Democrats rail against ‘petty,’ ‘retaliatory’ GOP agriculture funding bill

House Democratic negotiators on Wednesday criticized a GOP-backed agriculture funding bill for fiscal 2024 while accusing Republicans of violating a spending deal struck between President Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).

During a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing Wednesday, lawmakers clashed for hours over proposals offered by Republicans to fund agriculture and rural development programs, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other related agencies for the coming fiscal year.

“The bill before us is a perfect example of how House Republicans mislead the American people,” said Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee.

“They do not want to return critical domestic programs to the 2022 levels — they do not want to adhere to the bipartisan agreement set by the president and the Speaker, and which passed with many of their votes,” she added.

Rep. Sanford Bishop Jr. (D-Ga.), ranking member on the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, also called the bill “petty,” while noting a part of the measure he said that “blocks funding for the office of communication of the secretary of agriculture because of a press release he put out describing the impact of the Republican bill on the debt limits.”

“This is absolutely ridiculous. It is retaliatory and it’s petty,” he said.

The bill proposes about $25.3 billion for such programs for fiscal 2024, or 2 percent less than the current levels and 12.5 percent lower than the amount Biden asked for in his budget request earlier this year.

A chunk of the proposed funding would come from funds Republicans hope to claw back from previously approved spending for certain Democratic priorities.

Republicans defending the bill say the measure would invest in rural communities and agricultural research, expand access to broadband, provide nutrition assistance to those in need while also putting a check on what they describe as “wasteful” spending.

During the hearing, Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), who heads the subcommittee tasked with crafting the agriculture funding proposal, touted funding for “critical infrastructure investments in water and wastewater systems, broadband and rural housing programs,” and called lawmakers to “work to right-size programs, especially since the pandemic is over.”

“President Biden has ended the public health emergency last month and this is why we’re returning the WIC cash value voucher benefits to a normal sustainable inflation adjusted funding level,” Harris argued, referring to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).

“The American Rescue Plan provided a one-time increase in these benefits due to the pandemic. But these increases continued to be built into the WIC program in fiscal ’22 and ’23,” he said, before noting funding would be cut for the program under the bills.

“With the end of the public health emergency, it’s time to return this program to normal operations,” he added.

Democrats criticized the proposed funding for the WIC program among other cuts, with Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) saying the measure would fund WIC “at a rate of 12.7 percent lower than what is needed to meet current participation and we have a growing population.”

“This shortage will result in more low birth weight babies and infant mortality,” she said.

“And yes, this bill takes food out of the mouths of veterans, children, seniors and people with disabilities,” Kaptur continued.

Democrats also took issue with language from Republicans they said targets the FDA’s decision to allow mifepristone to be dispensed in some pharmacies.

“This policy rider would overrule the established scientific process for FDA approval to restrict women’s access to health care,” DeLauro said.

“This move is unprecedented. The subcommittee has no business overturning the considered decision of the FDA just to make it harder for women to get an abortion,” she added.

Leaders on both sides agreed to spending caps for fiscal 2024 as part of the Fiscal Responsibility Act. Congress passed the bill earlier this month to raise the debt limit before an early June deadline to prevent a national default.

However, since the bill’s passage, a growing number of conservatives have come out against the bipartisan plan, with some pushing for Republicans to revert funding back to fiscal 2022 levels — which would amount to much steeper cuts than previously agreed upon by both sides.

Under a plan announced earlier this week, House Appropriations Chairwoman Kay Granger (R-Texas) affirmed the GOP-led spending panel would mark up the fiscal 2024 government funding bills at the fiscal 2022 top-line level.

The proposed limits are more in line with a separate bill — known as the Limit, Save, Grow Act of 2023 — Republicans passed earlier this year to raise the debt limit, along with a host of partisan spending measures calling for more than $4 trillion in cuts over the next decade.

The agriculture funding bill considered Wednesday is one of 12 government funding bills that House Republicans are looking to move through the lower chamber in the months ahead as part of the annual appropriations process.

Congress has until the fiscal year ends in late September to pass its appropriations bills or a continuing resolution to buy more time for negotiations.

Some lawmakers are already expecting Congress to blow past the deadline and pass a continuing resolution, as has been the case in previous years. However, there is added pressure this year thanks to the recent debt limit deal, which would trigger automatic cuts across the board if lawmakers don’t pass their spending bills by the end of the calendar year.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.