H.R.3281 - To prohibit the reduction, elimination, or suspension of funding for land-grant colleges and universities. (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R.3281 aims to protect funding for land-grant colleges and universities by preventing federal officials, particularly the Secretary of Agriculture, from reducing, eliminating, or suspending their funding without explicit authorization from an Act of Congress. The bill references the definition of "land-grant colleges and universities" as provided in the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977.
This bill was introduced in the House of Representatives and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Workforce.
The bill seeks to ensure the stability of funding for these institutions, which play a crucial role in agricultural research, education, and extension services.
Expected Effects
The primary effect of H.R.3281 would be to provide a safeguard against arbitrary or politically motivated funding cuts to land-grant colleges and universities. It would require any changes to their funding levels to be approved by Congress, adding a layer of legislative oversight.
This could lead to more predictable budgeting for these institutions, allowing them to better plan and execute their programs. It could also increase the likelihood of continued support for agricultural research and education, which benefits both the agricultural sector and the broader public.
Potential Benefits
- Stable Funding: Ensures consistent financial support for land-grant colleges and universities, enabling long-term planning and program development.
- Protection of Research: Safeguards funding for agricultural research, which can lead to innovations in farming practices, food production, and resource management.
- Educational Opportunities: Preserves access to quality education and training in agricultural and related fields for students across the country.
- Community Engagement: Supports extension services that provide valuable resources and expertise to farmers, ranchers, and rural communities.
- Congressional Oversight: Reinforces the role of Congress in budgetary decisions, preventing unilateral actions by federal agencies.
Potential Disadvantages
- Reduced Flexibility: Limits the ability of federal agencies to adjust funding priorities in response to changing needs or emerging challenges.
- Potential Inefficiency: May perpetuate funding for programs that are no longer effective or relevant.
- Budgetary Constraints: Could create challenges in allocating resources to other important areas if land-grant colleges and universities are shielded from budget cuts.
- Limited Agency Discretion: Reduces the administrative flexibility of the Secretary of Agriculture.
- Possible Overreach: Some may argue that this bill infringes on the executive branch's authority over budget execution.
Constitutional Alignment
The bill appears to align with the constitutional principle of congressional control over appropriations, as outlined in Article I, Section 9, Clause 7, which states that "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." By requiring an Act of Congress to authorize any reduction, elimination, or suspension of funding, the bill reinforces this principle.
Furthermore, the promotion of education and general welfare can be loosely tied to the Preamble of the Constitution, which aims to "promote the general Welfare." However, the Constitution does not explicitly mandate federal funding for specific types of educational institutions.
The bill does not appear to infringe upon any specific individual liberties or rights protected by the Bill of Rights.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).