Commentary: LGBT issues, water development funding don’t go together

The Energy and Water Development appropriations bill is the wrong place to fight out a social battle, Soy Transportation Coalition Executive Director Mike Steenhoek said.    Last Thursday, the House of Representatives voted down the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill due to an attached amendment that would have enshrined into a law a 2014 executive order by President Obama that prohibits federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
   The bill failed by a 112-305 margin. 130 Republicans – over half of the House GOP caucus – joined all but six Democrats in rejecting the legislation. Most Democrats voted against the bill due to spending levels or other policy components. 
   It’s notable that Democrats voted to get the amendment attached to the bill, but then voted against the overall bill. And inclusion of the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender) amendment caused Republicans to peel off from a bill that most would have supported. That’s how the vote against became so skewed.
   On May 12, the Senate passed its version of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill by a 90-8 vote. The Senate version – a $37.5 billion bill that provides a significant increase in funding for inland waterways and port projects – did not contain the LGBT amendment. The House version of the bill provided slightly less funding than the Senate version, but still represented a welcome increase in funding. If the House bill would have passed, it was hopeful that a Senate-House conference committee would successfully reconcile the differences between the two versions and that a final version would have emerged providing robust funding to enhance and maintain the inland waterway and port system our economy, including agriculture, requires.
   There clearly is widespread disagreement over the perceived merits and liabilities of the LGBT amendment. However, I think we all can agree that such a controversial amendment has nothing to do with our inland waterway and port system. 
   This is one more example of why the public is increasingly confounded and exasperated by our elected representatives and government institutions.  In most instances – whether in our personal or professional lives – we address issues topically. We focus on a particular challenge or question and then develop a solution.  We then turn our attention to the next challenge or dilemma. We do not employ the all-too-often Congressional approach of grafting a completely unrelated – and often very controversial – issue onto another issue that enjoys widespread support.  In doing so, Congress becomes unable to address either.  Our nation’s priorities fail to be advanced.  
   Thursday’s vote is one more unfortunate example of this dysfunction.
 It is hoped another attempt to pass the House EWDA bill will be liberated from such non-germane amendments and become enacted.  Unfortunately, the number of days Congress is in session this year is rapidly diminishing because of the upcoming campaign season. At the same time, the impending fall election is increasingly making the political terrain less fertile for passing any meaningful legislation. If appropriation bills are not passed and signed into law, a likely continuing resolution (funding levels in the current fiscal year and set at the levels from the previous year) will be necessary.
   Congress must realize that the amount of funding is very important,  but predictability of funding is just as important. When you are in the business of of expanding port infrastructure, locks and dams over long periods of time, you need greater predictability of funding from the government. That’s what port authorities, the Army Corps of Engineers and waterway users deserve.
   (The above commentary was written by Soy Transportation Coalition Executive Director Mike Steenhoek).