase everyday mobility to its greatest potential in a way that Americans prefer. Doing so would keep transportation decisions out of the hands of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., who are far removed from local problems and preferences. l If funding must be federal, it would be more efficient for the U.S. Congress to send transportation grants to each of the 50 states and allow each state to purchase the transportation services that it thinks are best. Such an approach would enable states to prioritize different types of transportation according to the needs of their citizens. States that rely more on automotive transportation, for example, could use their funding to meet those needs. Meanwhile, many Americans continue to confront serious challenges with their day-to-day transportation, including costs that have increased dramati- cally in recent years. DOT in its current form is insufficiently equipped to address those problems. DOT’s discretionary grant-making processes should be abol- ished, and funding should be focused on formulaic distributions to the states, which know best their transportation needs and are incentivized to think of the
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.
Related Bills
Other Bills by Rep. Womack, Steve
Similar Topics
A bill to require a briefing on increasing procurement of strategic and critical materials from sources in the United States.
A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to the Government of Israel of certain defense articles and services.
Establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2025 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2026 through 2034.