Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Requires the Secretary of Agriculture to offer a contract to a land‑grant or non‑land‑grant college of agriculture to review the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s Cattle Fever Tick Eradication Program. The review must evaluate program effectiveness, producer benefits and compliance burdens, treatment protocols, and Federal and State funding for the most recent fiscal year.
Progressive wants explicit environmental and labor considerations added
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill provides a clear mandate for a targeted review and reporting requirement, identifies responsible parties and timelines, and specifies key review topics, but it omits important implementation details such as funding authorization, contracting standards, methodological guidance, contingency provisions, and specific accountability metrics.
Requires the Secretary of Agriculture to offer a contract to a land‑grant or non‑land‑grant college of agriculture to review the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s Cattle Fever Tick Eradication Program.
The review must evaluate program effectiveness, producer benefits and compliance burdens, treatment protocols, and Federal and State funding for the most recent fiscal year.
The Secretary must deliver the review results and recommendations, including ways to reduce producer burdens, to the House and Senate Agriculture Committees within one year of contract start.
Technically narrow, bipartisan‑friendly oversight measure with low fiscal impact, so reasonably likely to advance absent scheduling or funding obstacles.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill provides a clear mandate for a targeted review and reporting requirement, identifies responsible parties and timelines, and specifies key review topics, but it omits important implementation details such as funding authorization, contracting standards, methodological guidance, contingency provisions, and specific accountability metrics.
Progressive wants explicit environmental and labor considerations added
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressive wants explicit environmental and labor considerations added
Likely supportive because the bill mandates an evidence-based, university-led review and transparency about program effectiveness and funding.
Will seek stronger inclusion of environmental, animal welfare, labor, and small-producer equity considerations that the bill does not explicitly require.
Generally favorable as a modest, accountable step to assess program performance and costs.
Will emphasize ensuring the review is independent, timely, and yields actionable, fiscally realistic recommendations.
Likely supportive because the bill reviews program burdens on cattle producers and can lead to reduced federal compliance costs.
Will be watchful that the review doesn't justify expanded federal regulation or increased costs for producers.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically narrow, bipartisan‑friendly oversight measure with low fiscal impact, so reasonably likely to advance absent scheduling or funding obstacles.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressive wants explicit environmental and labor considerations added
Technically narrow, bipartisan‑friendly oversight measure with low fiscal impact, so reasonably likely to advance absent scheduling or fund…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill provides a clear mandate for a targeted review and reporting requirement, identifies responsible parties and timelines, and specifies key review topics, but it omits…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.