Paths for Ukraine Aid Through the House
All Options Are Fraught With Peril – Why Not Choose the Easiest Path?
By Mark Strand
Speaker Mike Johnson has committed to bringing up a military aid package for Ukraine and Israel. He has several paths to accomplish this goal, but none are without political consequences.
Marjorie Taylor Greene seems intent on offering her motion to vacate the Speaker’s chair, calling Johnson everything from the “Speaker of the Uniparty,” a Democrat, and a Mitch McConnell Republican. She was undoubtedly envious of the attention Matt Gaetz got when he successfully triggered a motion to vacate against Speaker Kevin McCarthy and sees this as her attempt to audition for Trump’s vice-presidential pick. That won’t happen, but Ms. Greene has never been described as an astute observer of political strategy.
Nonetheless, because the Republican margin in the House is so tiny, any action Johnson takes is fraught with personal political peril. G.K. Chesterton wrote, “Courage is almost a contradiction in terms. It means a strong desire to live taking the form of a readiness to die.”
Courage is needed as Johnson will likely face a motion to vacate no matter what course he chooses. What action will most likely accomplish his goal of aiding U.S. allies while surviving as Speaker? If he were a strong Speaker, he would take the actions I suggested last week, including replacing the Rules Committee with loyalists and then passing a House Rule to abolish the ability of a single Member to offer a motion to vacate. But for the sake of this column, let us assume he does not.
First, he can do nothing. But this is the most dangerous course of all. Given Republican dysfunction, another vote will come along that inspires a member of the lunatic fringe to offer a motion to discharge. With the one-vote margin Republicans have, it will only take two Republicans to join all the Democrats to remove Johnson from his job. If the Democrats cannot get a vote on aid to Ukraine on the Floor, they would have no loyalty to Johnson and, therefore, no reason to save him.
Second, he can make a deal with the Democrats to bring the Senate-passed bill through the Rules Committee with the support of the Democratic Members of that Committee. The margin on the Rules Committee is 9 Republicans and 4 Democrats. Remember that Speaker McCarthy agreed to let three far-right conservatives onto the Rules Committee. The three frequently block Johnson (as they did McCarthy before him) by voting with the Democrats against the special rule Johnson is trying to pass, making the vote 6-7 against the Speaker. If the Democrats on the Committee vote with Johnson, the measure would pass 10-3. That would allow the Senate military aid package to go to the House Floor, where it would only need a simple majority to pass.
This would also have the advantage of not requiring another vote by the Senate. While Senate support for Ukraine remains strong, Democratic support for aid to Israel is declining – and the recent accidental bombing of an aid convoy in Gaza did nothing to reverse that trend.
A variation on that would be to allow Johnson to make a few changes designed to gain additional Republican support. More than anything, Johnson wants to see most of his Republican Conference vote for final passage. He has explored several ways to sweeten the package by making some or all the aid available to Ukraine through loans. Loans were suggested by former President Trump, giving Johnson some cover with the party populists. These loans would be interest-free and waivable by the President, meaning the impact on the aid package would be minimal. The Democrats could accept this provision easily.
Johnson might also seek to attach the bipartisan REPO Act to the aid package. Under this bill, President Biden would be authorized to sell off seized Russian assets to help rebuild Ukraine. The U.S. only holds $7-8 billion in Russian assets. The real money is in Europe, where Belgium alone has over $200 billion in frozen Russian assets. Some detractors are concerned about other countries retaliating against American assets. Some also see returning these assets as a critical inducement for Russia to negotiate peace in Ukraine seriously. Still, there is an appeal; making Russia pay for Ukraine’s defense is a lot like getting Mexico to pay for the border wall. Maybe this could provide some cover for a handful of Republican votes.
Finally, Johnson has suggested restoring the export of Liquified Natural Gas Exports. The issue is closely linked to Russia’s war on Ukraine. Following the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, most European countries put a ban on importing natural gas from Russia. It caused a surge in inflation on their own populations. Europe overcame that hardship by importing liquified natural gas from the United States and others. This was a win/win proposition for all involved. Europe broke Russia’s ability to blackmail them by cutting off vital energy supplies, and America developed a profitable market.
Inexplicably, the Biden Administration cut off LNG Exports to Europe earlier this year because of the climate change fanatics in his Administration – even though natural gas burns more cleanly than alternatives like coal. Unless President Biden explicitly signs off on including Johnson’s provision, it would be hard for Democrats to support it in the Rules Committee. And it would open the legislation to a new round of debate in the Senate. A compromise might be to include the removal of the LNG ban as an amendment to the military aid bill. It would likely receive a bipartisan majority, and Biden could tell Senate Democrats to let it go through.
The Democrats want the Senate military aid bill voted on. It is questionable whether they would allow their Rules Committee Members to support a special rule that included these provisions or a reduction in the aid package. Unless the Speaker reconstitutes the Rules Committee, he would have to bring up these bills under the Suspension of the Rules, just as he did with the recent appropriation bills. Passage requires 290 votes. If Johnson could get 109 Republicans – a majority of the majority – he would still need 181 Democrats to support the legislation, meaning he could only lose 31 Democratic votes. However, Democratic support for aid to Israel has been fading. Getting 181 Democrats to support the legislation might not be a slam dunk. However, it should be noted that 190 Democrats have signed a discharge petition to bring up aid to Ukraine and Israel for a vote. More on that later.
Unless the Speaker reconstitutes the Rules Committee, the above scenarios will induce Rep. Greene’s motion to vacate against Speaker Johnson. The question is, would the Democrats join Rep. Greene and her merry band of lunatics or refuse to participate in the vote, effectively protecting Speaker Johnson? It would be risky for Johnson to rely on the Democrats to keep his job, but given his margins, it is probably necessary.
Of course, the Democrats may not be very reliable partners. Imagine the pressure on Democrats if the pro-abortion lobby makes removing Johnson, a dedicated pro-lifer, a key vote. Democrats who think their base cares more about abortion than aid to Ukraine might hesitate to support Johnson. A lot would depend on the commitment given by Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries to Johnson and his integrity following the vote.
The other way to get Ukraine aid to the Floor is through the Discharge Petition. There are two competing petitions, one offered by the ranking Democrat on the Rules Committee, James McGovern of Massachusetts, and one offered by moderate Republican Brian Fitzpatrick that provides less military aid and includes provisions to secure the Southern border of the U.S. While Fitzpatrick’s provision does provide some cover for Republicans who want to be identified supporting Ukraine, it is unlikely to gain anywhere near a majority.
McGovern’s discharge petition, however, would have a reasonable chance of success, especially if Speaker Johnson, while not openly supporting it, makes it clear that he does not object to Republican members signing it. Former Speaker John Boehner did this on a discharge petition to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank in 2015, which was bottled up in Committee by Finance Committee Chair Jeb Hensarling. Boehner looked the other way while most of his Conference signed the petition. This was the last successful discharge petition.
McGovern has 191 signatures for his petition and needs 25 more to succeed. Most likely, all of those would have to come from Republicans. However, this is a cumbersome process, and while possible, it is likely a strategy for the military aid bill if all other attempts fail. Could it work? Yes. But it will likely take until at least May for that to happen.
Where does this leave us? The easiest way, and probably the way that offers Speaker Johnson the best prospects for survival, is for an overt deal with Hakeem Jeffries to bring up the Senate bill in the Rules Committee with the support of the six Johnson loyalists and the four Democratic Members. The legislation would then go to the Floor, where only a simple majority is needed. It would take Jeffries committing that his Caucus would not support Rep. Greene’s motion to vacate.
This leaves Mike Johnson in a mixed position. He will have accomplished his most significant agenda items, including passing all the appropriation bills and securing military aid for Ukraine and Israel. He will have accomplished all of that with bipartisan votes—something most of the country is probably happy to see. Johnson will be targeted by the Marjorie Taylor Greenes of the world, but that is a threat he will face on any number of issues for the remainder of his Speakership.
It is helpful to remember the words of the late Henry Hyde of Illinois, a beloved Member of the House. He spoke to every freshman class of new Members elected to Congress. He said:
“Members of Congress need to be at least as clear on the reasons why they would risk losing as they are on the reasons why they wanted to come here in the first place.”
Hyde’s advice is the definition of principle. It involves putting your integrity above your desire to be reelected. In truth, Congress has become so dysfunctional that most Members rarely must take such a vote. Whether you agree with him or not, Speaker Mike Johnson is a man of deeply held principles. He should do his best to secure bipartisan passage of the military aid package and then stand on principle. I suspect he holds on to his Speakership, but if not, he can be proud that he stood on principle in the face of threats from people with far less integrity than he has.
I don't think Johnson can make a "deal" with Jeffries over a motion to vacate - that would be a political killer - but there is more than one way to skin that cat.