DOE and USDA Interagency Research Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/1326
Last Updated: July 12, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Lucas, Frank D. [R-OK-3]

ID: L000491

Follow the money

The bill

DOE and USDA Interagency Research Act

HR. 1326, 119th Congress — read as touching Renewable Energy.

The sponsor

Rep. Lucas, Frank D. [R-OK-3]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$70,950 raised

23 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

63% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 323-325 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

March 24, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of bureaucratic doublespeak and legislative theater. Let's dissect this monstrosity, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The DOE and USDA Interagency Research Act is a bill that claims to promote joint research and development activities between the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of Agriculture (USDA). The stated objectives are to advance their respective mission requirements and priorities. How quaint.

In reality, this bill is a vehicle for pork-barrel politics, allowing politicians to funnel money to their favorite industries and special interest groups under the guise of "research" and "development." It's a classic case of "follow the money," where the actual purpose is to line the pockets of lobbyists, corporations, and campaign donors.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill establishes a memorandum of understanding between the DOE and USDA, which will supposedly facilitate collaborative research in areas like agriculture, energy, and environmental science. It also authorizes reimbursable agreements between the departments and other entities, because who doesn't love a good sweetheart deal?

The most significant change is the creation of a new bureaucratic apparatus, complete with its own reporting requirements and oversight mechanisms. Because what we really need is more red tape and administrative bloat.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved: federal agencies, national laboratories, institutions of higher education, nonprofit institutions, industry partners, and other "appropriate entities." In other words, anyone who can benefit from the largesse of the federal government will be lining up at the trough.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a recipe for disaster. It will lead to:

1. **Wasteful spending**: Billions of dollars will be squandered on "research" projects that are little more than boondoggles, designed to enrich special interest groups and campaign donors. 2. **Bureaucratic bloat**: The creation of new administrative structures will add to the already Byzantine complexity of federal agencies, making it even harder for actual research to get done. 3. **Crony capitalism**: This bill is a textbook example of crony capitalism, where politicians and bureaucrats collude with industry insiders to rig the system in their favor.

In conclusion, HR 1326 is a legislative abomination that should be rejected outright. It's a cynical exercise in pork-barrel politics, designed to benefit special interests at the expense of taxpayers and actual scientific progress.

Related Topics

State & Local Government AffairsFederal Budget & AppropriationsResearch & Innovation Policy
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Lucas, Frank D. [R-OK-3]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$70,950
20 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$4,950
Committees
$0
Individuals
$66,000

No PAC contributions found

1
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
3 transactions
$4,950

No committee contributions found

1
LOVE, GREG
2 transactions
$6,600
2
GATES, WILLIAM
1 transaction
$3,300
3
NATION, CHEROKEE
1 transaction
$3,300
4
PILLMORE, BRIAN
1 transaction
$3,300
5
HILLIARY, MEGAN
1 transaction
$3,300
6
WILMES, JEFF
1 transaction
$3,300
7
WORRELL, MITCH
1 transaction
$3,300
8
COX, DEBBIE
1 transaction
$3,300
9
HILLIARY, DUSTIN
1 transaction
$3,300
10
LEVERETT, JOE DR.
1 transaction
$3,300
11
OZMEN, FATIH
1 transaction
$3,300
12
HILLIARY, TRINITY
1 transaction
$3,300
13
HILLIARY, CHERYL
1 transaction
$3,300
14
MARTIN, DWAYNE
1 transaction
$3,300
15
HILLIARY, MIKE
1 transaction
$3,300
16
COX, ROBERT
1 transaction
$3,300
17
GALLAGHER, TATUM
1 transaction
$3,300
18
HILLIARY, EDWARD
1 transaction
$3,300
19
MCCALL, CARSON
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 2 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-18]

ID: L000397

Top Contributors

10

1
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACCAMBRIDGE, MA
$3,300
Sep 28, 2023
2
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACCAMBRIDGE, MA
$3,300
Sep 24, 2023
3
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACCAMBRIDGE, MA
$3,300
Sep 28, 2023
4
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACCAMBRIDGE, MA
$3,300
Sep 28, 2023
5
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACCAMBRIDGE, MA
$3,300
Aug 27, 2023
6
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACCAMBRIDGE, MA
$3,300
Aug 27, 2023
7
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACCAMBRIDGE, MA
$3,300
Sep 28, 2023
8
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACCAMBRIDGE, MA
$3,300
Sep 28, 2023
9
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACCAMBRIDGE, MA
$3,300
Sep 24, 2023
10
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACCAMBRIDGE, MA
$3,000
Jul 16, 2023

Rep. Tenney, Claudia [R-NY-24]

ID: T000478

Top Contributors

10

1
WINRED EARMARKS
PACARLINGTON, VA
$27,879
Oct 22, 2024
2
WINRED EARMARKS
PACARLINGTON, VA
$21,566
Oct 29, 2024
3
WINRED EARMARKS
PACARLINGTON, VA
$10,970
Nov 25, 2024
4
WINRED EARMARKS
PACARLINGTON, VA
$5,493
Nov 19, 2024
5
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$2,000
Nov 5, 2024
6
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$2,000
Jun 18, 2024
7
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$2,000
Jun 18, 2024
8
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$1,000
Mar 31, 2023
9
TEXTOR, DONALD
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualLOCUST VALLEY, NY
$13,200
Apr 17, 2024
10
WINE, SCOTT
POLARISCEO
IndividualEXCELSIOR, MN
$6,600
Sep 30, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Lucas, Frank D. [R-OK-3]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 37 nodes and 29 connections (39 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $141,265

Top Donors - Rep. Lucas, Frank D. [R-OK-3]

Showing top 20 donors by contribution amount

1 Org19 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 5 helped.

  • +Renewable Energyconfidence 0.90

    Section 2(c)(1)(D) includes advanced biomass, biobased products, and biofuels, which directly benefits renewable energy industries involved in biofuel production and biomass conversion.

  • +Agribusinessconfidence 0.85

    Section 2(c)(1)(B) references advanced crop science, breeding, and biological pest control, which supports agribusiness firms engaged in large-scale agriculture and food processing.

  • +Crop Producersconfidence 0.80

    Section 2(c)(1)(B) includes advanced crop science and breeding, which directly aids crop producers through improved yields and resilience.

  • +Electric Utilitiesconfidence 0.75

    Section 2(c)(1)(J) addresses grid modernization and grid security, which benefits electric utilities by improving infrastructure reliability and resilience.

  • Section 2(c)(1)(L) covers wildfire risks and prevention, including the power sector's role in fire mitigation, which supports energy infrastructure firms managing grid resilience in fire-prone areas.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.

Introduction

Moderate62.5%
Pages: 323-325

— 290 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise protection and management, rural development, and related issues with a commitment to delivering equitable and climate smart opportunities that inspire and help America thrive.1 The first part of the mission statement regarding the issues covered is not new to the Biden Administration; it reflects the overly broad nature of the USDA’s work. However, the language bringing in equity and climate change is new to the Biden Administration and part of the USDA’s express effort to transform agricultural production.2 The USDA’s new vision statement illuminates the focus of this effort: An equitable and climate smart food and agriculture economy that protects and improves the health, nutrition and quality of life of all Americans, yields healthy land, forests and clean water, helps rural America thrive, and feeds the world.3 This effort is one of a federal central plan to put climate change and envi- ronmental issues ahead of the most important requirements of agriculture—to efficiently produce safe food. The USDA would apparently use its power to change the very nature of the food and agriculture economy into one that is “equitable and climate smart.” As an initial matter, the USDA should not try to control and shape the economy, but should instead remove obstacles that hinder food production. Further, it should not place ancillary issues, such as environmental issues, ahead of agricultural production itself. A Proper Mission Statement. Even before the Biden Administration’s rad- ical effort to reshape the USDA’s work, the USDA’s mission was and is too broad, including serving as a major welfare agency through implementation of programs such as food stamps. This far-reaching mission is not the fault of the USDA, but of Congress, which has given the department its extensive power. Congress must limit the USDA’s role. A proper mission would clarify that the department’s primary focus is on agriculture and that the USDA serves all Amer- icans. The USDA’s “client” is the American people in general, not a subset of interests, such as farmers, meatpackers, environmental groups, etc. Within this agricultural focus, the USDA should develop and disseminate information and research (the historical role of the USDA); identify and address concrete threats to public health and safety arising directly from food and agri- culture; remove unjustified foreign trade barriers blocking market access for American agricultural goods; and generally remove government barriers that undermine access to safe and affordable food across the food supply chain. Core principles should be included within any mission statement, including a recognition that farmers, and the food system in general, should be free from unnecessary government intervention. Further, there should be clear statements

Introduction

Moderate62.5%
Pages: 323-325

— 290 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise protection and management, rural development, and related issues with a commitment to delivering equitable and climate smart opportunities that inspire and help America thrive.1 The first part of the mission statement regarding the issues covered is not new to the Biden Administration; it reflects the overly broad nature of the USDA’s work. However, the language bringing in equity and climate change is new to the Biden Administration and part of the USDA’s express effort to transform agricultural production.2 The USDA’s new vision statement illuminates the focus of this effort: An equitable and climate smart food and agriculture economy that protects and improves the health, nutrition and quality of life of all Americans, yields healthy land, forests and clean water, helps rural America thrive, and feeds the world.3 This effort is one of a federal central plan to put climate change and envi- ronmental issues ahead of the most important requirements of agriculture—to efficiently produce safe food. The USDA would apparently use its power to change the very nature of the food and agriculture economy into one that is “equitable and climate smart.” As an initial matter, the USDA should not try to control and shape the economy, but should instead remove obstacles that hinder food production. Further, it should not place ancillary issues, such as environmental issues, ahead of agricultural production itself. A Proper Mission Statement. Even before the Biden Administration’s rad- ical effort to reshape the USDA’s work, the USDA’s mission was and is too broad, including serving as a major welfare agency through implementation of programs such as food stamps. This far-reaching mission is not the fault of the USDA, but of Congress, which has given the department its extensive power. Congress must limit the USDA’s role. A proper mission would clarify that the department’s primary focus is on agriculture and that the USDA serves all Amer- icans. The USDA’s “client” is the American people in general, not a subset of interests, such as farmers, meatpackers, environmental groups, etc. Within this agricultural focus, the USDA should develop and disseminate information and research (the historical role of the USDA); identify and address concrete threats to public health and safety arising directly from food and agri- culture; remove unjustified foreign trade barriers blocking market access for American agricultural goods; and generally remove government barriers that undermine access to safe and affordable food across the food supply chain. Core principles should be included within any mission statement, including a recognition that farmers, and the food system in general, should be free from unnecessary government intervention. Further, there should be clear statements — 291 — Department of Agriculture about the importance of sound science to inform the USDA’s work and respect for personal freedom and individual dietary choices, private property rights, and the rule of law. Taking these factors into account, below is a model USDA mission statement: To develop and disseminate agricultural information and research, identify and address concrete public health and safety threats directly connected to food and agriculture, and remove both unjustified foreign trade barriers for U.S. goods and domestic government barriers that undermine access to safe and affordable food absent a compelling need—all based on the importance of sound science, personal freedom, private property, the rule of law, and service to all Americans. OVERVIEW In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed into law the legislation that created the USDA.4 The department had a very narrow mission focused on the dissemi- nation of information connected to agriculture and “to procure, propagate and distribute among the people new valuable seeds and plants.”5 During the last 160 years, the scope of the USDA’s work has expanded well beyond that narrow mis- sion—and well beyond agriculture itself. In addition to being a distributor of farm subsidies, the USDA runs the food stamp program and other food-related wel- fare programs and covers issues including conservation, biofuels, forestry, and rural programs. Based on the USDA’s fiscal year (FY) 2023 budget summary, outlays are esti- mated at $261 billion: $221 billion for mandatory programs and $39 billion for discretionary programs.6 These outlays are broken down as follows: nutrition assis- tance (70 percent); farm, conservation, and commodity programs (14 percent); “all other,” which includes rural development, research, food safety, marketing and regulatory, and departmental management (11 percent); and forestry (5 percent).7 The USDA has provided a summary of its size, explaining, “Today, USDA is com- prised of 29 agencies organized under eight Mission Areas and 16 Staff Offices, with nearly 100,000 employees serving the American people at more than 6,000 locations across the country and abroad.”8 MAJOR PRIORITY ISSUES AND SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS For an incoming Administration, there are numerous issues that should be addressed at the USDA. This chapter identifies and discusses many of the most important issues. The initial issues discussed should be priority issues for the next Administration: Defend American Agriculture. It is deeply unfortunate that the first issue identified must be a willingness of the incoming Administration to defend Amer- ican agriculture, but this is precisely what the top priority for that Administration

Introduction

Moderate60.9%
Pages: 344-346

— 311 — Department of Agriculture ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p.1, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/ files/documents/2023-usda-budget-summary.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 2. See, for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Transforming the U.S. Food System,” https://www.usda. gov/fst (accessed December 14, 2022). 3. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p.1. 4. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “USDA Celebrates 150 Years,” https://www.usda.gov/our-agency/about-usda/ history (accessed December 16, 2022). 5. The law stated, “[T]here is hereby established at the seat of government of the United States a Department of Agriculture, the general designs and duties of which shall be to acquire and to diffuse among the people of the United States useful information on subjects connected with agriculture in the most general and comprehensive sense of that word, and to procure, propagate, and distribute among the people new and valuable seeds and plants.” Gladys L. Baker et al., Century of Service: The First 100 Years of the United States Department of Agriculture, (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963) p. 13, https://babel. hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4254098&view=1up&seq=33 (accessed December 16, 2022). 6. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p. 2. 7. Ibid., p. 2. 8. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2022–2026, p. 3, https://www.usda.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/usda-fy-2022-2026-strategic-plan.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 9. News release, “USDA Announces Framework for Shoring Up the Food Supply Chain and Transforming the Food System to Be Fairer, More Competitive, More Resilient,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, June 1, 2022, https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/06/01/usda-announces-framework-shoring-food-supply- chain-and-transforming (accessed December 14, 2022). 10. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Transforming the U.S. Food System.” 11. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2022–2026, pp. 1–2. 12. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Background on the U.S. Approach to the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit,” August 4, 2021, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Background-on-US-approach-2021-UN- Food-Systems-Summit.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 13. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “UN Food Systems Summit,” https://www.usda.gov/oce/sustainability/un- summit (accessed December 14, 2022). 14. Mark Bittman et al., “How a National Food Policy Could Save Millions of American Lives,” The Washington Post, November 7, 2014, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-a-national-food-policy-could- save-millions-of-american-lives/2014/11/07/89c55e16-637f-11e4-836c-83bc4f26eb67_story.html (accessed December 14, 2022); Daren Bakst and Gabriella Beaumont-Smith, “No, We Don’t Need to Transform the American Food System,” The Daily Signal, February 26, 2021, https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/02/26/ no-we-dont-need-to-transform-the-american-food-system/ (accessed December 14, 2022); and Daren Bakst, “Biden’s Food Conference Should Put People First, Not Environmental Extremism,” The Daily Signal, September 22, 2022, https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/09/22/bidens-food-conference-should-put-people- first-not-environmental-extremism/ (accessed December 14, 2022). 15. News release, “USDA to Invest Up to $300 Million in New Organic Transition Initiative,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, August 22, 2022, https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/08/22/usda-invest-300- million-new-organic-transition-initiative (accessed December 14, 2022). 16. Gary Baise, “Sri Lanka’s Green New Deal Was a Disaster,” Farm Futures, November 14, 2022, https://www. farmprogress.com/commentary/sri-lankas-green-new-deal-was-disaster (accessed December 16, 2022). 17. See, for example, Catherine Greene et al., “Growing Organic Demand Provides High-Value Opportunities for Many Types of Producers,” Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, February 6, 2017, https://www. ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/januaryfebruary/growing-organic-demand-provides-high-value-opportunities- for-many-types-of-producers/#:~:text=ERS%20research%20shows%20that%20many,flavor%20desired%20 by%20the%20consumer (accessed December 14, 2022), and Andrea Carlson, “Investigating Retail Price Premiums for Organic Foods,” Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, May 24, 2016, https://www.ers. usda.gov/amber-waves/2016/may/investigating-retail-price-premiums-for-organic-foods/ (accessed December 16, 2022). Further, there are many myths, such as those regarding the alleged health benefit of organic food. One

Showing 3 of 4 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills