Press Releases

After House Agriculture Committee Democrats forced through an incomplete reconciliation bill on Monday, many questions remain unanswered, including how and when the conservation piece – which was omitted from the bill that was marked up – will be added, whether or not the Committee will get the chance to markup the billions in associated spending, and exactly how much the missing provisions will add to the overall price tag. These and other questions and criticisms were submitted today by House Agriculture Republicans in dissenting views on the reconciliation measure: 

"When text was finally released, both Republicans and Democrats were shocked to learn the legislative measure was more than $22 billion short of the Committee’s instructions under the House-passed budget resolution. Members were further amazed to learn from the Chairman during the markup that an additional $28 billion in spending would be added to the bill by Democrat Leadership after the Committee completed the markup—a stunning dereliction of process.

"We have grave concerns about moving forward without the opportunity to debate and vote on the full level of spending within the jurisdiction of our Committee. If the numbers stated by the Chairman are accurate, he either intends to exceed the Committee’s instructions or has plans to gore someone’s ox and include offsets that have never seen the light of day…"
 

ICYMI: WHAT DEMOCRATS ARE SAYING

Chairman David Scott said an additional $28 billion would be added "when this package is taken up on the House floor," forgoing proper procedure and exceeding the Committee's budget instructions by $6 billion.

Rep. Abigail Spanberger, Chair of the Conservation and Forestry Subcommittee, voiced "significant concerns" during the markup over proceeding "without the $28 billion detailed related to the conservation spending," adding "I would like to see the committee have the opportunity to actually vote on them."

Rep. Jim Costa expressed his concerns over the missing conservation funds before falling in line with party leadership, saying, "for many of us who care about the conservation titles, that will determine how we vote on the final package."

For the full dissenting views, click here.

For a complete list of amendments offered during markup, click here.

###