The House Agriculture Committee early Thursday approved a five-year farm bill with some bipartisan support after debates over pesticide regulations, solar energy and ethanol.
The “Food, Farm and National Security Act,” H.R. 7567, fills gaps in farm, food and forestry programs left by last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which provided new money for land conservation and price supports for farmers.
It comes as rural communities grapple with falling farm income, rising costs and uncertainty from the Trump administration’s cuts and planned reorganization at the Department of Agriculture.
The vote was 34-17, with all Republicans and seven Democrats in favor after a marathon session that started Wednesday morning and ended shortly after midnight. The committee also deliberated for hours Tuesday. The last farm bill, from 2018, expired in 2023 and has been repeatedly extended.
Democrats have been accusing the GOP of shutting them out of the drafting process, even though the majority included numerous bills backed by the other side.
“Take the politics, take the Trump derangement syndrome out of it, plain and simple this is a great bill,” said committee Chair Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.).
Ranking member Angie Craig (D-Minn.) said the bill was improved with some Democratic amendments but “does not meet the moment.”
Pesticides have been a primary point of contention. The bill would shield manufacturers from litigation related to human health impacts as long as the chemicals are used according to federal law.
It would bar states or localities from requiring pesticide labels to carry health warnings — or limit how the chemicals are used — that go beyond federal dictates. Republicans on the committee rejected a Democratic amendment to remove the language.
The dispute, fed by the fight over the weed killer glyphosate’s alleged ties to cancer, has entangled the “Make America Healthy Again” movement, allied with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s past crusades against pesticides. Democrats seized on the political split, accusing Republicans of abandoning the MAHA cause.
“We know there are health risks out there,” said Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine). Broad protections for pesticides that may pose such risks, she said, “is extremely dangerous to human health.”
But Rep. John Rose (R-Tenn.) said agriculture in his state can’t be sustained without the chemicals, which keep crop yields high and enable farmers to meet the nation’s food demands.
Pingree said EPA faces challenges in updating scientific reviews that already lag by years in some cases, worsened by the Trump administration’s workforce reductions.
Rose defended the agency’s work, saying the agency “rigorously” reviews chemicals before they’re registered and again before registrations are renewed. EPA has said glyphosate doesn’t cause cancer, despite thousands of lawsuits from people who blame it for their illnesses.
“The science is there. We should trust it,” Rose said.
Democrats who voted for the bill include Reps. Jim Costa of California, Josh Riley of New York and Sharice Davids of Kansas. They were joined by Reps. Adam Gray of California, Gabe Vasquez of New Mexico, Don Davis of North Carolina and Kristen McDonald Rivet of Michigan.
In the Senate, Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Chair John Boozman (R-Ark.) has said he’s inclined to avoid issues that jeopardize the development of a bipartisan package that can clear both chambers.
Debate over solar, biofuels
Lawmakers sparred on rural energy issues including efforts to scale back solar development in farm country and to lift the summer restrictions on sale of E15 fuel that’s hit a snag with the House Republican leadership.
Rep. Eric Sorensen (D-Ill.) offered an amendment to allow year-round sales of E15 — which is 15 percent ethanol — but it didn’t come to a vote, as Republicans ruled it out of the committee’s jurisdiction. The Energy and Commerce Committee handles that issue, Thompson said.
House leaders have appointed a council of lawmakers to study potential compromises with petroleum refiners. The council hasn’t proposed legislation, missing a Feb. 25 deadline.
On solar, the bill proposes to narrow federally supported projects on farmland. Republicans opposed an amendment by Rep. Nikki Budzinski (D-Ill.) to remove such provisions.
The bill would block the USDA from paying for solar arrays taking up more than 5 acres, although arrays up to 50 acres could be allowed if most of the energy generated is used on the farm. It wouldn’t affect panels installed on roofs or other buildings.
Budzinski withdrew her amendment, but not before an extended and spirited debate between Democrats and Republicans. Craig called the bill’s provision “the very definition of a poison pill.”
But Rep. Dave Taylor (R-Ohio) said solar arrays are taking “vast swaths” of productive farmland into leases of 30 to 40 years. Farmers could still install panels, but not with federal assistance, he said.
And Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.) said he’s seen forests as big as 1,000 acres cleared in Georgia to make way for solar farms. “It’s horrible for the environment,” he said.
Conservation and research
Conservation programs would see only tweaks through the legislation, including a sharper focus on precision agriculture and a new program aimed at creating conservation easements for privately owned forests.
The legislation would boost specialty crop research by allowing the USDA to waive matching fund requirements for certain grants and directing funding toward mechanization and automation.
It would steer research funding toward the effects of wildfire smoke on crops and toward maintaining white oak trees that are used to make whiskey barrels and other items, among other priorities.
It would also continue the Agriculture Advanced Research and Development Authority, which has never been funded close to its authorized level of $50 million a year. That program funds research that’s considered too risky for private investment.
An amendment by Costa to restore agricultural research funding cut by the Trump administration last year failed as Republicans said it would add to the bill’s cost in violation of Thompson’s pledge for a budget-neutral bill.
Forest management
The farm bill also provides programs at the Forest Service. Thompson included some top priorities of Republicans, like scaled-back environmental review of forest thinning projects in areas deemed at high risk of wildfire, including along electric power rights of way.
The bill would limit how much consultation the Forest Service is required to do with the Fish and Wildlife Service on already-established forest management plans when new information becomes available about potential threats to endangered species.
Consultation would not have to be re-initiated in those situations, reversing a finding in Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. Forest Service, a 2015 ruling in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The clarification has some Democratic support and was also urged by the Obama administration.
In a boost to timber and rural economic interests, the bill would expand grants for innovative wood products and wood facilities and would provide grants to help transport forest thinnings from where they’re cut to mills that can accept them.
Other amendments approved
On voice votes, the committee approved:
- An amendment by Pingree to make food waste and loss a research priority in the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative, as a prelude to potentially setting a federal labeling standard for expiration and sell-by dates on packaged foods. Food waste is also a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, according to some research.
- An amendment by Rep. April McClain Delaney (D-Md.) to prioritize agricultural conservation in grants to community colleges’ agriculture and natural resources programs.
- An amendment by Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.) to encourage restoration of white oak trees on federal privately owned land. While the trees are abundant, they’ve been regenerating slowly, worrying industries that use the wood in construction.
- An amendment by Rose to expand eligibility for grants to volunteer fire departments, often the first to respond to wildfires. Eligibility standards haven’t been updated in decades, he said.
- An amendment by Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.) to ensure that cooperatives with 2,500 or fewer employees are eligible for the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP).
- An amendment by Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-Va.) to create a reserve fund for REAP and streamline applications. The program helps farmers and small businesses install energy efficiency and renewable energy systems.
- An amendment by Vasquez to expand the definition of rural energy in REAP to cover waste heat power production.
- An amendment by Vasquez to streamline approval of minor range improvements on Forest Service grazing allotments.
The committee rejected, along party-line votes, amendments to restore funding to the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, from Budzinski; to expand wood innovation grants for construction, by Rep. Andrea Salinas (D-Ore.); and to direct the USDA to rehire or replace federal employees let go through mass terminations in 2025, by Davids.
