‘Jury’s still out’: How will Missouri, Kansas lawmakers vote on deal to avoid default?

Sen. Roger Marshall said Tuesday he doesn’t know if a deal to raise the debt ceiling does enough to combat the national debt, leaving it uncertain whether the Kansas Republican will support the compromise less than a week before the United States is expected to default on its financial obligations.

Some of the Kansas City area’s congressional delegation have so far not taken a firm public position on the deal negotiated by Democratic President Joe Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, a California Republican, even with a vote expected in the House on Wednesday and, if the measure passes, in the Senate later in the week.

“I think the jury’s still out. I think we’re still breaking it apart and trying to see what’s in it and what’s not in it as well,” Marshall told reporters after an unrelated event in Kansas City, Kansas.

The Biden-McCarthy deal would suspend the debt ceiling until January 2025, after the next presidential election. The debt ceiling is the maximum amount of money the federal government is authorized to borrow in order to pay for already-approved spending. The bill also includes spending restrictions and expanded work requirements for food assistance, among other provisions.

Experts anticipate a potentially severe recession could occur if the United States runs out of cash and can’t pay its bills on time. A default also raises the prospect that federal workers may not be paid on time. At least 27,000 people in the Kansas City area work for the federal government.

Sen. Eric Schmitt, a Missouri Republican, said he has concerns about the bill and needs to “dig deeper.”

But Sen. Josh Hawley, Missouri’s senior Republican senator, said he opposes the deal because it doesn’t do anything to address “our structural and massive trade imbalance, particularly when it comes to China.”

“I think until we get serious about that, we can talk about fiddling with this or that set of numbers but until we get serious about really correcting that imbalance and bringing back jobs and industry, we’re not going to make the change that we need to see,” Hawley told The Star.

Marshall predicted the bill he will ultimately vote on will be different than the negotiated legislation and expected that amendments will be offered. The House Rules Committee met Tuesday to set parameters for the House debate, including for amendments.

Some House Republicans oppose the deal, meaning the bill will need Democratic support to pass the House. But House Democrats are still weighing how they will vote. Some members are openly saying they believe the deal gave too much to Republicans.

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a Missouri Democrat, said he told the Democratic caucus that he felt the bill is unfair to poor people, because imposes new work requirements on people who qualify for the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as “food stamps.”

Under the proposal, the upper age limit for SNAP work requirements would increase from 49 to 54. But the provision expires, bringing the maximum age back down to age 49 five years later, in 2030.

He said he tried to convince himself to vote against the bill, but felt the cost of default would be too high.

“I guess there are people who would like to say, ‘well, but you got to stand up for your principles,’” Cleaver said. “I think a lot of people are interested in principal and interest.”

Rep. Sharice Davids, a Kansas Democrat, was supportive of the deal, saying that after growing frustrated watching “partisan politicking and gamesmanship” she was glad McCarthy and Biden were able to put together a package that would allow the country to avoid default. But she stopped short of explicitly saying she would vote for the bill.

“I do need to continue to dig into the specifics,” Davids said. “We were provided the language and I’m currently going over that with my team.”

Underscoring the need for Democratic votes, some conservative lawmakers on Tuesday began rejecting the bill. Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, announced he won’t back the deal and will instead sponsor an amendment in the Senate with his desired spending cut.

Members of the House Freedom Caucus, a far-right outpost of House Republicans, held a press conference outside the Capitol rejecting the compromise and urging members of their party to sink the bill, just days before the country could default on its debt.

Pressed on what needs to be in a bill to win his support, Marshall said the “bottom line” is he is still concerned about the national debt, which totals about $31.8 trillion, and the roughly $500 billion in annual interest payments on it.

“I don’t know if this bill addresses that adequately enough – that we cannot just sustain this particular rate,” Marshall said.

Several Republican lawmakers from Kansas and Missouri were quiet on where they stand, three days after it was announced and two days after the text of the bill was published.

Rep. Mark Alford, a freshman Republican from Missouri was still weighing whether to support the bill, but that he felt McCarthy had done the best he could to secure a good deal.

Missouri’s other freshman Republican, Rep. Eric Burlison, said he would oppose the bill. He had previously signed a letter urging McCarthy to stand firm behind a more conservative bill passed earlier this month.

Some voiced support Tuesday. Rep. Ron Estes, a Wichita Republican, told the House Rules Committee that he supports the bill, saying he is fighting for “fiscal sanity, cutting wasteful spending and promoting economic growth.”

“This is the start of changing that trajectory,” Estes said.

Rep. Ann Wagner, a Missouri Republican, said late Tuesday she was leaning yes and liked a lot of the procedural changes the bill made, while Rep. Mark Alford, a freshman Republican from Missouri was still weighing whether to support it.

Rep. Jason Smith, a Missouri Republican who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee, told the House Rules Committee that the debt ceiling should be a mechanism that forces negotiations and that “it’s a shame that it took this long for the president to do the responsible thing.”

The agreement would keep non-defense spending roughly flat in the 2024 fiscal year and increase it by 1% the following year. For the next fiscal year, the bill matches Biden’s proposed defense budget of $886 billion and allots $704 billion for non-defense spending.

The bill requires Congress to approve 12 annual spending bills or face a snapback to spending limits from the previous year, which would mean a 1% cut.

The bill also claws back about $30 billion in unspent COVID-19 relief funding and rollback $20 billion in increased enforcement funding for the Internal Revenue Service.

The Associated Press contributed reporting