A similar LGBT amendment caused disarray on the House floor last week. | Getty LGBT fight sinks House spending bill After Rep. Rick Allen said gay rights amendment would violate religious principles, some moderate Republicans walked out of a party meeting.

House conservatives on Thursday blocked passage of a relatively uncontroversial energy and water spending measure after Democrats attached an amendment that would bar federal contractors from discriminating against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

The appropriations bill failed 305-112, with a majority of Republicans opposed because of the gay rights provision, which would have the effect of enacting into law a 2014 executive order by President Barack Obama. Democrats also heavily voted against it over objections to other GOP-sponsored add-ons, including one related to immigration.


The death of an appropriations bill on the House floor underscores the challenges ahead for Speaker Paul Ryan if he wants to continue his commitment to so-called regular order, a process under which lawmakers have more say in what's voted on. After the bill failed Thursday, the Wisconsin Republican would not rule out changes to the "open" amendment process for spending bills that allows members to offer any relevant amendments — even poison pills that could kill the bill or divide the majority.

“[W]hat we will have to do when we return is get with our members and figure out how best to move forward to have a full functioning appropriations process,” Ryan said, re-emphasizing his longstanding commitment to regular order. "When I became speaker one of the commitments I made to our members was to open up this process. That means ... more amendments from both sides of the aisle. It means fewer predetermined outcomes and, yes, more unpredictability. … Early on I stood up here … and said some bills might fail because we’re not going to tightly control the process."

Ryan blamed Democrats for the bill's failure, though most of his own party turned against the measure, too.

"What we learned today is that the Democrats were not looking to advance an issue but to sabotage the appropriations process," he said. "The mere fact that they passed their amendments, then voted against the bill containing their amendments, proves this point."

The breakdown of the appropriations process started earlier in the day when Rep. Rick Allen (R-Ga.) opened the weekly GOP conference meeting with a prayer about the LGBT issue, prior to the vote. He read a passage from the Bible and questioned whether members would violate their religious principles if they supported the bill.

Moderate Republicans were stunned by Allen's remarks, and some walked out of the meeting in protest, according to GOP lawmakers.

"A good number of members were furious," said one Republican, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity. "There was some Scripture that was read and the like. ... Nothing good was going to happen to those that supported [the LGBT provision]. A good number of members were furious."

Allen's office did not respond to an email seeking comment.

A similar LGBT amendment caused disarray on the House floor last week when Democrats tried to attach it to a Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. Republicans had to hold the vote open for longer than usual and run a last-minute whip operation to get a half-dozen Republicans to switch their vote on the matter. They barely killed the amendment, and Democrats shouted “shame, shame, shame” as opponents twisted arms.

But when Democrats reintroduced the amendment on Wednesday night, Republicans accepted it because amendment sponsor Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.) allowed Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) to add a line allowing for exceptions as “required by the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Article I of the Constitution."

Republicans believed that additional line would assure their conference that this was no poison pill.

But a number of Republicans stood up to inform leadership during conference that they could no longer support the bill because of the LGBT amendment, expressing concern over how the amendment came to be attached. The meeting was supposed to focus on mustering conservative support for Puerto Rico debt legislation, but the entire hourlong meeting centered on the appropriations process instead, according to members present.

“There’s a lot of members that are really conflicted because of the Maloney amendment last night,” said Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.). A separate source said he expressed concerns and spoke at the conference meeting alongside several members, including Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho) and Ann Wagner (R-Mo.), both of whom voted against the bill.

Opponents argued that GOP leadership never should have allowed the amendment because a majority of Republicans oppose it.

"We've talked a lot about the 'majority of the majority,'" said Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.). "And what we saw was that the minority of the majority was dictating the way the conference was moving." Mullin was referring to members who backed the LGBT provision. He voted against the bill on final passage.

"But the difference on this vote was it wasn't about substance as much as it was about principle," Mullin added. "When you're talking about principle — and this was a principle vote, about a lot of people's faith and the way they believe — as a deputy whip, it's difficult for me to persuade somebody, and nor would I try to persuade somebody, when they're making a principle vote."

House Speaker Paul Ryan responded that this is the process dictated by regular order.

“‘You asked me for open rules, you asked me for regular order, and that’s what I’m doing,’” Ryan told Republicans, according to Salmon, who wound up voting for the bill. Salmon added: “And I agree.”

Bill Flores (R-Texas), who chairs the conservative Republican Study Committee, opposed the gay rights amendment on principle. But he said he backed the overall bill because he believed the LGBT language would eventually be dropped.

“I think the amendment is wrong. I think it tries to take the president’s non-statutory items and put it into statute, so I think it’s inappropriate,” he said. “But, that said, this amendment is not going anywhere. When we go to conference, it will be stripped out of there.”

The bill had more problems than just Maloney’s amendment. Several other changes siphoned off crucial Democratic support, including an amendment from Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) that would bar federal money from being spent on a program that federal agencies use to calculate the “climate benefits” of regulations.

Another Republican amendment, from Diane Black (Tenn.), would bar federal spending for “sanctuary cities” that shield some undocumented immigrants from federal prosecution, while a Ken Buck (R-Colo.) proposal would have barred spending on new energy efficiency standards.

Before the vote, Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), chairman of the Energy & Water appropriations subcommittee, pleaded with Democrats to rescue the bill.

“I look forward to seeing my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who had some of their amendments adopted now voting for this bill,” he said on the House floor.

They didn't, of course.

Rep. Nita Lowey of New York, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, called it “absolutely astonishing” that Republicans would sink the bill because of anti-discrimination language. She predicted this was the end of this year’s appropriations process.

“It looks to me like we’re headed for a [continuing resolution] or an omnibus, but it doesn’t look like they’re going to be able to bring any bills to the floor,” she said.

House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) said Republicans would continue to push through spending legislation, though he said he was disappointed Thursday's bill failed. He, like Ryan, cracked open the door to the possibility of rules changes for the amendment process: "We’ll adapt to the circumstances,” he said.

South Carolina Republican Mick Mulvaney, meanwhile, had some choice words for his own 40-some Republican colleagues who voted for the Maloney amendment, though he said he didn’t “blame” them per se. He thinks they were tricked by Democrats.

“I’m saying I hope they realize that the issue, which they took as a vote on principle — which I respect — had nothing to do with principle. If it was a vote on principle, the bill would’ve passed today with votes on the Democrat side voting for it,” he said. “It was a political move designed to shipwreck the appropriations process, and I just hope they look at it like that next time a similar amendment comes up.”

Ben Weyl and Darius Dixon contributed to this report.