Holdup is how long to delay state cost-share on SNAP error rates; COOL gets bipartisan approval

WASHINGTON — The Senate Ag Committee recessed its Aug. 6 markup of the Agriculture Act of 2026 after four hours of debate and an 11-10 party-line vote that included proxies for absent Senators Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Thomas Tuberville (R-Ala.) and Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.). With two absent on the ‘aye’ side and one on the ‘no’ side, the physically present vote was 10-10 — short of the majority required under Rule 5.3 to report legislation from committee.

Rather than adjourn, Chairman John Boozman (R-Ark.) recessed the markup “subject to the call of the chair,” allowing the committee to reconvene after the August recess. Boozman has since indicated he expects that to be early September and has repeatedly said he would prefer to report the bill with bipartisan support.

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn ‘GT’ Thompson told Farmshine he is “watching this negotiation closely” and remains confident the Senate ultimately will pass its Farm Bill.

Thompson described the Senate substitute as “full of good bipartisan legislative work,” noting it includes provisions such as year-round E-15 that the House Ag Committee could not address under its farm bill jurisdiction.

After the four-hour markup, one disagreement remains between the parties: when states begin paying a share of SNAP benefits based on their payment error rates under law enacted earlier this year.

Republicans agreed to delay implementation one year, allow states to use either FY2026 or FY2027 error rates to determine their obligation, and increase the maximum state cost share from 15% to 20% to offset the federal cost of the delay.

The need for budget offsets is a key reason Republicans would not agree to the two-year delay Democrats sought.

Boozman described the revised substitute as his “best and final offer.”

Ranking Member Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) acknowledged the chairman’s movement but argued a one-year delay vs. two years could leave states with moderate error rates sharing benefit costs before some higher-error states because of transition provisions.

“I just want to say that this is really not about SNAP recipients, and it has nothing to do with our farmers. This is about allowing states to continue making (SNAP payment) error rates that are unimaginable. They’re off the chart,” Boozman countered, describing cost sharing as an incentive for states to improve SNAP administration.

“We’ve worked very hard to provide a one-year extension,” he said. “In return, what we’ve gotten back is ‘two years or nothing.’ How’s that taking care of hardworking families trying to make a living in farm country?”

Despite the impasse, the committee completed substantial bipartisan work, adopting an en bloc package of dozens of member priorities from both parties and acting on additional bipartisan amendments before recessing.

Dairy is done

Most dairy priorities received little debate because they were already incorporated into the One Big Beautiful Bill Act as well as Boozman’s substitute, which is consistent with the House-passed Farm Bill.

They include Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) improvements increasing Tier I coverage from 5 million to 6 million pounds of annual production history and updating production histories for participating dairies.

The Senate substitute also incorporates the bipartisan Fair Milk Pricing for Farmers Act, virtually identical to House language authorizing USDA mandatory processor cost surveys. Dairy manufacturers already participating in USDA’s Dairy Product Mandatory (Price) Reporting Program would also report processing costs and product yields.

The measure would not directly change Federal Milk Marketing Order milk pricing but would give USDA current national cost and yield information to inform future decisions, including processor ‘credits’ known as make allowances.

The Senate bill also aligns with several House dairy and nutrition priorities, including expansion of the Dairy Nutrition Incentive Program to boost SNAP access to milk, including whole and 2% milk, cheese and yogurt and language affirming whole milk in the School Breakfast Program.

Both bills also make substantial reforms to the Dietary Guidelines process, moving regular updates from five to 10 years beginning in 2030 and requiring significant scientific agreement based on evidence review, greater transparency, and an independent advisory process. The Senate bill also includes milk and other dairy foods among products eligible under a new local food security program.

COOL beef

One of the strongest bipartisan votes came on Sen. John Thune’s (R-S.D.) amendment to bring back mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (mCOOL) for beef. It passed 17-6 with every Democrat and six Republicans in support.

Thune argued consumers can identify the origin of poultry, lamb and fish, but not beef. (Pork and dairy also lack mCOOL. The former beef and pork requirements were repealed by Congress in 2015 following a WTO ruling. The previous version applied to fresh muscle cuts and trimmings, not further-processed products.)

“Everything in this country gets labeled — the tie I’m wearing, the clothes we’re all wearing, my belt — everything that we buy is labeled except for the things that we put in the center of our plate: beef,” Thune said.

His amendment directs USDA and the U.S. Trade Representative to find a WTO-compliant path for mCOOL beef labeling rather than simply reinstating the former program.

The House Farm Bill does not include mCOOL for beef.

Another notable House-Senate difference involves interstate livestock production standards. The House-passed Farm Bill would prohibit states from imposing their livestock production standards on products produced in other states as a condition of interstate sale.

Although widely associated with California’s Proposition 12, the implications are broader as to whether one state may effectively establish production requirements for producers nationwide.

Supporters say the provision is necessary to preserve a national agricultural marketplace and prevent one state’s production standards from becoming the de facto national standard. Opponents say states should retain authority over standards for products sold within their borders, not just produced within their borders.

The issue was not debated during the Senate markup and remains a significant House-Senate difference.

Accountability analyzed

Sen. Peter Welch offered an amendment tightening oversight of ARC and PLC commodity payments through additional audits of operations with multiple farm managers or payment recipients, arguing support should flow to producers actively engaged in farming.

Sen. Chuck Grassley said he shared Welch’s concern and has long worked to strengthen payment integrity but opposed changing the rules by amendment during the partisan markup. He also pointed to contract poultry growers who invest heavily in facilities while integrators own the birds, supply the feed and control the marketing — illustrating the challenge of directing farm policy toward producers who bear financial risk.

Boozman questioned why dairy programs were not included, noting DMC operates under a different eligibility framework and lacks the same “actively engaged” requirements and comparable payment limitations as ARC and PLC.

Welch defended dairy producers as among the most actively engaged farmers, often relying on off-farm employment to keep their dairies operating.

The amendment failed, leaving eligibility rules unchanged.

Crops and conservation

Several provisions will interest diversified dairies producing feed crops, including limited expansion of commodity base acres, fertilizer price and market transparency, grain drying and storage provisions, Food for Peace language supporting agricultural exports, and disaster assistance affecting feed crop producers.

Conservation generated far less controversy because the House and Senate proposals are more alike than different. Both preserve EQIP, CSP, RCPP and CRP/CREP and permanently incorporate Inflation Reduction Act conservation funding into the Farm Bill baseline.

The debate centered on allocation. Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) sought to restore about $1.9 billion proposed to be shifted from EQIP and roughly $500 million from CSP, arguing both remain heavily oversubscribed. Boozman countered that the substitute increases the overall conservation baseline while redirecting some IRA funding to new conservation initiatives. Bennet’s amendment failed.

For dairy and livestock producers, both bills retain the conservation programs they most commonly use; the disagreement is over where IRA conservation dollars are allocated.

Nutrition and rural development

The bipartisan en bloc package also included sections on cybersecurity, heirs’ property, specialty crops, community facilities lending, local food purchases, food bank assistance, an Office of Small Farms provision, and language allowing SNAP recipients to purchase hot rotisserie chicken.