All Eyes on the House Republican Conference as Members Try to Pick a New Speaker
Jason Pye - Director, Rule of Law Initiatives
This week: The Senate is out this week and will return on Monday, October 16. The House is supposed to have votes at some point this week, likely Thursday, but that depends entirely on who Republicans choose to be the next Speaker and if that person can get a majority on the floor. Everything is really unpredictable until that happens. I’m traveling to Austin for a conference and will be there until Wednesday, but I’ll try to provide an update when I can.
What an f***ing week: The continuing resolution (CR) that passed on September 30 was a victory for House Republicans. It seemed that everyone had given up on the House’s ability to govern and that a government shutdown was imminent. The perception was Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) knew that the threat to his job was real, and he didn’t want to take the risk. He surprised everyone when he pushed a CR through the House hours before a shutdown. That CR cleared the Senate and was quickly signed into law. The following day, after weeks of threats, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) said he would file a motion to vacate the office of Speaker. The House went about its business on Monday and processed suspension bills. On Tuesday, the rule governing consideration of two appropriations bills was passed. Everything went to hell after. Immediately, after Gaetz made the motion to vacate. The expected motion to table failed. Then the motion to vacate passed after Gaetz and Reps. Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Ken Buck (R-CO), Tim Burchett (R-TN), Eli Crane (R-AZ), Bob Good (R-VA), Nancy Mace (R-SC), Matt Rosendale (R-MT) voted with every Democrat who was in the chamber. (I’m not blaming Democrats for this. They had very good reasons for what they did. Anyone who says otherwise is just being a hack.) The office of Speaker was declared vacant. Pursuant to Rule I, Section 8(b)(3)(A) of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the appointed Speaker Pro Tem, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC), took the gavel and adjourned into recess subject to the call of the chair. Looking at the Congressional Record, the House was still in the same legislative day on Wednesday and Thursday that it was on Tuesday.
The narrative for removing McCarthy doesn’t hold water: I’m not what you would call a fan of McCarthy, for various reasons, including the fact that ran to kiss Donald Trump’s feet after January 6 and defied a subpoena from the January 6 Select Committee. However, I believe McCarthy did the right and responsible thing when he cut a deal to increase the debt limit in exchange for cuts to discretionary spending. Some of the criticisms of that deal are valid (such the likelihood that rescinded dollars will be reallocated to appropriate at higher levels), but defaulting on our debt wasn’t an option. When the far-right resisted and pushed for even lower spending levels, McCarthy relented. This delayed the appropriations process. The last appropriations bill is supposed to be completed in the House on June 30. The first one didn’t pass until July 27. When the House returned from the August recess, which shouldn’t have been taken because of the delays and slow pace of appropriations work, the House worked through three more of the 12 appropriations bills and killed one of them. A CR was the next logical step. Yes, McCarthy made a lot of promises, publicly and privately. He knew that it was going to be extraordinarily difficult to deliver on those promises in a divided government. McCarthy set himself up to fail. Those on the far-right to whom he made promises also knew how difficult it would be to deliver on those promises. The far-right set McCarthy up to fail.
Further thoughts on discretionary spending and the appropriations process: When listening to the debate on the motion to vacate, I heard a lot of things during the debate about discretionary spending and the appropriations process that I want to put in context.
Complaint #1—We have a deficit because of Congress’s inability to cut spending: This is just wrong. I can’t say whether those who make the claim know it or not. If they do—and I don’t understand how they wouldn’t know—then it’s a lie. Discretionary spending is not the problem. In fact, discretionary spending is lower today (6.6 percent) as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) than it was in FY 2014 (6.8 percent). Discretionary spending is actually lower as a percentage of GDP today than it was in FY 1996 (6.7 percent) and only slightly higher than in FY 1997 (6.5 percent). Moreover, discretionary spending is projected to decline to 5.6 percent in FY 2033. Trust fund programs—Medicare and Social Security—and interest on the national debt are driving budget deficits. Look at the data from the Congressional Budget Office. It’s impossible to draw any other conclusion, and it’s flatly absurd to suggest otherwise.
Complaint #2—Congress hasn’t completed the appropriations process in 25 years: The last time Congress completed the appropriations process before the beginning of a new fiscal year was in 1996 for FY 1997. That’s true, but it also leaves out some details. Congress didn’t keep to the timetable in Sec. 300 of the Budget Act, so the process was behind. Several of the appropriations bills were completed, individually, and signed into law. However, Congress did package several appropriations bills together in an omnibus to complete the appropriations process. It’s also worth noting—and I haven’t seen anyone point this out—that the appropriations process has been completed before the beginning of a new fiscal year on October 1 only four times since FY 1977, the first year the related provisions of the Budget Act took effect. The fiscal years for which the appropriations process was completed before October 1 are FY 1977, FY 1989, FY 1995, and FY 1997. The closest Congress has come was for FY 2019 when five appropriations bills were passed before October 1. Not completing the process on time isn’t unique to the past 25 years. That has been the standard.
Complaint #3—We can’t govern by CR: Hey, I get it. CRs suck. You’ll get no argument from me. That being said, CRs have been enacted in all but three fiscal years since FY 1977. (Yes, three, not four.) There have been fewer CRs enacted in the past ten fiscal years than the previous ten. Actually, if you go back over the past 40 fiscal years, FY 2014 through FY 2023 represents the second-lowest total number of CRs in the 40 years reviewed. The highest number of CRs in a ten-fiscal-year period was 72, which occurred from FY 1994 through FY 2003. Congress hasn’t passed any appropriations bills in only two fiscal years, FY 2007 and FY 2013, and CRs were used in both of those fiscal years to fund the federal government.
Complaint #4—Omnibus bills are bad process and show the House is broken: Again, you’ll get no argument from me. Omnibus (or consolidated) appropriations bills are bad process. Do they show the House broken? In recent years, sure. I’ll point out again that Congress completed the appropriations process before October 1 of FY 1997 through an omnibus bill. Omnibus bills are all too often used to pass legislation that have nothing to do with appropriations, and that is a problem. However, the members who complain about this the most are often the ones who are directly responsible for the reliance on both omnibus bills and CRs. They won’t accept that, but it’s true. Hyperpartisanship has made it incredibly difficult to move appropriations bills because the far-right and the far-left have priorities that they know won’t become law, but they insist on them anyway. This is an exercise in political messaging that has made Congress such a miserable place. The fringes are more interested in grifting through messaging bills than actual serious legislating.
Complaint #5: We shouldn’t spend more money on Ukraine because of [insert reason]: Bipartisan majorities of both chambers support funding for Ukraine. Personally, I support funding for Ukraine. The so-called “America first” line that I hear when Ukraine funding is debated harkens back to a time when we sat idly by during the Holocaust. Moreover, the lack of understanding of the geopolitics when it comes to Ukraine just boggles my mind. We have to deter Russia because a) it’s the right thing to do and b) because China is watching how we and the rest of the West respond. If the West isn’t unified in support of Ukraine, that emboldens China, which has its sights set on Taiwan. That’s just a fact. It could have a crippling impact on our economy and the rest of the world. Unfortunately, too many far-right Republicans are busy echoing talking points straight from the Kremlin.
Anyway, here’s who’s running for Speaker: As of this morning, the only declared candidates for Speaker are House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH). Scalise has worked to court conservatives even before rising into the leadership. He was the chair of the Republican Study Committee (RSC), which, prior to the creation of the House Freedom Caucus, was the preeminent conservative caucus in the House. Scalise, who is being treated for blood cancer, is known as a conservative, but he’s pragmatic in his approach. Although Scalise is known as a good fundraiser, there are a lot of questions about his health, and that may be his biggest hurdle. Like Scalise, Jordan is a former RSC chair and a founder of the House Freedom Caucus. He has been one of the most vocal defenders of Trump, who has endorsed Jordan. He's not known as a prolific fundraiser, and his far-right politics may hurt him with moderates, although I’ve been told that he’s moderating himself as he angles for the gavel. Keep in mind that 18 House Republicans represent districts that President Biden won. Neither Scalise nor Jordan don’t have a clear path to a simple majority on the floor. Nathaniel Rakich of FiveThirtyEight is keeping track of public commitments in the race.
McCarthy may resign: The rumor is McCarthy may not finish his term. I sort of expected this. It’s difficult for a former Speaker to leave his post and go back to being a rank-and-file member. Newt Gingrich resigned after stepping down as Speaker. Denny Hastert stuck around for a little more than 11 months after his Speakership ended before he resigned. McCarthy didn’t last long, and he lost his job in a very public way. Resigning makes sense. If McCarthy does resign, the margins get a little tighter for whoever the next Speaker is.
Meanwhile, a bipartisan coalition has been floated by the House Democratic leader: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) urged his Republican colleagues to come to the table to form a bipartisan coalition to govern the House. This isn’t the first time that such an idea has been discussed, but it’s the first time that I’ve seen Jeffries openly float the idea. Here’s the thing. I don’t think it’s outside the realm of possibility, although the chances are slim. Moderate Republicans talked about the idea late last year in the event that McCarthy couldn’t land the votes to win the Speakership in January. Bitterness over moderate Democrats not coming in to rescue McCarthy, though, is real, and it’s not going away quickly. However, you do have to wonder how long moderates will wait until they begin to get nervous if Scalise and Jordan can’t get the votes to win on the floor. It’s more likely than not that they’ll see if another name emerges who can win the votes before they form a coalition with House Democrats, but you have to assume that the moderates’ patience has a limit.
Oh, and it would take a miracle to avoid another CR: LOL. Oh, yeah. Congress is currently operating under a CR that runs through November 17. Even if a new Speaker emerges this week, the House has made no progress on appropriations bills. Neither has the Senate. Absent some miraculous turn of events, we’re almost certainly looking at another CR.
Needless escalation against House Democrats: As I’ve already mentioned, House Democrats had logical reasons not to save McCarthy, least of all that the drama in the House Republican Conference isn’t their problem. McCarthy could’ve tried to make a deal with Jeffries to save his job, but he didn’t. Yes, it would’ve weakened him, but he would’ve been weakened anyway. The acting Speaker, Patrick McHenry, retaliated against Democrats for not saving McCarthy by evicting former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and former House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) from their Capitol offices. This is an escalation in our politics that we really don’t need right now and that will almost certainly lead to another escalation. This game has got to stop.
House committee schedule: There ain’t much happening this week. A couple of hearings on are on the calendar. I encourage you to check here if you want to see if any other hearings are noticed after I publish this week’s newsletter.
Just some quick thoughts about what’s happening abroad: Watching the events unfold in Israel and the Gaza Strip, I can’t help but think how our attention is so split between this and other international events (Russia’s idiotic war in Ukraine, the fighting between Azerbaijan Armenia, and all things China), as well as the unnecessary political drama here at home. There were questions about whether McHenry, in his role of acting Speaker, could receive intelligence briefings. I read this morning that McCarthy’s staff did receive a briefing on what happened in Israel, so at least they’re in the loop. At some point, the political class has to realize that nefarious actors are exploiting our political divisions, right? God forbid something terrible happens on our soil. The unity and patriotism that we saw after 9/11 is such a distant memory. Too many profit off the hyperpartisanship keeping us divided. Finger-pointing and conspiracy theories will almost certainly win out over patriotism and unity because those who benefit from the division can’t make money off of us coming together as a country.