S. 961 – American Innovation Act

AI-Generated Summary

Updated February 8, 2026 at 12:57 AM UTC

The American Innovation Act directs a sustained, expanded federal investment in basic science research. It authorizes specific multi‑year funding levels for the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, Department of Defense science and technology programs, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and NASA’s Science Mission Directorate, covering fiscal years 2022 through 2032. The bill also ties future funding after 2032 to inflation adjustments. These appropriations affect the agencies that conduct and fund U.S. scientific research and the broader research community.

Key Provisions

Sets annual funding amounts for NSF, DOE Office of Science, DoD science and technology programs, NIST research services, and NASA’s Science Mission Directorate for FY2022‑FY2032, with amounts increasing each year.
After FY2032, each agency’s funding automatically rises each year by the Consumer Price Index inflation rate.
Appropriated funds remain available until expended, rather than being subject to annual spending limits.
Designates these appropriations as exempt from any sequestration orders.

Legislative Activity

Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action

1 earlier action

SenateIntro Referral Latest Action

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (text: CR S1770)

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee

March 24, 2021

View full timeline

SenateIntro Referral

Introduced in Senate

March 24, 2021

SenateIntro Referral

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (text: CR S1770)

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee

March 24, 2021

Floor Debate

3 members

What members said about S. 961 on the floor

1 Republican2 Democrats

Sen. Chuck GrassleyR-IA · Mar 24, 2021

Mr. President, on another subject, over the years, the consolidation of the beef industry has threatened the livelihood of Iowa farm families and rural communities where they reside, and it isn't…

Mr. President, on another subject, over the years, the consolidation of the beef industry has threatened the livelihood of Iowa farm families and rural communities where they reside, and it isn't limited to just Iowa. This would be farmers all over the country.

I have been working since 2002 to increase the producers' leverage against processors, improve market price discovery, and better situate independent Iowa cattlemen in the fed cattle markets.

This past year, these issues became even more apparent and urgent because of the COVID pandemic. While the cattle industry has internally looked for ways to increase the amount of cash trade, it has not been able to find a solution.

Unfortunately, this means that government intervention is needed as it is past time for a solution. The government needs to step in to guarantee that the free market treats cattlemen fairly.

From the 2012 USDA ``Agriculture Census'' to the 2017 ``Agriculture Census,'' Iowa lost nearly 1,500 cattle producers. While we don't have USDA statistics from the past 2 years, the release of the 2022 USDA ``Agriculture Census'' will likely see an even more dramatic loss of producers because of the pandemic. I know this because of my many conversations I have with independent cattle producers from nearly every county in Iowa.

During my meetings in all 99 Iowa counties, cattle market transparency and my bill introduced last Congress with Senator Tester, mandating 50 percent of negotiated cash trade in the cattle markets, is one of the most mentioned topics at those county meetings. The aid that Congress offered via the USDA Coronavirus Food Assistance Program provided over $7 billion in assistance to cattle producers so far.

However, this assistance is merely a bandaid covering a gaping wound. Congress must step up again and, instead of providing payments to producers, make sure that producers have access to fair and transparent markets. From the Holcomb, KS, fire at a Tyson's facility to the widely reported closures of processing plants due to the coronavirus outbreaks, we continue to see a wide disparity between the cash price of fed cattle and the price of boxed beef, which, in turn, affects consumer costs.

Normally, the packer spread between the price of live cattle and boxed beef is about $21 per hundredweight, but USDA's report on the coronavirus shutdowns showed that, last May, this spread was $279, as opposed to that usual $21 per hundredweight, the highest since reporting began 20 years ago.

It is just part of a pattern that has evolved during my time in the Senate. That pattern is that farmers are getting a smaller amount of the overall dollar for their food production.

I appreciate the leadership from Secretary Perdue in issuing their USDA report last August. That report helps the cause for the Grassley- Tester legislation. Beyond just highlighting problems, Perdue also offered recommendations, one of which was for Congress to consider a mechanism to mandate a level of negotiated cash trade. This is not a new issue in the beef industry. In fact, I first introduced a bill that would mandate cash trade way back almost 20 years.

Today, on behalf of Iowa's independent cattle producers, I am proud to reintroduce my bill with Senator Tester to mandate negotiated cash trade at 50 percent. Without a mandated amount of cash trade, producers continue to be residual suppliers and will lack leverage to fairly negotiate with packing companies.

Earlier this month, Senator Deb Fischer of Nebraska introduced the Cattle Market Transparency Act of 2021. There are some excellent provisions in Senator Fischer's bill, such as the creation of a contract library, as well as new required reports on the number of cattle scheduled for delivery. These provisions will add great transparency and great price discovery. They are important to Iowans, as they are to Nebraskans.

However, when it comes to a negotiated amount of cash trade, Senator Fischer's bill only mandates a regional minimum. This means price discovery would still be reliant upon cattle producers who already are negotiating.

So what is price discovery?

Well, put simply, price discovery is where a buyer and a seller agree on a price and a transaction occurs

Cattle producers of all sizes and in all regions recognize that price discovery is a public good, a very good public good. These producers also realize that the thinning of the cash market is a serious problem for all market participants. Producers in the Midwest of the U.S. reporting regions already provide ample price discovery by putting in hard work and selling cattle using negotiated means at nearly 60 percent. They do this while producers who sell with formulas use these prices in their contracts. That is why something must be done. Any legislative solution should address the imbalance of the cash trade across the entire beef belt.

My bill with Senator Tester would simply shift the burden of price discovery from independent producers, like those in Iowa, and spread it evenly among all cattle producers.

I am looking forward to working with Senator Fischer and the entire Senate Agriculture Committee to

make permanent changes in mandatory price reporting, which needs to be reauthorized by September 30 of this year.

Cattle producers are counting on us to make changes. We can no longer take a wait-and-see approach. The beef industry employs hundreds of thousands of hard-working men and women who work each day to help feed our country and the world, but the USDA Agriculture Census shows we are losing these producers.

I am asking my colleagues in the Senate to cosponsor my bill with Senator Tester to ensure the strength of the beef supply chain and to support our cattle producers

Sen. Mazie K. HironoD-HI · Mar 24, 2021

Mr. President, during the last year we have all experienced the impacts of the coronavirus on everyday life. The coronavirus has shuttered businesses, closed schools, cancelled events, and…

Mr. President, during the last year we have all experienced the impacts of the coronavirus on everyday life. The coronavirus has shuttered businesses, closed schools, cancelled events, and overwhelmed hospitals and other health care facilities. It has fundamentally changed how we live our lives.

I can think of few better examples of where this has been the case than in our K-12 schools. Hawaii public school students, parents, and teachers have told me about how they have been impacted by the coronavirus. I have learned about the challenges they have faced with school closures, and heard about how they have adjusted to distance and hybrid learning--two terms that were pretty unfamiliar just a year ago. They are ready to return to the classroom.

But they need to return safely. That's why Congress recently provided an additional $130 billion for K-12 schools--to make sure that when they do reopen, they have the necessary resources to provide healthy and safe learning environments for students. If nothing else, the coronavirus has demonstrated how important these environments are for student success.

Unfortunately, however, we know that even before the coronavirus many students lacked access to these environments--including students in federally impacted school districts.

In many ways it comes down to school facilities. A recent survey identified $4.2 billion in school facility needs in federally impacted schools. These were basic health and safety needs to address issues like lead and mold remediation; electrical, HV AC, and plumbing upgrades; leaky roofs; expired boilers; outdated technology; and others--hardly conditions where students can be expected to succeed.

We need to make bold investments. We need to make them now.

That's why I am reintroducing the Impact Aid Infrastructure Act (or ``IAIA'') for the 117th Congress. IAIA provides $1 billion in supplemental funding for Impact Aid Construction Grants in FY2022. Specifically, the bill provides funding for competitive and formula grants that would help our federally impacted schools build, renovate, repair, and otherwise improve their facilities.

With these funds, federally impacted schools that are severely disadvantaged when it comes to raising revenue to finance projects would receive much-needed assistance.

We can certainly do more for these districts, but this investment is a start.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

I yield the floor.

Sen. Richard J. DurbinD-IL · Mar 24, 2021

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Bill Text

Latest available legislative text

Reading Mode

Raw Text PDF XML

Introduced in SenateIssued March 24, 2021

II

117th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 961

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 24, 2021

Mr. Durbin (for himself, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Brown, Mr. Schatz, and Ms. Baldwin) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

A BILL

To prioritize funding for an expanded and sustained national investment in basic science research.

1.

Short title

This Act may be cited as the American Innovation Act.

2.

Appropriations for Innovation

(a)

In general

There are hereby authorized to be appropriated, and appropriated, out of any monies in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the following:

(1)

National Science Foundation

For the National Science Foundation—

(A)

for fiscal year 2022, $9,081,000,000;

(B)

for fiscal year 2023, $9,716,000,000;

(C)

for fiscal year 2024, $10,397,000,000;

(D)

for fiscal year 2025, $11,124,000,000;

(E)

for fiscal year 2026, $11,903,000,000;

(F)

for fiscal year 2027, $12,736,000,000;

(G)

for fiscal year 2028, $13,628,000,000;

(H)

for fiscal year 2029, $14,582,000,000;

(I)

for fiscal year 2030, $15,603,000,000;

(J)

for fiscal year 2031, $16,695,000,000; and

(K)

for fiscal year 2032 and each fiscal year thereafter, the amount appropriated under this paragraph for the previous fiscal year, increased by the percentage increase (if any), during the previous fiscal year, in the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

(2)

Department of Energy, Office of Science

For the Office of Science at the Department of Energy—

(A)

for fiscal year 2022, $7,518,000,000;

(B)

for fiscal year 2023, $8,044,000,000;

(C)

for fiscal year 2024, $8,607,000,000;

(D)

for fiscal year 2025, $9,210,000,000;

(E)

for fiscal year 2026, $9,854,000,000;

(F)

for fiscal year 2027, $10,544,000,000;

(G)

for fiscal year 2028, $11,282,000,000;

(H)

for fiscal year 2029, $12,072,000,000;

(I)

for fiscal year 2030, $12,917,000,000;

(J)

for fiscal year 2031, $13,821,000,000; and

(K)

for fiscal year 2032 and each fiscal year thereafter, the amount appropriated under this paragraph for the previous fiscal year, increased by the percentage increase (if any), during the previous fiscal year, in the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

(3)

Department of Defense science and technology programs

For the Department of Defense science and technology programs—

(A)

for fiscal year 2022, $18,054,000,000;

(B)

for fiscal year 2023, $19,318,000,000;

(C)

for fiscal year 2024, $20,670,000,000;

(D)

for fiscal year 2025, $22,117,000,000;

(E)

for fiscal year 2026, $23,665,000,000;

(F)

for fiscal year 2027, $25,322,000,000;

(G)

for fiscal year 2028, $27,094,000,000;

(H)

for fiscal year 2029, $28,991,000,000;

(I)

for fiscal year 2030, $31,020,000,000;

(J)

for fiscal year 2031, $33,192,000,000; and

(K)

for fiscal year 2032 and each fiscal year thereafter, the amount appropriated under this paragraph for the previous fiscal year, increased by the percentage increase (if any), during the previous fiscal year, in the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

(4)

National Institute of Standards and Technology scientific and technical research and services

For the scientific and technical research and services of the National Institute of Standards and Technology at the Department of Commerce—

(A)

for fiscal year 2022, $843,000,000;

(B)

for fiscal year 2023, $902,000,000;

(C)

for fiscal year 2024, $965,000,000;

(D)

for fiscal year 2025, $1,033,000,000;

(E)

for fiscal year 2026, $1,105,000,000;

(F)

for fiscal year 2027, $1,183,000,000;

(G)

for fiscal year 2028, $1,265,000,000;

(H)

for fiscal year 2029, $1,354,000,000;

(I)

for fiscal year 2030, $1,449,000,000;

(J)

for fiscal year 2031, $1,550,000,000; and

(K)

for fiscal year 2032 and each fiscal year thereafter, the amount appropriated under this paragraph for the previous fiscal year, increased by the percentage increase (if any), during the previous fiscal year, in the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

(5)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Science Mission Directorate

For the Science Mission Directorate at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration—

(A)

for fiscal year 2022, $7,728,000,000;

(B)

for fiscal year 2023, $8,268,000,000;

(C)

for fiscal year 2024, $8,847,000,000;

(D)

for fiscal year 2025, $9,467,000,000;

(E)

for fiscal year 2026, $10,129,000,000;

(F)

for fiscal year 2027, $10,838,000,000;

(G)

for fiscal year 2028, $11,597,000,000;

(H)

for fiscal year 2029, $12,409,000,000;

(I)

for fiscal year 2030, $13,277,000,000;

(J)

for fiscal year 2031, $14,207,000,000; and

(K)

for fiscal year 2032 and each fiscal year thereafter, the amount appropriated under this paragraph for the previous fiscal year, increased by the percentage increase (if any), during the previous fiscal year, in the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

(b)

Availability

Amounts appropriated under subsection (a) shall remain available until expended.

(c)

Definitions

In this section:

(1)

Department of Defense science and technology programs

The term Department of Defense science and technology programs means the appropriations accounts that support the various institutes, offices, and centers that make up the Department of Defense science and technology programs.

(2)

National Science Foundation

The term National Science Foundation means the appropriations accounts that support the various institutes, offices, and centers that make up the National Science Foundation.

(3)

Office of Science at the Department of Energy

The term Office of Science at the Department of Energy means the appropriations accounts that support the various institutes, offices, and centers that make up the Department of Energy Office of Science.

(4)

Science Mission Directorate at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

The term Science Mission Directorate at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration means the appropriations accounts that support the various institutes, offices, and centers that make up the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Science Mission Directorate.

(5)

Scientific and technical research and services of the National Institute of Standards and Technology

The term scientific and technical research and services of the National Institute of Standards and Technology means the appropriations accounts that support the various institutes, offices, and centers that make up the National Institute of Standards and Technology scientific and technical research and services.

(d)

Exemption of certain appropriations from sequestration

(1)

In general

Section 255(g)(1)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (2 U.S.C. 905(g)(1)(A)) is amended by inserting after Advances to the Unemployment Trust Fund and Other Funds (16–0327–0–1–600). the following:

Appropriations under the American Innovation Act.

.

(2)

Applicability

The amendment made by this section shall apply to any sequestration order issued under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900 et seq.) on or after the date of enactment of this Act.

(e)

Budgetary effects

(1)

Statutory paygo scorecards

The budgetary effects of this section shall not be entered on either PAYGO scorecard maintained pursuant to section 4(d) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (2 U.S.C. 933(d)).

(2)

Senate paygo scorecards

The budgetary effects of this section shall not be entered on any PAYGO scorecard maintained for purposes of section 4106 of H. Con. Res. 71 (115th Congress).