Washington When the Republican Party secures a small majority in Congress next year, leading Republicans disagree on how to best promote key elements of President-elect Donald Trump’s agenda.
Trump and Republicans will have the chance to enact significant legislation in the incoming Congress without the assistance of Democrats through a process known as “reconciliation.” However, a key topic of discussion among top Republican leaders is whether the GOP would attempt to combine all of their main aims into a single package early next year or divide important subjects into two smaller bills.
Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith, R-Mo., the House’s top tax writer, is cautioning fellow Republicans against splitting the agenda into two bills. The first package would address energy and border security, while the second bill may extend Trump’s 2017 tax cut law.
Smith and his supporters are warning that postponing the tax legislation until later could compromise it, which is why they want a comprehensive package.
My objective is for us to succeed in securing the extension and permanentity of Trump’s tax cuts. That is my first priority. Smith told reporters shortly after leaving the House floor on Tuesday that he thought the best way to accomplish it was to pass a single, big package.
The decision will be made by others in higher positions, but I can assure you that I am skilled at garnering votes. I’ve had great luck obtaining votes. “I am the most knowledgeable member of the House on tax policy,” Smith added. Make it all into a single bill if they want to give me the best chance to approve the president’s tax package.
Just hours after incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., who has been advocating for the two-bill strategy, openly argued for it, the influential Ways and Means chairman made his remarks.
Thune told reporters, “I think it makes sense to move quickly on things we know we can do quickly, like border, defense, and energy.” Then, later this year, a new package would be presented that would handle the expiring Trump tax cuts as well as some of the savings that may be obtained by cutting the costs of various government programs, agencies, and bureaucracies.
But Thune responded, “I think we can do both.” There are a few distinct options available to us for a reconciliation package that will accomplish all of those goals.
Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., was asked by NBC News Tuesday if it would be better to cut taxes in the first package. He stated that Republicans are still deliberating on the order and that he will talk about reconciliation when he meets Trump this weekend at the Army-Navy football game.
Congress can adopt party-line spending and tax policies through reconciliation with a majority vote, avoiding the Senate’s 60-vote requirement for legislation. However, with only 220 House seats and 53 Senate seats available next year, almost all Republicans will have to cooperate if they want to win.
The speaker claimed he didn’t need to be reminded of the political disaster of 2017, in which Republicans unsuccessfully attempted to repeal the Affordable Care Act through reconciliation for seven months of Trump’s first year in office.
We’re debating the best play call in great detail right now. The order in which we execute those plays is what we’re now deciding,” Johnson stated. And it’s quite significant. Securing the border and preventing tax increases when some of the Trump tax cuts expire at the end of next year are our top goals, even though the House and the Senate have different ideas about how to go about it.
Trump said there would be two legislation during his appearance on NBC News Meet the Press on Sunday. There are many other things we have. I’ve received tax breaks. Trump informed moderator Kristen Welker, “You know, we’ll be submitting the extension of the tax cuts to Congress in either the first or second package.” Therefore, that may very well be included. Or it will arrive at a later time.
However, according to a Republican source familiar with the talks, the president-elect has told lawmakers that he wants to address border security within his first 30 days and postpone tax cuts through his two point people on reconciliation, Trump’s choice to head the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, and Stephen Miller, the incoming White House deputy chief of staff for policy.
Republicans have a number of challenges that lie beneath the division.
First, reconciliation proposals are limited to tax and expenditure issues by Senate rules. This implies that stricter asylum laws or regulatory restrictions may be removed.
The second is that Republicans hold a slim 220–215 House majority and have no realistic chance of gaining Democratic support. The resignations of former Representative Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., and Rep. Mike Waltz, R-Fla., who are anticipated to depart for positions in the Trump administration, are likely to further reduce that in the early months of Trump’s presidency.
It will be difficult in any case to secure almost all of the Republican votes. House GOP leaders may face a vote-count issue if it is anticipated that one or both bills will significantly increase the debt.
On the other hand, the GOP may have fewer options to reduce the budget impact of the second bill and have trouble getting votes for it if they split the bills up and spend their most important pay-fors on the first package of energy and border items.
Rank-and-file Republicans disagree about the right course of action as well. Rep. Warren Davidson, a conservative from Ohio, stated that he wants two packages: one for fiscal year 2025 and another for 2026. However, Andy Biggs, a Republican from Arizona and the former chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, is advocating for a single comprehensive reconciliation package, expressing concern that unanticipated events may prevent Republicans from even attempting a second one later this year.
The first time around, we ought to be completing the largest reconciliation package you can imagine. Biggs told NBC News on Tuesday, “I don’t think you even get the second reconciliation package.”
Biggs responded, “Well, for one thing, you had 30 extra votes in 2017 that you don’t have today,” when asked what would keep the GOP from taking another look at the application.
James Comer, R-Ky., chairman of the Oversight Committee, stated that one measure is preferable than two. He also mentioned that Biggs, himself, and now-Speaker Johnson were all new lawmakers in 2017.
Additionally, Energy and Commerce Committee member Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., stated that he supports Ways and Means chair Jason and favors a single package.
In an interview, Walberg stated, “I don’t fear doing one package at all, but I think we ought to do it immediately.” “I believe that the American people voted in that manner because they wanted tax cuts and border control.
Ways and Means Committee member Rep. Greg Murphy, R-N.C., stated that he had no strong feelings about either strategy and that Republicans would find sufficient savings by reducing waste and careless spending from the previous four years of the Biden administration.
Is it two against one? The reasoning behind that makes sense to me. Murphy stated, “You want a win up front.” I see both sides. At this moment, I don’t have a preference.
Note: Every piece of content is rigorously reviewed by our team of experienced writers and editors to ensure its accuracy. Our writers use credible sources and adhere to strict fact-checking protocols to verify all claims and data before publication. If an error is identified, we promptly correct it and strive for transparency in all updates, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!