A burgeoning spending deal reignites conservative fury just when Speaker Mike Johnson needs to avoid it.
With less than three weeks to go before the vote in the House of Representatives – when Johnson needs near unanimity at his conference to be re-elected – the Louisiana Republican released a three-month emergency bill during a closed conference on Tuesday morning. His past opponents were willing to reluctantly live with that plan last week, until Johnson in recent days began talking about expansions of the package, including economic aid for farmers and money for recent disasters.
While that combination is expected to unite Republicans — not to mention Democrats Johnson will have to avoid a holiday shutdown — it rattled conservatives determined to cut spending. Some declined to say Tuesday whether they will vote for Johnson as speaker next year, or whether the Louisianan will still be able to avoid a protracted battle for the gavel.
Freedom Caucus member Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), asked if he still believed Johnson would avoid a speakership fight, said: “I don’t know. They are angry about the product. …I like Mike. I am frustrated with the outcome.” Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Mo.) called the tentative spending deal a “total dumpster fire” and “garbage.”
Yet there is a feeling among Republicans that some conservatives needed to let off steam and support Johnson on January 3. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) did not respond when asked whether he would vote for Johnson, but blamed House Republicans for the package, adding “the conference itself owns this.” Another Conservative MP, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said a three-month emergency law was “not worth going to war over.” [Donald] Trump” — a reflection of Republicans’ belief that a long ballot would irritate the president-elect.
That dynamic will be crucial next year, when Republicans hope to make major policy changes on taxes, energy and the border. Johnson’s incredibly narrow margin means he has virtually no room for error as he tries to balance the demands of a conference with disparate demands and districts — a situation clearly illustrated by the spending battle. Republicans’ fear of Trump’s wrath could make Johnson’s near-impossible task significantly easier, but lawmakers may find the battle over those core priorities more worthwhile than a bailout fund.
Members of the House Freedom Caucus pressed Johnson on the upcoming spending bill, known as a continuing resolution or a CR, as he joined their weekly meeting Monday evening, as POLITICO first reported. Members of the group told Johnson they needed to see the bill text and asked what concessions he was making as part of the negotiations, according to two people present. One joked that it was a CR “that became a Christmas omni,” a reference to leaders who pushed through a massive spending bill known as an omnibus just before the holidays, a practice conservatives especially despise.
“It’s not an omnibus,” Johnson said at a press conference on Tuesday morning, when asked why this is still considered an emergency bill. “I have a few friends who will say that about every end-of-year activity. This is a small CR where we had to add things we had no control over. These are not man-made disasters. These are matters for which the federal government has the right role.”
If Johnson fails to get a majority of Republicans in the House of Representatives to vote for the spending deal, it could signal real problems for his vote as chairman. The speaker said he hopes for strong support from the Republican Party but shrugged off questions about his survival.
“I’m not concerned about the speakers’ votes,” Johnson said.
At least one longtime opponent brushed off questions about Johnson’s future on Tuesday. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), asked if she would vote for Johnson on Jan. 3, responded, “I’m not answering your ridiculous question, I’ve already publicly said I support him.”
It’s not just members of the ultra-conservative Freedom Caucus who are gritting their teeth over the spending deal. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), who says he plans to vote no, argued that they should vote separately on the various funding bills instead of one big bill — a common complaint from conservative Republicans.
“I think we’ve got emergencies tied to it, and now the farmers and disaster relief, all those things are so important, we should have individual bills that deal with those instead of lumping them into one terrible spending bill,” Burchett said Tuesday. that if members are “conservative, they will” oppose it.
Burchett added that when members brought these concerns to Republican Party leaders in the House of Representatives, “they got their clichéd answers.”
GOP appropriators harbored other kinds of frustrations. Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.) said the short-term fixes are a long-standing problem that don’t address the real problem: non-discretionary spending.
“My concern is the fact that we continue with this constant whining about appropriations,” Womack told reporters, noting that the “entitlement side of the ledger” drives much of government spending, but “there is no real effort being made to created to solve that problem.”
The senior appropriator added that the “clock is ticking” but that they “don’t have a plan.”
