Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
The AG RESEARCH Act (H.R. 3568) amends the Research Facilities Act to fund repairs, modernization, and equipment for agricultural research facilities. It creates a competitive grant program in NIFA to cover federal shares of construction, renovation, and equipment costs, allows case-by-case waivers for up to 100% federal funding, and requires peer-review consultation in proposal evaluation.
Funding mechanism: mandatory Treasury transfers versus annual appropriations
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly creates a substantive statutory program change (a NIFA competitive grant program) and provides explicit multi-year mandatory funding.
The AG RESEARCH Act (H.R. 3568) amends the Research Facilities Act to fund repairs, modernization, and equipment for agricultural research facilities.
It creates a competitive grant program in NIFA to cover federal shares of construction, renovation, and equipment costs, allows case-by-case waivers for up to 100% federal funding, and requires peer-review consultation in proposal evaluation.
The bill mandates Treasury transfers of $500 million on Oct 1 each year 2025–2029 to carry out the program and authorizes up to $1 billion annually in appropriations for fiscal years 2026–2030 for related studies and planning.
Low ideological controversy and clear constituency aid improve prospects, but multi-billion mandatory funding raises fiscal hurdles and requires appropriations or vehicles to pass Senate.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly creates a substantive statutory program change (a NIFA competitive grant program) and provides explicit multi-year mandatory funding. It adequately defines purpose and funding, integrates amendments into existing statute, and sets several distribution constraints.
Funding mechanism: mandatory Treasury transfers versus annual appropriations
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Funding mechanism: mandatory Treasury transfers versus annual appropriations
Generally supportive; sees the bill as a needed federal investment to modernize research infrastructure and support public agricultural science.
Values the equity requirements and the option for full federal funding for underserved institutions.
May critique funding scale and ask for stronger assurances for minority-serving institutions and climate or labor priorities.
Cautiously supportive; views the bill as a practical response to documented deferred maintenance in agricultural research facilities.
Appreciates competitive grants, peer-review input, and distribution limits, while wanting clear oversight, measurable outcomes, and fiscal transparency on mandatory transfers.
Skeptical overall; concerned about expanded federal spending, automatic Treasury transfers, and potential federal overreach into state and local research affairs.
May support targeted infrastructure repair but prefers stronger cost-sharing and limiting mandatory spending.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Low ideological controversy and clear constituency aid improve prospects, but multi-billion mandatory funding raises fiscal hurdles and requires appropriations or vehicles to pass Senate.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Funding mechanism: mandatory Treasury transfers versus annual appropriations
Low ideological controversy and clear constituency aid improve prospects, but multi-billion mandatory funding raises fiscal hurdles and req…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly creates a substantive statutory program change (a NIFA competitive grant program) and provides explicit multi-year mandatory funding. It adequately defines pu…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.