WASHINGTON—House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) intends to move forward on a short-term government funding plan despite opposition from some Republicans that might doom the bill.
“I’m in this to win it,” Johnson said during a Sept. 10 press conference when asked about GOP opposition to the proposal.
The plan, which passed a procedural vote on the House floor in a mostly party-line 209–206 vote on Sept. 10, would extend the deadline to avert a government shutdown by six months to March 2025, a parliamentary measure dubbed a continuing resolution (CR). Government funding is due to expire on Sept. 30.
While there’s broad agreement in Congress on averting a shutdown before the election, the Republicans’ bill also includes legislation—the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act—that requires proof of citizenship to register to vote. Democrats have strongly opposed the measure, saying that existing laws already bar illegal immigrants from voting.
Since the plan was announced on Sept. 6, several members of the Republican conference have come out in opposition to it, citing concerns that the top-line funding figures are too high. With the GOP holding a thin majority in the House, the number of Republicans rejecting it is enough to tank the bill if there are not enough Democrats who vote in favor of the package.
The bill is expected to head to a floor vote on Sept. 11.
Democrat leaders have rejected the legislation, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) calling it “unserious and unacceptable” in a letter to House Democrats on Sept. 9.
It is unclear if the Democrat leadership has started actively whipping its conference against the measure. The Epoch Times has reached out to the office of Democrat whip Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) for comment.
The White House said on Sept. 9 that President Joe Biden would veto the stopgap bill if it were to reach Biden’s desk.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Sept. 10 also voiced his opposition to the legislation, indicating it’s unlikely to come to a vote in the upper chamber.
The House “should stop wasting time on a CR proposal that cannot become law,” Schumer said on the Senate floor, adding, “Instead, Republicans should work with Democrats on a bipartisan package that has input from both sides.”
Republican Objections
Rep. Cory Mills (R-Fla.) is one of the lawmakers who’s been outspoken against the bill. While he supports the underlying goal of the SAVE Act, Mills said that even if the bill were passed, there would not be enough time until the election for it to make a meaningful impact.
Mills said the bill would also continue Washington’s high spending without making consequential changes to the national debt and federal deficit.
“To say that this as an attachment to a CR is somehow going to do something is a farce,” Mills told reporters on the House steps on Sept. 9.
Mills said he suspects the bill doesn’t have enough support to pass, citing statements by other lawmakers.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) has also indicated his opposition to the SAVE Act, suggesting that it has no chance of actually becoming law.
Like Mills, Massie tied his opposition to economic considerations.
“The 6 month continuing resolution with the SAVE Act attached is an insult to Americans’ intelligence,” Massie said in a post on X.
“The CR doesn’t cut spending, and the shiny object attached to it will be dropped like a hot potato before passage,” he said, referencing the inclusion of the SAVE Act.
Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), Jim Banks (R-Ind.), Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), and Beth Van Duyne (R-Texas) have also publicly opposed the bill. Mills speculated that several other Republicans also likely oppose it.
Johnson Vows to Push Forward
In spite of these challenges from within his conference, Johnson said during a Sept. 10 press conference that he plans to move forward on the package.
Johnson discussed the importance he sees in pursuing the plan, noting that, given the thin margins of modern elections, even a few thousand votes from illegal immigrants could potentially change the outcome of elections and affect the composition of the Congress.
On the other hand, when asked if he would commit to bringing a “clean” CR to the floor later this month, Johnson said he wouldn’t engage in hypotheticals, potentially leaving open the possibility of a CR without the SAVE Act attached. A clean CR refers to a bill that solely extends government funding without the addition of other legislation or policies.
Other Republicans were more positive in their assessment of Johnson’s plan.
Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.), chief of the House Freedom Caucus, was critical of Johnson for failing to keep the members in Washington over the August recess but indicated he supports the proposal.
“That said, we find ourselves in the position we are,” Good told The Epoch Times. “I think the least bad thing we can do is to do a six-month CR that allows the will of the American people, as reflected on November 5, to determine how the government’s funded next year.
“I think attaching the SAVE Act should be bipartisan; five Democrats voted for it out of the House. Everybody ought to be in favor of limiting U.S. elections to just citizens,” Good said.
Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), a former chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, declined to commit to a favorable vote but indicated he was open to considering it—as long as the SAVE Act remains attached.
Perry recommended that Republicans “move that bill, pass it, and that’s it—that’s the last offer.”
Nevertheless, Perry said that he will wait until the text of the bill is released to make a final decision.
From The Epoch Times