HR-9217-119
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Sponsored by Andrew Garbarino (R-NY)
What it does
This bill would amend the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 to add "natural climate solutions" as a designated high-priority research and extension grant category. It would authorize grants for studying land management practices that store carbon or reduce greenhouse gas emissions on agricultural lands, soils, grasslands, wetlands, and forests. Eligible research would include practices based on traditional ecological knowledge, those that promote biodiversity and climate resilience, and those that reduce runoff.
Who benefits
Agricultural researchers and universities that would become eligible for a new category of federal grants. Farmers and landowners who may adopt practices developed through the research. Rural communities that could benefit from improved land and water management. Wetland and forest-adjacent communities that may see reduced runoff and flooding. Tribal communities and Indigenous practitioners whose traditional ecological knowledge would be formally recognized as a basis for funded research. Environmental nonprofits and conservation organizations working in these areas.
Who is hurt
Researchers and institutions in other high-priority grant categories who may face increased competition for the same pool of funding. Farmers who prefer existing land management practices and may face indirect pressure to adopt new ones if grant-funded extension services promote them. Taxpayers who would bear the cost of any appropriations made under the expanded grant authority, though no specific dollar amount is authorized in the bill text.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that agricultural and forest lands represent one of the most cost-effective and underutilized tools for carbon sequestration, with studies estimating U.S. natural lands could offset up to 21% of annual greenhouse gas emissions. They contend that directing existing federal research infrastructure toward these practices — including Indigenous land stewardship methods with centuries of demonstrated results — fills a critical knowledge gap and gives farmers and land managers science-backed tools to improve soil health, reduce runoff, and build long-term resilience.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that adding climate-specific priorities to agricultural research grants risks redirecting limited funds away from core food security, crop yield, and rural economic research that directly supports farmers' livelihoods. They contend that the bill's inclusion of "traditional ecological knowledge" as a research basis lacks a clear scientific validation standard, potentially directing federal grant dollars toward practices that have not been rigorously peer-reviewed, and that carbon storage benefits from land management remain difficult to measure and verify consistently.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority to fund research and extension programs under the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) and the Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 18), as agricultural activity has long been held to substantially affect interstate commerce under Wickard v. Filburn (1942). This bill amends an existing statutory grant program rather than creating new agency rulemaking authority, so it does not raise significant major questions doctrine concerns under West Virginia v. EPA (2022) or post-Chevron scrutiny under Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024).
Checks and balances
Congress expands the scope of an existing grant program; the USDA administers grant awards within the new category; Congress retains appropriations authority and oversight over how funds are distributed.
Historical precedent
The Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program, established under the same 1990 Act, similarly expanded federal agricultural research grants to cover environmental and sustainability practices, providing a direct structural precedent for adding new priority categories to this grant framework.