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
This Final Rule adopts the changes introduced in the Interim Final Rule, consolidating seven agency-specific NEPA regulations into a single, department-wide framework, reducing the overall volume of regulations by 66 percent.
Tight global supply is likely to keep fuel and fertilizer costs elevated.
Dr. Michael Langemeier with Purdue University provided perspective on the improving farmer sentiment and the trends shaping the agricultural economy moving forward.
The sugar policy debate affects prices, trade, and farm stability.
Cattle producers face mounting pressure as U.S.-Mexico trade talks resume, but expanding drought, rising input costs, and policy work to improve the long-term industry outlook.
The White House’s plan calls for a nearly 20 percent reduction in the USDA’s budget, which would impact various food and agriculture aid programs.