We have an editorial up on the House speaker mess that posted before the outlines of the latest potential deal became public.
Politico Playbook has the rundown:
-
A one-member “motion to vacate”: The GOP leader appears to have finally acquiesced to a demand to lower the threshold needed to force a vote ousting a speaker to just one member. While McCarthy originally indicated that restoring the one-member “motion to vacate” was a red line, his allies now argue that there’s not a huge practical difference between this and his previous offer of requiring five members to trigger the vote.
-
Rules Committee seats for the Freedom Caucus: McCarthy is prepared to give the House Freedom Caucus two seats on the powerful House Rules Committee, which oversees the amendment process for the floor. (Some conservatives are still holding out for four seats on the panel.) There are also talks about giving a third seat to a conservative close to the Freedom Caucus but not in it — someone like Reps. THOMAS MASSIE (R-Ky.). Who will pick those members? We’re told there is ongoing haggling. Typically, it’s the speaker’s prerogative, but conservatives want to choose their own members for these jobs.
-
A vote on term limits: This is a key demand of Rep. RALPH NORMAN (R-S.C.), who has proposed a constitutional amendment limiting lawmakers to three terms in the House.
-
Major changes to the appropriations process: Fears of another trillion-plus-dollar omnibus spending bill have been a major driver of the conservative backlash to McCarthy. The brewing deal includes a promise for standalone votes on each of the 12 yearly appropriations bills, which would be considered under what is known as an “open rule,” allowing floor amendments to be offered by any lawmaker. Conservatives also won a concession to carve out any earmarks included in those packages for separate votes, though it’s unclear if they’d be voted on as one package or separately.
My take: The appropriations changes sound good and potentially important; the one-vote motion to vacate sounds extreme, but it’s a return to the rule prior to its change by Nancy Pelosi, and a McCarthy speakership would be fragile regardless; the vote on terms limits is just symbolism; and the committee seats are classic horse-trading, but that might not sit well with the rest of the caucus.
The good news for McCarthy is that if he gets this deal done, his vote count will go up. The bad news is that he will probably still be short, and if that remains the case, the clock is ticking to the moment when some of his supporters begin to get exhausted and want to try finding an alternative.