Senate Republicans are pouring cold water on the House GOP’s $95 billion blueprint for a new party-line spending package.

Their skepticism is a reality check on Speaker Mike Johnson’s ambitious pledge that the Senate will adopt a budget resolution before leaving in early August.

“That’d be news to me,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Thursday about Johnson’s floated timeline, indicating he had signed on to no such thing.

His comments came as the House Budget Committee debated a resolution that would pave the way for drafting and passing a party-line policy bill with the power to skirt the Senate filibuster.

Thune and Johnson have had a good working relationship. But Johnson’s penchant for speaking for the Senate over the past year, including during last summer’s debate over the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, has been a point of frustration for Thune and his allies — especially because Thune is mindful not to speak for the House.

Some Senate Republicans are also exasperated with the House’s decision to push forward with a third reconciliation attempt — a followup to last year’s tax-cuts-focused megabill and the immigration enforcement package from June. They view it as more of a midterm messaging effort than an actual attempt to legislate, according to two people granted anonymity to disclose private conversations.

It’s not just the timeline though that is an issue in the Senate, though: The House’s blueprint also contains $73 billion for military and intelligence efforts, as well as $12 billion in farm assistance and $10 billion for election-related efforts. Senate GOP defense hawks want a higher number for the military, and agriculture-state Republicans are clamoring for more farm aid.

That means the Senate will need to amend the House budget blueprint to add instructions for its own committees that could involve setting higher spending ceilings for the military and agriculture aid, according to three people granted anonymity to speak candidly.

Thune tipped his hand Thursday morning to the hurdles he’ll face among Senate Republicans, repeatedly asking, “Is the juice worth the squeeze?”

He also noted that while defense hawks would want a larger military number, fiscal hawks are going to want to pay for the bill. And giving the Agriculture Committee buy-in to provide funding for farm assistance could end up giving Democrats an opening to force votes on a host of politically sensitive issues including cuts to federal food aid.

“Then the question on the floor of … can we get 50 [votes] on anything? And even if we can get 50 to pass it, can we defeat all the poison-pill amendments?” Thune said. “‘I’m not pooh-poohing it, I’m just saying people need to think long and hard. … It’s a much easier proposition in the House.”

Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, the No. 2 GOP leader, is also keeping his powder dry but predicted that Johnson will need to help sell Senate Republicans on any budget resolution that can get through the House.

“I expect that [Johnson is] going to be part of the whip team once he gets that passed. So we’re going to wait and see what he can get over here,” he said.

On one side of the Senate GOP, leaders are likely to face skepticism from some members of the Appropriations Committee. Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine), for instance, said she hadn’t yet looked at the House framework but “in general my view is that we should not be using reconciliation, we should work through the normal appropriations process.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), another senior appropriator, also voted against the second reconciliation bill, which funded immigration enforcement for the rest of Trump’s term over concerns about its impact on the government funding process.

Thune also has deficit hawks, including incoming Budget Chair Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who are likely to want to include offsets for at least part of the spending. The House’s plan currently includes no offsets.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), a member of the Budget Committee, said in a statement that Congress should “pass a reconciliation package which is paid for” — and, if a short-term government funding bill can’t pass, “the reconciliation package needs to fund important government services.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) added on X Thursday: “Our national debt is a runaway train. The next reconciliation bill should be fully paid for.”

Source link