To make projects in certain counties eligible for funding under the rural surface transportation grant program, and for other purposes.
- Bill Number
- H.R. 3572
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Transportation and Public Works
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-05-22: Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
- Last Updated
- 2025-11-20T09:06:49Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
This legislation, H.R. 3572, aims to expand eligibility for funding under the Rural Surface Transportation Grant Program by designating certain high-agricultural-production counties as "covered counties" and reserving a portion of funds specifically for improving "farm-to-market roads" in those areas. The goal is to support transportation infrastructure that aids agricultural transport in rural regions.
Key Provisions
- Definitions Added:
- Covered county: A county with an annual gross agricultural production value of at least $1 billion and at least $500,000 per square mile for all crops and livestock sold. This threshold is adjusted annually for inflation using the Consumer Price Index from the U.S. Department of Labor.
- Farm-to-market road: Any road located within a covered county.
- Funding Reservation: 10% of the program's annual funds must be reserved for grants to eligible projects on farm-to-market roads.
- List of Covered Counties: The Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, must create and annually update a list of covered counties based on the defined criteria.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Amends Section 173 of Title 23, U.S. Code (which governs the Rural Surface Transportation Grant Program).
- Introduces new definitions for covered counties and farm-to-market roads, which did not previously exist in the program.
- Modifies funding allocation rules in subsection (k) by redesignating an existing paragraph and inserting a new one to mandate the 10% reservation for farm-to-market roads.
- Updates cross-references in subsections (i) and (k) to incorporate the new provisions.
- Adds a new subsection (p) requiring the annual list of covered counties, ensuring ongoing eligibility determinations.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: The Department of Transportation (DOT) and Department of Agriculture (USDA) will need to collaborate on identifying and updating covered counties, potentially increasing administrative workload but streamlining fund allocation for agricultural areas.
- On Citizens: Rural residents, particularly farmers and agricultural workers in qualifying counties, may gain better access to improved roads, reducing transport costs and enhancing market access for goods. This could boost local economies in high-production agricultural regions.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though indirectly it may support U.S. agricultural exports by improving domestic supply chain efficiency.
Main Stakeholders
- Rural Counties and Agricultural Producers: High-production counties (e.g., those in California's Central Valley, based on introducers' affiliations) and farmers who rely on local roads for transporting crops and livestock.
- Federal Agencies: DOT (overseeing grants) and USDA (providing agricultural data for county designations).
- Local Governments and Transportation Authorities: Eligible for new funding streams to maintain or upgrade rural infrastructure.
- Broader Rural Communities: Residents benefiting from safer, more efficient roads in agricultural areas.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Establishes clear, data-driven criteria for eligibility, reducing ambiguity in fund distribution and aligning with existing federal transportation law (Title 23). The inflation adjustment ensures long-term relevance without frequent congressional action.
- Constitutional: No apparent challenges; it involves Congress's spending power under Article I, Section 8, to fund interstate commerce and infrastructure, which supports agricultural trade—a key economic activity.
- Political: Targets specific rural, agriculture-dependent regions, potentially addressing inequities in prior funding distributions. Introduced by bipartisan members from agricultural states, it may encourage similar targeted infrastructure bills, though the 10% reservation could spark debates on fund prioritization versus broader rural needs.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Rep. Valadao, David G. [R-CA-22]
Cosponsors (6)
Rep. Fong, Vince [R-CA-20], Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick, Sheila [D-FL-20], Rep. Costa, Jim [D-CA-21], Rep. Harder, Josh [D-CA-9], Rep. Vindman, Eugene Simon [D-VA-7], Rep. Gray, Adam [D-CA-13]
Recent Actions
- 2025-05-22: Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
- 2025-05-21: Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
- 2025-05-21: Introduced in House
- 2025-05-21: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- To make projects in certain counties eligible for funding under the rural surface transportation grant program, and for other purposes. — issued 2025-05-21 — PDF (3 pages)