Senate gets 'big, beautiful bill' moving toward Monday vote on passage

Senate Republicans late Saturday voted to begin debate on President Trump’s sweeping tax and spending package, kickstarting an effort to get the measure to his desk by July 4. 

The 51-49 test vote was a victory for Republicans after struggling Saturday to secure enough support to take that first step, holding the procedural vote open for almost four hours as GOP leaders negotiated with various holdouts. 

Vice President J.D. Vance waited in the Capitol prepared to break a tie, but ultimately he was not needed. 

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Alaska Republican, cast her “yes” vote nearly two hours in, while GOP Sens. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Mike Lee of Utah, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming and Rick Scott of Florida followed two more hours later.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said the legislation is poised to deliver on Republicans’ promises and “make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous.”

“Fifty-three members will never agree on every detail of legislation, let’s face it,” the South Dakota Republican said in a floor speech before the vote. “But Republicans are united in our commitment to what we’re doing in this bill – securing our border; strengthening our national defense; growing our economy; unleashing American energy; cutting waste, fraud, and abuse; and preventing tax hikes on hardworking Americans.”

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, is forcing Senate clerks to read the bill aloud on the floor before the chamber proceeds to up to 20 hours of debate, after which unlimited amendment votes can begin. That puts the bill on track for passage sometime Monday.

“Republicans won’t tell America what’s in the bill. So Democrats are forcing it to be read start to finish on the floor,” Mr. Schumer said.

Senate Republicans’ latest changes, unveiled late Friday night, moved some GOP holdouts to “yes,” while others who voted to proceed to the bill are withholding judgment on final passage.

“That does not mean in any way that I’m satisfied with the provisions in this bill,” said Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican. “I intend to file several amendments to it.”

For example, she said she plans to push a proposal to let the top tax rate for the highest income earners revert to 39.6%. The Senate proposal extends the current 37% top individual rate and lower rates for taxpayers of all income levels enacted during Mr. Trump’s 2017 tax cut bill.

Two Senate Republicans – Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Rand Paul of Kentucky – voted against the motion to proceed.

Mr. Trump remained publicly silent Saturday ahead of the vote, but the White House put out a statement saying he supports the Senate measure and warning Republicans that failing to pass it “would be the ultimate betrayal.”

The president quickly proved that true, attacking Mr. Tillis on social media after he cast his “no” vote.

“North Carolina will not allow one of their Senators to GRANDSTAND in order to get some publicity for himself, for a possible, but very difficult Re-Election,” Mr. Trump said.

He slammed the senator, who is up for reelection in 2026 and a top Democratic target, for effectively voting for a 68% tax increase, as that is that is what would happen if his first-term cuts expire, and against no tax on tips, overtime and Social security, among other GOP priorities in the bill.

“Thom Tillis is making a BIG MISTAKE for America, and the Wonderful People of North Carolina!” Mr. Trump said.

In a subsequent post, Mr. Trump said “numerous people” have offered to run in a GOP primary against Mr. Tillis and that he would be meeting with them over the coming weeks.

Mr. Tillis only cited one issue in his statement on opposing the bill: a Medicaid overhaul that would result in “tens of billions of dollars in lost funding for North Carolina, including our hospitals and rural communities.”

“This will force the state to make painful decisions like eliminating Medicaid coverage for hundreds of thousands in the expansion population, and even reducing critical services for those in the traditional Medicaid population,” he said.

Mr. Paul, concerned about the deficit impact, has broadcast his opposition to the bill for weeks, saying he would not support the measure unless a provision to raise the debt limit by $5 trillion was dropped.

It was not, so Mr. Paul voted against the motion to proceed on Saturday, despite golfing with Mr. Trump that morning. GOP Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Eric Schmitt of Missouri, supporters of the bill, also joined the president’s golf outing.

Mr. Johnson separately met with Mr. Trump on Saturday morning but throughout the day maintained his opposition to rushing the Senate bill to a vote.

He initially cast a “no” vote, but after joining in late-night negotiations with GOP leaders and fellow deficit hawks Mr. Lee, Ms. Lummis and Mr. Scott to secure more spending cuts, he flipped.

Mr. Lee, chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, had to withdraw a priority of his from the bill at the last minute due to challenges raised under the Senate rules and opposition from some of his GOP colleagues.

The dropped proposal would have required the Bureau of Land Management to sell 0.25-0.5% of the over 245 million acres the federal government owns to bidders interested in developing the land for housing and associated community needs.

Montana Republican Sens. Tim Sheehy and Steve Daines and Idaho GOP Sens. Sens. Mike Crapo and James Risch opposed the proposal and had planned to offer an amendment to strike it.

Mr. Lee had called their opposition “unfortunate,” citing changes he made “to accommodate most if not all of the concerns people had expressed.”

But in a statement on his decision to withdraw the proposal, Mr. Lee only cited the roadblock under Senate rules.

“Because of the strict constraints of the budget reconciliation process, I was unable to secure clear, enforceable safeguards to guarantee that these lands would be sold only to American families – not to China, not to Blackrock, and not to any foreign interests,” he said.

Despite all the challenges, Senate Republicans’ latest tweaks to the bill did win over some notable holdouts.

Sen. Josh Hawley, Missouri Republican, the most vocal critic of the Senate’s Medicaid changes, said Saturday he would vote for the bill on final passage. He cited updates that delayed implementation of a crackdown on state provider taxes and added a $25 billion rural health fund to provide relief for hospitals that would lose funding as a result.

The Senate measure would force most states to lower provider tax rates to no more than 3.5% if they want to use the revenue to pay for increased Medicaid payments to the same providers, which would inflate the cost of their Medicaid programs and the share the federal government must contribute.

The phase down of what is known as the “safe-harbor” limit, currently 6%, would not begin until fiscal 2028, with 0.5% annual reductions until it reaches 3.5% in fiscal 2032.

Mr. Hawley said Missouri’s provider taxes are low enough that the phase down wouldn’t hit them until 2030, but the state would begin receiving a portion of the rural health funding in 2028.

“In Missouri, we’re going to get an increase in overall Medicaid funds in this decade, which is good for us,” he said.

However, Missouri would still face hospital funding cuts after 2030.

“I don’t want those future cuts to take effect, and I’ll do everything I can in the next three years to see that they don’t,” Mr. Hawley said.

The Medicaid tweaks may be enough for Mr. Hawley, but are not for several House Republicans, who announced their opposition Saturday to the Senate’s stricter changes to the low-income health program.

“I will not support a final bill that eliminates vital funding streams our hospitals rely on, including provider taxes and state-directed payments, or any provisions that punish [Medicaid] expansion states,” Rep. David Valadao said.

Mr. Valadao led a letter earlier this week to GOP leaders that 15 other House Republicans signed. It said they oppose the Senate’s Medicaid overhaul and want to keep the House’s “more pragmatic and compassionate” approach.

Mr. Hawley, who also prefers the House version, did not rule out offering amendments on the floor to change the bill, but said he would vote for final passage either way.

The Senate is not expected to begin voting on amendments until Sunday night at the earliest.