Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
The bill directs the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to conduct a nationwide survey of grape production within one year of enactment and publish the results on the NASS website. The survey must collect total acreage and production, utilization, and acreage broken down by type, variety, county, and year planted.
Extent of federal role: centrists and liberals accept federal data collection; conservatives prefer state/industry solutions or tighter limits.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear, time‑limited reporting requirement directed to the National Agricultural Statistics Service, provides specific data items to be collected, sets deadlines for an initial survey and subsequent publications, and authorizes explicit funding to accomplish those tasks.
The bill directs the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to conduct a nationwide survey of grape production within one year of enactment and publish the results on the NASS website.
The survey must collect total acreage and production, utilization, and acreage broken down by type, variety, county, and year planted.
Beginning two years after enactment and annually for three subsequent years, NASS must publish data from the five states with the highest grape production in the prior year.
On content alone the bill is modest, technical, and low controversy with limited authorized funding—characteristics that historically correlate with higher chances of enactment, especially if included in a broader agricultural or appropriations vehicle. However, authorization does not guarantee funding, and Senate scheduling or competing priorities could delay or prevent passage.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear, time‑limited reporting requirement directed to the National Agricultural Statistics Service, provides specific data items to be collected, sets deadlines for an initial survey and subsequent publications, and authorizes explicit funding to accomplish those tasks.
Extent of federal role: centrists and liberals accept federal data collection; conservatives prefer state/industry solutions or tighter limits.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Extent of federal role: centrists and liberals accept federal data collection; conservatives prefer state/industry solutions or tighter limits.
A mainstream progressive would likely view the bill as a modest, generally positive transparency measure that could help smaller growers, farmworkers, and policymakers by improving publicly available agricultural data.
They would welcome better data to support targeted environmental, labor, and equity policies but may be concerned that the bill does not include explicit privacy safeguards, labor, or environmental variables.
They would likely push for protections that prevent the disclosure of individually identifiable farm-level data and for future expansion of the dataset to include information relevant to climate impacts, pesticide use, and worker conditions.
A pragmatic moderate would see this as a narrowly focused, evidence-building bill that fills an information gap for an important agricultural sector.
They would appreciate better statistics to inform agricultural policy, market forecasting, and emergency response, while wanting assurance on cost-effectiveness and methodological rigor.
Concerned about duplication and administrative burden, they would look for clarity on how the survey fits into existing NASS work and on confidentiality protections and oversight of the appropriations.
A mainstream conservative would be skeptical of additional federal spending and expanded federal data collection, viewing this as an incremental increase in federal activity that may be unnecessary if private or state data already exist.
They would worry about cost, federal overreach into industry data, and the potential for information to be used to justify future regulation.
If convinced the data fills a clear market or national interest gap and confidentiality protections are strong, some conservatives might accept the bill, but many would prefer a state-led or industry-led approach or limited funding.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On content alone the bill is modest, technical, and low controversy with limited authorized funding—characteristics that historically correlate with higher chances of enactment, especially if included in a broader agricultural or appropriations vehicle. However, authorization does not guarantee funding, and Senate scheduling or competing priorities could delay or prevent passage.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Extent of federal role: centrists and liberals accept federal data collection; conservatives prefer state/industry solutions or tighter lim…
On content alone the bill is modest, technical, and low controversy with limited authorized funding—characteristics that historically corre…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear, time‑limited reporting requirement directed to the National Agricultural Statistics Service, provides specific data items to be collected, sets d…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.