Flint aid bill hits budget problem

Getty Images

The Senate’s aid bill for the Flint, Mich., water crisis would cost $220 million and violate Senate budget rules, Congress's budget office is warning.

The budget problem could create a new obstacle for senators who unveiled a bipartisan deal on the Drinking Water Safety and Infrastructure Act after weeks of negotiations by Sens. James InhofeJames InhofeGOP chairman: Kids are ‘brainwashed’ on climate change Feds withdraw lesser prairie-chicken protections A GMO labeling law that doesn’t require English? No thanks! MORE (R-Okla.), Debbie StabenowDebbie StabenowDem sen: Clinton 'focused and prepared to keep us safe' Tim Kaine backs call to boost funding for Israeli missile defense Dems to GOP: Admit Trump is 'unfit' to be president MORE (D-Mich.) and Gary Peters (D-Mich.).

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) told the Senate Budget Committee that the aid package, which would expand infrastructure loan and health programs to help Flint and other cities with contaminated water, would increase spending by $200 million, violating the Senate’s pledge to pay for every new dollar it spends.

That’s because the proposed source of funding — the Energy Department’s Advanced Vehicle Technology Manufacturing loan program — is classified as emergency spending.

The Energy Department program's funds aren't counted toward budget totals, so that funding can't be diverted to balance spending, an aide to the Budget Committee said.

“It was basically free money,” the aide said. “If you don’t count it going out, you can’t count it going in.”

The aide said it could create a major problem for the Flint package, but it’s not insurmountable.

The CBO relayed its preliminary analysis to the Budget Committee but hasn’t yet drafted a full, formal evaluation of the water bill’s impact on the budget.

The Budget Committee would be responsible for enforcing the pay-as-you-go rules, but Sen. Mike EnziMike EnziSanford-Enzi 'Penny Plan' gets nation to a balanced budget Majority of GOP senators to attend Trump convention Judd Gregg: The silver lining MORE (R-Wyo.), the chairman, hasn’t formally decided whether to raise an objection, the committee staffer said.

Inhofe stood by the bill, saying that no matter how the money is labeled, his bill wouldn’t increase the national debt.

“When it comes to Inhofe and Stabenow's pay-for, they took the conservative approach by reprogramming money that is already out the door and putting it toward a real need and a true responsibility of government: infrastructure,” Inhofe spokeswoman Donelle Harder said.

“Even CBO said the compromise doesn’t add to the debt,” she said, adding that in the amendment, Inhofe is “redirecting money that President Obama tried to spend on liberal priorities,” toward underfunded infrastructure needs.