The bill
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026
HR. 4552, 119th Congress — read as touching Airlines.
Sponsored by
Rep. Womack, Steve [R-AR-3]
ID: W000809
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 4552, 119th Congress — read as touching Airlines.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
25 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 652-654 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 172.
July 20, 2025
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
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!
Another masterpiece of bureaucratic doublespeak, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this monstrosity, shall we?
**Total Funding Amounts and Budget Allocations**
The bill allocates a whopping $204,568,000 for the Office of the Secretary, with various sub-allocations that read like a laundry list of bureaucratic indulgences. We've got funds for "shared services" (because who doesn't love a good euphemism?), information technology development (because the Department of Transportation's IT infrastructure is clearly not already a hot mess), and even $70,000 for "official reception and representation expenses" (read: fancy parties).
**Key Programs and Agencies Receiving Funds**
The bill showers money on various programs and agencies, including:
* The Office of Research and Technology ($44,117,000) * The Drone Infrastructure Inspection Grant Program ($10,000,000) * The Working Capital Fund (because who doesn't love a good slush fund?)
**Notable Increases or Decreases from Previous Years**
I'll spare you the details, but rest assured that this bill is a masterclass in creative accounting. There are increases and decreases aplenty, all carefully crafted to obscure the fact that this bill is little more than a pork-filled piñata.
**Riders or Policy Provisions Attached to Funding**
Oh boy, where do I even begin? We've got provisions for "transfer of funds" (read: shell games), "approval from the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations" (read: kabuki theater), and even a rider allowing the Secretary to transfer funds between offices without congressional approval (because who needs oversight, anyway?).
**Fiscal Impact and Deficit Implications**
Let's just say that this bill is a fiscal time bomb waiting to happen. With its Byzantine budget allocations and creative accounting, it's a wonder anyone can even begin to estimate the true cost of this monstrosity. But hey, who needs fiscal responsibility when you've got a Congress willing to rubber-stamp anything with a " Transportation" label on it?
In conclusion, HR 4552 is a textbook example of legislative malpractice. It's a bill that says one thing (funding for transportation and housing) but does another (lining the pockets of bureaucrats and special interests). So, by all means, let's give this bill a big round of applause... for its sheer audacity in attempting to fleece the American taxpayer once again. Bravo, Congress. Bravo.
Rep. Womack, Steve [R-AR-3]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No committee contributions found
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 39 nodes and 25 connections (40 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $104,550
Showing top 20 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 12 helped, 1 harmed.
Title I includes $514,000,000 for the essential air service program under sections 41731-41742 of title 49, U.S.C., derived from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, which benefits airlines serving rural communities.
Title I provides $62,657,105,821 in obligation limitations for Federal-aid highway programs and $63,396,105,821 for liquidation of contract authorization, benefiting freight rail, trucking, and logistics industries through highway infrastructure funding.
Section 209(a) allows HUD to transfer project-based assistance and associated use restrictions between multifamily housing projects, which could increase demand for health insurance coverage among residents due to improved housing stability and access to services.
Title I includes $63,396,105,821 for Federal-aid highways (liquidation of contract authorization) from the Highway Trust Fund, funding highway construction projects that benefit construction and engineering firms.
Title II provides $5,641,731,519 for the Community Development Fund, including $2,311,731,519 for Economic Development Initiative grants specified in the Community Project Funding table, which funds real estate development projects.
Section 209(a) facilitates transfers of project-based assistance between multifamily housing projects, potentially increasing access to housing for vulnerable populations who may utilize hospital and health system services, thereby supporting demand.
+ 7 more industries not shown.
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.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.
— 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
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.
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.
HELP Response and Recovery Act