Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
This bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture, through NIFA, to conduct a study on accessibility of addiction and mental health care for farmers and ranchers affected by drought, extreme weather, market instability, and misinformation.
The study must examine rural availability, barriers, best practices, recommendations, and the feasibility of funding six reimbursable therapy sessions via the Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network.
The Secretary must consult federal, state, and stakeholder partners and deliver a report within 180 days of enactment.
Modest authorization and nonpartisan topic favor enactment, but still must clear both chambers and be prioritized for floor action.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-constructed study/reporting bill that clearly defines the problem domain, assigns responsibility to a named federal entity, enumerates specific topics to be examined, requires stakeholder consultation, sets a concrete reporting deadline, and authorizes funding to carry out the study.
Liberals want faster, larger investments versus study-only approach.
Liberals want faster, larger investments versus study-only approach.
Likely to view the bill positively as a targeted, evidence-building step to address rural mental health needs exacerbated by climate and market stressors.
Would welcome the focus on workforce training, telehealth, stigma reduction, and peer support, but may push for concrete service funding beyond a study.
May urge quicker implementation of recommendations and increased appropriations for direct services.
Generally supportive as a pragmatic, low-cost federal inquiry into a specific problem affecting rural constituents.
Will emphasize clear metrics, cost-benefit analysis, and actionable recommendations within the 180-day report.
Likely to favor modest federal coordination while preserving state and local implementation roles.
Mix of cautious support and concern: supportive of farmer mental health focus but wary of expanding federal programs or setting precedents for ongoing spending.
Prefers state, local, and private-sector solutions; would scrutinize federal role, spending, and any language implying regulatory fixes for market or weather challenges.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Modest authorization and nonpartisan topic favor enactment, but still must clear both chambers and be prioritized for floor action.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals want faster, larger investments versus study-only approach.
Modest authorization and nonpartisan topic favor enactment, but still must clear both chambers and be prioritized for floor action.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-constructed study/reporting bill that clearly defines the problem domain, assigns responsibility to a named federal entity, enumerates specific topics to be…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.