House Republicans are pushing ahead with a bill to avert a government shutdown, despite it appearing doomed to fail amid growing GOP opposition.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana), who is under intense pressure to avert a government shutdown ahead of Election Day, has not indicated he plans to change the proposal, despite complaints from conservatives, defense hawks and moderates in his party.
While the Speaker of the House normally avoids introducing bills that are sure to be defeated, Johnson appears to believe the vote is necessary to appease hard-line members of his party who want to ensure a conservative victory in the near future and who want to succeed him as Republican leader next year.
“We're going to combine the SAVE Act and the CR and move forward with that process,” Johnson told reporters Tuesday morning. “That's my commitment. I'm not looking at other options or other avenues. I think this is the right way to go about it.”
“You know how I would act: I would do the right thing and accept whatever the consequences are,” Johnson said when asked about the unlikely chance of a warhead passing through the chamber. “So we'll see what happens.”
Johnson's efforts were complicated by former President Trump's urging Republicans on Tuesday, hours before his debate with Vice President Harris, to vote against any short-term funding bill that doesn't ensure “absolute guarantees about election security” — a demand that is sure to confuse Johnson as he enters upcoming government funding negotiations with Senate Democrats.
Johnson's spending plan combines a six-month continuing resolution with the Protect American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, a bill backed by Trump that would require proof of citizenship to vote.
The proposal is being pushed by some hardline conservatives, including the Freedom Caucus, but it faces significant headwinds in the House Republican Conference and would almost certainly struggle in the Democratic-controlled Senate, where Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York is vehemently opposed to the “poison pill” measure.
This means that meeting President Trump's demands will be nearly impossible without a government shutdown.
Acknowledging that reality, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) warned against such a showdown.
Asked about Trump's comments, McConnell told reporters at the Capitol that “shutting down the government is always a bad idea, no matter what time it is.”
Wednesday's vote on Johnson's plan is expected to come after at least eight Republicans have publicly said they will vote against his spending plan, a group that includes fiscal hawks infuriated by the ballooning deficit and members of the House Armed Services Committee who worry about the impact a six-month stopgap measure would have on the Pentagon.
Several other Republicans, including at least one moderate lawmaker concerned about the threat of a government shutdown, are undecided or have expressed opposition.
Adding to Johnson's dilemma, Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) on Tuesday called for the spending package to also include H.R. 2, the House Republican Conference border bill that passed the House in May with only Republican votes.
“It's time for House Republicans to up the ante in the fight over spending. The SAVE Act stops illegal immigrants from voting, but why not stop them from being here in the first place? The CR should include the SAVE Act and HR2, the Border Security Act,” Davidson wrote on X.
If all Democrats voted against it and the chamber was unanimous, Republicans would only lose four senators.
To be sure, there were some glimmers of hope for Johnson on Tuesday: The proposal cleared procedural hurdles with only two Republican defectors, Reps. Matt Rosendale of Montana and Andy Biggs of Arizona, and moderate Democratic Rep. Jared Golden of Maine announced he supports the funding effort.
But Republican opposition is already strong enough to derail the bill, casting doubt on Johnson's prospects for passing it.
“The idea of continuing wasteful spending that is going to destroy us is just unacceptable to me,” said Rep. Corey Mills (R-Fla.), who voted against the stopgap measure but voted in favor of Tuesday's procedural vote. “I have never voted for CR and I never will.”
But even if his proposal narrowly passes the House, it is almost certain to face difficulties in the Senate, where Schumer and Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray (D-Wash.) have blasted the plan for its partisan nature.
The budget proposal is widely seen as the chairman's first proposal in government budget negotiations that are likely to end in a bipartisan CR, as in past years. Some Republicans have suggested that the SAVE Act portion of the package could be up for negotiation if they can secure other priorities, such as a stopgap measure until next year instead of December.
“If Republicans can unite behind a CR, including the SAVE Act, first, we can always find a way out,” Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), the lead sponsor of the SAVE Act, told The Hill in an interview last week. “Is it a one-year CR? Is it a CR through March? But it certainly shouldn't be a CR through December.”
But Trump's demand that Republicans reject any stopgap measures that “do not provide absolute guarantees about the security of our elections” undermines that strategy and challenges Republicans, including Johnson, to stick to the provisions that would most likely lead to a government shutdown.
At a press conference on Tuesday morning, Johnson refused to commit to keeping the SAVE Act in the government's funding negotiations, telling reporters he would “not engage in speculation.”
“I'm in this business to win,” Johnson said. “As I said, this is a belief deep in my heart. I've been a co-sponsor of the SAVE Act from the beginning and I believe this is something we need to do, and that's why this bill is worth fighting for. I'm not going to speculate or predict every outcome.”
“I think this is what we should be doing and what we're doing right now,” he added. “I said in the meeting this morning that I would say it here too. I'm firm on this and I don't know what more I can say to demonstrate that belief.”
