HR-7762-119
Referred to the Subcommittee on Nutrition and Foreign Agriculture.
Sponsored by Sanford Bishop (D-GA)
What it does
This bill would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to create a 5-year pilot program paying producers of asparagus, bell peppers, blueberries, cucumbers, and squash when national average prices fall below a 5-year reference price due to imports. Payments would be based on a formula comparing "effective" market prices to historical reference prices, multiplied by a producer's average production, with eligibility limited to producers earning under $5 million in adjusted gross income who derive at least 75% of income from farming, ranching, or forestry. The bill authorizes $200 million per year for the program's duration.
Who benefits
Domestic producers of asparagus, bell peppers, blueberries, cucumbers, and squash, particularly small and mid-sized farms meeting the income eligibility caps; USDA administrators overseeing the new program; regions specializing in these seasonal crops (e.g., parts of the Southeast, California, and other specialty-crop-growing states).
Who is hurt
Taxpayers funding the $200 million annual authorization; producers of crops not covered by the pilot (e.g., other specialty crops) who receive no equivalent support; larger agribusiness operations exceeding the $5 million income cap who are excluded; potentially importers and exporting countries whose products are effectively priced out or discouraged, and downstream produce buyers/consumers if the program is later expanded and affects market supply.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that seasonal and perishable crops like blueberries and bell peppers face acute, hard-to-hedge price swings caused by import surges that existing farm safety-net programs do not address, since these crops are not covered by traditional commodity support programs. They contend a narrowly targeted, time-limited pilot with income caps ensures the aid reaches small and mid-sized family farms most vulnerable to import-driven price collapses, testing a model before considering permanent adoption.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill picks five specific crops for federal subsidy while leaving other specialty crop growers uncovered, raising fairness concerns about why these particular commodities were chosen over others facing similar import pressure. They contend that price-support payments tied to import competition could function as a backdoor trade barrier, distort planting decisions, and add another taxpayer-funded subsidy program at a time when overall farm subsidy spending is already scrutinized for its cost and market-distorting effects.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority under the Commerce Clause and its spending power to fund agricultural support programs affecting interstate and foreign commerce; this bill raises no significant separation-of-powers or individual-rights questions, as it is a conventional appropriations and program-design measure within an existing regulatory framework (the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004).
Checks and balances
Congress authorizes the spending and sets eligibility criteria in statute, while the Secretary of Agriculture retains substantial discretion to define key terms (marketing windows, price determinations, causation from imports) subject to normal administrative rulemaking and judicial review.
Historical precedent
The bill amends the existing Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 and resembles other USDA commodity price-support and disaster/trade-loss payment programs (such as the Market Facilitation Program payments made during 2018-2019 trade disputes), though this specific crop-targeted pilot has no directly identical predecessor.