Big Beautiful Bill in Trouble?

Senate Republicans are balking at several measures, but fixing those would make passage in the House impossible.

POLITICO (“Thune faces brewing megabill mutiny“):

Sen. Thom Tillis warned his colleagues during a closed-door meeting Wednesday that he would not vote to take up the party’s sweeping domestic policy bill without further clarity on Medicaid changes, a person granted anonymity to disclose private discussions said.

“He said he wouldn’t vote for a motion to proceed until he got some clarity on what’s going to happen with the provider tax,” the person said, referring to a funding mechanism Senate GOP leaders are hoping to curtail. Tillis has been trying to get details on how the Senate language will impact North Carolina, the person added.

Tillis wasn’t alone.

Multiple other Republican senators warned Majority Leader John Thune during the lunch that they were not ready to vote to launch floor debate on the megabill, according to three attendees. But it’s Tillis, who is up for reelection next year, who has emerged as a key vote to watch as Thune moves to try and meet a July 4 target for final passage of the bill.

Tillis told colleagues he spoke recently with CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz about the provider tax’s impact on North Carolina but said he believed the numbers provided by Oz and his team underplayed the impact. Tillis handed out a document to his colleagues earlier this week that estimated his state’s losses at more than $38 billion.

“He said just now in this meeting, … ‘If you proceed on this provider tax like you’re going to do right now, you won’t have a member from North Carolina sitting at this table after next year,’” the person added. (Though North Carolina has two Republican senators, Tillis appeared to be referring to his own endangered re-election bid.)

It was just the latest instance of Tillis raising concerns privately about the Senate’s Medicaid proposal. While the House-passed bill freezes existing provider taxes, the Senate’s bill incrementally rolls back an existing federal cap.

Senate leaders made their opening offer on a rural hospital relief fund Wednesday morning. But that figure, $15 billion, is sparking pushback publicly and privately from Tillis and others.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who is undecided on the reconciliation bill, told reporters Wednesday that “any money is helpful, but, no, it is not adequate.” She floated a $100 billion fund but added, “I don’t think that solves the entire problem.”

On the other end of his conference, Thune is facing GOP senators who want the rural hospital fund to be shrunk further. He’s not just facing pushback over health care provisions; a clutch of deficit hawks also still aren’t on board with the bill.

The ongoing negotiations have some of his members openly questioning whether they will be able to meet his goal of passing the bill in the Senate this weekend. Thune can lose three GOP senators and still have Vice President JD Vance break a tie.

“Well, I mean, everybody’s got their vote,” Thune said when asked about the holdouts. “We’re working with all of their members to try to get people comfortable with the bill, and hopefully in the end, they’ll be there.”

Other Republicans are banking that their colleagues’ rhetoric is a negotiating tactic and that they will ultimately fall in line — potentially with leadership agreeing to changes to assuage their concerns.

“All of our guys are going to keep advocating for what they want until we pass it,” said Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), predicting that GOP leaders will ultimately get votes to proceed with the bill.

NPR (“Trump’s signature policy bill is facing trouble on multiple fronts in the Senate“):

Senate Republicans are racing the clock, trying to meet President Trump’s demand that they pass his domestic agenda bill by July 4th as they work to resolve major sticking points inside the GOP conference.

While Senate committee leaders have made several significant changes to the bill in recent days, the issue of funding for rural hospitals has emerged as a major roadblock.

Senate GOP leaders are also waiting to learn if major tax provisions in the bill meet strict Senate rules for what can be included in the bill and still pass with a simple majority vote. The Senate parliamentarian — a non-partisan member of the body’s professional staff — is still reviewing those elements to make sure each has a direct impact on the budget, among other regulations. Several provisions in the House version, such as one barring nationwide judicial injunctions, have already been cut in that review.

[…]

Medicaid — which provides health coverage to low-income people and is one of the largest payers for health care in the United States — has been among the most difficult provisions in the bill. At issue is a directive that states cut the tax they impose on Medicaid providers from 6% down to 3%. Critics say that tax is an important part of the funding equation in many states. They say the change will result in major challenges for rural hospitals that rely on that money. It is part of a complex formula that determines how much federal funding is received as part of the joint program run with states.

Mehmet Oz, Trump’s director of the agency overseeing the Medicaid program, met with Senate Republicans last week and defended the need to crack down on how states finance Medicaid. He called the bill “the most ambitious health reform bill ever in our history.”

He argued the changes will curb the growth of the program and add new work requirements that will preserve the program for the most vulnerable.

But Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., has argued that President Trump negotiated the House bill and the changes would force the Senate to enter into drawn-out negotiations with the House.

Hawley noted that his legislation to provide health care to those impacted by exposure to radiation from the testing of atomic weapons was included in the package. “But they have to have a hospital to go to,” he added. “So it’s a problem.”

In an effort to win over Republicans like Hawley, the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday put out a new compromise to set up a stabilization fund to help rural hospitals. The plan would direct $15 billion over a 5-year period to states in need. However, that falls short of what other senators say is needed.

[…]

Other Republicans are concerned about the overall impact of changes to Medicaid resulting in major cuts in the rolls in their states — which would mean shifting costs to states to cover those low-income, elderly and disabled patients who rely on the program.

Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., is one of a group of conservatives who are pressing for deeper spending cuts in the bill and told reporters he met with the president recently. He said he wants to pass a bill, but “we’ve got to have to have fiscal sanity.”

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., continues to say Congress needs to roll back spending levels to pre-pandemic levels, and that the legislation adds to the deficit.

Fiscal hawks in the Senate have also raised concerns about the fate of energy tax credits. Republicans chose to roll back or end many of the credits included in the Inflation Reduction Act that was passed under President Biden in order to find more cost savings. But that plan has frustrated even some in their own party who say constituents and businesses are already using those credits and would be negatively affected if they are eliminated.

[…]

Even if Thune is able to resolve all of the issues in his chamber, several different factions of House Republicans are warning they will oppose the latest bill that’s emerging from the Senate.

The tax debate also includes a side negotiation with House GOP lawmakers who represent districts in New York and California who insist the Senate needs to preserve a state and local tax break, known as SALT, that was negotiated with House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., for their constituents who pay high state and local taxes.

They have threatened to vote against the bill if it clears the Senate without the break intact.

Most Senate Republicans have ignored their threats, and the issue isn’t a priority with no Senate Republican representing the blue states that are affected.”

Referring to the so-called “SALT caucus” in the House, Sen. Jon Hoeven, R-N.D., told reporters the Senate will come up with the bill they believe is the best deal.

“They’re still going to decide whether they agree or not. I think there’ll be a lot of pressure because, look, will produce a good product for them to just go ahead. But they get to make that call.”

On Tuesday afternoon, Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., said he had spoken with nearly all of SALT caucus, and that while they were getting closer to a deal, he speculated that it’s unlikely “we’re going to get to a place that everybody loves … But we’re going to get someplace that may be palatable for people.”

He added that once lawmakers reach an agreement on SALT and changes to Medicaid, they will be “good to go.”

“All of us have some concerns with the bill,” Mullin said. “But that’s what happens when you’re negotiating the bill in here and you get 535 opinions.”

Ordinarily, I would expect the SALT cap to be raised and the cuts to wildly popular programs to be eliminated, as that’s what an overwhelming majority of Members want. Hell, I’m pretty sure that’s what President Trump wants. But these things have been written into the “BBB” by ideologues and Trump is now wed to getting it passed intact, with any changes from the House version requiring re-negotiation.

Thus far, though, Congressional Republicans have proven themselves spineless. If I were forced to bet, it would be that they will fall in line, despite these measures being objectively bad for their constituents.

FILED UNDER: Congress, US Politics, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is a Professor of Security Studies. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm veteran. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Mister Bluster says:

    Congressional Republicans have proven themselves spineless.

    They should undergo spinal replacement surgery.
    Don’t they qualify for healthcare subsidized by American Taxpayers? The same people whose Medicaid they want to eliminate.

    1
  2. Mehmet Oz, Trump’s director of the agency overseeing the Medicaid program, met with Senate Republicans last week and defended the need to crack down on how states finance Medicaid. He called the bill “the most ambitious health reform bill ever in our history.”

    Just proving that “ambitious health reform” does not necessarily mean providing more and/or better health care.

    Not to mention, here is another case where I simply do not trust the messenger. What the hell does Mehmet Oz really know about any of this except that he knows Trump wants it?

    8
  3. Joe says:

    This points to the fragility of putting every administration priority into one bill. Much as I disagree on most of the policy priorities this bill reflects, the Republicans have knowingly put themselves in a box where they cannot signal any nuance on any issue without walking away completely empty handed. They are forcing themselves to sign onto a political suicide pact (and, incidentally, the ruination of large parts of the federal government).

    5
  4. Jen says:

    @Joe:

    This points to the fragility of putting every administration priority into one bill.

    Agreed. This is *usually* a better strategy to get something passed…by putting everything in, the risk is too great for too many–basically, the “too big to fail” strategy.

    However, in THIS case, there’s so much damaging stuff in the bill that it tips back over to being too risky to pass it. This entire house of cards could come collapsing down because they overshot the target.

    7
  5. Scott says:

    My congresscritters keep trying to obfuscate the impacts of this bill with highly selected data. I regularly refer them to analyses:

    CBO: H.R. 1, One Big Beautiful Bill Act (Dynamic Estimate)

    Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: Breaking Down the One Big Beautiful Bill

    Tax Foundation: “Big, Beautiful Bill” Senate GOP Tax Plan: Preliminary Details and Analysis

    Facts matter.

    1
  6. Scott says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: In public policy speak, “reform” always means “cuts”.

    1
  7. Jay L Gischer says:

    @Scott: Not really picking on you, but an area of exception would be “courts” where now “reform” means “additions”. As in, adding another 5 seats to SCOTUS.

    This sort of article seems like it’s likely an example of someone telling me what I want to hear in order to get clicks. It’s true, I can imagine Senate Republicans having issues with it. I can’t imagine them not passing something, though.

  8. James R Ehrler says:

    One item that has been overlooked in the B^3 is what it will do to the US Post Office and its plan to electrify much of its fleet.

    Originally, and when I first heard about it, the GOP was going to sell the fleet (to whom and for what was unclear) and tear out the charging infrastructure!! Going to cost tax payers and delay replacing ancient vehicles but, hey, it will just cost the USPS $1.4 billion more.

    According to Wonkette the original proposal has been pulled back a bit, but it still is insane that the GOP *wants* to keep ancient gas powered trucks in service for a job that fits electrification like a glove.

    They are, simply, insane.

    4
  9. al Ameda says:

    I’m still waiting for the Democratic Party ads that:
    (1) re-brand the Big Beautiful Bill as the “Big Billionaire’s Bill”
    (2) intone, ‘the cuts in Veterans, Medicaid and Medicare heath benefits are going to pay for weddings in Venice {{montage of pics of super-yachts anchored out in Venice, with Jeff Bezos and soon-to-be Trophy Wife smiling cluelessly}}

    7
  10. Jay L Gischer says:

    @al Ameda: I like the idea, but the thing is “the Democratic Party” doesn’t run ads. Candidates do. The DNC spends its money supporting candidates, not running issue ads. And organizing the convention, of course.

    I mean, yeah, those ads would be great, but there’s a massive structural problem, which is that billionaires have the money to run issue ads, (and to make them seem like they aren’t issue ads sometimes). Democrats by and large don’t.

    2
  11. al Ameda says:

    @Jay L Gischer:

    I like the idea, but the thing is “the Democratic Party” doesn’t run ads. Candidates do. The DNC spends its money supporting candidates, not running issue ads. And organizing the convention, of course.

    I understand your points, however, and perhaps I should have been more clear on this: there are plenty of proxies outside of congressional Democrats who could be pushing an aggressive message. Republicans continuosly push their message(s) and in so doing effectively define Democrats as they please, and put Democrats permanently on defense. It’s like they have the field to themselves.

    Honestly, why isn’t the DNC running an offense?

    Democrats are so bad at politics.

    1
  12. Barry says:

    ‘Fiscal Hawks’?

    2
  13. Grumpy realist says:

    Would like to point out that historically, great disparities in wealth don’t end up very well. See the French Revolution. Also that authority, once the illusion of it is broken, is hard to reinstate. (Martin Luther and the Catholic Church both learned this the hard way.)