Senate Republicans got over the first procedural hurdle Thursday on their revised budget resolution needed to move forward with a filibuster-proof reconciliation bill. But it wasn’t a sure thing going in, raising questions about the simple majority needed for final adoption sometime this weekend.
The 52-48 vote on the motion to proceed to the budget blueprint started the clock on up to 50 hours of debate — though likely less given Republicans are expected to yield back time — before the chamber turns to the “vote-a-rama” likely to start Friday evening.
There were minimal GOP defections on the procedural vote: just Rand Paul, R-Ky., voted against the motion. Still, Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., had to hold a separate confirmation vote open for nearly two hours to try to wrangle the needed simple majority on the motion to proceed to the budget.
During the previous vote, Thune was holed up in his office with a number of lawmakers. “It’s pretty obvious” they didn’t have the votes at that point, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., said on her way in.
Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said before the vote that he counseled Thune that it was time to put up or shut up, citing the months of internal debate Republicans have already been through on the budget questions.
“I know that there’s some senators that have more questions, but we’ve been doing this since January, and the sight of the gallows concentrates the mind,” Kennedy said. “And a way to get some senators to focus is to hold a vote, and then they’ve got thee choices: They can vote yes, they can vote no or they can jump the rail and run.”
[Senate Republicans get ready to roll on revised budget]
Later, Thune explained the reasons for the lengthy holdup.
“This is complicated stuff. People are wanting to do their homework and want to be really informed when they make a decision,” he said. “And so, you know, we were hearing folks out, and obviously giving them a chance to want to explain their concerns and hopefully get some questions answered, and just make sure everybody had a comfort level with … proceeding.”
Internal divisions have focused on two chief issues: the use of a novel new baseline to measure the cost of pricey tax-cut extensions, and the scope of possible cuts to Medicaid.
‘Current policy’ dispute
The Senate budget framework would provide for the permanent extension of about $3.7 trillion in expiring tax cuts and the enactment of up to $1.5 trillion in additional, new tax breaks over 10 years.
But there’s a twist: Under the new baseline, the larger, expiring batch of tax provisions, enacted during President Donald Trump’s first term in 2017, would essentially zero cost when it comes to meeting Senate budget reconciliation requirements. That means unlike the 2017 law and earlier rounds of tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush, they don’t have to end early or require offsets beyond the first decade.
Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., who’s critiqued the use of this so-called current-policy baseline, voted for the motion to proceed. But he could be heard on the floor arguing with Senate Budget Chairman Lindsey Graham about it from the gallery above.
They went back and forth over Graham’s decision to move ahead without guidance from the Senate parliamentarian about whether using a current-policy baseline was acceptable within reconciliation rules.
“It is changing the Senate,” Cassidy emphatically told Graham on the floor.
But Graham reiterated his authority under the 1974 budget law to set the baseline lawmakers will use for the reconciliation process. “I’m the Budget chairman,” Graham, R-S.C., told Cassidy. “I’m going to call it the way I want to.”
‘Crickets’
Earlier, fiscal hard-liners and some centrists said they would back the revised resolution — which will replace the earlier House-adopted version — despite earlier misgivings about the measure setting up too little or too much in spending cuts.
Paul has said he would vote against the resolution, citing its provision for an up to $5 trillion increase in the country’s $36 trillion borrowing limit. Senate leadership can afford to lose up to three Republicans on the final vote.
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., has voiced concerns about cuts to Medicaid benefits, though he voted for the motion to proceed. Earlier on Thursday he said he hadn’t received the assurances from leadership needed to guarantee his support on the floor. He’s also asked for a vote on separate legislation to provide compensation for victims of radiation exposure in exchange for his support.
“As I understand it, you know, the Medicaid language is still in there in the House, so I’m concerned about that,” he said, referring to the reconciliation instruction to the House Energy and Commerce Committee to find $880 billion in savings over 10 years. “I’m waiting to hear what our leadership has to say about it. But so far, nothing. Crickets.”
Hawley, who was the last senator to vote on the motion to proceed, didn’t say how he’ll ultimately vote on final adoption.
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, this week also said she had concerns about the potential level of Medicaid cuts under discussion in the House, though she voted for the motion to proceed.
The revised resolution would leave in place more ambitious spending cut targets for House committees, but set a minimal spending cut floor for Senate panels, allowing Republicans more wiggle room to navigate around the “Byrd rule” governing the reconciliation process in the Senate.
The changes proved enough to win the support of at least one senator who previously voiced concerns about cuts to Medicaid. Sen. Jim Justice, R-W.Va., said he would vote for the resolution to “continue to move the ball forward.” He said he’s no longer concerned about cuts to the health insurance program for lower-income households.
“I don’t think that will happen,” he said. “When it really boils right down to it, I do not think the Trump administration is going to hurt our elderly or our kids.”
‘Waste, fraud and abuse’
Indeed, Graham wrote language into the budget plan stating that the target of $2 trillion in cuts both chambers have identified as their goal would “fulfill the President’s promise to protect” Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
But the provision also says lawmakers will protect those programs “from waste, fraud, and abuse,” a euphemism for making cuts that won’t ultimately impact, in Republicans’ view, truly deserving beneficiaries.
House Budget Chairman Jodey C. Arrington on Thursday laid out some of this thinking, citing new potential work requirements for Medicaid-eligible adults, for instance.
“We have to put actual expectations for work-capable adults in these programs, like in Medicaid,” Arrington, R-Texas, said on “The Ben Shapiro Show” on Thursday. “If you just reviewed the rolls … and make sure that those benefiting are legally eligible, that they’re not here illegally in this country, or that they aren’t eligible for other reasons, then you save $160 billion.”
Reconciliation bills are barred from making Social Security changes under the Byrd rule, so the stipulation really only applies to Medicaid and Medicare.
Importantly, the “reserve fund” in the measure to “save more than” $2 trillion over a decade accommodates policy changes made through executive actions by the White House — which could include things like Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs. It also says a rescissions package clawing back unspent appropriations would count toward their target.
That’s a little different than the House’s reconciliation instructions to that chamber’s committees in the resolution, which would require $2 trillion-deficit-reduction measures enacted through legislative changes to federal programs.
Nonetheless, many fiscal conservatives said a Wednesday White House meeting smoothed over their concerns about not getting enough spending reductions. Sens. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., and Rick Scott, R-Fla., credited the meeting and assurances from Trump and Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought with getting them on board.
“I’m going to vote for it because I was at the White House yesterday. I have a commitment from President Trump that … he’s going to continue to focus on balancing the budget and controlling spending,” Scott said.
Johnson said Trump and Vought agreed to work toward a pre-pandemic spending level, which would work “in tandem” with reconciliation.
The $2 trillion “reserve fund” language also stipulates that lawmakers will “scrutinize line item expenditures, especially non-defense spending that did not exist prior to or has grown significantly since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Aidan Quigley and Paul M. Krawzak contributed to this report.
The post Senate starts debate on GOP budget plan after delayed vote appeared first on Roll Call.
