Thompson, Glenn 6%
---
pow mofo pending food bill
https://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/glenn-w-thompson
13* 6%
not sedition and tribe buff, gt am land , gt lakes, shark fin; not pfa
021427Supporting Tribal Management of BisonWildlife, Environmental Justice, Public Lands/Forests
2021385Transformative Climate, Jobs, and Justice Investments (2x Score)Climate Change, Air, Clean Energy, Environmental Justice, Transportation, Public Lands/Forests, Water, Other
2021385Transformative Climate, Jobs, and Justice InvestmentsClimate Change, Air, Clean Energy, Drilling, Environmental Justice, Public Lands/Forests, Transportation, Water, Other
2021379Censuring Paul GosarJustice and Democracy
2021272Taking Action on PFAS ContaminationToxics/Public Right to Know
2021260Restoring the Voting Rights ActJustice and Democracy
2021247Pro-Environment Funding PackageOther, Climate Change, Clean Energy, Clean Air, Clean Water, Environmental Justice
2021217Protecting People from PFASToxics/Public Right to Know; Water
2021208Investing in Transportation and Water InfrastructureClimate Change, Transportation, Water, Clean Energy, Environmental Justice
2021206Building Climate-resilient Wastewater InfrastructureWater, Climate Change
2021201Investing in Climate-Smart and Pro-Wildlife InfrastructureTransportation, Climate Change, Wildlife
2021196Removing Confederate Statues from the U.S. CapitolLands/Forests, Justice and Democracy
2021185Repealing Assault on Methane Pollution SafeguardsClimate Change, Dirty Energy
2021169Corporate Climate Risk Disclosure RequirementsClimate Change; Other
2021145Increasing Awareness and Reporting of Hate CrimesOther, Justice and Democracy
2021132Washington, D.C. StatehoodJustice and Democracy
202191Protecting Dreamers and Immigrants Fleeing DisastersJustice and Democracy, Other
202170Protecting the Rights of Workers to OrganizeOther, Justice and Democracy
202162Voting Rights and Democracy ReformsJustice and Democracy
202145Protecting Public Lands and Waters Across the WestPublic Lands/Forests
202117Impeachment for Incitement of InsurrectionJustice and Democracy
202111Certifying Pennsylvania’s Electoral VotesJustice and Democracy
202110Certifying Arizona’s Electoral VotesJustice and Democracy
2020242Phasing Out Harmful Fishing GearOceans, Wildlife
2020203Increasing Funding for Renewable Energy Research & DevelopmentClean Energy, Climate
2020182Protecting the U.S. Postal ServiceJustice and Democracy
2020166Pro-Environment Funding PackageOther, Environmental Justice, Water, Dirty Energy, Drilling, Lands/Forests
2020164Slashing EPA FundingOther, Water, Air, Environmental Justice
2020163Blocking Trump’s Inadequate Soot StandardAir, Environmental Justice
2020156Removing Confederate Statues from the U.S. CapitolOther
----
2020
155Great American Outdoors ActLands/Forests
2020147Protecting the Grand Canyon and Colorado’s public landsPublic Lands/Forests, Dirty Energy
2020142Maintaining Suspension of Nuclear Weapons TestingDirty Energy
2020138Investing in Climate-Ambitious InfrastructureClimate Change, Clean Energy, Transportation, Water, Environmental Justice
2020136Eliminating Lead Service Lines to Protect Public HealthWater, Environmental Justice
2020135Harming Workers by Rolling Back Wage ProtectionsOther
2020122Washington D.C. StatehoodJudiciary, Justice and Democracy
2020109Heroes Act COVID-19 Relief PackageOther
202069Protecting Wilderness Across the WestLands/Forests
202054Emergency and Climate Disaster Aid for Puerto RicoClimate Change
202050Protecting the Rights of Workers to OrganizeOther
202036Great Lakes Restoration InitiativeWater
202013Protecting People from PFAS PollutionToxics/Public Right to Know; Water
202011Closing the PFAS Clean Water LoopholeToxics/Public Right to Know, Water
2019701USMCA Trade DealClimate Change, Other
2019666Attack on Marine Mammal Protections from Harmful Air Gun BlastingWildlife, Oceans, Drilling
2019654Protecting the Right to VoteOther, Justice and Democracy
2019634Shark Finning BanOceans, Wildlife
2019609Protecting Colorado's Public LandsLands/Forests
2019602Protecting the Grand Canyon from Toxic Uranium MiningDirty Energy, Lands/Forests
2019597Protecting Chaco Canyon from Oil and Gas DevelopmentDirty Energy, Drilling, Lands/Forests
2019530Restoring Protections for the Arctic RefugeDirty Energy, Lands/Forests, Drilling
2019525Banning Offshore Drilling in the Atlantic and Pacific OceansDirty Energy, Drilling, Oceans
2019521Stopping Future Drilling in the Eastern Gulf of MexicoDirty Energy, Drilling, Oceans
2019408Pro-Environment Funding BillClimate Change, Lands/Forests, Clean Energy
2019395Preserving the Mercury & Air Toxics StandardsClean Air, Toxics/Public Right to Know
2019390Eliminating EPA's Chemical Hazard Assessment Program, IRISToxics/Public Right to Know, Clean Water, Clean Air
2019385Methane Pollution SafeguardsClimate Change, Dirty Energy, Drilling
2019384Halting Oil Drilling in the Arctic RefugeDrilling, Dirty Energy, Lands/Forests, Wildlife
2019383Blocking the EPA from Reducing Carbon PollutionClimate Change
---
---
Outrage mounts as Republicans in Congress move to protect ...}:
Sep 27, 2025 — ... glyphosate-based Roundup herbicide and other weed killers can affect its research and product development and other “important...
The Guardian
- Press conference on bill to create near-immunity shield for all ...
Jan 21, 2026 — by state trying to pull the wool over lawmakaker. eyes today Tennessee is in the crosshairs. that's why we're here at least five s...
IT s been seven years since Germany’s Bayerbought US agrochemical giant Monsanto, inheriting not only the company’s vast portfolio of seeds and pesticide products, but also more than 100,000 lawsuits alleging Monsanto’s popular Roundup herbicide causes cancer. Bayer, which has so far paid out billions of dollars in settlements and jury verdicts to cancer victims, has been working – so far in vain – to put an end to the litigation and to block any future such cases.
Now Bayer appears closer than ever to success, as many Republican congressional leaders push for measures that would effectively block lawsuits against pesticide makers around the country.
A groupfounded by Bayer called the Modern Ag Alliance is the face of the legislative push, advocating for liability shields they say are necessary to allow companies to continue to sell chemicals that farmers use to kill weeds and bugs in their fields.
“Without legislative action, a potential catastrophe is on the horizon that could result in many farmers going out of business and food prices rising even further,”the alliance, which represents more than 100 agricultural organizations, including farmers who grow wheat, corn, soybeans and other key food crops, warns on its website.
[
Weedkiller ingredient widely used in US can damage organs and gut bacteria, research shows
Read more](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jul/06/weedkiller-diquat-organ-damage-study)
The alliance has been lobbying for thepassage of state laws blocking such lawsuits. They’ve succeeded thus far in two states – Georgia and North Dakota – and continue to lobby for such laws in all 50 states.
But the immediate battleground is in the halls of Congress, where a provision tucked into a congressional appropriations bill is outraging consumer advocates, including those affiliated with the influential Make American Healthy Again (Maha) movement. Similar protective language for pesticide makers is expected to be included in the new farm bill as well.
“The audacity of elected officials voting for legislation to fully strip our legal rights away when injured by chemicals is stunning,” said Kelly Ryerson, a leading Maha advocate who has been lobbying lawmakers and her 84,000 social media followers to oppose pesticide company protections. “Especially in this age of Maha when an unprecedented number of Americans are rallying against toxins in food and the environment.”
‘Important investments’
Bayer has made it clear that changing laws in its favor is a priority. The company states on its website that without “legislative certainty”, lawsuits over its glyphosate-based Roundup herbicide and other weed killers can affect its research and product development and other “important investments”.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should be the ultimate arbiter of product safety and what warnings should be required on product labels, Bayer says. The company also says if the EPA approves a product label, consumers should not be able to sue companies for failing to warn of perceived risks.
In a statement to the Guardian, Bayer said federal legislation is “needed to ensure that states and courts do not take a position or action regarding product labels at odds with congressional intent, federal law and established scientific research and federal authority”.
Bayer has already removed glyphosate, classified as “probably” carcinogenic to humans by World Health Organization cancer experts, from consumer herbicide products. And the company has threatened to stop selling it to farmers if the litigation is not brought to an end.
The company disputes, however, that the appropriations bill will provide that certainty, saying in its statement that the language doesn’t prevent lawsuits and asserting it does is a “distortion of reality”.
The relevant section of the House version of the appropriations bill – section 453 – does not mention litigation or pesticide company liability. Section 453 simply says that no funds can be used to “issue or adopt any guidance or any policy, take any regulatory action, or approve any labeling or change to such labeling” inconsistent with the conclusion of an EPA human health assessment.
But critics say the language effectively would impede states and local governments from warning about risks of pesticides even in the face of new scientific findings about health harms if such warnings are not consistent with outdated EPA assessments. The EPA itself would not be able to update warnings without finalizing a new assessment, the critics say.
Due to the limits on warnings, consumers would find it nearly impossible to sue pesticide makers for failing to warn them of health risks if the EPA assessments do not support such warnings.
The language is “by design sneaky and complicated and hard to explain”, said Daniel Hinkle, senior state affairs counsel for the American Association for Justice, who has been lobbying against the action.
“Nobody thinks that a giant chemical company should be able to lie about the risks of using their product and get away with it. It’s just making sure that people understand that is what is at stake,” Hinkle said.
‘Very worried’
Representative Chellie Pingree, a Democrat from Maine who tried but failed to overturn the language in a, said she is “very worried” about the “outrageous” efforts to protect pesticide companies from litigation.
“We’re talking about chemicals here that are already prone to health risks,” Pingree said. “And the chemical industry is trying to keep that information from consumers … and then to have immunity from being responsible if you get cancer from being in the presence of these chemicals.”
The language is not currently included in the short-term government spending package being debated ahead of a looming government shutdown that would occur at the end of the month in the absence of continued spending authorization.
But it is expected to see support in both House and Senate appropriations bill versions once the short-term budget is resolved. The new farm bill is also expected to include language limiting or preventing pesticide injury lawsuits, with strong signals from Glenn Thompson, chair of the House committee on agriculture, favoring such protections.
Previously, Thompson has weighed in on the side of Bayer amid its ongoing efforts to get the supreme court to weigh in on federal “preemption” over pesticide regulation.
The involvement and influence of the Maha movement, made up of voters from both parties, is adding a bipartisan element to what otherwise might be a highly partisan fight.
Max Lugavere, a health journalist, author and podcaster who posted a photo of a Maha-related visit to the White House to his 1.1 million Instagram followers, said pushing lawmakers is important, but “awareness among everyday people is the first domino”.
Citing “growing evidence linking pesticides to health risks”, Lugavere said: “Stripping away legal recourse in these cases wouldn’t just be wrong, it would be [a] tragedy.”
For California lawyer Brent Wisner, who helped lead the early Roundup litigation against Bayer, the efforts by lawmakers to protect the company against future litigation is un-American and potentially unconstitutional.
“I don’t care what party you are in, if you get poisoned by a pesticide manufacturer you want to be able to sue. You need to be able to sue,” he said. “Bayer is paying millions of dollars to get these laws passed because it’s cheaper than it is to pay people they’ve given cancer to.”
*This story is co-published with the New Lede, a journalism project of the Environmental Working Group
---
---
an common dr 5 24
echoing early May criticism of U.S. House Republicans' blueprint for the next Farm Bill, anti-hunger and green groups on Friday fiercely condemned the GOP's discussion draft text of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024.
Released by U.S. House Committee on Agriculture Chair Glenn "GT" Thompson (R-Pa.), the draft is competing with a Democratic proposal—Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee Chair Debbie Stabenow's (D-Mich.) Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act.
While Thomspon claimed that his bill "is the product of extensive feedback from stakeholders and all members of the House, and is responsive to the needs of farm country through the incorporation of hundreds of bipartisan policies," Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.), the panel's ranking member, said that the draft "confirms my worst fears."
"House Republicans plan to pay for the farm bill by taking food out of the mouths of America's hungry children, restricting farmers from receiving the climate-smart conservation funding they so desperately need, and barring the USDA from providing financial assistance to farmers in times of crisis," he warned, referring to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The economic impact of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) cuts alone "would be staggering," Scott emphasized. "A $27 billion reduction in food purchasing power would not only increase hunger, but it would also reduce demand for jobs in the agriculture, transportation, manufacturing, and grocery sectors."
Leaders at advocacy groups on Friday similarly slammed the Republican bill. Ty Jones Cox, vice president for food assistance at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, reiterated her previous condemnation of GOP attempts to cut the benefits of hungry families, saying that "this is unacceptable; Congress should reject it."
"Every SNAP participant would receive less to buy groceries in future years than they would under current law, putting a healthy diet out of reach for millions of people. This would be the largest cut to SNAP since 1996 if enacted and these cuts would grow even deeper over time," Jones Cox explained, debunking Thompson's description of the changes.
"And the cut to future SNAP benefits isn't the only harmful policy in this bill. For example, it would allow states to outsource SNAP administration to private contractors. But prior privatization efforts delayed benefits for people in need, worsened errors, and increased costs," she continued. "Congress should reject Chair Thompson's harmful proposal and instead work to pass a farm bill that truly protects and strengthens SNAP." Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, executive director and CEO of MomsRising, argued that "at this time when skyrocketing food prices have increased hunger and food insecurity, forcing tens of millions of U.S. families to make impossible choices between food and other essentials, it would be mean-spirited and shameful for Congress to cut the SNAP benefits moms and families rely on; and it also would be damaging to our economy."
Describing the benefits, formerly called food stamps, as "the nation's first line of defense against hunger," Rowe-Finkbeiner highlighted that "more than 42 million people count on SNAP benefits each month and nearly four in five of them are children, seniors, people with disabilities, or veterans."
"In contrast, the bipartisan Senate Farm Bill—the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act—aids farmers and treats hunger in America as the emergency it is," she noted. "It is a bold bill that would protect SNAP benefits and increase access to this essential program for groups that have long been excluded, reducing barriers to participation for older adults, military families, some college students, and others. It is an easy choice. Without question, the Senate Farm Bill is the version that should become law." The GOP's efforts to restrict food assistance aren't limited to the United States, as Gina Cummings, Oxfam vice president for advocacy, alliances, and policy, pointed out Friday, declaring that "at a time when over 281 million people are suffering from acute hunger, any proposal to undercut crucial international food assistance programs is damaging."
As Cummings detailed:
The resilience-building programs housed in Food for Peace are vital to preparing frontline communities for future shocks that could impact their food security—whether it be from climate change, conflict, or economic downturns.
Oxfam has raised concerns about the American Farmers Feed the World Act, which is where many of the cuts to Food for Peace originate from—since its introduction last summer. The bill has proposed gutting funding for resilience-building activities that ensure communities can build up their local markets, withstand the next drought, flood, or conflict, and not go hungry. The House Farm Bill as it is currently written includes some of the most concerning provisions of the bill and would render these vital interventions inoperable, resulting in as many as 3 million fewer people being reached by these programs based on their current scale.
The House must reject the provisions of the American Farmers Feed the World Act included in the House Farm Bill draft as the bill goes for markup. The inclusion of such provisions is a threat to global food security and a shift towards a less-efficient model of international aid by the United States.
The AFL-CIO said on social media that it "strongly opposes" the Republican proposal, adding: "Families rely on Food for Peace—and also SNAP, SNAP's Thrifty Food Plan, and other federal nutrition and food security programs. We cannot support making harmful policy changes or funding cuts to any of them."
In addition to calling out the GOP for trying to leave more people hungry, advocates denounced Republican efforts to gut climate-friendly requirements from the Inflation Reduction Act and enact the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act.
"The Farm Bill is a seminal opportunity to reform our food and agriculture sector away from factory farms and corporate greed," said Food & Water Watch managing director of policy and litigation Mitch Jones. "Instead, House Republicans want to double down."
"Some of leadership's more dangerous proposals would take us backwards on animal welfare, and climate-smart agriculture—both the EATS Act and support for factory farm biogas must be dead on arrival," he asserted. "It's time Congress put the culture wars aside and got back to work on a Farm Bill that puts consumers, farmers, and the environment above politicking and Big Ag handouts." Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said that "weakening safeguards that protect people from pesticides, slashing protections for endangered species, and recklessly expanding industrial logging should have no place in the Farm Bill."
"It's unfortunate that chairman Thompson has put forward such a destructive farm bill to appease the most fringe members of Congress," Hartl added. "This bill can't pass the House and it's a waste of everyone's time."
In a joint statement released Friday after a meeting with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Democrats on Thompson's panel, Scott and Statenow stressed that members of their party are "committed to passing a strong, bipartisan Farm Bill that strengthens the farm and family safety nets and invests in our rural communities."
"America's farmers, families, workers, and rural communities deserve the certainty of a five-year Farm Bill, and everyone knows it must be bipartisan to pass," the pair said, blasting divisive GOP proposals. "Democrats remain ready and willing to work with Republicans on a truly bipartisan Farm Bill to keep farmers farming, families fed, and rural communities strong."
==
---
2020 Scorecard Vote
Great American Outdoors Act
House Roll Call Vote 155
Issue: Lands/Forests
Representative Joe Cunningham (D-SC) sponsored the Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA), which provides full and permanent funding of $900 million annually for the Land and Water Conservation Fund as well as funding to address the deferred maintenance backlog in our national parks and other public lands.
By investing in our public lands and waters, GAOA will protect our nation’s natural heritage and invaluable landscapes, enhance access to the outdoors and green spaces for communities nationwide, and provide much-needed repairs to deteriorating infrastructure in our national parks. On July 22, the House approved H.R. 1957, the vehicle for GAOA, by avote of 310-107(House roll call vote 155). YES IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The Senate approved H.R. 1957 on June 17, and the president BIDEN signed this legislation into law on August 4.
---
WASHINGTON -- The chief sponsors of a bill to expand oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and open the coastal waters of Virginia for exploration have received more than $8.8 million combined in campaign donations from the oil and gas industry, a review of campaign finance records shows.
On Thursday, the House of Representatives passed the Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act by a 266 to 149 margin. The measure would force the federal government to conduct three lease auctions in those areas by June 2012. It is considered the first step in a GOP-led process to loosen restrictions on offshore drilling. Authored by House Natural Resources Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), it faces a much closer vote in the Senate as well as the stated opposition of the Obama administration.
Nevertheless, the bill's passage in the people’s chamber underscores the extent to which the political world has moved beyond the concerns over domestic drilling that arose in the wake of last year’s historic oil spill in the Gulf. It also serves as another reminder that, in the halls of Congress, certain legislative power comes with financial prowess.
A review of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics shows that the 67 co-sponsors of the act received a combined total of at least $8,887,000 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry during the course of their careers. For at least ten of those members, the oil and has industry was their biggest career contributor.
The same dynamics held true for the twenty members of the freshmen House Republicans who co-sponsored the bill. Of those, five counted the oil and gas industry as their largest contributor during the 2010 campaign.
Contacted by The Huffington Post for comment, each of these congressional offices offered differing versions of the same explanation for their vote.
Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.), who has received more than $92,000 from the oil and gas industry during the course of his 3-year congressional career, noted that his district encompasses the birthplace of domestic oil production.