Most Senate Democrats on Thursday rebuffed the GOP’s attempt to consider a package of bipartisan full-year appropriations bills that could help fund the government a handful of agencies at a time.
The failed 50-44 test vote — short of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster — came on the 16th day of the shutdown and a few hours after Senate Democrats, for the 10th time, blocked a stopgap bill to fund the government through Nov. 21.
After both failed votes, the Senate adjourned until Monday.
Several Senate Democrats said they opposed proceeding to the full-year appropriations bills for the same reasons they’re filibustering the temporary stopgap: They want a broader negotiation on their spending and health care priorities. In particular, they want an extension of the COVID-era expansion of Obamacare premium subsidies set to expire this year.
“We don’t have an agreement on anything,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, Connecticut Democrat, noting Republicans “are still not negotiating.”
Democrats also cited uncertainty about Republicans’ plan for the full-year appropriations bills, including which spending measures would ultimately be included in the package.
The test vote was on proceeding to the House-passed defense appropriations bill that Republicans intend to use as a legislative vehicle for a package of bipartisan Senate appropriations bills.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Republicans planned to take up the Senate defense spending bill that was reported out of committee on a 26-3 vote, “and hopefully, if possible, we’d like to attach some other appropriations bills to it.”
Republicans said they would try to add the largest nondefense spending bill, which funds the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education departments, that Democrats usually demand move alongside defense spending.
They also said the two spending bills that fund the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce and Justice Departments could also be included in the package.
“We want this to be an open process with an opportunity to add additional bipartisan bills that address vital domestic priorities, including biomedical and scientific research and infrastructure,” said Senate Appropriations Chair Susan M. Collins. “And we want members to have a voice in the funding decisions that affect all of our states and constituents back home.”
Democrats didn’t trust that Republicans could get support on their side of the aisle to add some of the nondefense spending bills, as it takes unanimous consent from all 100 senators to do so.
“We don’t even know if he’ll get that,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer said of Mr. Thune.
“It’s always been unacceptable to Democrats to do the defense bill without other bills that have so many things that are important to the American people in terms of health care, in terms of housing, in terms of safety,” he said.
Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, the top Democrat on the appropriations panel that oversees defense funding, said he had some “real regret” voting against proceeding to a vehicle for a potential bipartisan appropriations package.
But he said he couldn’t support the motion without a conversation between Republicans and Democrats about what comes next.
Mr. Coons cited concern about the Trump administration’s unilateral moves throughout the year to cancel and freeze congressionally appropriated funds.
“The process of spending or not spending appropriated funds has destroyed a lot of the trust that is essential for the Senate as a body to work, for the Congress to legislate and for our federal government to reopen,” he said.
Three Democrats, Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, voted to proceed.
“We ought to take up appropriations,” Ms. Shaheen said. “I’ve said that all along.”
Sen. Mike Rounds, South Dakota Republican, said that Democrats’ unwillingness to advance bipartisan appropriations bills shows “that the Schumer shutdown is continuing on, and he clearly has their ear.”
• Lindsey McPherson can be reached at lmcpherson@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.