Referred to the House Committee on House Administration.
This resolution sets the total and yearly limits on how much the House may spend on the Committee on Agriculture's operations during the 119th Congress. It says the money comes from the House committee salaries and expenses accounts, specifies the amounts available in each session, and requires that payments be made on vouchers authorized by the committee and follow rules from the Committee on House Administration. This is a House internal measure that controls House spending for that committee and does not become law or require the President's approval.
This House resolution authorizes $14,903,700 for the House Committee on Agriculture for the 119th Congress, split into $7,231,375 for the first session (2025–2026) and $7,672,325 for the second session (2026–2027).
Payments require vouchers signed by the Committee Chair and approval as directed by the Committee on House Administration, and expenditures must follow its regulations.
Measure is an internal House resolution likely to be adopted by the House but not enacted as law; becoming a public law is effectively unlikely.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear, narrowly scoped administrative resolution that sets specific funding amounts and basic execution mechanics for committee expenses. It relies on existing House financial accounts and the Committee on House Administration's regulations for implementation.
Progressives emphasize oversight capacity and policy priorities like climate and nutrition.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize oversight capacity and policy priorities like climate and nutrition.
Likely supportive because the funding keeps the Agriculture Committee staffed and able to legislate and oversee food, farm, and rural policy.
Wants assurances funds are used for robust oversight on climate, labor, and nutrition programs.
Views this as a routine, limited committee appropriation that enables basic operations.
Sees it as reasonable but wants fiscal controls and clear accountability mechanisms.
Skeptical of the spending level; accepts need for committee operations but prefers tighter limits and stronger oversight on staff costs.
Concerned about federal overreach and recurring spending growth.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Measure is an internal House resolution likely to be adopted by the House but not enacted as law; becoming a public law is effectively unlikely.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize oversight capacity and policy priorities like climate and nutrition.
Measure is an internal House resolution likely to be adopted by the House but not enacted as law; becoming a public law is effectively unli…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear, narrowly scoped administrative resolution that sets specific funding amounts and basic execution mechanics for committee expenses. It relies on existing H…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.