Farm Bills Diverge on SNAP Cost-Sharing, Loans and Tobacco

By Rebecca Stone

The House passed H.R. 7567 by a 224-200 vote on April 30, but the farm bill’s 2031 nutrition plan diverges from S. 5526: the Senate measure would delay state Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefit cost-sharing to fiscal 2029, while H.R. 7567 would not.

Both measures would generally extend SNAP and related nutrition programs through Sept. 30, 2031. A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report updated Nov. 10 compares both measures with current law and identifies where they diverge.

The 2018 farm bill, enacted as P.L. 115-334, expired in 2023, and Congress has extended it three times. The latest extension, P.L. 119-37, enacted in November 2025, covers fiscal 2026.

The fiscal 2025 budget reconciliation law, P.L. 119-21, changed selected farm programs without reauthorizing all expired ones. Both pending bills would reauthorize expired farm and food programs, while their differences concern financing and reporting rules for tobacco growers, fishing businesses, lenders, state SNAP agencies and beef processors.

What changes for producers and lenders?

• S. 5526 would postpone states’ required share of SNAP benefit costs by one year, to fiscal 2029. H.R. 7567 offers no delay. Both would generally extend SNAP and related nutrition authority through Sept. 30, 2031, so the dispute concerns the timing of state fiscal responsibility rather than the program’s authorization date.

• For tobacco growers, H.R. 7567 would restore eligibility for Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), the federal farm-financing entity. S. 5526 would retain the exclusion and add reporting requirements. The CRS comparison provides no estimate of loan volume, borrowing cost or margin impact.

For commercial fishing lenders and processors, H.R. 7567 would allow farm ownership loans, operating loans and coverage for fish-processing facilities. S. 5526 would authorize operating loans only, leaving ownership financing and processing-facility coverage outside that version.

Both bills would move Food for Peace responsibilities from the U.S. Agency for International Development to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). USDA already administers the program’s Title II food-aid operations under a temporary interagency agreement, so the transfer changes the responsible agency without specifying a new implementation schedule.

What do the import and waiver reports signal?

H.R. 7567 would require a report on USDA’s SNAP food restriction waivers. Both bills would require reports on the effects of beef imports, and the CRS report notes that a Feb. 6 proclamation raised the 2026 tariff-rate quota for Argentine beef, a trade-volume limit tied to a specified tariff rate.

For cattle producers and processors, that quota is the concrete import-policy variable in the report. The CRS comparison does not quantify the resulting cattle price, commodity basis—the price difference between a local and benchmark market—or farm-margin effect, so it cannot support a profitability forecast.

What do the budget scores cover?

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scored H.R. 7567 as "budget neutral" for mandatory spending, or budget authority that does not require annual appropriations, over fiscal 2026 through 2036. CBO also projected a $162 million increase over the House bill’s first six years.

The CRS budget figures apply only to H.R. 7567. The summary does not explain how CBO reconciles the overall score with the six-year increase, and it provides no comparable mandatory-spending figures for S. 5526. CBO released a separate Senate analysis on Oct. 28.

The comparison also does not quantify crop-input costs, commodity basis or operating margins for either measure. Producers therefore face a policy choice without a reported estimate of how either version would change profitability.

Where do the bills stand?

The House Agriculture Committee ordered H.R. 7567 reported on March 5. The measure has sat in the Senate since May 19.

The Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee initially failed to report S. 5526 on Aug. 6, on a 10-11 vote. It then ordered the bill reported on Sept. 16 by 12-11, and the measure reached the Senate calendar on Sept. 24.

The Senate has passed neither measure. S. 5526 has remained on the calendar since Sept. 24, while H.R. 7567 has awaited Senate action since May 19. Both versions require reconciliation before any farm bill can reach the president.

The next test is Senate floor action and reconciliation over the one-year SNAP shift, tobacco financing and fishing credit; until both chambers clear a common bill, the 2031 nutrition authorization and House budget score remain proposals rather than enacted farm policy.