Ag lawmakers are now looking at other cost-saving measures around SNAP

It is full speed ahead this week for Senate ag lawmakers as they work to meet the self-imposed July 4th deadline for the President’s “Big, Beautiful Bill.” However, they have hit a roadblock that has them looking for other cost-saving measures around the SNAP program.

Senators were looking at saving some major dollars by requiring states to cover more of the program’s costs, but the Senate Parliamentarian ruled that it cannot be done in the reconciliation process. Senate Ag Committee Chair John Boozman says SNAP must be improved in order to rein in federal spending. The proposed cuts to SNAP would have saved more than $200 billion over a decade.

In a recent call with ag reporters, Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley said farmers need this bill to pass.

“If we get it through the Senate and House and signed by the President, we’ve got some certainty for farmers and some improvement in where farmers are today on those prices, and farmers will benefit.”

However, Grassley says the reconciliation bill could complicate Farm Bill talks. The President’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” includes most of the heavy lifting for the Farm Bill, a move Grassley says could slow down the chances of a traditional five-year Farm Bill.

Related Stories
API said it stands ready to work with Congress to develop a balanced approach to E15 legislation that promotes fuel choice, supports investment certainty, and contributes to a stable and fair marketplace for American consumers.
Lawmakers are pressing for answers on how Washington’s “managed trade” approach — keeping leverage through long-term tariffs — will affect farmers, global markets, and future export opportunities.
In the meantime, Senate Majority Leader John Thune is asking that farmers be allowed to use marketing assistance loans to help stay afloat.
Beef industry groups seem to agree — market-based pricing, not federal intervention, best supports rancher livelihoods and long-term beef supply stability.
Cattle groups say additional imports would offer little relief for consumers but could erode rancher confidence as the industry begins to rebuild herds.
Understanding how these tax provisions interact will be key for farmers planning long-term equipment purchases or transfers within the family.