WASHINGTON _ Democrats in the U.S. Senate upended votes on a short-term measure funding the government past Oct. 1 on Tuesday, objecting that it contained help for flood victims in Louisiana but failed to provide assurances that money to replace old lead water pipes in Flint, Mich., would be forthcoming as well.
The two roll calls on the floor of the Senate _ one that saw the bill fail 45-55 and a second that saw it go down 40-59 _ fell short of the 60 votes needed to move forward on a short-term measure keeping the government open until Dec. 9, and included not just Democratic votes against but those of at least a dozen Republicans.
Those votes increased the likelihood that whatever funding measure passes before Friday, if any, it may not include money for addressing the Flint water crisis or last month's flooding in Louisiana, though negotiations are certain to continue.
"We hope that important flood relief will be a part of it," said Senate Majority Leader Mitchell McConnell, R-Ky., who had proposed the funding bill including money to respond to flooding in Louisiana, but without funding for Flint. He said both sides would continue to work on a deal to stave off a government shutdown on Friday.
Two weeks ago, the Senate overwhelmingly approved the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), which included at least $100 million and likely more for Flint, which has been struggling to find the funding necessary to replace lead pipes throughout the city blamed in part for high levels of lead found in its tap water for more than a year.
But Republican leaders in the U.S. House have so far _ as expected _ declined to guarantee that they will agree to that funding in any final version of the WRDA bill. It was left out of that chamber's version of the WRDA legislation that was headed to the House floor, even as House and Senate leaders have said Flint funding could ultimately be worked out in a conference committee between the chambers.
With no guarantee on Flint funding forthcoming, however, Democratic senators last week began raising loud objections to the proposed continuing resolution to fund the federal government through Dec. 9, including $500 million to help flood victims in Louisiana, arguing that if that legislation could be expanded to help residents of one state it could also be a legislative vehicle to help Flint.
The argument came to a head with Tuesday's votes.
"Today, we're going to have a vote and we're going to send it back to the drawing board to get this right," U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., said at a news conference before the vote, explaining that while Democratic senators support the Louisiana money, they can't do so without also including Flint's. "If, in fact, the people of Flint have to wait again, then the people of Louisiana can join that wait with them till the end of the year."
Flint's well-documented public health crisis began in April 2014 when the city switched water sources but the state Department of Environmental Quality did not require corrosion control treatments as it should have, a mistake which led to lead leaching from old water pipes into residents' taps. Now, more than a year after skyrocketing lead levels in some residences and high blood-lead levels among Flint children were detected, residents are still being told to drink filtered or bottled water.
Mayor Karen Weaver and others have said it could cost hundreds of millions to replace all the lead pipes in the city and make other infrastructure improvements that would restore confidence in the water system. Stabenow and others have estimated that the funding included in the WRDA bill could ultimately cover about half of the cost; state government has committed about $27 million but is being pressed to increase that amount.
"It's fully paid for," U.S. Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., said of the federal Flint funding, noting that unlike the $500 million for Louisiana, the Flint money is offset by a reduction in spending on a grant program for advanced technology vehicles. "This should be something that is very easy. And if we can't do something that is this easy, it's why people have such scorn for this body."
Stabenow, Peters and their House colleagues, including U.S. Rep. Dan Kildee, a Democrat who represents Flint, have been trying to secure funding for Flint for most of a year.
Much of the frustration over the Flint funding has been fueled by the mixed signals coming out of the House: On Monday, the House Rules Committee rejected an amendment offered by Kildee for the House version of WRDA that would have added the Flint funding to that legislation _ and that also includes a sweeping package of port, harbor and navigation projects across the U.S.
Speaking to the Rules Committee, U.S. Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., who chairs the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in charge of the WRDA bill, said while he thinks "it's a terrible thing that's happened to those folks" in Flint, he also believes it would set a bad precedent for the federal government to take the lead in funding pipe replacement. Otherwise, he said, the federal government could be seen as being on the hook for pipe replacement across the U.S.
"This was caused at a state level," he said, adding, "I think the solution, the dollars ... have to be driven by the state."
But House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said at a recent news conference that he believes the Flint funding belongs in the WRDA bill if anywhere _ not the resolution to fund government _ though he, too, said he considers the Flint situation "more of a local government issue." As for the Louisiana funding, Ryan said he believes the flooding there "does rise to the level of being dealt with as an emergency measure" in the funding resolution as a natural _ not man-made _ disaster.
But he, too, may in the end need the help of Democrats to pass that legislation to keep government open, meaning the Flint money _ or at least the promise to consider it _ may have to be dealt with in some way.
"We're going to use every tool we can to make sure they (the people of Flint) get the help they can," Kildee said. But again, noting that the funding is already paid for, he asked, "Why are they (Republicans) willing to take us up to the point of shutting down the government to prevent us from providing help for Flint? It makes no sense at all."
As the Detroit Free Press reported two weeks ago, however, it was clear that the Flint funding faced an uphill battle in the House and that it was likely that if it was to be included in the WRDA bill, it would most likely be included in the conference committee report issued after the two chambers settled differences in the bill _ and that wouldn't come until sometime after the Nov. 8 election, if at all this year. Democrats in both chambers now say that is not a good enough assurance.
Now, there are questions whether Democratic objections to a WRDA bill without Flint funding could threaten that legislation's chances in the House _ which in turn could result in no such bill passing, with or without Flint funding, this year. On Tuesday, U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., who spearheaded passage of the WRDA bill _ and the Flint funding in the Senate _ urged Democrats in the House to let that chamber's version of the bill pass even if it doesn't include money for Flint, saying he will fight for its inclusion at conference.
Stabenow stopped short Tuesday of saying they would shut down government if Flint's money wasn't included in the continuing resolution but declined to say what paths of negotiation may still be open. However, it was clear that it was the funding for Louisiana in the budget bill _ without similar consideration for Flint _ that carried the sharpest sting.
Stabenow, Peters and Kildee were joined by other Democrats _ including Sen. Barbara Boxer of California and Michigan members of Congress U.S. Reps. John Conyers of Detroit, Debbie Dingell of Dearborn, Brenda Lawrence of Southfield and Sander Levin of Royal Oak _ at a news conference on Tuesday morning outlining their plans.
"This is the one issue around which I would pray for some bipartisanship," said Conyers, the longest-serving active member of Congress. "If there were only one thing I could get, it would be around this issue. It would show that the common good triumphs over partisanship."
