House GOP government funding plan gets chilly reception from Senate Republicans

Senate Republicans gave the House GOP’s plan to fund the government a chilly reception on Monday, questioning whether it will slow progress toward finding a solution to avoid a government shutdown at the end of the month.

They acknowledged the inclusion of a Trump-backed measure requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote could complicate the stopgap funding bill’s path, and many especially aren’t pleased with the continuing resolution’s (CR) six-month timeline.

House Republicans are expected to move quickly on the bill, which would kick the current Sept. 30 funding deadline into March and includes the SAVE Act — legislation requiring proof of citizenship to be able to register to vote in federal elections. 

Conservatives, optimistic that former President Trump will return to the White House next year, argue the proposal will allow the next president more influence over how the government is funded through fall 2025.

Conservative Republicans in the Senate are backing the gambit. But others in the GOP worry it comes dangerously close to risking a shutdown, and say that six months is simply too long.

“There’s some argument for pushing this stuff into next year, but there’s also going to be folks [on the other side],” Sen. John Thune (S.D.), the No. 2 Senate Republican who is running to become leader next year. “It depends a little bit on what happens in November … and what [the incoming president] want to get done before the end of the year and what they want to push into next year.”

“It’s fluid,” Thune continued. “My views will probably be informed and shaped a little bit by what the election results are and … what our colleagues think is the best course of action.”

Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), the top Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, came out against a stopgap measure that goes “beyond December” in comments to The New York Times over the weekend. 

“We are going to have a new administration regardless, and they should be able to concentrate on the new budget year, not have to deal with issues involving the fiscal year that starts Oct. 1.”

And Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas), who serves on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said he didn’t have objections to the bill’s inclusion of the SAVE Act.

But he said Monday he thinks “six months is long.”

 “I’m for the shortest time frame of the CR that still allows us time to get our work done and avoids an omnibus bill,” Moran said, referring to a massive, normally end-of-year, package that combines all 12-year funding bills.

“That’s probably longer than just a few weeks, but I, you know, six months is a little long, so I’m looking for whatever it is that time frame that actually gives us the time to get the job done without more extensions, without more additional CRs, but especially with giving us the time to work out differences between House and Senate, and actually do appropriation bills.”

Democratic leaders have roundly rejected the plan in the upper chamber. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) took a veiled shot at the inclusion of the SAVE Act in this week’s House bill, saying that “poison pills or Republican extremism” must be avoided in the spending push.

“Democrats support a CR to keep the government open. As I have said before, the only way to get things done is in a bipartisan way. Despite Republican bluster, that is how we’ve handled every funding bill in the past, and this time should be no exception,” Schumer wrote in a letter to Senate Democrats on Sunday. “We will not let poison pills or Republican extremism put funding for critical programs at risk.”

The White House also fired a warning shot on Monday morning, vowing to veto the bill in the unlikely event it makes it to the president’s desk, arguing it would place “agencies at insufficiently low levels — both for defense and non-defense — for a full six months.”

It’s not clear at this point if the measure will pass the House. Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-La.) decision to include the SAVE Act and stretch the CR to six months brought aboard a number of conservatives normally opposed to stopgaps, but Republican opposition Monday night appeared widespread — and growing.

But there are already eyes on how some vulnerable House Democrats that previously crossed party lines to back the bill will respond to the stopgap pitch, particularly as Republicans have seized on issues like immigration and the border in the months leading up to the November elections.

Many Senate Republicans on Monday backed the inclusion of the SAVE Act, but sounded a cautious note.

The bill passed the House mostly along party lines earlier this year, as many Democrats have denounced the measure, noting it is already a crime for noncitizens to vote in federal elections and arguing the bill could make voter registration more difficult. 

Backers of the bill argue it ensures that only citizens can vote in federal elections, partly by making it mandatory for states to obtain proof of citizenship to register voters and also requiring states to purge noncitizens from voter rolls.

“I think it’s important to make sure illegal immigrants aren’t voting and the American people need to know what party is on what side of that,” said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the No. 3 Republican, adding that he supports what the House is trying to do. 

However, he does believe the lower chamber’s work this week will complicate getting a CR deal when all is said and done. 

“I want to make sure the government stays open,” Barrasso said. “I’ve always wanted to make sure that happens and I expect the funding will go through and the government will stay open.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the other leading candidate to replace Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) atop the conference, also tossed his support behind the SAVE Act and Johnson’s plan, saying that whatever he needs to do to win support from House GOP members is the right call.

“He needs to do what he needs to do in the House, and we’ll fight that battle over here,” Cornyn said, declining to take sides one way or another on the length of Johnson’s proposed CR. “I just think there’s arguments both ways.”

Source link