House Republicans finally have a rough outline of what they’ll include in their third reconciliation bill.
And plenty of members are not happy about it.
Part of members’ frustration stems from a lack of details colliding with a staggeringly fast timeline: GOP leaders are aiming to adopt the framework for a party-line package on the floor by the end of next week.
More details should be coming soon: Budget Republicans will release the text of their framework at 9 a.m. Wednesday as their committee plans to mark up the measure Thursday. So far we expect the budget resolution to include $67 billion for defense spending, $11 billion in farm aid and pieces of the SAVE America Act.
But House GOP leaders and senior White House officials have a raft of other issues to resolve to get party factions on board. Vice President JD Vance on Wednesday will meet with House Republicans at 3 p.m. at the Capitol and is all but certain to press members to find a path forward:
— THE FISCAL HAWKS: Fiscal hawks are frustrated the bill’s plan doesn’t include immediate and bold cuts to offset new spending.
Rep. Josh Brecheen, one fiscal hawk on the Budget panel, said he is “sympathetic” to the defense portion not having pay-fors — but declined to give his support for the $11 billion in farm aid that doesn’t include offsets.
“They’ve got to get the votes in Budget Committee for that,” he said.
— THE MODS: Moderate Republicans, meanwhile, are more likely to support the package without any pay-fors, especially after facing political blowback for the spending cuts in last summer’s reconciliation package.
If cuts are “off the table, then we’re in a much better place,” Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick said.
— OTHER REQUESTS: Some Republicans are frustrated the package doesn’t go far enough in tackling issues like affordability and health care — which have become key issues in midterm elections. Others are criticizing it falls well short of the $350 billion military infusion President Donald Trump called for.
Senior Republicans believe the White House has declined to provide more specifics about the $67 billion defense portion because it will include Iran war funding that may stir opposition.
“I need to see: are they funding something that I don’t back, right?” Fitzpatrick added: “I support the military. I’m against the war.”
Opposing the war “doesn’t mean we take it out on the troops,” Fitzpatrick added.
Meanwhile, Rep. Don Bacon — while generally supportive of the supplemental funding for the military — said he is still demanding American troops return to Poland.
“If he wants my vote, he’s got to answer,” on Poland, Bacon said in an interview.
What else we’re watching:
— DEMS SHIFT STRATEGY TO CURB IRAN WAR: Democrats are turning their focus away from forcing votes on war powers resolutions and toward other levers of power to rein in the war in Iran. A prime target: the annual must-pass $1.15 trillion defense policy bill. The bill is tentatively scheduled for a House floor vote next week, while Senate Democrats, led by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer unanimously sunk that chamber’s version Tuesday. In Democrats’ view, a vote against the National Defense Authorization Act amounts to a vote against authorizing the war, said a Senate Democratic aide granted anonymity to discuss private conversations.
— DEMS SHIFT STRATEGY TO CURB IRAN WAR: The fate of the Senate majority could lie in the hands of 600 yet-to-be-chosen Maine Democrats next week, and Schumer — an inveterate campaign meddler — is staying on the sidelines. Schumer told POLITICO he is not endorsing a candidate in the primary. Instead, he’s keeping his focus on the general election in November — and on defeating Republican Sen. Susan Collins — ahead of the party’s nominating convention on July 25 to replace Graham Platner on the ballot.
Jordain Carney, Nick Reisman and Chris Sommerfeldt contributed to this report.
Read the full article here