Details on McCarthy’s Concessions Still To Come

Kevin McCarthy finally won over more than a dozen GOP detractors to claim the House speakership. But what did he give up to do so?

By , and
54
U.S. House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy talks with Rep.-elect Chip Roy in the House chamber Friday. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

After 15 rounds of voting, Kevin McCarthy has secured the House speakership. Exactly what he gave to his opponents to get over the finish line? Members will find out, eventually.

For now, many are in the dark. The one public document indicating changes is the revised House rules package, and only one aspect of McCarthy’s deal with his detractors is included in it. The rest of the deal—in writing somewhere else—is more nebulous.

“No one really knows,” Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar, a Florida Republican, told The Dispatch on Friday afternoon. “Whoever told you anything, it’s lying. Because we have not been informed officially what it is they negotiated.”

It is clear, despite the lack of transparency into the negotiations, that McCarthy’s deal is sweeping. It would empower any individual member to force a vote on ousting the House speaker, for one thing. (Even Democrats.) It would open up the House floor to more freewheeling amendments processes and debate on spending bills. And it includes a commitment to demand slashes to government spending in exchange for hiking the debt ceiling later this year.

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
54
By , and
Comments (54)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Jim S

    “Because it took this long, now we learned how to govern”

    Who knew that all Republicans needed was a snarky speech from Matt Gaetz and voila they are a reliable governing party!

    Collapse
  2. Borkus Flimflam

    I just love all this debate on the flavor of the feces Republicans keep shoving down the throats of the American people.

    Collapse
    1. Maryack

      You are vile.

      Collapse
  3. Maryack

    What did he give up? A biased headline. What did we gain? I really can't see why everyone is so upset with the 20 holdouts. It was nice to see someone in Congress stand for something. That's my take.

    Collapse
    1. Justin Paro

      Allowing anyone -- even Democrats -- call for a vote to oust the Speaker will disrupt the legislative process. This would be significant if it was the only thing he conceded.

      Collapse
    2. Deleted Comment

      This comment has been deleted

  4. R. James

    The defense cuts will never pass. There are enough hawks on both sides of the aisle to block it.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Donald E. L. Johnson, Florida

    Has McCarthy given away any more perks and campaign support than Nancy Pelosi did when she was co-opting The Squad and other members?

    How is McCarthy's dealing any different from hers other than he's given up things that won't be important during the next two years because of his slim majority and the Democrats' control of the Executive Branch and the Senate?

    How can McCarthy diminish the importance of his concessions? Should he spend most of his time fundraising and campaigning for 2024? Should he distance himself from Trump, which he doesn't seem to be doing?

    Should he spend more time on the Sunday suckup shows and other news shows than Speakers usually do? He is good on TV.

    How can he keep the Freedom Caucus 20 Extremists and Jim Jordan from blowing it for House Republicans in 2024? That is the story that no one is covering so far.

    Collapse
  6. Retired Prosecutor

    If -- when all is said and done -- there is some attempt to return to regular order, then the entire drama may not have been wasted time or effort.

    The serious objectors (and I do not mean the performative clowns like Gaetz or Boebert, but rather serious and thoughtful people like Chip Roy) were mightily distressed about that recent horrendous $1.7 trillion omnibus. $1.7 trillion of money we simply do not have. Thousands of pages of text, with a mere 36 hours allowed for the members to read and digest it in the last moments of the session. No role for the Committees of supposed origin. No amendments or real debate allowed. Bad provisions or good ones, but it's an either up or down vote for the members, presented to them as a fait accompli on the eve of the end of the session. The goal of the thoughtful objectors is to see that this never happens again. And it is difficult to see how anyone can defend that way of running the Congress in the first place.

    And this is all the result of Nancy Pelosi's management style of the house. Needless to say, this is not what the Founders intended, not the way Congress was intended to function, and not what we elect our representatives to do. Legislation is supposed to bubble up from the Committees after hearings, and not be drafted by some PoliSci majors on the Speaker's staff.

    Collapse
    1. Deleted Comment

      This comment has been deleted

    2. Avatar photo
      JohnF

      It's worth noting that much of the $1.7T in the omnibus bill is not new spending ("money we do not have"), but funding to run the government for the rest of the fiscal year. The bill does increase discretionary spending (particularly on Defense), but the delta between 2022 spending and 2023 spending is nowhere near $1.7T.

      Collapse
      1. Retired Prosecutor

        Granted.

        But it’s still a perversion of the legislative process to conduct Congressional business in that manner.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          JohnF

          Sure. Ideally, Congress will act responsibly and deliberatively and will make clear, thoughtful decisions based on careful and thorough analysis for the benefit of most Americans.

          Supposedly, these rule changes will enable them to do that. Let's see how they do.

          Collapse
          1. Retired Prosecutor

            We can always hope. Here is a chance to govern, or instead to continue as cable TV personalities and Congress continues as before.

            Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    JohnF

    How does the "motion to vacate" process play out in practice? Can one member now stand up in the House at any point and immediately require a vote? Or are there procedural hoops to jump through? Does the motion to vacate then just require a majority of the votes cast at that point? Since the House would be "speaker-less" at that point, does all House business come to a halt until a new speaker is in place?

    Presumably, the main value of this concession is in its use as a threat ("if you don't do X, then I'm going to put forward a motion to vacate"), but it would be interesting to understand what things would look like if the threat was ever carried out.

    Collapse
  8. Jaybrown

    I'm not so concerned. From what I've read many of the changes to House rules could be valuable, a beginning to a return to regular order in budgeting and restoring the power of committee chairs that they had before the Pelosi era of "you have to pass it to see what's in it." Also, if one representative can call for a "vacate the chair" vote, he/she still needs 50% to go along. Yeah it was painful to watch, but people like Gaetz and Boebert did not make any friends.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Ed P

    Hate to say “I told you so” regarding supporting ANY GOP candidates for congressional office. But this is who they are now. Afraid stupid or corrupted, either complicit or in league with MAGA insanity.

    Friendly reminder that over half the “non-crazy” GOP wouldn’t certify election results even after they were attacked by a crazed mob fed weaponized lies.

    This party can no longer be supported on the National level. They need to be taught a lesson by voters.

    This is totally unacceptable. It has been totally unacceptable for a long time now.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Donald E. L. Johnson, Florida

      If only hard left Democrats who control the Democrats' caucus were sane and serious.

      That the Squad and Minority Leader are on the same page tells you that as clueless as Republicans appear to Democrats, corrupt, racist and unAmerican Democrats look much crazier and out of line.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Ed P

        What are some examples of this control? All I see is moderate leadership among Democrats and moderate policy enacted.

        Collapse
        1. Borkus Flimflam

          Donald Johnson might be high on Bolsonaro’s poop. There’s lots of demagogic feces in Florida for Republicans to eat.

          Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    George.Skinner

    Changing the motion to vacate to 1 member could come back to bite McCarthy quickly once the details of his agreement come out. I would not be surprised if McCarthy withheld details because he made concessions that would’ve lost votes from the majority backing him. Those concessions, possibly combined with more Freedom Caucus nonsense could create enough frustration for mainstream Republicans to turn on McCarthy. From McCarthy’s perspective, that might be OK - he seemed to prioritize nothing more than his personal ambition to hold the gavel and title.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      It's like you have to pass the bill in order to see what's in it... :-)

      Collapse
      1. Retired Prosecutor

        Still wrong again, Pat. Actually it's anything but. The one vote rule has always been in force until Pelosi eliminated it. And the GOP caucus will absolutely get a chance to read the proposals before they vote on them.

        Distinguish that from being presented by leadership with a 4,000+ page and $1.7 trillion omnibus bill, without any committee process, with no amendments allowed, and given less than 36 hours to review it.

        Remember THAT indefensible process, a perversion of what the Founders intended, is the status quo being defended here.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Pat Riot

          Still can't actually read my comments and still just want to lash out with personal attacks...

          Collapse
          1. Retired Prosecutor

            It's a "personal attack" to point out that the caucus will get to see the proposed rules before they vote on them, or that the "one-vote rule predated Nancy Pelosi's tenure?

            Collapse
    2. Zvikes

      That would require actual moderate Republicans to have red lines they won't cross. If they had any, they'd have insisted on seeing the deal before voting for McCarthy. They want to be seen as serious but are completely unwilling to actually step up.

      Collapse
Load More