The Democratic-controlled Senate, which intends to take up a far larger foreign aid and border package soon, will face a direct challenge from House Speaker Mike Johnson (R., La.), who plans to bring legislation giving Israel $17.6 billion for military supplies and missile-defense systems up for vote next week.
Republicans in the House had already made it plain that the Senate plan would face significant opposition in the GOP-controlled House, even in the event that it managed to pass the Democratic-controlled chamber. Anticipated for publication this weekend, the Senate plan includes significant modifications to U.S. immigration laws in addition to help for Taiwan, Ukraine, and Israel.
Johnson said in a letter to colleagues on Saturday that the Senate had not engaged the House in talks about their expansive bill. He claimed the House will "continue to lead" by bringing up and enacting a limited package that was just focused on aiding Israel, adding that "they have destroyed the opportunity for rapid consideration of any legislation."
"The House must exert its will on these matters and attend to our priorities, as I have said time and time again over the last three months," Johnson wrote.
The letter emphasizes how difficult it is becoming to enact national security legislation, even in the unlikely event that the Democratic-controlled Senate votes a package through 51 to 49 next week.
This weekend will see the unveiling of the legislative language for a national security package, according to Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.). Before deciding whether or not to support the deal, a number of Republicans have said that they must first read the legislative language. Normally, legislation requires 60 votes to pass the Senate, but this time, Republicans have said that they would not provide the necessary votes until at least 25 Republicans, or half of the Senate GOP conference, vote in favor of the legislation.
The $14.3 billion package that the House approved in early November, just after Johnson assumed the majority, is less than the latest proposal from Johnson. Additionally, it would not include the financial reductions for the Internal Revenue Service that Republicans suggested in order to finance the package. Democrats ridiculed the offset, arguing that slashing the IRS's financing would actually result in lower tax receipts for the government. Republicans chastised Johnson for the clause as well, claiming it provided Democrats with political cover to vote against help that a significant portion of the Democratic base favored.
Johnson said that Democrats "made plain throughout the House debate and in countless subsequent remarks that their principal problem to the original House plan was with its offsets." "The Senate will no longer accept any justifications, no matter how misplaced, for delaying the timely approval of this vital assistance for our partner."
Under the previous law, Congress had given money to assist the IRS upgrade its technology, enforcement, and customer service. Instead, the GOP would have used the money to pay for aid to Israel. Reducing IRS funding would make it more difficult for the agency to identify tax evaders, and the Congressional Budget Office estimated that doing so would result in a $26.8 billion drop in federal tax collection over the course of ten years.
Republicans in the House had already made it plain that the Senate plan would face significant opposition in the GOP-controlled House, even in the event that it managed to pass the Democratic-controlled chamber. Anticipated for publication this weekend, the Senate plan includes significant modifications to U.S. immigration laws in addition to help for Taiwan, Ukraine, and Israel.
Johnson said in a letter to colleagues on Saturday that the Senate had not engaged the House in talks about their expansive bill. He claimed the House will "continue to lead" by bringing up and enacting a limited package that was just focused on aiding Israel, adding that "they have destroyed the opportunity for rapid consideration of any legislation."
"The House must exert its will on these matters and attend to our priorities, as I have said time and time again over the last three months," Johnson wrote.
The letter emphasizes how difficult it is becoming to enact national security legislation, even in the unlikely event that the Democratic-controlled Senate votes a package through 51 to 49 next week.
This weekend will see the unveiling of the legislative language for a national security package, according to Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.). Before deciding whether or not to support the deal, a number of Republicans have said that they must first read the legislative language. Normally, legislation requires 60 votes to pass the Senate, but this time, Republicans have said that they would not provide the necessary votes until at least 25 Republicans, or half of the Senate GOP conference, vote in favor of the legislation.
The $14.3 billion package that the House approved in early November, just after Johnson assumed the majority, is less than the latest proposal from Johnson. Additionally, it would not include the financial reductions for the Internal Revenue Service that Republicans suggested in order to finance the package. Democrats ridiculed the offset, arguing that slashing the IRS's financing would actually result in lower tax receipts for the government. Republicans chastised Johnson for the clause as well, claiming it provided Democrats with political cover to vote against help that a significant portion of the Democratic base favored.
Johnson said that Democrats "made plain throughout the House debate and in countless subsequent remarks that their principal problem to the original House plan was with its offsets." "The Senate will no longer accept any justifications, no matter how misplaced, for delaying the timely approval of this vital assistance for our partner."
Under the previous law, Congress had given money to assist the IRS upgrade its technology, enforcement, and customer service. Instead, the GOP would have used the money to pay for aid to Israel. Reducing IRS funding would make it more difficult for the agency to identify tax evaders, and the Congressional Budget Office estimated that doing so would result in a $26.8 billion drop in federal tax collection over the course of ten years.
