House Ag Committee Advances Farm Bill with Democrat Support

Politico’s Grace Yarrow reported that “the House Agriculture Committee advanced the Republican-led farm bill in a 34-17 vote early Thursday after a marathon markup that was clouded by partisan fighting about the package. The legislation was backed by seven of the panel’s Democrats: Jim Costa (Calif.), Sharice Davids (Kan.), Don Davis (N.C.), Gabe Vasquez (N.M.), Adam Gray (Calif.), Kristen McDonald Rivet (Mich.) and Josh Riley (N.Y.).”

“Committee Chair G.T. Thompson (R-Pa.) said ‘you’re not going to find, in construction, a more bipartisan bill,'” Yarrow reported. “‘I hope everyone in this room has a sense of urgency about what we are doing today,’ Thompson said. Ranking member Angie Craig (D-Minn.) said that despite ‘bipartisan improvements’ during the amendment process, the package ‘remains a disappointing farm bill process that does not meet the moment.'”

“The bill largely resembles Thompson’s legislation that advanced out of committee nearly two years ago,” Yarrow reported. “It includes sweeping updates to agriculture and nutrition policies that haven’t been formally reauthorized since the last farm bill was passed in 2018.”

Agri-Pulse’s Kim Chipman, Lydia Johnson, and Steve Davies reported that “it’s not clear if the bill can pass the full House or Senate but it would authorize programs that couldn’t be included in the GOP’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act in 2025. The OBBBA put more money into commodity programs, crop insurance and foreign market promotion while cutting nutrition assistance. Congress hasn’t passed a full farm bill since 2018.”

“Policy and procedural disputes dominated the committee’s marathon markup of what Thompson, R-Pa., has called a ‘skinny’ farm bill. With midterm elections just months away, Republicans and Democrats accused each other of playing politics,” Chipman, Johnson and Davies reported. “Democrats offered up a raft of amendments aimed at restoring last year’s cut to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, calling out increased grocery prices squeezing Americans and higher demand at food pantries across the country.”

“Thompson stressed that he wanted to do more to strengthen SNAP in the legislation, such as allowing formerly imprisoned people access to food benefits, but budgetary constraints and an ‘inability to have a bipartisan dialogue on offsets’ got in the way,” Chipman, Johnson and Davies reported.

Year-Round E15 Sales Ruled Ineligible for Inclusion

Ethanol Producer Magazine’s Erin Krueger reported that “Rep. Eric Sorensen, D-Ill., on March 4 attempted to amend the draft 2026 Farm Bill currently under consideration by the House Agriculture Committee to include language enabling year-round sales of E15. The amendment did not pass.”

“‘Allowing year-round E15 would increase domestic corn demand by more than 2 billion bushels annually,’ Sorenson added. ‘Increasing access to higher blends nationwide would also provide consumers with a more affordable low-carbon fuel option at the pump, saving Americans more than $20 billion in fuel costs,'” Krueger reported. “Sorenson also cited new conflict in the Middle East as an urgent reason to take action on E15.”

“The E15 amendment was declared ineligible for inclusion in the draft Farm Bill, as it is outside the scope of the House Ag Committee and inclusion in the bill would violate House rules,” Krueger reported. “Sorenson unsuccessfully challenged the decision.”

FACT CHECK: E15 lies outside of the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Agriculture.

The Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 includes workable, practical policy changes that are within the ag committee’s jurisdiction — because our producers deserve actionable… pic.twitter.com/wLFc8JvOH9

— House Committee on Agriculture (@HouseAgGOP) March 4, 2026

“Sorenson’s attempt to add E15 language to the draft Farm Bill follows a failed effort by lawmakers in January to insert E15 language into an appropriations package,” Krueger reported. “Following that failure, lawmakers launched a new Rural Domestic Energy Council that was tasked with introducing E15 legislation. The newly formed council, however, has failed to comply with self-imposed deadlines for introduction of an E15 bill.”

Pesticide Provision Remains in the Bill

E&E News’ Marc Heller reported that “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,” Heller reported. “‘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,” Heller reported.

Proposition 12 Elimination Remains in the Bill

Progressive Farmer’s Chris Clayton reported that “the bill includes a provision that would eliminate state laws that restrict the sale of meat products from other states if they don’t meet an individual state’s livestock standards. The provision directly targets California’s Proposition 12, which restricts pork imports from states that don’t meet California’s swine space requirements.”

“Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif., introduced an amendment to remove that provision from the bill. Other Democrats said there is no consensus in the House or Senate to eliminate state authority over livestock production standards,” Clayton reported. “Democrats also argued the provision has created a niche market for producers willing to adhere to California’s standards. Costa then withdrew the amendment, saying he believed the Senate would address it.”