Texas 33rd District

The Texas 33rd District (TX-33) filter on NAICS 325412

NAICS 325412 and congressional district TX-33 meet here. $8,940,917,969.34 is the USAspending.gov obligation sum on awards that carry both tags. It is not Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing's nationwide total, not every federal dollar coded to Texas 33rd District (TX-33), and not an outlay register. The packet does not split finished-dose from API lines, and it does not split contract versus assistance instruments. 2,291 is an action count: modifications and repeat awards add rows. Unique recipients are unpublished. This cell is not a drug-label catalog, a plant census, or a named-vendor file.

Dividing $8,940,917,969.34 by 2,291 yields about $3,902,626.79 per award on average. That ratio is two packet facts. It is not a typical contract, grant, or benefit line. 2,291 awards is a mass-action pharma file. Volume is not unique plants. Texas 3rd District hosts aircraft parts (336413), not 325412. Do not treat TX-33's 325412 cell as a synonym for every pharma manufacturing account nationwide. Open Texas 33rd District for the district table without this industry filter, NAICS 325412 for NAICS 325412 without a TX-33 filter, Texas federal spending for every industry in the Texas extract, and All spending ties for the rest of the join list. Quote those hubs as parents, not as addends to $8,940,917,969.34.

The NAICS 325412 rollup

USAspending labels industry 325412 as Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing. That code produced $8,940,917,969.34 when crossed with Texas 33rd District (TX-33) place of performance. The industry-wide 325412 hub does not require TX-33 geography. The district hub does not require pharma manufacturing. Only this tie applies both filters, which is why it cites 2,291 awards. The packet does not split finished-dose from API lines, and it does not split contract versus assistance instruments.

Correlation is not causation: Texas 33rd District (TX-33) did not cause $8,940,917,969.34 by existing as a large or small place. Population, outcome scores, and named facilities are not packet facts. The join is 325412 × TX-33 only. This cell is not a drug-label catalog, a plant census, or a named-vendor file. Do not invent contractors or award recipients to fill the gap. Campaign donations on FEC tables do not fund this USAspending cell; the datasets are separate. Keep 325412 and TX-33 together. Adding the 336419 TX-33 cell would mix two manufacturing codes.

Questions

How much pharma manufacturing spending is coded to Texas 33rd District (TX-33)?

USAspending.gov lists $8,940,917,969.34 in Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing obligations across 2,291 awards with place of performance in Texas 33rd District (TX-33). NAICS 325412 × TX-33 is an obligation join, not an outlay and not Texas's complete federal ledger. The cell is 16.4% of the district's published total ($54,453,144,624.98). Unique recipients are unpublished.

Does $8,940,917,969.34 include every pharma manufacturing product line in TX-33?

The packet publishes one NAICS rollup. The packet does not split finished-dose from API lines, and it does not split contract versus assistance instruments. $8,940,917,969.34 is the combined obligation sum for industry 325412 inside TX-33 coding. This page will not invent a product pie or name contractors. Open NAICS 325412 and Texas 33rd District to inspect parent tables. 2,291 remains an action count, not a product count.

Is $8,940,917,969.34 cash already paid in Texas 33rd District (TX-33)?

No. Obligations are commitments recorded on USAspending.gov awards. Outlays — money that actually left the Treasury — are a different concept and are not this packet's headline. Treating $8,940,917,969.34 as checks already cleared in Texas 33rd District (TX-33) confuses those terms. Later ingests can revise 2,291 awards. Prefer the live district and industry hubs if the tables moved.

Why is the implied average $3,902,626.79 not a typical award?

The average is $8,940,917,969.34 divided by 2,291 awards, about $3,902,626.79. Thick files pull the mean down; thin files pull it up. Neither case publishes a typical instrument. Modifications add rows. Recipients are unpublished. Use the ratio only as a concentration statistic.