House Republicans want the Senate to adopt their budget blueprint and get the ball rolling on enacting President Donald Trump’s agenda. Senate Republicans have other ideas.

GOP senators made clear Tuesday they intend to revamp the House-approved framework for the sweeping domestic policy bill — most crucially, by putting their own stamp on the amount of spending reductions congressional committees would need to achieve to finance the package of tax cuts, border security enhancements and energy provisions.

It’s the latest sign that House and Senate Republicans are nowhere near resolving the major differences between their competing plans, allowing them to move forward on a filibuster-skirting reconciliation bill, which party leaders in both chambers want to pass in the coming months.

Both the House and Senate are eyeing the week of April 7 to finish work on the budget resolution — a necessary first step for the reconciliation process — before leaving for a two-week Easter recess.

“They said they needed time to do one big, beautiful bill,” Senate Budget Chair Lindsey Graham told reporters, referring to House Republicans. “They had a chance; the product is woefully inadequate.”

The differences between two chambers are numerous. Senate Republicans want to make expiring 2017 tax cuts permanent, while the House GOP blueprint does not, to name one key sticking point.

Top GOP leaders huddled at the White House Tuesday afternoon to start trying to narrow the gaps, and they appeared to make progress on one major front: Both Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune said they were moving toward including a debt limit increase in the package — something the Senate had been resisting.

“I think that’s clearly a preferable outcome,” Thune said, adding that he needed to “determine whether or not the Senate can get on board with that idea.” Johnson called it “everybody’s preferred outcome at this point.”

But another major source of tension remains: the $880 billion savings target that the House has identified for its Energy and Commerce Committee. Finding the necessary spending cuts would require the panel to make significant cuts to Medicaid, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicts. Johnson told reporters after the White House meeting that the two chambers are making progress toward an agreement on overall spending cuts.

Yet the House GOP budget has Republicans across Capitol Hill increasingly uneasy, and senators are clamoring to either adjust the Energy and Commerce number to protect the popular safety-net insurance program or get other guarantees from leadership that the resulting bill won’t cut benefits.

“I’m not going to vote for something that would lead to Medicaid cuts,” said Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who added that he would not vote for a budget resolution that includes the $880 billion target “unless there’s some guarantee we’re not going to cut benefits.”

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) added that he did not expect there to be a “mirror image” between the Senate’s reconciliation instructions and the House’s, saying the Senate would likely establish “minimum numbers” for spending cuts “and hopefully overachieve” with larger cuts.

Thune, in an interview, indicated that the Senate wouldn’t need to change the spending cuts goal the House budget resolution provided to Energy and Commerce, noting that’s an instruction for a House committee. Instead, echoing Tillis, he suggested that the Senate’s cost-savings instructions for its own panels won’t be one-for-one matches to their House counterparts. Senate Republicans also haven’t yet landed on a spending cut total that unifies them.

At the same time, Senate Republicans are facing skepticism from conservatives in their ranks who are raising public concerns that the House budget doesn’t go far enough on cuts. Some in that group have questioned why the House put such a large percentage of its cuts under Energy and Commerce, forcing the party into a Medicaid fight.

House leaders, meanwhile, are working to protect their framework from a total Senate overhaul. Johnson led fellow leaders and key committee chairs Monday in urging the other chamber to act on the House product, calling it “our opportunity to deliver what will be one of the most consequential pieces of legislation in the history of our nation.”

House Energy and Commerce Chair Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) said during a Washington Post event Tuesday the $880 billion savings goal for his committee is “realistic.”

He made the case that Republicans could reduce the federal share of payment for states that have chosen to expand Medicaid through the Affordable Care Act and not result in decreased benefits while also cracking down on eligibility verification.

“We’re going to spend more on Medicaid,” Guthrie said. “The question is the growth.”

But reducing the federal government’s cost share for Medicaid expansion enrollees is sparking pushback among both House and Senate Republicans. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told reporters recently he had floated this very idea, but there were roughly 20 House Republicans and at least four or five Senate Republicans opposed.

Tillis said lawmakers needed to be “careful” on making any changes to the federal government’s payment responsibilities, calling it “a backdoor way of affecting beneficiaries.” Reducing the federal government’s share could prompt states to reduce benefits or raise taxes or other revenues to fill the hole in their budgets.

Senate Republicans, he added, have only discussed adding new work requirements for Medicaid recipients as part of the reconciliation bill, which would not get lawmakers anywhere close to $880 billion in cuts.

“The president made it very clear when we met two weeks ago to not touch a single beneficiary,” said Tillis.

Asked about potential changes to social programs, Thune told reporters Tuesday his members would be focused on rooting out “waste, fraud and abuse.”

In an interview Tuesday, Guthrie said he had not been a part of any discussions about changing his committee’s savings goal and that there were other ways to find spending cuts.

Republicans on Energy and Commerce could, for instance, repeal climate policies enacted under former President Joe Biden. Rep. Bob Latta (R-Ohio), the panel’s Energy subcommittee chair, said that policies expanding commercial access to wireless technology spectrum could also create more savings than originally expected.

There are other sticking points Republicans in both chambers need to settle, including whether to “score” their reconciliation bill using an accounting tactic that will make the extension of the 2017 Trump tax cuts look like it costs nothing. Fiscal hawks don’t like that “current policy baseline” approach and consider it a gimmick. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) reiterated his concerns during the Senate GOP lunch on Tuesday, according to one attendee who was granted anonymity to describe private discussions.

The House budget also does not include instructions for Senate committees, meaning the Senate will have to make at least some changes to accommodate their own chamber’s panels.

Graham said the Senate’s objective is to take the budget resolution he shepherded through his committee and across the floor last month, allow Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo of Idaho to “do some stuff, taxes, that the president wants, and make a real shot at spending cuts here.”