Connect with us

Congress

After McCarthy ouster, GOP to consider new requirement for House leadership elections

Published

on

House Republicans are set to consider a variety of new internal rules proposals this week, including some proposals that tie back to the ouster of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

While there is a broader push to amend the one-member threshold needed to trigger a motion to vacate, there are also some GOP members aiming to make internal changes to their party’s leadership election moving forward. Republicans from the various corners of the conference have put forward their proposals for the 119th Congress, which will be considered this week when the party votes on its new rules package Thursday.

Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.) put forward a rules amendment that would require someone running for any leadership spot to have to resign from their present leadership post to seek another, the Florida conservative confirmed to Blue Light News this weekend.

If this proposed rules change had been in effect last October during the speakership race, it would’ve meant that a series of members who ran to replace former Speaker Kevin McCarthy would’ve needed to step down from leadership before seeking the top spot. They include Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.), Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.), Republican Policy Chair Gary Palmer (R-Ala.), and even now Speaker Mike Johnson, who was then the GOP conference vice chair.

The proposal would offer more opportunities for Republicans to move up the ladder, but risk stunting those with strong leadership ambitions.

Mast described it as a lesson learned from the speakership election that ensued after McCarthy’s ouster — and one he wants to fix for the future. At the time of the speakership elections last year, he criticized the party’s leadership: “I can tell you in this moment. … I would not support any member of our current leadership … Leaders lead. And that’s not taking place,” he told CBS News at the time.

The full list of amendments that directly relate to the GOP conference, which were due Thursday evening, has yet to be reported. But centrists also filed an amendment setting internal repercussions for Republicans who oppose a procedural vote that allows the party to bring a GOP bill to the House floor for a vote, which comes after multiple instances of conservatives blocking bills from even getting proper consideration — and thus sinking leadership policy priorities under both McCarthy and Johnson.

There are also discussions about changing the discharge petition, as POLITICO first reported.

There are several broader rules discussions underway including some that impact how the floor is governed. That includes a push by some to make it harder to attempt to oust a speaker.

While the majority of Republicans despise the tool that allowed Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) to lead a small cadre of Republicans in ousting McCarthy against the wishes of most in the GOP conference last October, there are some conservatives in the party who are expected to fiercely fight to keep the threshold. And thin vote margins could scramble plans to adjust it.

Jordain Carney contributed to this report.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Congress

Luna pushes to force a vote banning congressional stock trading

Published

on

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) said in a brief interview Tuesday that she’s pushing forward with a discharge petition to end run Speaker Mike Johnson and force a vote on a congressional stock trading ban.

The politically-explosive topic is still divisive within House Republicans, but broadly popular with the public. Luna said she’s done with waiting around for accountability on Capitol Hill.

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), who is working on the effort with Luna, said they are “tired” of the GOP leaders pushing off the legislation.

It’s just the latest internal GOP fight facing Johnson. Almost simultaneously Tuesday afternoon, Johnson faced a GOP revolt on the House floor over a procedural move involving legislation to regulate name, image and likeness compensation in college sports.

Continue Reading

Congress

Thune says abortion language a sticking point in health care talks

Published

on

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Tuesday that while bipartisan discussions are ongoing around the fate of soon-to-expire Affordable Care Act subsidies, abortion restrictions are a major sticking point.

“There are conversations that continue, but as you know the Hyde issue is a difficult and challenging one on both sides,” Thune told reporters.

The fight over the so-called Hyde Amendment, which bars federal funding for abortion, has been looming over any potential deal to extend the enhanced Obamacare tax credits. And GOP lawmakers, not to mention a cadre of influential anti-abortion groups, quickly noticed the White House’s framework was silent on the issue.

The White House ultimately held off on releasing that framework as it faced a mountain of GOP criticism from conservatives who felt caught off guard that Trump would back a two-year extension of the subsidies — even when paired with new income caps and other restrictions.

The Senate is expected to vote next week on a proposal from Democrats to extend the ACA subsidies, but Democrats haven’t yet detailed what bill they will put on the chamber floor.

Republicans are separately working on a potential counterproposal that would come from Sens. Mike Crapo and Bill Cassidy, chairs of the Senate Finance and HELP Committees, respectively. GOP senators also have yet to decide whether they’ll roll out that plan in time for a vote next week, though, and the substance remains in flux.

Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said Monday night that while efforts to reach a bipartisan agreement persist, many lawmakers believe they are ultimately headed toward a failed vote next week. Some senators are already looking at Jan. 30, the next government funding deadline, as the real cut-off for a health care deal.

“I don’t think we’re close to a 60-vote threshold yet,” Thune said of bipartisan health care talks.

There’s also uncertainty on the other side of the Capitol about how Republicans will respond to the looming expiration of the subsidies, which could cause premiums to skyrocket in the new year. Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters at his weekly press conference that he “didn’t commit to” a short-term extension during a closed-door House GOP members’ meeting Tuesday morning but that “there will be a Republican response to this.”

“What I’ve got to do is build consensus deliberately around the best ideas,” Johnson said. “We’re pulling those ideas together … I can’t project in advance what that will be because I don’t know what the consensus is in that room.”

Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Congress

Stefanik accuses Johnson of lying, ‘blocking’ her defense bill provision

Published

on

Rep. Elise Stefanik is taking aim directly at Speaker Mike Johnson over signals a provision she has championed won’t be included in the annual defense policy bill the House wants to pass next week — marking a notable and unusual split inside the House GOP leadership team.

Stefanik, a New York Republican who serves as a member of Johnson’s leadership team, said in a social media post Tuesday morning she would help tank the National Defense Authorization Act if it doesn’t incorporate her provision that would require the FBI to notify Congress when it opens investigations into candidates running for federal office.

“This is an easy one,” the New York Republican posted on social media Tuesday morning. “This bill is DOA unless this provision gets added in as it was passed out of committee.”

Stefanik also blamed Johnson for the expected omission.

“[T]he Speaker is blocking my provision to root out the illegal weaponization that led to Crossfire Hurricane, Arctic Frost, and more,” she wrote on X. “He is siding with Jamie Raskin against Trump Republicans to block this provision to protect the deep state.”

Stefanik’s proposal, which would require the public disclosure of all “FBI counterintelligence investigations into presidential and federal candidates seeking office,” is designed to combat what many Republicans consider politically motivated investigations related to Russian interference in the 2016 election and former special counsel Jack Smith’s probe into President Donald Trump’s efforts to subvert the election in 2020.

Asked about whether he thwarted the provision’s inclusion in the NDAA, Johnson said Stefanik’s retelling of events is “false.” He said he supported the provision and that there could still be a path for its passage in some other legislative vehicle.

“I don’t exactly know why Elise just won’t call me,” he said, recalling that he told his colleague over text, “What are you talking about? This hasn’t even made it to my level.”

Johnson explained the bipartisan leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, who he suspected have jurisdiction over this issue, had not agreed to include the language, leading to the provision being dropped from the defense bill. A spokesperson for Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary panel, deferred to Johnson’s explanation.

Stefanik quickly responded in another post on X, “Just more lies from the Speaker,” while insisting the Intelligence Committee, on which Stefanik sits, has jurisdiction over her provision.

Leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees have been negotiating the NDAA for weeks and could roll out a compromise package as soon as Thursday; Stefanik said in her social media post that she got early details of that package in an Intelligence Committee briefing.

The narrow GOP majority in the House means that Johnson can barely afford to lose any Republican support if Democrats reject the legislation en masse, but it’s far from guaranteed Stefanik’s opposition will doom the NDAA on its own.

While most Democrats opposed the hard-right version of the Pentagon bill the House passed in September, more Democrats might come on board to support a compromise measure and make up for a shortfall of votes on the Republican side of the aisle. The NDAA is typically a broadly bipartisan package.

Connor O’Brien contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Trending