The House approved a five-year farm bill Thursday after stripping the legislation of liability protections for pesticide manufacturers.
The 224-200 vote sets the stage for followup action by the Senate, where the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee has yet to introduce its own version of the critical measure for food, farming and rural development.
Fourteen Democrats voted for the bill, H.R. 7567. Three Republicans opposed it — Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Harriet Hageman of Wyoming and Andrew Garbarino of New York.
“This is a great day for American farmers and American consumers,” House Agriculture Chair Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.) told reporters after the vote, adding that he expects Senate Agriculture Chair John Boozman (R-Ark.) will soon move on a bill as well.
“Chairman Boozman’s been waiting for it,” Thompson said of House action.
Democrats attacked the bill for falling short on support to farmers, who are facing inflation, low commodity prices and falling income, according to the Department of Agriculture.
They also criticized the Republican leadership for scheduling the debate at late hours. Most of it happened after midnight on Thursday morning following hours of negotiations on a range of internal GOP divisions.
“They’re like vampires. They’re afraid to talk about this stuff in the light of day,” said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), an Agriculture Committee member and ranking Democrat on the Rules Committee.
Thursday’s passage marked a victory for Thompson and most major farm organizations, pressing for a farm bill since the last version — in 2018 — expired in 2023, continuing only through short-term extensions as economic strains grew in farm country.
The bill had passed the House Agriculture Committee in March, attracting support from seven Democrats in addition to all Republicans.
But the proposal faces a potentially long path to becoming law. Boozman has said he’d prefer to steer clear of controversial subjects that could sink the chances of a strongly bipartisan package.
Pesticide issue alive?
As initially proposed, the House measure would have given pesticide companies limited protection from lawsuits by people who allege their products caused cancer or other illnesses. But it would have still allowed lawsuits if companies are “bad actors” and lie about known effects of the chemicals, Thompson said.
Thompson said after the vote that he doesn’t expect the pesticide matter to go away, noting the bill awaits not only Senate consideration but a House-Senate conference to iron out final details. Stripping it from the bill is “dangerous,” he said, since varying pesticide labels could apply from state to state.
“I refuse to stand still and let that happen to the American people,” Thompson said.
The language was a priority for pesticide companies in the wake of lawsuits related to the weedkiller glyphosate. Removing it was a high priority for the “Make America Healthy Again” movement that’s aligned with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. but facing recent strains within President Donald Trump’s political base.
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) offered the amendment to strike the pesticide language, saying during floor debate Wednesday, “It’s about the American people and protecting them.” It passed 280-142.
Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), supporting Luna’s measure, said she was “astonished” that the Republican leadership had included it.
But Thompson during the debate said the measure was more about labeling than the actual chemicals, a sentiment shared by Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.).
“This has nothing to do with the actual pesticide in the jug,” Scott said.
Other issues
While the loudest arguments centered on only a few of the bill’s provisions, the measure covers a wide swath of Agriculture Department programs around research, conservation, forestry and rural development programs.
The measure builds on farm program changes made in last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which covered most of the farm bill’s cost. However, most of the policies in the farm bill were left to be addressed in the legislation considered Thursday, Thompson said.
Among environmental and energy policies, the bill would expand an assistance program for fruit and nut trees damaged in storms — a growing concern related to climate change.
It would boost “precision agriculture” practices in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and create a new conservation easement program in forestry to help prevent conversion of productive forest lands.
While major farm groups support the bill, others — such as the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition — urged lawmakers to vote against it.
The NSAC and other organizations said the bill does nothing to address staff shortages at USDA, which encouraged several thousand employees last year to take deferred resignations, and doesn’t do enough to help beginning farmers or organic farmers who rely on the department to help with startup costs.
“If this bill is enacted as written, the impacts of these shortcomings will be particularly pronounced for the small and midsized operations, and beginning, young and other underserved farmers and ranchers that make up the backbone of agriculture and help ensure resilience in times of national crisis,” the organizations wrote to House Republican and Democratic leaders April 24.
Biofuels fight
The bill stands out, too, for one item that wasn’t included: lifting summer restriction on the sale of E15 fuel, which is 15 percent ethanol and an important issue for biofuel and farm interests.
Republican leaders abandoned a drive to link the E15 issue to the farm bill, either through an amendment or as a separate measure that could be approved and then attached to the already-approved farm bill. Instead, the House will vote separately on the E15 proposal May 13, Thompson said Thursday.
Agriculture ranking Democrat Angie Craig of Minnesota said she was doubtful, given opposition to the E15 provision among some Republicans. The proposal would also revamp EPA’s biofuel-blending exemptions for small refineries to ease some of the requirements, but that industry says the measure falls short.
“Forgive my skepticism,” Craig said.
Amendments passed, rejected
The House approved a handful of amendments, including proposals to:
- Promote composting as a conservation practice in USDA programs, regardless of whether it’s made in a structure of some kind.
- Direct USDA to create a tree-planting grant program aimed at reducing residential energy consumption.
- Direct USDA to report on assistance available to agricultural producers in Arizona for losses of Colorado River water.
- Allow for continuous enrollment of land under the Conservation Reserve Program for State Acres for Wildlife initiative.
- Exempt tractors and other farm equipment from Clean Air Act emissions mandates.
Lawmakers rejected on a vote of 210-216 an amendment from Rep. Cliff Bentz (R-Ore.) to expand the definition of renewable biomass in the renewable fuel standard to include residual woody material from forest projects and lumber mills.
