Farm and Family Relief Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Craig, Angie [D-MN-2]
- Committees
- Ways and Means Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 22, 2026
Bottom line
This bill offers broad economic relief to agricultural and forestry sectors, along with some food assistance program adjustments and tariff removals, totaling over $5.8 billion in direct appropriations.
What it actually does
The "Farm and Family Relief Act" provides economic assistance to agricultural producers across various sectors, including commodity, sugar beet, specialty crop, and timber producers, primarily for the 2025 crop year. It also delays certain administrative and benefit cost-shifts within the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (SNAP program) and establishes a new Office of Technology Transfer within the Forest Service. Additionally, it creates a domestic market assistance program for timber products and terminates specific executive orders imposing tariffs.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue the bill provides crucial and timely economic relief to farmers and families facing market and economic challenges, ensuring the stability of the agricultural sector and food security. They would highlight the targeted assistance for various producer types and the support for domestic markets and technology transfer as vital for long-term resilience.
Opponents contend
Opponents might contend that the bill's broad scope and significant spending are fiscally irresponsible, potentially adding to the national debt. They might also criticize specific provisions as market distortions or question the inclusion of seemingly unrelated items like the Forest Service technology office or tariff terminations within an agricultural relief package.
The bill is moderately complex with several distinct sections, requiring a careful read. Given its early stage ("Introduced in House"), there is ample time for review and public input.
Section 2(a)
Benefit Cost-Shift Delay for SNAP
This provision amends the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to delay the scheduled cost-shift for certain SNAP benefits from states to the federal government. Specifically, it pushes back the effective date for these changes from 2028 to 2032, and related adjustments from 2029 to 2033, while striking a clause that would have eliminated certain benefit calculations. This effectively maintains the current federal share of benefit costs for a longer period.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this delay provides states with necessary fiscal relief, preventing them from having to absorb increased costs for a critical anti-hunger program, especially during periods of economic uncertainty. It ensures continued stability for SNAP operations.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that delaying these cost-shifts postpones necessary fiscal reforms and maintains an unsustainable federal burden, potentially discouraging states from seeking efficiencies in program administration.
Tradeoffs
Balances immediate state fiscal relief and program stability against long-term federal budget implications and the original intent of cost-shifting reforms.
Section 2(b)
Administrative Cost-Shift Delay for SNAP
This provision extends the current 50 percent federal share for state administrative costs of the SNAP program. It pushes back the scheduled reduction of this federal share from fiscal year 2027 to fiscal year 2029, meaning states will continue to receive 50 percent federal funding for administrative expenses for an additional two fiscal years.
Section 3
Economic Assistance Payments for Commodity Producers
For the 2025 crop year, the Secretary of Agriculture is directed to make one-time economic assistance payments to producers of "eligible commodities" (loan commodities like wheat, corn, cotton, rice, soybeans, etc., excluding wool, mohair, honey). Payments are triggered if the expected gross return per acre is less than the expected cost of production per acre. The payment amount is 65% of the economic loss (cost minus return) multiplied by eligible acres (planted or prevented from planting), reduced by any payments received under the Farmer Bridge Assistance Program.
Section 3(b)
Payment Limitations for Commodity Producers
This provision establishes payment limitations for the economic assistance provided to commodity producers. While generally applying existing Food Security Act of 1985 limitations, it sets specific caps: $125,000 for persons or entities deriving less than 75% of their average gross income from farming/ranching/silviculture (for 2021-2023 tax years), and $250,000 for those deriving 75% or more. These limitations are separate from other program limitations.
Section 4
Block Grants for Sugar Beet Cooperatives
This section appropriates $330,000,000 to the Secretary of Agriculture to provide block grants to sugar beet cooperatives. These cooperatives are then required to use the funds to make payments to their sugar beet producer members to offset economic losses incurred during the 2025 crop year. The Secretary will establish a per-acre payment rate in consultation with cooperatives and reduce grants by any Farmer Bridge Assistance Program payments received by members.
Section 5
Specialty Crop Market Expansion Payments
This section establishes a $5,000,000,000 program to provide one-time payments to eligible specialty crop producers (including dry edible beans, mushrooms, Christmas trees, herbs, honey, hops, etc.) to aid in expanding or developing new domestic markets. Payments are based on 2025 sales (or 2026 estimates for new producers) and capped at $900,000, reduced by any Farmer Bridge Assistance Program payments. A rescission clause states that unobligated funds will be rescinded after two years.
Section 6
Timber Loss Assistance Program
This section appropriates $500,000,000 to establish a program providing financial assistance for qualified timber losses incurred during calendar year 2025 due to market and economic conditions. Eligible entities (growers, harvesters, processors of timber) can receive one-time payments/grants (up to $40,000) or loans/loan guarantees (up to $5,000,000), or both. All assistance is reduced by any Farmer Bridge Assistance Program payments.
Section 7
Establishment of Forest Service Office of Technology Transfer
This section establishes an Office of Technology Transfer within the Forest Service, headed by a Chief Commercialization Officer. Its mission is to expand the commercial impact of Forest Service research and commercialize technologies supporting its mission. The Office will oversee technology transfer funds, represent the Forest Service on interagency bodies, coordinate with other USDA offices, engage with the private sector, and coordinate patent efforts. A Technology Transfer Working Group is also established to assist with coordination, guidance, and reporting. $5,000,000 from the Commodity Credit Corporation is provided for each of fiscal years 2026 through 2031.
Section 8
International Forestry Cooperation Act Amendments (Domestic Market Assistance Program)
This section amends the International Forestry Cooperation Act of 1990 to establish a "Domestic Market Assistance Program." The Secretary is authorized to undertake activities to access, develop, maintain, and expand international markets for U.S. agricultural timber products (lumber, pulp, paper) and to promote cooperation and information exchange among market participants to boost exports. $15,000,000 is appropriated from the Treasury, to remain available until expended.
Section 9
Tariff Termination
This section mandates that duties imposed by four specific Executive Orders (14257, 14193, 14194, 14195) and any substantially similar successor orders shall have no force or effect on or after the date of enactment of this Act. These Executive Orders, based on their Federal Register citations, likely relate to specific tariffs imposed by the Executive Branch.
Across multiple sections, the bill specifies that payments made under this Act will be reduced by any amounts a producer received for the 2025 crop year under the "Farmer Bridge Assistance Program" of the Department of Agriculture, as described in a December 8, 2025 press release.
Sections 3(a)(4)(A)(ii), 4(b)(2), 5(c)(4), 5(e)(2), 5(e)(3), 6(c)(3)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to prevent "double-dipping" or overlapping federal assistance for the same losses. The reference to a future program suggests coordination with anticipated or ongoing USDA relief efforts.
Case for: Proponents argue this prevents overcompensation of producers and ensures that federal funds are distributed efficiently, targeting those who have not already received equivalent aid.
Case against: Critics might argue that relying on an external, not-yet-fully-defined program for offsets introduces uncertainty for producers and could complicate the application process.
Estimated impact: Reduces the net federal outlay for the programs in this bill by the amount already distributed through the Farmer Bridge Assistance Program.
The definition of "eligible commodity" for the direct payment program explicitly excludes "graded wool, nongraded wool, mohair, or honey."
Section 3(c)(3)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative drafting to precisely define the scope of a program and exclude certain items that may be covered by other programs or deemed outside the bill's primary focus. It's likely a deliberate policy choice.
Case for: Proponents would argue that these commodities may have different market dynamics or existing support mechanisms, making their exclusion appropriate for this specific program.
Case against: Producers of these excluded commodities might argue that they also face economic challenges and are being unfairly left out of a broad agricultural relief package.
Estimated impact: Limits the scope of the commodity payment program, potentially saving federal funds and focusing aid on other crops.
For "new producers" of specialty crops, the payment amount is calculated based on their estimate of sales for calendar year 2026, rather than actual 2025 sales. This estimate must be supported by a legally binding contract or evidence of planted crops.
Section 5(c)(2)
Why it matters:This is a technical adjustment to accommodate a specific group (new producers) who would not have historical sales data. It's a practical necessity for program design.
Case for: Proponents argue this provision is essential for supporting new entrants into the specialty crop market, who often face significant upfront costs and lack established sales history, ensuring the long-term vitality of the sector.
Case against: Critics might raise concerns about the potential for fraud or inflated estimates, given that payments are based on projected rather than actual sales, requiring robust oversight.
Estimated impact: Allows a specific cohort of producers to access funds, potentially increasing the overall program outlay slightly.
Effective two years after enactment, any unobligated balance of the $5,000,000,000 appropriated for specialty crops (reduced by Farmer Bridge Assistance Program obligations) will be rescinded.
Section 5(e)(3)
Why it matters:This is a standard budgetary mechanism to ensure that appropriated funds are used within a reasonable timeframe and do not remain indefinitely on the books if not needed. It's a fiscal control measure.
Case for: Proponents argue this demonstrates fiscal responsibility by ensuring that any funds not effectively utilized for specialty crop market expansion are returned to the Treasury, preventing wasteful spending.
Case against: Critics might argue that a two-year window is too short for some long-term market development initiatives, potentially forcing agencies to rush spending or leave beneficial projects unfunded.
Estimated impact: Potentially reduces the net cost of the specialty crop program if funds are not fully disbursed within two years.
Amounts provided under this Act are designated by Congress as being for an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(A)(i)).
Section 10(b)
Why it matters:This is a procedural mechanism to exempt the spending from statutory budget caps, allowing for increased spending without requiring offsets. It's a common tactic for significant spending bills, especially those framed as urgent relief.
Case for: Proponents argue that the economic challenges faced by agricultural producers and families constitute an emergency, justifying the immediate and uncapped federal response to prevent further hardship and ensure stability.
Case against: Critics often argue that overuse of emergency designations undermines fiscal discipline and budget controls, allowing for spending that would otherwise require difficult choices or offsets.
Estimated impact: Allows for the full appropriation of over $5.8 billion without triggering PAYGO rules or other budget enforcement mechanisms.