Senate and House Republicans, after weeks of sparring over which chamber holds the key to enacting President Trump’s legislative agenda, are moving forward with separate budget plans.
It’s a problem because both chambers must adopt identical budget resolutions to unlock the reconciliation powers Republicans plan to use to skirt a Democratic filibuster in the Senate and pass their priorities along party lines.
Senate Republicans plan to begin executing their two-track plan next week, starting with a budget blueprint that will call for $300 billion in new funding for border security and defense needs, as well as an equal number of offsets.
House Republicans are proceeding with their own budget plan that, in addition to border and defense funding, will call for sweeping tax and spending cuts. But their plans to unveil it this week were delayed as fiscal hawks in the conference demanded deeper spending cuts.
Both budget committees are planning to mark up the dueling blueprints next week, putting the House and Senate on a collision course.
Senate Budget Chairman Lindsey Graham said the House approach is taking too long to get a result. Mr. Graham and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, South Dakota Republican, agreed it’s time for their chamber to move.
“I’ve always believed that one big, beautiful bill is too complicated,” said Mr. Graham, South Carolina Republican. “What unites Republicans, for sure, is border security and more money for the military. It’s important we put points on the board.”
He also argued the border security money is needed to quickly hire more Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to carry out the president’s deportation agenda, saying, “It’d be a real mistake for the Republican Congress not to give the Republican administration the money they need to execute the plan.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson, Louisiana Republican, and many in his conference prefer the one-bill approach because of the need to extend tax cuts enacted during Mr. Trump’s first term that will expire at the end of this year absent congressional action.
“By settling for the two bills, you do make it more likely not to get the second, which is where the tax crunch is,” said House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole, Oklahoma Republican. “So I understand the strategy of putting all the goodies in one package. You put spinach and jelly beans together, so the kid has to eat them both.”
Mr. Johnson said he plans to talk to Mr. Graham, “a good friend,” to underscore “the reality of the House,” which has an even thinner majority than the Senate and no margin for error.
“It’s a very different chamber with very different dynamics. The House needs to lead this if we’re going to have success,” the speaker said. “So, we’re very comfortable about where we are. We feel very optimistic we’re getting there and we’re going to find that equilibrium point and get this done. So stay tuned.”
Senate Republicans had been waiting to see what the House came up with, but when Mr. Johnson blew past his self-imposed deadline to mark up a budget this week, they grew impatient.
“The House is kind of spiraling a little bit, so we’ll try to jump-start them with a little inspiration,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer, North Dakota Republican.
Some House Republicans agreed that inspiration is needed.
“If having the Senate threatening to want to step in front of us forces us to actually stop playing process roulette and actually start doing policy, God bless them,” said Rep. David Schweikert, Arizona Republican.
House Republicans are still at odds over how deep spending cuts should be in their budget blueprint.
Leaders pitched an initial spending cut floor of $300 billion. After debt hawks balked, negotiators got the number closer to $1 trillion.
Members of the hard-line House Freedom Caucus want to see spending cuts and savings cranked up to at least $2.5 trillion over the next decade.
HFC member Rep. Michael Cloud told The Washington Times that Republicans need to usher in a “massive course correction” in spending, such as landing on at least $2.5 trillion in cuts.
“We’ve seen this city play fuzzy math D.C. games for a long time,” said Mr. Cloud, Texas Republican. “We’ve got to shift that paradigm.”
Whatever spending cut targets are set in the budget resolution have to be met in the reconciliation legislation that follows based on estimates from the Congressional Budget Office.
GOP leaders argue that CBO’s estimates do not fully account for economic growth impacts that will come from their planned tax cuts and regulatory crackdown, but if the CBO estimates fall short of their reconciliation targets, the legislation falls apart.
“That’s why you have to go through and make sure your floor is a number that you can feel comfortable CBO is going to back up,” said House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, Louisiana Republican.
Rep. Chip Roy, a Freedom Caucus member from Texas, said he has “a little flexibility” to go lower than $2.5 trillion for the deficit reduction targets because of CBO’s pattern of underestimating economic growth — but not as much as GOP leaders are seeking.
He said GOP leaders’ initial pitch of $300 billion in 10-year savings to accompany $330 billion in new spending was “facially absurd.” He then said their secondary offer of $900 billion in cuts for $300 billion in spending was “also not good enough.”
Other Republicans are more noncommittal about the details of the budget resolution. They worry, however, that the difficulty in negotiating the targets is just a small preview of what’s to come when they begin hashing out the policy details needed to achieve those figures.
“If we can’t get the budget, which doesn’t have the force of law, getting a reconciliation package, which does have the force of a law, is a lot more difficult,” Mr. Cole said.
Mr. Cole did, however, dismiss concerns that Republicans are falling behind on the timeline leaders laid out.
“All timelines are aspirational,” he said. “You go when you’ve got the votes.”
• Lindsey McPherson can be reached at lmcpherson@washingtontimes.com.
• Alex Miller can be reached at amiller@washingtontimes.com.