Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
This resolution is a nonbinding statement by the House of Representatives expressing support for designating September 29, 2025, as National Coffee Day and recognizing the value of the coffee industry. It praises coffee growers, workers, and the supply chain and encourages research, trade attention, and resilience efforts. The resolution does not create new legal rights, spending, or requirements; it is symbolic and advisory.
This is a simple resolution introduced and voted on only in the House of Representatives; it does not go to the Senate or the President and does not have the force of law.
This non‑binding House resolution recognizes the economic, cultural, and supply‑chain importance of coffee to the United States and expresses support for designating September 29, 2025, as National Coffee Day.
It highlights statistics on consumption, jobs, exports, domestic production in Hawai‘i and Puerto Rico, and the global smallholder role in coffee production.
The resolution endorses strengthening domestic and global coffee supply chains, investment in agricultural research and climate resilience, continued scientific research into coffee’s health effects, and using trade and economic policy to support the U.S. coffee market and development in coffee‑growing countries.
By content alone this resolution is extremely likely to be adopted by the House but is not a statute and therefore has virtually no chance to 'become law' as written. Historically, symbolic House resolutions like this are adopted with little opposition, but they do not create binding legal obligations and do not require presidential signature. If the metric instead were 'adoption by the House,' the likelihood would be high; judged strictly on becoming law, the chance is near zero.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward commemorative House resolution that clearly states its purpose and provides supporting factual context. Its language is general and expressive, appropriate for recognition rather than legal change.
Liberals emphasize stronger labor, fair‑trade, and environmental protections; conservatives emphasize trade liberalization and minimal federal expansion.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize stronger labor, fair‑trade, and environmental protections; conservatives emphasize trade liberalization and minimal federal expansion.
A mainstream progressive would likely view the resolution as a generally positive, symbolic acknowledgement of coffee’s cultural and economic role that opens space for attention to farmer livelihoods and climate impacts.
They would welcome language on supporting farmer livelihoods, climate resilience, and research, but may see the resolution as too light on labor rights, fair trade, environmental safeguards, and concrete funding commitments.
The reference to removal of tariffs (via a bipartisan letter) could provoke mixed reactions: some progressives might support tariff removal to lower costs for consumers and import-dependent roasters, while others would worry about effects on small domestic growers and on global farm labor standards.
A pragmatic moderate would view this resolution as a low‑stakes, bipartisan recognition of an important consumer product and job‑creating industry.
They would appreciate the factual focus on jobs, exports, and supply‑chain resilience and the non‑binding nature of the text, while wanting clarity that supportive language on research and resilience does not imply large unfunded federal commitments.
The centrist would generally endorse the aims—promoting trade, science, and supply‑chain stability—while urging careful assessment of any downstream policy changes such as tariff removal or spending proposals.
A mainstream conservative would likely see this as a harmless, pro‑business, and pro‑trade resolution that highlights jobs, exports, and the economic value of an everyday product.
They would welcome the emphasis on trade, export growth, and support for the supply chain, and would view the resolution’s symbolic nature positively because it avoids new regulations or spending mandates.
Conservatives might be cautious about language implying federal investment in climate resilience or research if that opens the door to expanded federal programs, but overall would find little to oppose in a resolution celebrating an industry and calling for stable trade access.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
By content alone this resolution is extremely likely to be adopted by the House but is not a statute and therefore has virtually no chance to 'become law' as written. Historically, symbolic House resolutions like this are adopted with little opposition, but they do not create binding legal obligations and do not require presidential signature. If the metric instead were 'adoption by the House,' the likelihood would be high; judged strictly on becoming law, the chance is near zero.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize stronger labor, fair‑trade, and environmental protections; conservatives emphasize trade liberalization and minimal fede…
By content alone this resolution is extremely likely to be adopted by the House but is not a statute and therefore has virtually no chance…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward commemorative House resolution that clearly states its purpose and provides supporting factual context. Its language is general and expressive, a…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.