HR-7206-119
Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Angie Craig (D-MN)
What it does
This bill would delay scheduled state cost-sharing changes for SNAP (food assistance) benefits and administration, push back related deadlines by several years, and provide one-time economic assistance payments to producers of major row crops, sugar beets, specialty crops, and timber businesses for losses tied to 2025 market conditions. It also creates a Forest Service technology transfer office, establishes a timber export promotion program, and terminates duties imposed under four named executive orders that had imposed tariffs.
Who benefits
Producers of wheat, corn, soybeans, cotton, rice, and other row crops facing losses in 2025; sugar beet cooperatives and their members; specialty crop growers (fruits, vegetables, Christmas trees, herbs, honey, and others); timber businesses and landowners; states that would avoid near-term increases in SNAP administrative cost-shares; SNAP recipients in states that might otherwise have faced service cuts; importers and businesses affected by the terminated tariff executive orders.
Who is hurt
Federal taxpayers who would bear the cost of the roughly $5.8 billion in new appropriations plus delayed savings from postponed SNAP cost-shifts; domestic industries that may have benefited from the terminated tariffs, such as competing domestic producers facing renewed import competition; producers and businesses that do not meet the income or eligibility thresholds and receive reduced or no payments; entities awaiting the Farmer Bridge Assistance Program offsets, which reduce payments under this bill dollar-for-dollar.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that farmers, sugar beet cooperatives, specialty crop growers, and timber operators faced severe income losses in 2025 due to market and weather conditions, and that timely, targeted one-time payments prevent farm bankruptcies and preserve rural economic stability. They also contend that delaying SNAP cost-shift changes protects states and low-income households from abrupt benefit or administrative disruptions, and that repealing the tariff executive orders would lower costs for consumers and businesses reliant on affected imports.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill layers new emergency spending, exempted from normal budget discipline through an emergency designation, on top of an existing Farmer Bridge Assistance Program, risking duplicative payments and unclear total costs to taxpayers. They also contend that delaying SNAP cost-shift reforms postpones needed state accountability measures indefinitely, and that unilaterally nullifying executive tariff orders by statute could undermine ongoing trade negotiations and remove leverage the executive branch was using to negotiate on behalf of domestic industries.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad Article I, Section 8 taxing and spending power to appropriate funds for agricultural assistance and food programs, which is not seriously in constitutional doubt. The provision terminating tariff-imposing executive orders raises a separation-of-powers question about Congress's Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 and Clause 1 authority over foreign commerce and revenue versus the President's delegated tariff authority under statutes like Section 232 or IEEPA, an area without a controlling Supreme Court case squarely addressing congressional reversal of presidential tariff actions.
Checks and balances
Congress would exercise its spending and tariff-setting powers to appropriate new farm assistance and to statutorily nullify executive branch tariff orders, directly checking presidential authority over trade measures that were previously imposed unilaterally.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously enacted ad hoc disaster and market-loss assistance programs for farmers, such as the Market Facilitation Program and various supplemental agricultural disaster relief acts, though direct legislative termination of presidential tariff executive orders is a less common congressional action.