Senate adopts budget framework for border, defense package in vote-a-rama

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans finally pushed through their blueprint for the first phase of President Donald Trump’s legislative agenda early Friday morning, after an all-night session that exposed some fissures in their ranks on issues such as cuts to health care and safety net programs.

But controlling 53 seats has its benefits, and GOP amendment losses never piled up high enough to put the measure in serious jeopardy given a budget resolution’s privileged nature, needing only a simple majority for adoption.

The 52-48 vote to adopt the fiscal 2025 budget resolution is the first step toward writing a filibuster-proof reconciliation package, which GOP senators want to use for appropriating more than $340 billion in military and immigration enforcement spending.

Senate Budget Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said his goal was for the bill to be fully paid for with cuts that other committees come up with in their jurisdictions, although there’s no binding requirement for more than $5 billion in offsets.

“We’re one step closer to fixing a problem that all Americans want us to fix,” Graham said, stressing the need for a quick infusion of border security resources.

But the framework would put off until later this year for lawmakers to try to extend Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, which are due to lapse after Dec. 31. House Republicans and Trump himself have rejected that approach as too risky, given the House’s thinner GOP margin.

The House is getting ready to vote next week on its version of a budget resolution that would allow tax cuts expanding the deficit by $4.5 trillion over a decade, along with $300 billion for border and defense spending. It would also create a filibuster-proof, $4 trillion debt limit increase, paired with spending cuts somewhere in the ballpark of $2 trillion — with a mechanism that could raise or lower the tax cut allowance if the cuts go above or below that target.

Just before the final vote, Senate Budget ranking member Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., summed up his side’s view of the entire GOP budget exercise: “Families lose, and billionaires win.”

No room for error

While Trump this week endorsed the “one big, beautiful bill” approach in the House’s framework, there’s no guarantee that House GOP leaders can adopt it, given that they have just one vote to spare on their side, assuming no Democratic support and all members present and voting.

The cuts envisioned in the House bill would target Medicaid, food stamps and other sensitive programs that have already drawn a backlash from more moderate GOP lawmakers. But if the level of cuts is lowered too much, it risks losing votes from the party’s right flank, including the hard-line Freedom Caucus, which negotiated for deeper cuts in order to get the measure through the House Budget Committee last week.

Even if Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and his whip operation can muscle their budget through the House, the Senate’s “vote-a-rama” late Thursday into Friday morning showed similar cracks in party unity, although easier to paper over given the extra vote cushion Republicans have in the Senate.

For starters, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who ultimately was the lone GOP “no” vote on the resolution, offered an amendment to increase the amount of required spending cuts in the eventual reconciliation bill to more than $1.4 trillion. He got just 24 votes, or less than half the Republican Conference.

Health care, tax jitters

On numerous, targeted amendments offered by Senate Democrats during the marathon voting session, there were typically one or two GOP defections. Although that wasn’t enough to successfully attach the amendments, the votes laid down markers that could not only show up in 30-second political ads, but influence the direction of the reconciliation process later.

Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Dan Sullivan of Alaska, both up for reelection next year, were among those who occasionally voted with the Democrats. So did Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., who’s more of a populist than many of his colleagues and has sought to paint himself as an ally of working-class voters. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, also voted for some Democratic amendments.

On the first vote of the evening, Collins backed an amendment from Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., expressing opposition to tax cuts for individuals earning over $1 billion.

Collins, who faces a potentially tough race in a blue-leaning state, also voted in favor of Democratic amendments such as:

—A Schumer amendment that would create a 60-vote hurdle to tax cuts for billionaires that are paired with cuts to Medicaid. Hawley joined Collins and the Democrats to back that amendment.

—An amendment from Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., intended to support maternal and pediatric health care services funded through Medicaid. Again, Hawley joined Collins.

—A Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., amendment opposing cuts to Medicaid nursing home benefits. Of note: Senate Finance Chairman Michael D. Crapo, R-Idaho, has specifically said his offset recommendation for the border package would be repeal of a Biden-era nursing home regulation.

—An amendment from Jack Reed, D-R.I., expressing opposition to any cuts to Medicare or Medicaid that would affect middle-class beneficiaries. Hawley also voted for it.

—An effort by Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., to put senators on record opposing cuts to school breakfast and lunch programs. Sullivan joined Collins on that amendment.

Many of the Democratic proposals weren't or were unlikely to be offered on the floor. While budget rules set no limit on the number of amendments that can be offered, senators usually cut their losses and end the vote-a-rama when their stamina runs out in the wee hours.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., had the second amendment after Schumer’s, a symbolic effort expressing opposition to tax cuts for billionaires if food prices keep rising. An effort by Klobuchar to waive a point of order by Crapo against her amendment fell short 48-52. Collins was the lone Republican to back Klobuchar’s amendment.

In another colorful example along those lines, Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., filed an amendment to create a reserve fund “relating to lowering the price of eggs for American consumers” by calling for the reversal of any cuts to programs or staffing dedicated to respond to the avian flu.

Republicans sought to downplay the amendments as political theater.

“Professional wrestling,” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said early Friday morning during floor debate. “All foam, no beer.”

But health care programs in particular drove a bit of a wedge through the Republican side of the aisle.

Schumer’s amendment on billionaires’ tax cuts and Medicaid drew a side-by-side amendment from Sullivan to try to give Republicans some political cover, expressing their backing for the “most vulnerable” beneficiaries in Medicaid and prolonging the life of the Medicare trust fund.

Senate Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said the Sullivan language was “code” for kicking slightly more well-off individuals off the Medicaid rolls. But the amendment was agreed to, and Schumer’s was not.