Speaker Johnson Cannot Lead Until the House Changes the Motion to Vacate
Four Representatives Can Hold the Speaker Hostage on Any Vote
By Mark Strand
The House of Representatives is in a thorny thicket with action needed on two enormous issues: the entire appropriations process and military aid to Ukraine and Israel. And the whole world is watching. To get anything done, the House must change the rules to eliminate the ability of a single Member to offer a motion to remove the Speaker.
Members of his party have already threatened Speaker Mike Johnson with a Motion to Vacate if he takes the actions needed to pass another Continuing Resolution or the Military Aid package. If the same process that removed Speaker Kevin McCarthy is used, only four Republicans would be required to remove the Speaker (assuming all of the Democrats voted with them).
It took nearly a month for Republicans to elect Johnson after McCarthy’s removal. It is hard to imagine anyone taking the job if extremists can remove another Speaker. That means no budget – or worse, an automatic sequester starting on April 1 - and no military aid to American allies.
Earlier this week, Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), the co-chair of the Problem Solvers Caucus, floated a proposal that Republicans interested in getting things done should seize upon. His proposed change to the House Rules would eliminate a single Member’s ability to make a Motion to Vacate and replace it with a requirement that either the Democratic Caucus or the Republican Conference would have to authorize a Motion to Vacate. This is essentially the same rule the previous Congress had when the Democrats were in the majority.
However, there is a catch.
Gottheimer made the proposal contingent on Johnson bringing up the military aid bill and taking action to pass a budget. The quid pro quo makes it difficult for Republicans to accept overtly, even though most House Republicans likely agree with this proposal.
The smart thing for Republicans would be to join Gottheimer in changing the Rules of the House on its merit. Nothing of substance can be accomplished until the bullets are removed from the loaded gun aimed at the back of the Speaker’s head held by the most extreme Republican Members. When a gun is pointed at anyone, they cannot lead; they can only obey. That’s not leadership.
Nothing of substance can be accomplished until the bullets are removed from the loaded gun aimed at the back of the Speaker’s head held by the most extreme Republican Members. When a gun is pointed at anyone, they cannot lead; they can only obey. That’s not leadership.
Politically speaking, the rule change is the best way for Republicans to restore their majority. Recently, a few Democrats have suggested that if the Speaker brings up the military aid bill, they would vote against a Republican Motion to Vacate. Of course, Nancy Pelosi promised Kevin McCarthy the same thing. But when the chips were down, Pelosi was out of town.
Forgive me if I believe that Democrats, including the Problem Solvers Caucus, would jump at the chance to remove the very conservative Speaker from his position.
But even assuming these Democrats were sincere, Speaker Johnson’s hold on his job would be highly tenuous if he only continued serving by the good graces of the opposition party. The first time the Speaker promoted a bill that angered the Democrats, he would likely face a new Motion to Vacate by the extreme Republicans whom the Democrats foiled. Sooner or later, that support would disappear, and Johnson would lose his job.
Power is addicting in Washington, DC. Yes, even for the very sincere Mike Johnson. It is likely that if you had told him in September that he would be the Speaker by the end of October, he would have thought you were crazy. But people seek power for two reasons – power for the sake of power and power to get good things done (good things being in the eye of the beholder). No doubt, Johnson wants to hold onto the power of the Speakership because of all the good things he believes that position allows him to do. But the perceived power is illusory if it can be seized back at any moment by the least responsible Members of your own party.
No doubt, Johnson wants to hold onto the power of the Speakership because of all the good things he believes that position allows him to do. But the perceived power is illusory if it can be seized back at any moment by the least responsible Members of your own party.
To hold power, Johnson has linked up closely with Donald Trump, hoping that the party extremists will not act against him so long as Trump supports him. But trusting Trump to remain loyal is a fool’s errand. Trump was loyal to McCarthy right up until he wasn’t. Besides, the egos of people like Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Green are at least as big as the former presidents’ ego (which is “yuge”). If they can get the focus of the media on themselves, then the party be damned.
If Speaker Johnson wants to remain in his job for the remainder of this year, he needs job security.
To keep the government open, the first batch of appropriations must be passed by March 1. The second and larger batch must be passed by March 8. Passing the appropriation bills will require bipartisan support. The more extreme Republicans want him to fail, so the government shuts down.
Many Members of the Freedom Caucus want a government shutdown because their end game is a full-year Continuing Resolution (CR) that if the appropriation bills are not passed by April 1, another 1% across-the-board budget cut goes into effect. Ironically, their nemesis, Kevin McCarthy, negotiated this provision, so essential to the Freedom Caucus, in the debt extension legislation passed last year. But a full-year CR would be devastating to the Department of Defense (DOD), which would be unable to initiate new programs and weapons systems or even replenish the stock of ammunition needed to deter a Chinese attack on Taiwan. The DOD also needs to address the new Russian space weapon.
Yet, if Speaker Johnson passes a bipartisan omnibus appropriation bill, it is likely that an extremist will offer a Motion to Vacate.
The same logic applies to the bipartisan military aid bill that passed the Senate earlier this month. The legislation contains aid for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. It would have contained legislation restricting the flow of illegal immigration on our Southern border, but Johnson opposed it, so the Senate dropped it. Military aid is desperately needed by Ukraine, in particular, which is running out of ammunition and being driven back by Russian troops.
Russian leader Vladimir Putin is taking advantage of Congress’ dithering on the issue of military aid and, despite the massive loss of Russian troops, is trying for a breakthrough that makes the isolationist’s claim that Ukraine cannot win a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Members like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green have promised to introduce a Motion to Vacate if the Speaker attempts to bring any aid to Ukraine to the Floor of the House.
The appropriation bills were due to be passed by October 1 of last year. President Biden was supposed to send his FY 2025 budget to the House earlier this month to start the next budget cycle, but how do you create a new budget when the previous budget hasn’t been passed yet? And the reality is that Ukraine and Israel needed the military aid last October as well. Yet, for the previous five months, Congress has been unable to pass anything significant.
And anything it has passed has required bipartisan majorities.
The House has been unable to act because of the drama created by the prancing pixies of populist Republicanism. They not only are holding Speaker Johnson hostage to their lack of agenda, but they have already shown they are willing to shoot their hostage if it gets them more television time. A Speaker who can be removed for leading has no power at all. All he can do is try to survive.
The House has been unable to act because of the drama created by the prancing pixies of populist Republicanism. They not only are holding Speaker Johnson hostage to their lack of agenda, but they have already shown they are willing to shoot their hostage if it gets them more television time. A Speaker who can be removed for leading has no power at all. All he can do is try to survive.
This brings us back to the rule change. If Republicans are serious about leading, they need to change the rule that allows one member to offer a Motion to Vacate. Republicans who want to govern need to join the centrist Democrats to change the rules.
Unfortunately, changing the rule won’t be easy, even if supported by the vast majority of Members. Under precedent, a motion to amend the Rules of the House is not privileged (meaning given priority over other legislation on the Floor) in the same manner that the current motion to vacate is. A proposed rule change would be referred to the House Committee on Rules. The problem is that the balance of power on the Rules Committee is currently held by more extreme House Members (another concession Kevin McCarthy made last January). The effort to move a change in the Rules of the House would have to be championed by Rules Committee Chair Tom Cole and supported by the Democrats on the Committee if it is to pass. Cole would require, at least, the tacit consent of Speaker Johnson for this to work.
A Discharge Petition could promote the change in rules, but that process will take at least one month, time the Congress does not have.
While the Democrats have enjoyed the schadenfreude of watching Republican dysfunction, they, too, need Congress to get some things done. The President’s international prestige is at stake if Congress fails to pass military aid for Ukraine. The President’s ability to deter Chinese aggression requires the Defense Department to move forward with its upgrades, which cannot be done unless the appropriations bills pass. So, it is in the Democrats’ interest for Congress to start functioning again.
There is no other solution for Congress to get things done through the remainder of this year than changing the Rules of the House to require the party conferences to authorize a motion to vacate. Speaker Johnson cannot act if he wants to keep his job unless freed from the threats imposed by a fraction of his party.
Rules Committee Chair Tom Cole holds the fate of his party in his hands. If he can shepherd the rules change through his Committee, it will get an overwhelming majority on the House Floor, and he will have defanged the most rabid party members. It will also allow Republicans interested in governing to start moving legislation again.
Time is short. Changing the Rules of the House so that a single Member can no longer bring the House to a standstill needs to happen. And it needs to happen now.
No individual did more to build the House Republican majority than Kevin McCarthy. However, two concessions made during the Speaker election last year have proven problematic. As you clearly explain here, those were the single-Member motion to vacate and diminishing the Speaker’s control over the Rules Committee. The single-Member motion to vacate had been available for a long time, but unused, other than a failed attempt against Speaker Cannon in 1910. Rep. Mark Meadows dusted it off to threaten Speaker Boehner, ultimately leading to Boehner’s resignation. Speaker Pelosi wisely supported a rules change to eliminate the ability of a single Member to bring the motion. On the cusp of the Speaker election last year, McCarthy proposed to relax the Pelosi rule and allow a motion to vacate made by five Members. If he had been successful, I question whether it would have saved him. In any case, anti-McCarthyites held out and the single-Member motion was back. Enter Matt Gaetz, empowered by the rule and the narrowness of the Republican majority. You are entirely correct, Mark. The motion to vacate on its present form and use seriously impedes the capacity of the House to govern and has massive consequences for domestic and foreign policy.