Senate and House GOP leaders are projecting confidence they’ll meet President Trump’s July 4 deadline for passing his “big, beautiful bill,” despite Republicans threatening to vote against it.
Senate Republicans are working on last-minute tweaks to their version of the bill, which passed the House last month, trying to win over holdouts and ensure the language adheres to the chamber’s cumbersome rules.
The measure does not yet have support from at least 50 Senate Republicans, the minimum needed to pass with Vice President J.D. Vance breaking a tie.
There are also more than enough House Republicans threatening to sink the Senate bill if it doesn’t change significantly before it is sent back to them for final approval.
President Trump on Tuesday suggested Senate Republicans lock themselves in a room if needed to strike a deal and work with the House on changes so the package can move to his desk “ASAP.” He wants to sign it into law by July 4 as a “historic present” for the American people on the nation’s 250th birthday.
“No one goes on vacation until it’s done,” the president posted on social media in all-caps.
Both chambers of Congress were scheduled to be in recess next week for the July 4 holiday. But Senate Majority Leader John Thune, South Dakota Republican, and House Speaker Mike Johnson, Louisiana Republican, said they will keep their members in Washington until they pass the Trump agenda package.
The GOP leaders are confident they can sway the holdouts with the president’s help.
Mr. Thune said he expects a majority of GOP senators will choose not to let the perfect become the enemy of the good, but he may end up with two or three defections – the maximum he can afford.
“We’ve got a lot of very independent-thinking senators who have reasons and things that they’d like to have in this bill that would, in their view, make it stronger,” he said. “But at the end of the day, this is a process whereby not everybody’s going to get what they want.”
Mr. Johnson said Senate Republicans are “going through the five stages of grief on their individual preferences,” but he believes “there is not going to be a wide chasm” between the two chambers’ bills. The House wants to pass the Senate measure without further changes that would drag out the process.
One of the big issues vexing Republicans in both chambers is a crackdown on Medicaid provider taxes in the Senate bill that opponents say is harsher than the House version that froze state provider taxes at current rates.
The Senate measure would force most states to lower provider tax rates to no more than 3.5% by 2031 if they want to use the revenue to pay for increased Medicaid payments to the same providers, which would inflate the cost of their Medicaid programs and the share the federal government must contribute.
The change in what is known as the “safe-harbor” limit, currently 6%, would only apply to the 40 states and the District of Columbia that expanded Medicaid under Obamacare to include low-income, able-bodied adults without dependents earning up to 138% of the poverty level. Those states receive a 90% federal contribution to cover the additional beneficiaries and thus are more incentivized to use higher provider taxes to inflate the amount of funding they receive from the federal government.
A group of 16 House Republicans, led by California Rep. David Valadao, sent a letter to GOP leaders Tuesday saying the Senate’s stricter limits on provider taxes “do not give hospitals sufficient time to adjust to new budgetary constraints or to identify alternative funding sources.”
They also mentioned a few other Senate changes to Medicaid that fall short of the House’s “more pragmatic and compassionate standard,” warning they “cannot support a final bill that threatens access to coverage or jeopardizes the stability of our hospitals and providers.”
Several Senate Republicans have urged their leadership to take the House’s less strict approach to provider taxes, with a few tweaks.
GOP leaders have instead talked about creating a separate fund for rural hospitals to address senators’ concerns. That may not be enough.
Sen. Thom Tillis, North Carolina Republican, said his state stands to lose $38.9 billion in Medicaid funding if the Senate proceeds with its version. A relief fund for rural hospitals would help, but only “with a bit of that,” he said.
“The rural hospital thing is a big hiccup right now,” said Sen. Josh Hawley, Missouri Republican.
Mr. Trump has weighed in privately with Mr. Hawley and others, saying he does not want Medicaid benefit cuts and the Senate should not change much in the House framework.
The president met Monday with fiscal hawks, like Florida Sen. Rick Scott, who is pushing additional Medicaid reforms to rein in federal spending on the Obamacare expansion.
“He wants to balance the budget, and he understands the need to make sure that Medicaid protects the vulnerable Americans, which is what I’ve been talking about all along,” Mr. Scott said. “We got to direct the dollars to where it’s poor kids and people with chronic illness, rather than able-bodied adults who don’t want to work.”
Mr. Trump also met with Sens. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Mike Lee of Utah, who, like Mr. Scott, want more deficit reduction in the bill. They would like to fully repeal clean energy credits under President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, which the president backed in a social media post on Saturday and in his meetings with lawmakers.
“We’re not fully repealing them if we allow them to keep flowing — even after 2028,” Mr. Lee said on social media. “The current Senate bill would do that. That must change.”
The Senate’s softer approach to phasing out the IRA credits is among the reasons several House GOP fiscal hawks are threatening to oppose the bill. House Freedom Caucus members launched a coordinated offensive Tuesday to “end the green new scam,” with a handful threatening to oppose the bill if it does not.
“If the Senate tries to jam the House with this version, I won’t vote ‘present,’” House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris, Maryland Republican, said, referring to his vote on the initial House version. “I’ll vote NO.”
Sen. John Hoeven, North Dakota Republican, admitted Republicans are not looking for a full repeal of IRA credits but would wind down the wind and solar credits Mr. Trump is most concerned about. He said the broader issue they’re still working through is ensuring projects that have already begun are “fairly treated” in the ramp down.
Senate Republicans also have yet to strike a deal with the House on the state and local tax deduction, known as SALT. Senators want to water down a House proposal that would lift the current $10,000 cap on the SALT deduction to $40,000 for taxpayers earning up to $500,000 a year.
Five blue-state House Republicans from New York, New Jersey and California have said they would oppose any alteration to that deal.
In addition to balancing those competing demands, GOP leaders have to contend with rulings from the Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, the nonpartisan official in charge of enforcing the chamber’s rules.
Ms. MacDonough and her office have found several provisions in the bill do not comply with the Senate’s rules for budget reconciliation, the process Republicans are using to pass the bill without the threat of a Democratic filibuster.
Senate Republican Whip John Barrasso of Wyoming said the GOP will be “aggressive” in ensuring the party’s priorities remain in the bill.
“If the parliamentarian says, as written, they’re not approving it to this point, that doesn’t mean you can’t go back and rewrite it and dial it a little differently,” he said.
For example, the GOP tweaked a proposal to require states to cover 5% to 15% of benefit costs under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps, if they have high rates of overpayments and underpayments, known as error rates.
The parliamentarian’s office said the provision, as originally written, did not give states “enough time to respond and prepare for the consequences,” Senate Agriculture Chairman John Boozman said. The Arkansas Republican’s panel tweaked the language to adjust when states are informed they have high enough error rates to be subject to the cost-sharing requirement, and the parliamentarian accepted the change.
“It’s all done and it’s intact,” Mr. Boozman said. “The savings are almost identical.”
• Lindsey McPherson can be reached at lmcpherson@washingtontimes.com.