HR-7665-119
Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology.
Sponsored by Hillary Scholten (D-MI)
What it does
This bill would amend the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 to add biological pest control as a designated high-priority research and extension area. It would authorize grants under that section to fund research, development, and educational outreach programs focused on using biological methods to limit crop damage and food-borne illnesses. The bill does not appropriate specific funding — it establishes eligibility for existing grant mechanisms.
Who benefits
Farmers and agricultural producers who could gain access to more effective, research-backed biological pest control tools. Land-grant universities and agricultural research institutions that would become eligible for new grant funding in this area. Biotechnology and biological pest control companies whose products could gain scientific validation and market development support. Consumers who could benefit from reduced pesticide residues on food and potentially lower food-borne illness rates. Rural communities near farms that could see reduced chemical pesticide use.
Who is hurt
Chemical pesticide manufacturers and distributors, whose products compete with biological alternatives and could face reduced demand if biological methods gain wider adoption. Researchers in other high-priority agricultural areas who may face increased competition for the same pool of grant funding. Taxpayers who bear the cost of any grants awarded under the expanded authority, though no specific dollar amount is appropriated by this bill.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that biological pest control — using natural predators, parasites, and microorganisms to manage pests — offers a proven, environmentally sustainable alternative to synthetic pesticides, with studies showing reduced chemical runoff and lower risks to pollinators like bees. They contend that adding it to the federal high-priority list would direct research resources toward methods that can simultaneously reduce crop losses, lower food-borne illness rates, and decrease farmers' input costs over time.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the existing high-priority research list already covers broad areas of agricultural science, and that adding biological pest control through legislation rather than through the scientific peer-review process that normally guides research priorities may distort funding allocation away from more pressing needs. They contend that the bill's practical effect is limited without dedicated appropriations, meaning it may signal priorities without delivering meaningful resources to the field.
Constitutional context
No significant constitutional issue is raised by this bill. Congress has broad authority to fund and direct agricultural research under the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) and the Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 18), and the federal government has exercised this authority over agricultural programs continuously since the Hatch Act of 1887.
Checks and balances
Congress gains a modest expansion of legislative direction over USDA research priorities; the USDA retains discretion over actual grant awards within the authorized categories, and Congress controls funding levels through the annual appropriations process.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously expanded the high-priority research list under the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 to add areas such as organic agriculture and specialty crops, following a similar mechanism of amending Section 1672(d).