Republicans charge toward funding vote that appears destined to fail

House Republicans are charging full steam ahead with legislation to avert a government shutdown even though it appears destined for failure amid mounting GOP opposition.

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) — who is under heavy pressure to avoid a shutdown in the lead-up to Election Day — has shown no intention of changing his proposal despite complaints from conservatives, defense hawks and moderates in his caucus.

While Speakers of the House typically avoid bringing legislation to the floor that is doomed to fail, Johnson appears to see the vote as necessary to placate hardliners in his party who want to secure conservative wins in the near term, and are seeking to replace him as GOP leader next year.

“We’re going to put the SAVE Act and the CR together and we’re going to move that through the process,” Johnson told reporters Tuesday morning. “I am resolved to that. We’re not looking at any other alternative or any other step; I think it’s the right thing to do.”

“You all know how I operate: You do the right thing, and you let the chips fall where they may,” Johnson said when pressed on the package’s low chances of clearing the chamber. “So, we’ll see what happens.”

Johnson's effort was complicated on Tuesday by former President Trump who, hours before his debate against Vice President Harris, urged Republicans to vote against any short-term funding bill that does not secure “absolute assurances on Election Security,” a request that is certain to muddy the waters when the Speaker enters government funding negotiations with Senate Democrats down the road.

Johnson’s spending plan pairs a six-month continuing resolution (CR) with a Trump-backed bill that would require proof of citizenship to vote, titled the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act.

While that proposal was pushed by some hardline conservatives — including the Freedom Caucus — it is facing significant headwinds in the House GOP conference, and is all but certain to languish in the Democratic-controlled Senate, where Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has railed against the inclusion of "poison pills."

That makes meeting Trump's demand, absent a shutdown, a near impossibility.

In a nod to that reality, Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) warned against such a showdown.

“A government shutdown is always a bad idea — at any time,” McConnell told reporters at the Capitol when asked about Trump's remarks. 

The expected Wednesday vote on Johnson’s plan comes as at least eight Republicans have publicly announced that they will vote against Johnson’s spending plan, a group that includes fiscal hawks up in arms over the ballooning deficit and members of the House Armed Services Committee concerned about a six-month stopgap’s impact on the Pentagon.

A number of other Republicans — including at least one moderate worried about a shutdown threat — have said they are undecided or leaning no.

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 GOP conference’s border bill that cleared the House in May with only Republican votes.

“​​It’s time for House Republicans to up the ante in this spending fight. While the SAVE Act stops illegals from voting, why not stop illegals from being here in the first place? The CR should include the SAVE Act AND H.R. 2, the Secure the Border Act,” Davidson wrote on X.

If all Democrats vote no and there is full attendance in the chamber, Republicans can only afford to lose four of their members.

There were, to be sure, some glimmers of hope for Johnson on Tuesday. The proposal cleared a procedural hurdle with just two GOP defections — Reps. Matt Rosendale (Mont.) and Andy Biggs (Ariz.) — and moderate Democratic Rep. Jared Golden (Maine) announced that he would support the funding effort.

But the public GOP opposition is already sizable enough to tank the package, spelling trouble for Johnson’s prospects of passing the bill.

“The idea that we’re gonna continue to have frivolous spending that drives us over the cliff, I just can’t get behind that,” said Rep. Cory Mills (R-Fla.), who said he will vote against the stopgap but supported the procedural vote on Tuesday. “I’ve never voted on a CR and I never will.”

But even if his proposal were to squeak through the House, it is all but certain to languish in the Senate, Schumer and Appropriations Committee Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) have slammed the plan for its partisan nature.

The government funding proposal was widely seen as the Speaker’s opening offer in government funding negotiations that, like years in the past, are likely to end in a bipartisan CR. Some Republicans suggested the SAVE Act portion of the package could be up for negotiation if they could secure other priorities, such as a stopgap into next year rather than December.

“We can always figure out an off-ramp” if Republicans can initially unite behind a CR that includes the SAVE Act, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), the lead sponsor of the SAVE Act, told The Hill in an interview last week. “Is that a one-year CR? A CR into March? But it sure as hell shouldn’t be a CR into December.”

But Trump’s demand that Republicans reject any stopgap that does not “get absolute assurances on Election Security” throws a wrench into that strategy, daring Republicans — including Johnson — to hang on to the component that would all but likely prompt a government shutdown.

During a press conference Tuesday morning, Johnson refused to commit to keeping the SAVE Act in the government funding talks, telling reporters he would not “engage in conjecture.”

“I am in this to win this,” Johnson said. “I believe, as I just told you, this is a conviction I feel deep in my heart. I have been a co-sponsor of the SAVE Act from the beginning, and I think it's something we must do. That's why it's worth fighting for. I'm not going to engage in conjecture and try to game out all the outcomes.”

“I think this is something that we should do and that's what we're doing,” he added. “I told the conference that this morning, I'll say it here again. I am resolved on this, and I don't know what more I can say to show that conviction.”