OMAHA (DTN) -- The continuing partisan divisions within the House Agriculture Committee flared again as lawmakers worked through a full day of marking up the latest attempt by Congress to pass a farm bill.

And yet, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn "GT" Thompson, R-Pa., was able to advance the "Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026" early Thursday morning on a 34-17 vote with seven Democrats siding with all 27 Republicans on the committee who voted. Each side had one lawmaker missing because of family deaths. The "skinny" farm bill dealt with most of the titles that were not addressed last summer in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

After debating late into Tuesday night, the House Agriculture Committee spent all of Wednesday wading through proposed amendments for the "Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026," which would provide a full reauthorization of the 2018 farm bill.

The markup was livestreamed throughout Wednesday and into early Thursday morning.

Ranking Member Angie Craig, D-Minn., said early Thursday morning, "This bill doesn't meet the moment. This bill doesn't lower input costs or stabilize our export markets." She added, "And it's going to have challenges getting broad bipartisan support on the House floor, if it makes it there."

Thompson rejected Craig's view, saying the bill meets broad objects and said, "You're not going to find in construction a more bipartisan bill." Thompson added, "Pure and simple, this is a great farm bill. Let's focus on the people we're supposed to be focusing on, and that's the hard-working farmer, the ranchers, the foresters of this nation. This is what they've asked for."

PRESSING FOR A MANDATORY BASE ACRE UPDATE

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act provided a voluntary base acre update and also included the addition of 30 million new base acres. USDA continues working on the rule for a base acre update and how to divvy up those 30 million acres.

Rep. Nikki Budzinski, D-Ill., offered a plan for a mandatory base acre update, but then withdrew her amendment after debate. Budzinski said there is a root problem when commodity payments are being made based on what farmers planted decades ago. The current base acre program funnels money to unplanted acres and crops that aren't planted.

"It's outrageous that a farmer can be planting one commodity, but getting a payment for another," Budzinski said. "How is this not waste, fraud and abuse?"

Midwest farmers would benefit from a mandatory base acre update, Budzinski said, adding a farm bill should be geographically balanced.

Rep. Rick Crawford, R-Ark., said any time there is a mandate for farmers, they reflexively resist it.

"If we could find some way to reward for farmers updating base acres on a regular basis, find a way to do it, then you would see an update that would address your concern," Crawford said.

Thompson said some areas would benefit, but others would "stand to lose significantly" from a mandatory update.

It should be noted that staff on the U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee in 2023 scored out that a mandatory base acre update would save taxpayers $1.9 billion over 10 years.

E15 AMENDMENT OUT OF ORDER

Congress is in the middle of a debate on the prospects of year-round E15, but a House rural energy council has missed its deadline to introduce legislation.

Rep. Eric Sorensen, D-Ill., introduced an amendment to add year-round E15 to the farm bill. Sorensen noted Midwest farmers are projected to again lose money and there are now questions about where gas prices will go because of the war with Iran.

"We need certainty for farmers and for my neighbors at the pump, so that they don't go bankrupt. It's time that we put farmers ahead of big oil that will do anything and everything to keep this from moving forward, but here and now, we can get nationwide E15 passed, and my amendment to this bill does just that," Sorensen said.

Thompson responded the amendment is subject to the jurisdiction of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He raised a point of order, which led to a party-line vote rejecting Sorensen's amendment.

"It is my commitment to work on year-round E15, but it is clearly not in our jurisdiction, and unfortunately, Energy and Commerce has a death grip on it," Thompson said. "It needs to get done ... We just got to do it in a manner where we can all be successful. I also think the time is right for it, though I know there's been resistance in the past."

HEATED DEBATE ON SOLAR

The Trump administration has set a hard rule against providing USDA incentives for solar projects on farmland. The House bill would allow USDA Rural Development funds for solar panels on five acres without any restrictions or allow solar on up to 50 acres if a majority of the power is being used on the farm.

Budzinski introduced an amendment to reestablish USDA funds for other solar projects on farms but withdrew the amendment after a protracted debate. Budzinski said solar only accounts for about 3% of farmland loss, "far less than urban and residential development."

Craig called the restriction on federal incentives for solar a "poison pill" that would "limit farmer options at a time when they are facing an economic crisis." Craig also noted the farm bill restricts solar incentives while at the same time ordering a study of the impacts of solar farms on agriculture and rural America. Craig said solar should be considered as a way to expand and diversify energy markets.

Republicans pointed out the provisions in the bill don't prevent landowners from installing solar projects but prevents USDA taxpayer dollars from supporting them.

Rep. Dave Taylor, R-Ohio, was among those who strongly opposed reinstating taxpayer incentives for large-scale solar farms.

"By allowing solar farms to proliferate across our country, we are inherently limiting the ability of our next generation of farmers to get into the business," Taylor said.

Rep. Mike Bost, R-Ill., also criticized solar panel companies for taking land out of production. Bost said the Department of Energy has projected more than 10 million acres of land will be needed for solar farms by 2050.

"The federal government should not be using taxpayer dollars to incentivize taking our best land out of production," Bost said.

Budzinski added, "I don't think we should be freaking out that solar is going to take all of the most productive farmland in this country because I just don't think that's the real accurate picture."

PESTICIDE LANGUAGE

Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, introduced an amendment to strike language in the bill that would give EPA exclusive authority to regulate pesticide labeling requirements. The provision in the bill limit states and cities from regulating pesticides and gives pesticide manufacturers immunity from lawsuits as well. Pingree's amendment would have stripped that provision from the bill.

"I just have deep concerns about language being placed in the farm bill that would preempt states' rights in the way this does and also gives such a liability shield to the chemical companies that have acknowledged through their settlements," Pingree said. "The fact is, there have been over 200,000 claims against just one chemical alone -- that's Roundup (glyphosate) -- that there are serious health risks to this, and broadening it to all pesticides, and making this kind of exemption or this kind of immunity in the bill, is just extremely dangerous to human health," Pingree said.

Rep. Jim Rose, R-Tenn., said the pesticide provisions in the bill would keep crop yields high, and ensure people are fed. Without approved pesticides, producers would not be able to meet production demands, he said. Further, EPA approval of pesticide chemicals is not a rushed process but are rigorously reviewed.

"The science is there and we should trust it," Rose said. "Pesticide labeling uniformity is not a liability shield; it is about making sure these products remain on the shelves for farmers who rely on this provision."

Several Democrats weighed in supporting Pingree's amendment. Rep. Jill Tokuda, D-Hawaii, told the committee about importing milk for schools because Hawaii dairies had to dump 36 million gallons of contaminated milk after cows consumed pineapple tops that had been sprayed with the now-banned pesticide Heptachlor.

"So, when we talk about the impacts of pesticides, Hawaii literally has a history of this going back generations," Tokuda said.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case in late April on Bayer's arguments to end state "failure-to-warn" lawsuits against glyphosate lawsuits. Bayer's legal briefings argue that Congress intended to give EPA oversight of pesticide labels. A state court in Missouri also has given preliminary approval of a proposed $7.3 billion national settlement in Roundup cases.

Pingree's amendment lost on a 28-22 vote with one Democrat voting with Republicans.

PROP 12

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. 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.

COCKFIGHTING DEBATE

Rep. Shri Thanedar, D-Mich., introduced a provision on cockfighting that had bipartisan backing, but also Republican criticism. Thanedar cited the support of major egg and poultry companies that would enhance prohibitions on transporting, delivering or selling roosters for cockfighting. The amendment led to a long discussion between lawmakers.

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., said he has 33 county attorneys in Nebraska who have contacted him and support Thanedar's amendment, citing that illegal cockfighting remains a problem.

Rep. Tracey Mann, R-Kansas, introduced a "second-degree amendment" to strike most of the provisions other than gambling on animal fighting. Mann and other Republicans said Thanedar's provision would lead to a dramatic expansion of the federal government and animal rights groups using courts to sue farmers and potentially take their property.

"Cockfighting is already illegal in all 50 states and territories," Thompson said. He added the provision would lead to more legal challenges against farmers. "It's going to create a transportation ban on farm animals."

Mann's amendment passed 29-22. That then got a unanimous vote for Thanedar's changed amendment.

PARTISAN FRAGMENTS CONTINUE

Late Wednesday, Craig introduced the "Farm and Family Relief Act," a bill she and other Democrats introduced in January that would provide another $18 billion in economic aid to farmers but would also delay state mandates for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

Countering Craig and some of her comments, Republicans rattled off provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, highlighting the $15 million estate-tax exemption and other tax provisions in the legislation. Republicans said the provisions would make farmers more profitable but also noted the farm bill is needed because farmers need economic certainty.

Craig's provision failed on a 27-23 party-line vote.

See, "Farm Bill Markup Begins With SNAP, Tobacco and CRP," https://www.dtnpf.com/….

Also see, "House Takes Another Stab at Farm Bill," https://www.dtnpf.com/…

Chris Clayton can be reached at Chris.Clayton@dtn.com.

Follow him on social platform X @ChrisClaytonDTN

(c) Copyright 2026 DTN, LLC. All rights reserved.