House Republicans on Wednesday unveiled a $95 billion legislative plan focused on boosting defense, aiding farmers and enacting stricter voter registration rules, a sequel to the massive tax and spending cut bill that President Donald Trump signed into law last year.
The 47-page outline, called a budget resolution, is a long-shot undertaking designed to supplement Pentagon funding for the Iran war and address Trump’s top priority of changing voter registration requirements. A more ambitious effort was narrowed to address concerns of conservatives about adding to the deficit. The resolution does not seek any offsets to pay for the new spending.
House Speaker Mike Johnson pushed ahead after meeting with Trump at the White House this week in what will be the Republicans’ calling card to voters this fall heading into the midterm elections, with control of Congress at stake.
“Safeguarding American elections and strengthening our national defense are the most basic responsibilities of Congress,” Johnson said in a statement.
Johnson welcomed the chance to again use a legislative process that will allow Republicans to overpower Democratic objections and eventually approve legislation on a party-line majority vote, saying the Democrats won’t be able to block the GOP priorities “any longer.”
Democrats, however, have argued against the sharply partisan path, particularly for matters of war funding.
The Budget Committee is expected to consider the outline Thursday, ahead of floor action in the House next week.
Billions of dollars for the Iran war
The bulk of the $95 billion would go for the U.S.-led war against Iran, reflecting the White House’s request for supplemental spending to rebuild stockpiles and fund classified programs, among other expenses related to Operation Epic Fury.
The resolution calls for the House Armed Services Committee to craft legislation that will not increase deficits through 2036 by more than $60 billion; the Select Committee on Intelligence, $13 billion; the Agriculture Committee, $12 billion; and the House Administration Committee, $10 billion.
The latter funding would be focused on enacting aspects of an election law overhaul that requires those registering to vote to provide proof of citizenship and is a top Trump priority.
Overall, the plan is on par with a request the White House submitted to Congress last month, as the Iran war drags past four months. But it falls far short of the $350 billion increase the White House proposed in its budget request this year to beef up the Defense Department.
Approving extra war funding will be difficult, even among Republicans supporting the Iran effort, as the nation confronts staggering annual deficits reaching nearly $2 trillion this year.
Trump pushes Congress for voting law changes
Both the House and the Senate would have to pass the same budget resolution to launch the crafting of the party-line bill, which is politically difficult in the Congress where Republicans hold only narrow majority control.
Along with the war funds, the package Republicans are pursuing would include $10 billion for the GOP’s effort to impose strict citizenship requirements in line with provisions of the SAVE America Act, which has been a top Trump priority.
Trump has insisted that Republicans approve the elections overhaul bill, which has passed the House but does not have the votes to overcome the 60-vote threshold in the Senate. So Republicans are looking to get parts of it through the arduous reconciliation process that allows both chambers to pass a bill with a simple majority.
It’s unclear how the budget package would impose or fund voting law changes and if any alterations could be made before the midterm elections, with many state elections processes already underway.
Overall, passage of the package would be a lengthy process, with much of the action taking place after lawmakers return from their August recess and during the heart of election season. House Republicans hope to kick off the effort before they leave town at the end of this month.
Democrats mount opposition to the GOP package
The additional aid for farmers dealing with higher gas and fertilizer prices and retaliatory tariffs has become an election year priority for many lawmakers with large rural constituencies.
But even the addition of that type of farm aid is not likely to be an incentive for Democrats to lend support for what is essentially a Republican-only bill. Democrats are expected to overwhelmingly oppose whatever final product emerges and force Republicans to take votes on scores of difficult amendments.
Rep. Brendan Boyle, the lead Democratic lawmaker on the House Budget Committee, said the GOP’s budget plan would lead to tens of billions of dollars in additional debt to fund what he called the most unpopular war in American history.
“I’m going to fight like hell to make sure taxpayer dollars are being used to lower costs and make life better for American families, not to bankroll Trump’s giveaways to billionaires and endless wars overseas,” Boyle said.
Johnson, of Louisiana, applauded Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, and others on the panel for moving swiftly to advance the resolution and unlock what would be Republicans’ third reconciliation bill this Congress.
Trump’s big tax breaks bill last year and the Homeland Security funding bill this year both passed largely along party lines.
Arrington said several factors contributed to the decision not to offset some of the new spending Republicans will seek. First, the Trump administration’s call for more defense spending was winnowed to just meeting replenishment needs during a time of war. Second, he was concerned that some of the savings generated in last year’s party line bill could be relitigated and stripped out if the Senate Finance Committee had been instructed to find offsets.
Republicans could have tried to work with Democrats to pass more defense spending through the regular appropriations process or through an emergency supplemental spending bill, but that would require bipartisan support to get through the Senate. And Democrats likely would have sought commensurate spending increases for non-defense priorities.
“There’s no doubt that Democrats would exact a big price,” Arrington said. “… We avoided that, so I would say in this moment, with this scenario, that’s a win.”
