Washington lawmakers rarely find common ground these days, yet the Senate just proved an exception is possible.
A sweeping 90-6 vote pushed federal funding legislation across the finish line Saturday, buying the government breathing room well past this fall’s midterm elections.
Only Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., broke from the pack, registering a “present” vote rather than a yes or no.
Senators struck their deal fast.
A bipartisan agreement reached Saturday morning let the chamber fast-track the bill and finish business before scattering for August recess, according to Politico’s reporting on the deal.
Now the real work begins. The House already passed its own funding bill, and the two chambers must hash out their differences before October 1, when current government funding runs dry.
The competing measures aren’t identical: the House bill extends funding through December 4, while the Senate’s version stretches an extra week to December 11.
Tucked inside the Senate bill is a provision aimed squarely at a Trump administration priority — a plan to give political appointees more say over which federal grants get approved.
Senators inserted language freezing that policy for as long as the stopgap funding lasts, effectively punting the fight to December and guaranteeing another showdown when lawmakers revisit government funding.
Republicans aren’t unified on the issue. Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., made clear he’ll resist any push to make those grant restrictions permanent.
Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, R-Maine, takes the opposite view, telling reporters she intends to keep fighting the administration’s plan. “I think they politicize the grants process, and I don’t want that to occur,” Collins said.
Democrats found an ally in Collins on this particular fight. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., the Appropriations Committee’s top Democrat, said she too stands ready to push back against the grant-approval proposal.
A separate skirmish played out over hemp regulation. Sen. Ted Budd, R-N.C., tried to attach an amendment letting a federal ban on intoxicating hemp products kick in come November, but the Senate voted it down.
Leaders sided with the administration instead, adding language that pushes back the ban’s start date.
Immigration enforcement funding turned into perhaps the thorniest issue buried in the bill.
Senators specifically excluded ICE and Customs and Border Protection from receiving any extra money under the temporary measure — a decision justified by pointing to the roughly $70 billion Congress already steered toward those agencies earlier in the year.
That exclusion is already causing headaches across the Capitol. Rep. John Rutherford, R-Fla., didn’t mince words, calling the funding freeze something that “could be a dealbreaker” once the bill reaches the House floor.
Rep. Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J., hasn’t made up his mind either way.
“I do not like the Senate language,” Van Drew said, zeroing in on the grant-approval restrictions. “It’s one I would want to know what the president thinks.”
The administration wasted no time picking a side.
A formal Statement of Administration Policy backed the Senate’s bill specifically — a courtesy the White House did not extend to the House version, which left out funding increases and policy provisions the administration had wanted included.
“Every Member of Congress should support passage of this [continuing resolution] to keep the Government open as discussions on full year appropriations continue,” the administration wrote in its statement.
House Democrats, meanwhile, offered cautious praise.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., the House Appropriations Committee’s ranking Democrat, singled out the provisions blocking the grant-approval overhaul and shielding immigration agencies from extra stopgap funding as reasons to favor the Senate’s approach.
“This bill is a clear improvement over the House Republican continuing resolution, but we are still nearly two months away from the end of the fiscal year and should be working together to pass full-year funding bills,” DeLauro said.
The clock is now ticking louder in the House than the Senate.
With senators gone until September, House leaders must decide whether to accept the Senate’s terms, fight for their own December 4 deadline, or risk running out the clock on a shutdown neither party wants heading into election season.
Whatever compromise ultimately emerges will only be a temporary fix.
December looms as the real battleground, when Congress will need to settle the grant-approval dispute, decide immigration enforcement funding levels, and negotiate full-year spending bills all at once.
Continue Scrolling for the Comments
Leave a Comment