House Republican leaders said Thursday that they are considering whether to rein in amendments to the fiscal 2017 spending bills this year to avoid “poison pill” provisions, like the ones that sunk an energy and water spending bill Thursday morning.
The GOP began considering the option after the House defeated the $37.4 billion fiscal 2017 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill by a vote of 112-305. Democrats opposed many of the GOP amendments to that bill, and Republicans opposed language from Democrats that blocked funding to contractors that discriminate against LGBT workers.
Now Republicans, who are eager to pass a dozen appropriations bills this year, may have to close the process so Democrats no longer have the opportunity to introduce provisions that make it impossible to pass underlying spending bills.
“It’s something we are considering,” House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers, R-Ky., told the Washington Examiner.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., told reporters after the vote that Republicans will meet after the upcoming week-long recess and will have a “family discussion” about “how best to proceed so the appropriations process cannot be sabotaged and derailed.”
Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, who is the chairman of the House Rules Committee, which sets the terms governing legislative debates, told the Examiner the House would take up the bill again under a new rule that could prohibit controversial amendments.
“We are going to have to have another rule,” Sessions said. “It can be whatever we’ve got the votes for to get this bill done. I don’t think a poison pill should bring down a $60 billion spending plan for water and making sure that our cities are safer and we are moving forward.”
Restricting amendments would be unpopular with many lawmakers in both parties, in particular the faction of House conservatives who tend to feel sidelined by the GOP leadership.
“I think that would be a disgrace,” said Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., when asked about the proposal to end the open amendment process for spending legislation. “There are very few opportunities a member of Congress has where that member can feel he is representing the people back home. And if you start setting up a system where we don’t have the freedom to offer an amendment, that it has to be checked, and vetted before you get it to the floor, that’s just wrong.”
But the GOP is left with few options.
Democratic leaders said they are committed to passing the LGBT amendment, sponsored by Rep. Sean Maloney, D-N.Y., and perhaps other related provisions, and some House Republicans have felt increasingly pressured to support them. The LGBT amendment passed with 43 Republican votes.
A week ago, a similar amendment was defeated by just one vote after Republicans held open consideration and convinced 7 Republicans to withdraw their support.
Ryan noted that Democrats, even Maloney, did not support passage of the underlying bill after voting to adopt the LGBT amendment.
“What we just learned today is the Democrats were not looking to advance an issue,” Ryan said. “They were looking to sabotage the appropriations process.”
Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., a member of the House conservative faction, said he did not believe Republican leaders would ultimately decide to limit amendments.
“I think that’s more chatter right now than it is reality,” Meadows told the Examiner. “I don’t know if there is a real desire necessarily to change the process. I think we all want to make sure we can move legislation forward, and how you do that is probably more a strategic question than anything else.”
