House GOP's reconciliation 3.0 push hits early road bumps
Axios · LC · trust 50/100
House Speaker Mike Johnson is in an uncomfortably familiar spot: under pressure from President Trump , under fire from members and under the gun to advance a reconciliation bill in just a few days. Why it matters: Johnson (R-La.) is trying to tee up a final party-line legislative package before the midterms, but Republicans remain divided over the contents of the bill and the strategy behind it. GOP leaders are assembling a narrow framework that would include roughly $67 billion for defense, $20 billion for agriculture and farm aid, and elements of the SAVE America Act . The prospect of no offsets for billions of dollars in defense funding is not sitting well with conservatives. "No, I'm not," Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) said when asked whether he's comfortable with no pay-fors. Other members are frustrated about the lack of information: "Most of the conference has been kept in the dark on what exactly is going on," Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.) told Axios. Driving the news: The White House has launched a full-court press to shore up support for the package ahead of Thursday's Budget Committee markup and a planned House vote next week. Johnson and House GOP leaders met with President Trump at the White House on Tuesday afternoon to discuss the path forward. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was scheduled to meet with roughly a dozen conservative lawmakers Tuesday evening to discuss the defense funding portion of the package. OMB Director Russ Vought addressed House Freedom Caucus members Monday night. Yes, but: The administration's lobbying blitz hasn't solved every problem. Budget Committee member Erin Houchin (R-Ind.) told her colleagues in a closed-door conference meeting Tuesday that she was leaning toward opposing the bill during the committee markup after she was left out of negotiations at Camp David over the weekend, a source in the room told Axios. "There's a limited amount of space, unfortunately," Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-Calif.) told Axios. "I don't blame her for being upset about it." "Somebody's got to be chosen and somebody isn't. Just because you're not doesn't say anything negative," Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) told Axios. Another flashpoint: Some Republicans believe leadership should first test whether a bipartisan supplemental to fund the war in Iran can pass before falling back on reconciliation if necessary. Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) told Axios that bipartisan negotiations on a supplemental remain "a live discussion." "I am hopeful that if that becomes specific, a specific proposal that doesn't have other partisan initiatives, it would enjoy the support of members from across the aisle," he said. Rather than forcing Democrats to vote directly on funding the war in Iran, Republicans are including billions in defense funding in a reconciliation package that includes other measures Democrats would never go for, like the SAVE America Act. Between the lines: Democrats have an easier political off-ramp when defense funding is wrapped into reconciliation. A clean supplemental, by contrast, would force Democrats to cast a straightforward vote on military funding — something Republicans believe could either attract bipartisan support or provide a potent campaign message if Democrats block it.
Read the original at Axios →
Open in TruthVane →