After the failure of almost all the Democratic amendments offered today on the fiscal year 2016 Agriculture appropriations bill in the House Appropriations Committee markup, House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee ranking member Sam Farr, D-Calif., said that the White House is going to have to take a stronger stance if it is to prevail in the appropriations process this year.

Noting that White House veto threats on many appropriations bills have not had much impact, Farr said, “The White House is going to have to get a lot tougher.”

“This year Republicans stick together more than in the past,” Farr said in a discussion of the failure of his amendment to continue a ban on Agriculture Department inspection of horse meat for human consumption.

The vote on Farr’s amendment was 24 to 24, and House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers, R-Ky., said that a tie vote meant that the amendment failed.

The ban has passed on a bipartisan basis in most years since 2006 and was included in the fiscal year 2015 Agriculture appropriations bill. Following the 2014 elections, there are more Republicans on the committee, but Farr noted that several Republicans who supported the ban in past years had switched their votes.

“On tough votes they don’t wince,” Farr said of the Republicans.

In a call to reporters on Tuesday, Office of Management and Budget Director Shaun Donovan said he is “optimistic” that a budget deal will come together, but Farr said that since the Republicans are in charge of the Senate he is not so sure that a deal acceptable to congressional Democrats and the White House is in the works.

Farr said he would offer the ban on horse meat inspection on the floor if the Agriculture bill comes up on the House floor, but he said he doesn’t know whether it will. The Agriculture bill, which usually goes through committee in May, is one of the first to be considered, he noted, but this year it is 11th in line.

Public sentiment is still against horse slaughter, Farr said. When construction or use of slaughterhouses was proposed in Iowa, Missouri and New Mexico, he said, the states and localities “shot them down.”

Ranchers have argued that the ban costs them money, but Farr said that there are “retirement homes” throughout the country to which old horses can be donated, including one in his district called the Red Wings Horse Sanctuary.

In his opening remarks, Farr praised the bill for holding back 5 percent of funding for Agricultural Research Service projects until Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack certifies that the ARS has updated its animal welfare standards, but he said that in general the bill “whacks the spending” in many areas.

Farr’s horse slaughter amendment came closer to adoption than a long list of amendments that Democrats offered, including his to overturn the bill’s provision to place restricts on the writing of dietary guidelines.

Among the amendments Democrats offered that went down to defeat, with the offering member, were:

• Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn. — To change the bill’s provision giving restaurants a two-year delay in menu labeling to one year, and to impose stricter payment limits and reveal information about crop insurance beneficiaries.
• Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine — To end crop insurance premium subsidies to farmers who make more than $750,000 per year and use the money for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. Aderholt said the proposal would reopen the farm bill and that crop insurance is actuarily sound, while Rep. Sanford Bishop, D-Ga., said that big farmers have more at risk and need more insurance.
• Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif. — To require USDA to study the impact of denying food stamps to people who have been incarcerated on drug charges. Rogers said it would amount to helping drug dealers, but Lee noted that murderers are eligible for food stamps while young African-American and Hispanic men who are in prison for charges that do not include selling drugs are not.
• Lee — To fund the USDA portion the Healthy Food Financing Initiative that would finance grocery stores in areas that don’t have them. Aderholt said it would duplicate a program at the Treasury Department.
• House Appropriations Committee ranking member Nita Lowey, D-N.Y. — To increase funding for the summer foods program.

But the most emotional debate came not over agricultural provisions, but provisions affecting the Food and Drug Administration’s regulation of new tobacco products and blood donations.

Lowey proposed removing a provision that would exempt electronic cigarettes and other products from the Food and Drug Administration’s pre-market review requirement.

Rogers said that the provision only changes a date in the Tobacco Control Act to provide equality of regulation for the new products with products already under regulation. Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., said that the e-cigarettes help people get away from the problems that come from smoking “combusted plant products,” and that the review would kill the industry.

Lowey called the provision “a special interest giveaway to the tobacco industry,” and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., said electronic tobacco products “lure more young people to the idea that smoking is cool, smoking is fun.”

Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill., proposed an amendment to require FDA to consult with the Heart and Lung Institute to come up with new standards for blood donations.

Noting that blood donor policies do not permit a gay man to donate blood even if he is in a relationship, while heterosexual men can donate blood no matter how many partners they have, Quigley said, “You’re not as safe as you think you are.”

Aderholt opposed the amendment, saying that FDA has been examining the scientific evidence.

In the middle of the three-hour markup, Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, said he had been warned that Democratic amendments would fail.

After the failure of his blood donation amendment, Quigley said, “We are getting used to going down in a blazing ball of martyrdom.”