House Republicans tee up tweaks to Trump megabill
House Republican leaders on Tuesday teed up changes to the 'big, beautiful bill' of President Trump's tax cut and spending priorities that are slated to come up for a vote of the full chamber this week.
The tweaks come after the Senate parliamentarian reviewed the sprawling package and identified provisions that do not comply with the upper chamber's procedural requirements for using the budget reconciliation process, which allows Republicans to circumvent a Democratic filibuster and approve the legislation by simple majority.
Leaving the language in the bill risks losing the ability to pass the bill under budget reconciliation.
The parliamentarian's process is known as the 'Byrd bath.'
One House Republican described the House tweaks as preventing 'fatalities' from remaining in the bill when it hits the Senate.
'There are a small number, I mean, could count them on one hand, of fatalities that have been identified by the parliamentarian,' the GOP lawmaker said. 'Of course we can't transmit the bill with fatalities so those fatalities will be cured through a rule this week.'
While the lower chamber is planning to strip those terms from the bill, party leaders are not giving up on the policy: House Minority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) said Senate Republicans will fight for the provisions when the bill hits the floor.
'We disagree; ultimately we're gonna try it again on the Senate floor,' Scalise told reporters. 'We disagree with the parliamentarian… but you can't take the risk on any of them. You cannot take the risk because if any one of them is ruled on the Senate floor to be fatal, it's a 60-vote bill. The whole bill is a 60-vote bill — you can't take that risk.'
The full House will vote on approving those changes this week, with the adjustments tacked on to a 'rule' resolution — a procedural measure that governs debate for legislation. The rule making the fixes to the megabill will also tee up the terms of debate for unrelated legislation to claw back $9.4 billion in funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting. It advanced out of the Rules Committee on a party-line, 8-4 vote Tuesday evening.
Rule resolutions are typically passed along party lines and are tests of party loyalty, but Republicans sometimes buck leadership and vote against the procedural rules in protest of process or policy.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) — one of two House Republicans who voted no on the bill when it passed the Hoise last month — voiced his disapproval of making the changes to the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' via a rule in a post on X.
'Nancy Pelosi once said the House needed to vote for a bill to find out what was in it. Today @SpeakerJohnson said 'hold my beer.' He just announced he's using the Rules Committee to change the text of the Big Beautiful Bill a week after we voted on it!' Massie said.
While House Republicans have already passed the bill in the lower chamber they have not officially transmitted it to the Senate — enabling them to make the fixes via the rule mechanism.
Republicans are using the special budget reconciliation to push the megabill through Congress while avoiding the Senate's 60-vote cloture rule, enabling them to pass the bill on party lines without support from Democrats.
The tweaks in the House come as party leaders are holding out hope that they can enact the package by July 4, which was their self-imposed deadline. Trump, however, opened the door to the process blowing past that timeline, saying 'if takes a little longer, that's okay.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
19 minutes ago
- Newsweek
How Project 2025 Compares With Trump's Los Angeles Response
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's response to protests in Los Angeles is in keeping with suggestions put forth in Project 2025, a political commentator has said. Allison Gill, who worked at the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, said on Wajahat Ali's the Left Hook Substack that the president's military response was "spelled out in Project 2025," a conservative policy dossier. She did not specify how. Newsweek has contacted the Heritage Foundation and Gill for comment by email. The Context Protests against immigration enforcement began in Los Angeles on Friday and have continued, with some isolated incidents of violence and looting. In response, Trump announced the deployment of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to restore order, without California Governor Gavin Newsom's consent. While the president has said the move was necessary to prevent the city from "burning to the ground" amid protests and riots, officials in California have accused Trump of exacerbating the situation in an "unprecedented power grab." A police officer firing a soft round near the Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown Los Angeles on June 8. A police officer firing a soft round near the Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown Los Angeles on June 8. AP Photo/Eric Thayer What To Know Gill, who served Trump a lawsuit in 2023 accusing him of conspiring to fire her from the Veterans Affairs Department during his first presidency, said sending in the Marines was "propaganda" because the protests were not severe enough to require them. Though she said Project 2025 predicted the president's response to the protests, she did not elaborate on how. Project 2025 is a 900-page document of policy proposals published by the Heritage Foundation think tank. It advocates limited government, border security and tough immigration laws among other conservative measures. The policy proposals have proved divisive, and the president's critics and supporters alike have debated their influence on him. While Project 2025 does not mention the Insurrection Act, a November 2023 report from The Washington Post, citing internal communications and a person involved in the conversations, said the Project 2025 group had drafted executive orders that would use the Insurrection Act to deploy the military domestically. Gill told Ali that she warned people of Trump's potential use of the military to curb protests before the presidential election. "We did everything that we could in leading up to the election in 2024 to tell everyone as loud as we can, they are planning to do this," she said, adding: "Saying he's going to call this an invasion. He's going to call this an insurrection. And he's going to use that to invoke emergency powers so that he can unleash the military on United States citizens and perhaps even suspend habeas corpus so that he can detain his political enemies without due process." "This is scary," Gill, who hosts the Mueller, She Wrote podcast, continued. "This is full-on fascism, full-on authoritarianism." "This is a test case for authoritarianism," Ali added. Before the 2024 presidential election, Democrats accused Trump of planning to implement Project 2025 if he won. While Trump initially called parts of the plan "ridiculous and abysmal," he told Time after his electoral victory that he disagreed with parts of it, but not all of it. He has since appointed a number of people linked to Project 2025 to White House positions. In an October interview with Fox News' Sunday Morning Futures, Trump indicated that he would use the National Guard or the military if there were disruptions from "radical left lunatics" on Election Day. What Does Project 2025 Say? Project 2025 advocates for improved defense infrastructure and for the Department of Homeland Security to "thoroughly enforce immigration laws." The document added that DHS should "provide states and localities with a limited federal emergency response and preparedness." However, it did not say whether this would occur in the context of protests. What Trump's Advisers Have Said Trump's advisers have previously spoken about the use of National Guard troops in other contexts. According to a February 2024 report in The Atlantic, Stephen Miller, now the White House deputy chief of staff, said that Trump—if returned to office—would take National Guard troops from sympathetic Republican-controlled states and use them in Democratic-run states whose governors refused to cooperate with their mass deportation policy. What People Are Saying President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social on Saturday: "If Governor Gavin Newscum, of California, and Mayor Karen Bass, of Los Angeles, can't do their jobs, which everyone knows they can't, then the Federal Government will step in and solve the problem, RIOTS & LOOTERS, the way it should be solved!!!" Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Sunday: "We will always protect the constitutional right for Angelenos to peacefully protest. However, violence, destruction and vandalism will not be tolerated in our city and those responsible will be held fully accountable." What Happens Next The anti-ICE protests, which have spread to other cities, are likely to continue. Newsom has called on the Trump administration to remove federal troops from Los Angeles.
Boston Globe
19 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Mass. needs competitive pay for defense lawyers
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Legislators ought to listen to the committee. Ensuring that there are enough lawyers to uphold the constitutional right to representation enshrined in the Sixth Amendment should be a legislative priority. Whether in the state budget or in some other legislative vehicle, such as a supplemental budget, lawmakers should find a way to boost compensation rates across all categories of indigent defense, which span criminal, mental health, family law, and juvenile cases. Doing so would cost the state about $29 million annually. Advertisement Massachusetts' minimum bar advocate rate of $65 per hour is an outlier in New England. Maine's minimum rate is $150, New Hampshire's is $125 to $150, and Rhode Island's is $112 for most cases. Current rates in Massachusetts don't reflect the complexity of modern court cases, the overhead costs private attorneys pay out of pocket, or the state's sky-high cost of living. Advertisement The Senate's version of the budget does boost rates — but only for mental health appointments and Superior Court cases. The work stoppage is underscoring the critical work bar advocates produce. Since the stoppage began on May 27, the committee and its in-house counsel have struggled to provide attorneys for all clients that need them. Now, a slew of people accused of crimes are waiting, either in jails or out on bail — more than 150 people in Boston as of June 9, according to the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. These numbers are estimates, and bar advocate participation in the work stoppage varies between counties. But leaders agree that the number of unrepresented clients across Massachusetts is already in the hundreds and will continue to grow. Without representation, defendants are forced to stay in jail for days without arraignment, a violation of their constitutional rights. As early as next week, the Supreme Judicial Court may have to consider implementing the A shortage of bar advocates has put courts under pressure before. In 2019, Hampden County couldn't represent all of its clients, and a court instituted a day rate of $424 to incentivize additional private lawyers to handle arraignments. It was effective — and proved that low compensation really is a dissuasive factor for most private attorneys. Advertisement The legislature shouldn't wait for the crisis to deepen to provide a pay raise for bar advocates. Waiting to act will force more defendants to languish without representation, risking case mismanagement or pouring money into finding other private attorneys willing to do the work. This doesn't have to happen. The best way to solve this issue is to pay bar advocates fairly in the upcoming budget, allowing them to uphold the constitutional rights of their clients and ensuring due process across the Commonwealth. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
CNBC
24 minutes ago
- CNBC
U.S. uncertainty is handing Europe a huge opportunity
Europe is being urged to capitalize on the volatility of the Trump administration, as shifts in capital and private market flows suggest U.S. exceptionalism is waning and losing out to a resurgent Europe. The numbers tell part of the story, with Europe's Stoxx 600 up over 8% compared to a 5% jump for the S&P 500 since Nov. 1, 2024, just days ahead of the U.S. election. Bank of America said in a report dated June 5 that U.S. equities had seen outflows of $7.5 billion over the previous three weeks, while European stocks benefited from inflows of $2.6 billion over the same period. Earlier this year, meanwhile, data from Morningstar showed that investors withdrew 2.8 billion euros ($3.2 billion) from U.S. equity ETFs in the month to the middle of March, while shifting 14.6 billion euros into European ETFs. Goldman Sachs International Co-CEO Anthony Gutman told CNBC that the convergence in U.S. and European growth rates came about quickly this year and was a big factor prompting investors to shift money toward Europe. "In January, sentiment felt very strong in the U.S., it felt somewhat more muted in Europe. You roll the clock forward and now the picture has changed fairly dramatically, that's to the benefit of Europe in many cases. Europe is getting more capital inflows and there is more optimism in Europe," Gutman told CNBC's Annette Weisbach Wednesday on the sidelines of the Goldman Sachs European Financials Conference in Berlin. Meanwhile, in private markets, talk of the breakdown of U.S. exceptionalism dominated the Super Return forum in Berlin last week. Carlyle Group's Managing Director Mark Jenkins told CNBC that, "in Europe, we've seen a lot of great opportunity and think we can pick up greater returns here relative to the risk you're taking in the U.S." This sentiment was echoed by private equity giant Permira, which holds private equity funds and credit vehicles representing around 60 billion euros worth of capital under management. "If you look at Europe at the moment, firstly, capital is cheaper, if you look at the trend of where euro rates are going versus dollar rates are going, you can fund and finance things cheaper here. Secondly, valuations are cheaper, you can buy great companies for less," Permira Executive Chairman Kurt Björklund told CNBC's "Squawk Box Europe" on Tuesday. "Thirdly the innovation cycle is growing exponentially in Europe … there is an enormous number of highly innovative companies that are growing in a disruptive and global way," he added. All eyes are now on the potential for an EU-U.S. trade deal — which is proving trickier to pin down than with some other countries, including the U.K. Referencing the complexity of the behemoth that is the European Union, Siemens Energy Chairman Joe Kaeser told CNBC that the EU is "politically not ready to strike these types of deals." The White House hinted on Wednesday that a July 9 deadline for a deal may be movable, however, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent saying: "It is highly likely that for those countries that are negotiating — or trading blocs, in the case of the EU — who are negotiating in good faith, we will roll the date forward to continue the good faith negotiation." French President Emmanuel Macron also struck an optimistic tone, telling CNBC's Karen Tso on Wednesday: "I'm sure that we will find, at the end of the day, a good solution." Unicredit CEO Andrea Orcel stressed that the opportunity for Europe's continued revival lies in its own hands, however. He explained that the 27-member European Union could galvanize amid the fracturing of Europe's relationship with the U.S., but warned that investors can also be fickle. The expectation is that "there will be convergence, there will be a banking union, there will be a capital markets union. There will be a lot of spend on infrastructure, on defense... That's exciting for the market, therefore money flowing in," Orcel told CNBC Wednesday. "But if, little by little, investors realize that this is lip service, but it doesn't really happen. Money will flow back in a nanosecond, and you will see [that] very quickly." Europe is faced with a "phenomenal opportunity," he added. "We have every reason to be ... on par with the U.S., but it's our fault if we don't do it."
