HR-4155-119
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Sponsored by Don Bacon (R-NE)
What it does
This bill would amend existing federal agricultural law to require the Secretary of Agriculture to formally recognize at least one "center of excellence" for each of 11 specified research areas — including biosecurity, digital agriculture, food quality, foreign animal disease, and forestry. It would also expand an existing set of up to 8 additional centers covering areas such as forest health and food safety. Separately, the bill would rewrite an existing grant program to fund competitive research, education, and facility upgrades aimed at protecting the U.S. food and agricultural system from biological, chemical, cybersecurity, and other catastrophic threats. Both programs would be authorized at $10 million per year from fiscal years 2026 through 2030, for a combined potential authorization of up to $100 million over five years.
Who benefits
Land-grant universities (1862, 1890, and 1994 institutions), Hispanic-serving agricultural colleges, non-land-grant agriculture colleges, and accredited veterinary schools that could host centers and receive associated funding. Agricultural researchers and faculty at those institutions. Beginning farmers and ranchers who would receive training and mentorship. Rural communities that could see increased economic activity and workforce development. The broader U.S. food supply chain, which would benefit from improved biosecurity and cybersecurity preparedness. Aquaculture producers, specialty crop growers, and forestry-dependent industries targeted by specific research areas. State agricultural experiment stations and departments of agriculture eligible for the grant program.
Who is hurt
Institutions not designated as eligible hosts — including many private research universities — that would be excluded from center funding. Institutions that currently host a center under the existing program but may not be reselected under the new structure. Taxpayers who bear the cost of the $100 million authorization. Competing federal research priorities that may receive less attention or funding if resources shift toward these designated centers. Foreign competitors in aquaculture, biotechnology, and digital agriculture who could face a more competitive U.S. industry if the research succeeds.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the U.S. food supply faces growing and underappreciated threats — from foreign animal diseases like highly pathogenic avian influenza, to cyberattacks on agricultural infrastructure, to PFAS and heavy metal contamination in food — and that coordinated, institutionally anchored research is the most effective response. They contend that the bill's structure, which requires geographic diversity, mandates public-private partnerships, and prohibits construction spending, reflects lessons learned from past programs and ensures funds flow to research rather than overhead. At $10 million per year across both programs, they argue the cost is modest relative to the economic value of the agricultural sector, which contributes over $1 trillion annually to the U.S. economy.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that designating specific research areas and eligible institutions in statute reduces flexibility and may lock in today's priorities at the expense of tomorrow's emerging threats, which cannot be predicted in advance. They contend that the bill's $100 million authorization, spread across at least 11 mandated centers plus up to 8 additional ones, may be insufficient to fund meaningful research at each center, risking the creation of underfunded programs that generate reports rather than results. Critics may also argue that existing USDA research infrastructure — including the Agricultural Research Service and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture — already performs many of these functions, raising questions about duplication despite the bill's stated goal of reducing it.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority to fund agricultural research under the Spending Clause (Art. I, §8) and the Commerce Clause, as agricultural markets are quintessentially interstate in nature under Wickard v. Filburn (1942). No significant constitutional tension is present; this bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture to administer a grant and recognition program with clear statutory parameters, which does not raise major questions doctrine concerns under West Virginia v. EPA (2022) given the limited and well-defined scope of the delegation.
Checks and balances
The Executive Branch (Secretary of Agriculture) gains administrative authority to select and recognize centers and award grants; Congress retains oversight through mandatory annual reporting requirements and controls funding through the appropriations process.
Historical precedent
The original Section 1673 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 already authorized a similar centers-of-excellence structure, and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture has administered competitive agricultural research grants for decades under the 1977 National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act.