Senate Agriculture Committee Ranking Member John Boozman, R-Ark., said he foresees bipartisan negotiations on the next farm bill, according to Agri-Pulse's Sept. 28 Daybreak newsletter.

Boozman represents Arkansas, a state with substantial rice, cotton, poultry, and soybean production. He has served on the Agriculture Committee since joining the Senate in 2011 and chaired the panel during the 117th Congress. His current role as ranking member positions him to shape the minority party's negotiating posture as the reauthorization process advances.

Why does Boozman's prediction carry weight?

The farm bill authorizes a sweeping set of programs spanning commodities, conservation, crop insurance, and nutrition. Title I governs Price Loss Coverage and Agricultural Risk Coverage payments, which compensate growers when prices or revenues fall below benchmark levels. The conservation title funds the Conservation Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, and the Conservation Stewardship Program. Federal crop insurance, delivered through USDA's Risk Management Agency and private Approved Insurance Providers, accounts for a large share of the farm safety net. The nutrition title, primarily the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, has historically made up the largest spending component.

Bipartisan cooperation has typically proved necessary because no single party commands a majority of the regional coalitions the bill serves. Southern rice and cotton interests favor different Title I structures than Midwestern corn and soybean producers. Nutrition programs draw urban and rural Democrats. Conservation programs draw Western and environmental support.

What stands in the way of a bipartisan deal?

Reference prices, which set PLC payment triggers, have been a recurring flashpoint. The 2018 farm bill set reference prices below the cost of production for several major commodities, including corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, and peanuts. Grower groups have pressed for increases to reflect input cost inflation, while budget-focused members have resisted expanding the farm safety net without corresponding offsets.

Conservation title funding splits — between the Conservation Reserve Program's land-retirement model and working-lands programs like EQIP and CSP — also divide the coalition. Crop insurance subsidy levels and the structure of prevented planting provisions have drawn scrutiny in past cycles. SNAP eligibility rules and work requirements have produced the most partisan friction in recent reauthorizations.

What comes next on the legislative calendar?

The 2018 farm bill required extensions past its original five-year authorization to remain in force. With reauthorization pressure mounting, the Senate and House Agriculture Committees face deadlines to draft, mark up, and conference a successor bill or pass another extension. Boozman's prediction raises the prospect of committee action before permanent law pressure intensifies.

Without further legislative action, program authority would eventually revert to permanent law rooted in the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 and the Agricultural Act of 1949, an outcome commodity groups and farm policy analysts have worked to avoid since the 1960s. That pressure has historically forced bipartisan compromises at the close of negotiations.

Boozman's framing points to a bipartisan framework as the working assumption heading into the next reauthorization cycle.