Latest news with #Ways&MeansCommittee
Fox News
14-05-2025
- Business
- Fox News
House GOP moves Trump's agenda forward after all-night committee debate
The House of Representatives' tax-writing panel took a key step in advancing President Donald Trump's tax agenda on Wednesday morning, finishing a marathon session that began with lawmakers entering a cavernous and chilly room in the Longworth House Office building just after 2 p.m. on Tuesday. The House Ways & Means Committee advanced its portion of Trump's "one big, beautiful bill," one of 11 committees working on the effort that will then be part of one massive piece of legislation. It happened despite a barrage of protest amendments lobbed by Democratic lawmakers in a bid to slow proceedings down and make Republicans take politically tricky votes. The Energy & Commerce Committee and the Ways & Means Committee both held meetings through the night to debate and advance key parts of Trump's bill. The former's meeting is expected to go into Wednesday afternoon after beginning Tuesday at 2 p.m. The Ways & Means Committee advanced its portion early on Wednesday morning in a party-line 26 to 19 vote. The House Agriculture Committee, another critical panel, began working on its portion on Tuesday evening and paused proceedings around midnight. That committee is expected to resume later Wednesday morning. Democrats on each committee, meanwhile, have prepared a barrage of attacks and accusations against GOP lawmakers looking to gut critical welfare programs. The committee meetings have lasted hours because of left-wing lawmakers offering what seemed at times to be an endless stream of amendments that Republicans routinely shot down. Sparks flew early at the Energy & Commerce Committee meeting with protesters both inside and outside the room repeatedly attempting to disrupt proceedings – with 26 people arrested by Capitol Police. Protesters against Medicaid cuts, predominately in wheelchairs, remained outside the budget markup for several hours as representatives inside debated that and other critical facets under the committee's broad jurisdiction. Inside the budget markup, Democrats and Republicans sparred along party lines over Medicaid cuts. Democrats repeatedly claimed the Republican budget proposal will cut vital Medicaid services. Many Democrats shared how Medicaid services have saved their constituents' lives and argued that millions of Americans could lose coverage under the current proposal. Meanwhile, Republicans accused Democrats of lying to the American people about Medicaid cuts – a word Kentucky Republican Rep. Brett Guthrie, Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, deterred his colleagues from using. Tensions arose when the word was repeated as Democrats called it a mischaracterization of their testimonies. Republicans have contended that their bill only seeks to cut waste, fraud, and abuse of the Medicaid system, leaving more of its resources for vulnerable populations that truly need it. That committee was tasked with finding $880 billion in spending cuts to offset Trump's other funding priorities. Guthrie told House Republicans on a call Sunday night that they'd found upwards of $900 billion in cuts. Democrats have seized on Republican reforms to Medicaid, including heightened work requirements and shifting more costs to certain states, as a political cudgel. At one point late in the evening, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., made an appearance at the Energy & Commerce panel's meeting. "I just want to mention our Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries is here because of his concern about Medicaid. Thank you," the committee's top Democrat, Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., said. But tensions remain between moderate Republicans and conservatives about the level of cuts the committee is seeking to the former Biden administration's Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) green energy tax subsidies. Several Democratic amendments were also offered throughout the night to preserve the green energy bill, but all were shot down. By early Tuesday morning, the Energy & Commerce Committee had advanced portions of its bill, rolling back significant chunks of the IRA and setting standards for telecommunication – including a decade-long moratorium on state-level laws dealing with artificial intelligence (AI). The meeting at the Ways & Means Committee had relatively little fanfare but was equally contentious as Democrats attempted to offer amendments to preserve Affordable Care Act tax credits, cap tax cuts for the wealthy, and changes to the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap. At one point, Reps. Beth Van Duyne, R-Texas, and Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., got into a heated exchange over SALT, with Suozzi pushing Van Duyne on whether she'd ever been to New York. Van Duyne earlier called Texas a "donor state" in terms of taxes, arguing, "We should not have to pay to make up for the rich folks in New York who are getting raped by their local and state governments." Suozzi later pointed out Van Duyne was born and went to college in upstate New York – leading to audible gasps in the room. Van Duyne said there was "a reason" she left. "We're sorry you left New York, but in some ways it may have worked out better for all of us," Suozzi said. The SALT deduction cap, however, is still a politically tricky issue even as House lawmakers debate what Republicans hoped would be the final bill. The legislation would raise the $10,000 SALT deduction cap to $30,000 for most single and married tax filers – a figure that Republicans in higher cost-of-living areas said was not enough. Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., threatened to vote against the final bill if the new cap remains. As the committee's marathon meeting continued, a group of blue state Republicans huddled with House GOP leaders to find a compromise on a way forward. Rep. Nick LaLota, R-N.Y., hinted at tensions in the meeting when he posted on X that Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., a member of the SALT Caucus and Ways & Means Committee, "wasn't involved in today's meeting" because her district required "something different than mine and the other most SALTY five." Malliotakis previously told Fox News Digital she was supportive of the $30,000 cap. She's also the only member of the SALT Caucus on the critical tax-writing panel. As morning rose on House lawmakers, Rep. Greg Murphy, R-N.C., quipped at the tax meeting, "I see the light coming in from the East…I think it's going to be a Disney day." The Agriculture Committee, which began its meeting on Tuesday evening, saw Democrats waste no time in accusing Republicans of trying to gut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), colloquially known as food stamps. Rep. Adam Gray, D-Calif., accused Republicans of worrying that "somebody is getting a meal they didn't deserve or kids are getting too fat" instead of more critical issues. Republicans, like Rep. Randy Feenstra, R-Iowa, touted the bill's inclusion of crop insurance for young farmers, increasing opportunity for export markets, and helping invest in national animal disaster centers aimed at preventing and mitigating livestock illness. He also said Republicans were working to "secure" SNAP from waste and abuse. House and Senate Republicans are working on Trump's agenda via the budget reconciliation process, which allows the party in power to sideline the minority by lowering the Senate's threshold for passage to a simple majority, provided the legislation at hand deals with spending, taxes or the national debt. Trump wants Republicans to use the maneuver for a sweeping bill on his tax, border, immigration, energy and defense priorities. Two sources familiar with the plan said the House Budget Committee intends to advance the full bill, the first step to getting the legislation to a House-wide vote, on Friday. Wednesday will be a critical day to see if that timeline holds. Eleven different House committees, seven of which have already finished their work, must each pass portions of the legislation before they're all fitted into a massive bill that must pass the House and Senate before getting to Trump's desk.
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Woodrow Wilson, Tariff Slayer
Before Donald Trump, the last president to put tariffs at the top of his post-inauguration to-do list was Woodrow Wilson. But the lifelong academic and half-term governor came to bury tariffs, not raise them. Wilsons eagerness to slash tariffs offers a stark contrast to Trumps determination to wield them like a stick. But there are parallels, too. Like Trump, Wilson began executing his tariff plans early in his first term - in fact, even before taking the oath of office. In the days before his inauguration, he reached out to key members of the House, where, according to the Constitution, all revenue measures must originate. He wrote to Oscar Underwood, the Democratic chair of the Ways & Means Committee. He drafted into his cabinet Albert Burleson, chair of the House Democratic Caucus, whose duties would soon include serving as Wilsons legislative liaison on Capitol Hill, as well as postmaster general. He tapped William Redfield, whose special expertise in the House was tariffs, to be secretary of commerce. At the opening of the 63rd Congress, Wilson delivered his tariff message in dramatic fashion. He chose to become the first president since John Adams in 1800 to address a joint session in person. The packed chamber heard him emphasize hed called Congress into early session for one reason only: to cut tariffs. "It is best, indeed it is necessary," the president insisted, "to begin with the tariff. I will urge nothing upon you now at the opening of your session which can obscure that first object." There was ample context for this. Over more than half a century, high import duties on raw materials andessentials for every household had steadily increased, resulting in what politicians even then labeled the "high cost of living." Wilsons immediate predecessor, William Howard Taft, had promised a thorough-going reduction in the tariff schedules, but failed utterly when the final legislation produced by Congress proved a bazaar for special interests. Wilsons drama produced results. Less than two months after his tradition-breaking address, the House passed the largest cut in tariffs since the Civil War. Senate action and a House-Senate conference soon produced a bill slashing average rates by 35%. It was signed into law on Oct. 3, 1913. This was Wilsons first major achievement as president, and as history shows, it was an enduring one. Ever since, despite later increases in tariffs that proved temporary, U.S. government revenues have come primarily from taxes on business and personal incomes, not trade. That is largely due to another feature of the bill Wilson signed: the progressive income tax. The 1913 income tax, authorized by the newly ratified 16th Amendment, combined reduced tariffs promising lower consumer prices with a modest income tax to make up the revenue loss. It was a winning recipe, especially since the new income tax entirely exempted most of the U.S. population. Even the modest top rate of 7% didnt kick in until a taxpayer reached $16 million in income, measured in todays currency. (Although, as everyone knows, that part didnt last long.) For Wilson, prioritizing tariff reduction had been the work of a lifetime. As a southerner raised in Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas, he was steeped in anti-tariff tradition. The Souths textile economy, heavily dependent on exports, got no benefit from protectionist trade barriers. The young Wilsons first overt political act, at 25, was testifying against agricultural tariffs at a field hearing of the U.S. Tariff Commission in Atlanta. During his years on the faculty and as president of Princeton University, he repeatedly criticized protective tariffs in his writings and speeches. He began his political career by running for New Jersey governor in 1910. That race came only a year after a Republican Congress passed the widely unpopular Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act. Two months after its enactment, Wilson penned a lengthy article in the North American Review, deriding the law as "the ugly face of monopoly [and] special privilege." The magazines publisher (and Wilson campaign booster), George Harvey, agreed with him that the "country is red-hot over the tariff atrocity." Harvey encouraged the fledgling candidate to hammer on this major national issue during his statewide race. Timing is everything in politics, as Wilson discovered in 1910. It became the Democrats year across the nation, thanks in large measure to the Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act. The laws far-reaching effects hit consumers, businesses, and farmers alike with hefty price increases on hundreds of items. It was an intensely partisan issue, too: The final vote in the House fell almost strictly along party lines. In the Senate, not a single Democrat voted for the legislation. Especially unfortunate for Republican candidates was the fact that the nations 2,600 daily and weekly newspapers were among the hardest hit by the new tariffs. They now faced sky-high prices on newsprint after Taft used his discretion under the new law to impose a 25% retaliatory tariff on lower-cost Canadian newsprint. Unsurprisingly, thousands of editors and publishers now mounted their own retaliation in the form of spirited assaults on Republicans everywhere. On Election Day 1910, Wilson rode to victory on a national Democratic wave. When Wilson won the Democratic nomination and the presidency two years later, he carried the anti-tariff torch with him. His impressive success with tariff reform in 1913 ensured that lowering tariffs would remain a Democratic staple. A young Franklin D. Roosevelt, who served Wilson as assistant secretary of the Navy, was helped to the White House by the Republicans catastrophic blunder in the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. By raising the average tariff rate to nearly 60%, Smoot-Hawley ignited a worldwide trade war and cut the real value of international trade by more than 50% between 1929 and 1933. Scalded by accusations that their tariff policy had helped turn the 1929 recession into the Great Depression, Republicans gradually gave up protectionism. By the final decades of the 20th century, they were the party of free trade, willing to reduce Americas tariff barriers unilaterally as an inducement to other countries to lower theirs. Now, as the Trump administration again reverses Republican tariff policy, Wilsons anti-tariff arguments are once more at the forefront. Democrats have found their voice on trade, consistently arguing for consumers and against higher prices, while Republicans find themselves suddenly divided. Will next years elections resemble Wilsons debut in the 1910 midterm election year? Time will tell. Meanwhile, one thing is certain: Somewhere, the original progressive tariff slayer is smiling. Christopher Cox is the author of 'Woodrow Wilson: The Light Withdrawn' (Simon & Schuster, 2024).
Forbes
25-04-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Kemp Cuts Georgia Income Tax, While S.C. Lawmakers Aim To Follow Suit
The South Carolina State House in Columbia On April 15, Tax Day, Governor Brian Kemp (R-Ga.) signed House Bill 111, legislation lowering Georgia's flat income tax from 5.49% to 4.99%. This new income tax cut, the latest in a series of rate reductions passed by Georgia lawmakers in recent years, is projected to save taxpayers $880 million annually. 'While other states are running up budget deficits and raising taxes on their citizens, we're investing in the priorities of our state while further cutting taxes and returning more than a billion dollars to hardworking Georgians,' Governor Brian Kemp said in a statement. 'That's on top of the tax relief we've given in prior years and is a direct result of our conservative budgeting.' 'With the governor's signature, HB 111 doubles down on the efforts of prior years to reduce the tax burden on Georgians and job creators,' noted the release from Governor Kemp's office. 'With this second acceleration cutting the state income tax rate by another 20 basis points, the total income tax rate will now be down to just 5.19% - a decrease of 56 basis points from the original rate of 5.75%.' One week after Governor Kemp signed Georgia's latest income tax cut into law, legislators in neighboring South Carolina are advancing a bill to further reduce and flatten the Palmetto State's income tax. South Carolina House Speaker Murrell Smith (R) introduced legislation last month, H. 4216, that would move South Carolina from a progressive income tax code with a top rate of 6.2% to a flat 3.99% income tax, with revenue triggers established to cut the rate to 2.49% in the coming years. This week, the House Ways & Means Committee is considering three options for amending the bill. At a Ways & Means Committee hearing held the morning of April 22, Frank Rainwater, executive director of South Carolina's Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office, outlined three income tax reform plans for lawmakers to choose from. Option A would proceed with the move to a 3.99% flat rate. Option B would move the state to a 4.74% flat tax. Option C would cut the top income tax rate from 6.2% to 5.49% and reduce the bottom tax bracket from 3.5% to 1.99%. Speaker Smith and Ways & Means Chairman Bruce Bannister (R) offered these options in response to concerns that colleagues expressed about the initial version of H. 4216, particularly the share of filers who would see a net increase despite the lower rate. In some legislative bodies leadership is criticized for figuring out a deals in private and foisting them on their caucus without any opportunity for amendment. Speaker Smith is taking the opposition approach in the South Carolina House with tax reform, offering adjustments to address the concerns of colleagues. 'This is the way the legislative process should work,' Chairman Bannister said at the start of the Tuesday morning hearing. During the April 22 Ways & Means Committee hearing, Representative Gilda Cobb-Hunter (D) expressed concerns about scheduling income tax rate reduction based on certain annual revenue triggers being met. Representative Cobb-Hunter questioned 'whether it's fiscally prudent to use revenue triggers given economic uncertainty.' Uncertainty, however, is precisely what revenue triggers are designed to address. H. 4216, in its current form, brings South Carolina's income tax rate down to 2.49% if certain revenue triggers are met. In North Carolina, meanwhile, the state's 4.25% flat income tax will fall to 2.49% in the coming years if revenue triggers are met and will fall further, to 1.99%, under the new budget passed by the North Carolina Senate on April 17. If the economy crashes and state revenue collections subsequently plummet, revenue triggers will not be met and further rate reduction will not take place. In that way revenue triggers act as a fiscal safety valve, ensuring that if revenues unexpectedly decline, that drop will not be exacerbated by additional rate reduction. The way revenue trigger proponents see it, uncertainty over the economy and future revenue collections, rather than make revenue triggers a mechanism of concern as Rep. Cobb-Hunter suggested, makes them all the more needed. During this week's Ways & Means hearing, Republicans and Democrats questioned whether South Carolina needs an improved income tax code given how many people are moving to the state, one of the nation's fasted growing for many years now. Just because California's economy is growing and is now the world's fourth largest, as Governor Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) is touting, doesn't mean that California's 13.3% top marginal income tax rate, its cap and trade program, or its heavy regulatory burden do no harm. But that's the same logic employed by those who claim South Carolina's strong population growth doesn't mean the state's relatively high marginal income tax rate is without consequence. Several lawmakers also noted during Tuesday hearing that the effective rate paid by South Carolinians is much lower than the listed top rate of 6.2%. While proponents of further rate reduction concede that point, they do not agree that levying such a relatively high top marginal rate is without harm. Lawmakers questioned the goal of H.4216 during this week's Ways & Means hearing. It's goal, proponents contend, can be thought of as unshackling South Carolina from the competitive disadvantage that is its 6.2% top rate, which will still be the highest in the region even when it falls to 6%. While South Carolina has experienced relatively high levels of population in-migration, proponents of tax reform note that has been the case despite the imposition of such an uncompetitive top marginal rate. 'If we are competing for people, we are certainly winning,' Representative Todd Rutherford (D) said during the hearing. Proponents of further income tax rate reduction, however, describe the state as analogous to a champion Olympic sprinter who has been winning medals despite competing with leg weights around their ankles. It's great that the runner has done so well despite the ankle weights, but imagine the records they could set if they ditched the ankle weights. During the Ways & Means Committee hearing, Representative Nathan Ballentine (R) said he was struggling with the fact that, even though it's a minority of filers, some would face a higher income tax bill despite lower rates, even under the alternative tax reform proposals outlined by Dr. Rainwater. Yet even under some of the most pro-growth and conservative tax reform packages in recent history, though they cut taxes on net and for most, did result in higher bill for some filers. Some South Carolina lawmakers might decide they will oppose any tax reform plan that, even though it's a net cut overall and achieves needed rate reduction, results in a net increase for even a small minority of taxpayers. Any legislators who operate under that rationale, however, would also have to oppose the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which cut taxes for most but did result in higher bills for some, as well as President Donald Trump's efforts to extend those rate cuts. 'If we don't do anything we aren't that bad,' Representative Ballentine said at Tuesday's hearing. If South Carolina lawmakers don't do anything, however, the Palmetto State will remain home to the highest income tax rate in the southeastern U.S. Beyond that is the fact that competing states have continued to enact income tax rate-reducing reforms in recent weeks and months. Given that, many believe that if South Carolina lawmakers take no action to go beyond currently scheduled tax cuts, they'll be falling behind the competition.
Yahoo
20-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Environmentalists: Second attempt at wetlands bill would leave 80% vulnerable to development
A sign at Nashville's Shelby Park urges the protection of wetlands. (Photo: John Partipilo) A bill that would remove protections from an estimated 80% of Tennessee's wetlands advanced through a Senate committee Wednesday over the objections of several scientists and environmental advocates. The bill is the second attempt by sponsors Sen. Brent Taylor and Rep. Kevin Vaughan, both West Tennessee Republicans, to roll back what they say are overly onerous mitigation requirements for developers and landowners. 'Under our current regulations that we use in Tennessee, we're treating a tractor rut like Reelfoot Lake,' Taylor said. But representatives from environmental organizations said the bill would lead to the piecemeal destruction of Tennessee's natural resources by removing mitigation requirements for a majority of the state's wetlands. Developers are currently required to get state approval and pay mitigation fees before altering swampy areas that soak up rainwater and filter it into groundwater tables. Stripping back regulations weakens the financial incentive for developers to avoid building on wetlands, which provide natural flood mitigation and water quality benefits, opponents said. Under our current regulations that we use in Tennessee, we're treating a tractor rut like Reelfoot Lake. – Sen. Brent Taylor, R-Memphis The bill passed 7-2 along party lines in the Senate Energy, Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, and will move on to the Senate Finance, Ways & Means Committee. The bill's sponsors finalized an amendment to the caption bill – a bill introduced with a broad description that can be amended later – early Wednesday morning. The legislation defines four types of 'isolated wetlands,' creating a new category of 'artificial isolated wetlands' created purposefully or inadvertently by the alterations of humans or beavers. Under the bill, developers would be able to drain and fill artificial wetlands at will with no regulatory oversight from the state. The legislation also scraps automatic mitigation requirements for moderate- and low-quality isolated wetlands — which have minimal or moderate roles in ecosystems and natural water and chemical cycles — up to 2 acres in size. There's a carve-out for potential 1:1 mitigation for moderate-quality isolated wetlands between ½ to 2 acres, but the bill doesn't define when that rule would apply. Developers, seeking to gain from building boom tied to Ford plant, push for weaker wetland rules An estimated 80% of Tennessee's wetlands are smaller than one acre, according to George Nolan, Tennessee director of the Southern Environmental Law Center. High-quality isolated wetlands and moderate- and low-quality isolated wetlands larger than two acres would still require more specialized Aquatic Resource Alteration Permits. The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation commissioner would also gain the authority to change acreage thresholds for low- and moderate-quality isolated wetlands as they see fit. Sen. Heidi Campbell, a Nashville Democrat, said giving 'any commissioner in the future this kind of control … is problematic.' But the bill also prevents regulators from considering destruction of any isolated wetlands when determining a development project's cumulative impacts on wetlands. The Harpeth River Conservancy estimates Tennessee has 460,000 individual isolated wetlands, 94% of which are smaller than 2 acres, according to Watershed Science Director Ryan Jackwood. About 200,000 acres of isolated wetlands in West Tennessee sit atop the recharge zone for the Memphis Sand Aquifer, which provides drinking water for Shelby County and other needs across the mid-south, Protect Our Aquifer Science Director Scott Schoefernacker testified Wednesday. Vaughan's 2024 version of the bill was sent to a legislative summer study session, and TDEC presented a report to more than 100 stakeholders during a wetlands summit in October. The department also released a report with detailed recommendations for policy improvements. 'This amendment does not effectuate those recommendations, and in fact goes way beyond what TDEC has recommended,' Nolan said. He added that neither Vaughan nor Taylor attended that summit. A TDEC representative testified that the amended bill included 'a lot of the recommendations,' but a few 'really important' items are missing — namely, the creation of a Voluntary Wetland Conservation Fund. Taylor said that the bill's proposed regulations are still more stringent than policy in some surrounding states that fall in line with the recently constricted federal definition of wetlands. A 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling reduced the number of wetlands covered by federal protection, lifting regulation from 'isolated' wetlands that do not have surface connections to other federally protected bodies of water. Mallory Kirby, who testified in favor of the bill on behalf of the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Home Builders of Tennessee, characterized it as a bill about property rights. She and Taylor say the changes to the state's regulatory landscape are a compromise that will save developers and landowners time and money, bringing down housing costs. Connecting the dots between Tenn.'s home builders and bill to deregulate construction on wetlands Cutting back regulations would cost the state around $78,000 in lost permitting revenue but save Tennessee's Department of Transportation about $3 million per year on mitigation credits, Taylor said. TDOT, like many transportation departments across the U.S., frequently alters wetlands while building roadways. Case Davis, president of wetland restoration and mitigation bank company Beaver Creek Hydrology, is a member of the Tennessee Ecological Restoration Association. His company (and those represented by TERA) restore or preserve wetlands and then provide mitigation credits for developers to purchase. The association calculated the industry has invested more than $1 billion in restoration and conservation projects in Tennessee, he said Wednesday. The group supports the amendment but has one big concern: the clauses preventing consideration of projects' cumulative impacts on these wetlands. 'It's a supply and demand type market,' Davis said. 'If we reduce the amount of wetlands that are protected by 90% as this bill intends to do, then the cost of those mitigation credits will go up because we have a pro forma — we have to recoup our investment. So to state that this will reduce the cost of mitigation by reducing the impacts to wetlands is not true.' Taylor repudiated scientists' and advocates' warnings that failing to consider the bill's cumulative effect on Tennessee's wetlands would have lasting negative consequences for water quality and flood control, among other things. 'How come those things aren't happening in Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas?' Taylor asked. 'This bill regulates more than those states, but they all still have drinking water. They've not been submerged in floods.' 'If you're destroying wetlands in all of those places, those things are happening,' Nolan replied. 'The question is, at what rate are they happening?' Removing incentives to preserve wetlands will change the way water and money flows, Nolan said. 'That's going to turbo-charge the destruction of our wetlands, and it'll be our grandchildren that will experience the consequences of that.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Fox News
07-02-2025
- Business
- Fox News
Senate moves full steam ahead on massive Trump budget bill after GOP divisions derail House
Senate Republicans are moving full steam ahead with their plans for a massive conservative policy overhaul through the budget reconciliation process, despite House GOP leaders still insisting their chamber is set to go first. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., unveiled a 61-page resolution that would fund President Donald Trump's priorities for border security, fossil fuel energy, and national defense. It would fund completion of Trump's border wall, as well as provide dollars for more beds in detention centers at the border. The bill would also include funds to hire more Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, more personnel patrolling the border, and to increase the number of immigration judges in order to process the backlog of existing asylum cases. On energy, the bill is aimed at ramping up offshore drilling leases, and stopping the Biden administration's methane emissions fee. The legislation would also fund increased military readiness, grow the U.S. Navy, and building an "integrated air and missile defense to counter threats," according to a summary provided by Graham's office. Graham also signaled the bill would be deficit-neutral, with his press release stating that its $342 billion in new spending will be offset by the same amount of money in savings. Per the Senate's plan to split Trump's reconciliation priorities into two bills, it's expected that extensions to Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act – as well as other key Trump proposals, such as eliminating taxes on tipped and overtime wages – will be in a second plan released at a later date. Republicans plan to use their majorities in the House and Senate to pass a wide swath of Trump policy initiatives, from extending the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to funneling more cash to operations at the U.S.-Mexico border. The budget reconciliation process makes that possible by lowering the threshold for Senate passage from 60 votes to a simple 51-seat majority. Because the House already operates on a simple majority threshold, it will allow Republicans to skirt Democratic opposition to pass their agenda – provided the measures included involve budgetary or other fiscal matters, as reconciliation rules call for. The first step in reconciliation is advancing a resolution through the House and Senate budget committees, which will then give instructions to other committees of jurisdiction that will eventually form a final bill. The Senate's plan differs significantly from the House's intended approach. While both sides agree on what should be passed via reconciliation, House GOP leaders and Republicans on the Ways & Means Committee are concerned that the intense political maneuvering the process takes will mean they run out of time before passing a second bill with Trump's tax cuts at the end of this year. A Ways & Means Committee memo sent earlier this year projected the average American household could see taxes rise by over 20% if those provisions expire at the end of 2025. Trump himself has repeatedly called for "one big, beautiful bill," but said he ultimately was not concerned about the packaging as long as all of his priorities were passed. House Republicans had intended to move one bill through their budget panel this week, but the process was stalled as spending hawks pushed for deeper funding cuts than what GOP leaders initially proposed. Conservatives have insisted that any plan Republicans pass must be deficit-reducing or deficit-neutral. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters on Friday morning that he was playing "phone tag" with Graham due to their schedules but signaled he still intended for the House to move ahead with their plan next week. "I sent him a text message early this morning and explained where we are in the process and how it's moving aggressively," Johnson said. He told reporters he hoped for a House Budget Committee markup of the bill as early as Tuesday. Graham, meanwhile, intends to advance his bill through committee on Wednesday and Thursday. Senate Republicans are meeting with Trump at Mar-a-Lago on Friday night.
