House Fails to Pass GOP Government Funding Plan Amidst Controversial Voting Measure

https://icaro.icaromediagroup.com/system/images/photos/16352205/original/open-uri20240919-18-1xf3z4n?1726705246
ICARO Media Group
Politics
18/09/2024 23h18

The House of Representatives encountered a setback on Wednesday as they failed to pass a six-month GOP government funding plan. The bill included a controversial provision aimed at noncitizen voting, a measure championed by Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. This defeat not only highlights the divisions within the Republican party but also creates an opportunity for Speaker Mike Johnson to pivot to a Plan B as the looming threat of a government shutdown approaches. Speaker Johnson, however, has not yet disclosed his next steps.

With government funding set to expire at the end of the month, the House vote on the GOP funding plan concluded with a result of 202 to 220, with 14 Republicans voting against it, two Republicans voting present, and three Democrats voting for it. On Capitol Hill, a "clean" funding extension without the voting provisions attached is widely regarded as the only viable option to prevent a shutdown.

Notably, President Trump has been ramping up pressure for a shutdown if Republicans are unable to pass the voting measure – a demand unlikely to find support in the Democrat-led Senate. In a statement made on Truth Social earlier in the day ahead of the vote, Trump asserted, "If Republicans don't get the SAVE Act, and every ounce of it, they should not agree to a Continuing Resolution in any way, shape, or form."

Last week, Johnson withdrew a vote on the government funding legislation due to a significant number of House Republicans opposing the spending plan, effectively sinking it. However, the Speaker has been facing mounting pressure to address election security concerns as Trump continues to cast doubt on the integrity of the upcoming November elections.

Despite conversations with Trump regarding government funding, Johnson did not disclose his plans if the GOP funding proposal were to fail. He mentioned that he and Trump, along with their colleagues, have been working towards building consensus on the matter, emphasizing the critical importance of election security.

The six-month funding plan presented by House Republicans aimed to prolong government funding until March 2025. The proposal included the SAVE Act, a bill previously passed by the House in July. If enacted, the SAVE Act would require documentary proof of US citizenship to register to vote in federal elections, even though it is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in such elections.

Several Republicans have cautioned against a government shutdown, particularly in the lead-up to the election. Representative Mike Lawler of New York expressed confidence that there would be no shutdown, stating, "We are 47 days away from an election. There's not going to be a shutdown."

Senate GOP Whip John Thune remained cautious about the potential consequences of Trump's stance on a shutdown, stating that it is yet to be seen how events will unfold. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer emphasized the need for a bipartisan plan instead of the Speaker's proposed vote on the GOP funding proposal.

Amidst concerns about security following the recent apparent assassination attempt at Trump's Florida golf course, lawmakers are scrutinizing the funding and management of the Secret Service. Questions arise about the implementation of meaningful security improvements with the presidential election fast approaching. Schumer expressed willingness to allocate additional funds to the Secret Service if needed.

Additionally, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise revealed plans to make "minor" changes to a bill that would grant the same level of Secret Service protection to both presidential candidates, Trump and Democratic nominee Kamala Harris, as President Joe Biden currently enjoys. Scalise aims to bring the bill to the floor for voting this week.

As the situation progresses, this news story will be updated with further developments.

The views expressed in this article do not reflect the opinion of ICARO, or any of its affiliates.

Related