Johnson pressured on spending deal
Right-wing Republicans want speaker to back out
WASHINGTON – Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., is facing intense pressure from the House’s most conservative lawmakers to back out of the spending agreement he struck with Democrats to avert a government shutdown, a path that could derail Congress’ chances of keeping the government’s doors open.
A group of ultraconservative GOP members met with Johnson and his deputies in his office on Thursday and, unlike previous closed-door meetings, did not leave the speaker’s suite frustrated with Republican leaders. Instead, the lawmakers told reporters Johnson is considering a new path that differs from the spending deal announced just days ago.
“We’re having thoughtful conversations about funding options and priorities. We had a cross section of members in today, we’ll continue to have cross sections of members in and while all those conversations are going on, I’ve made no commitments,” Johnson said outside his office.
However, the path forward for lawmakers to keep the government funded is murky. Democrats control the Senate and the White House, and it’s not clear what Republicans could leverage to win the policy priorities and spending cuts they hope to deliver.
“There was 100% consensus in the room with everyone that was meeting with the speaker that the deal is terrible for the country and terrible for the Republican conference,” Rep. Bob Good, RVa., chair of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus, told reporters leaving Johnson’s office.
On Sunday, Johnson and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., announced they had agreed to a $1.66 trillion spending deal to complete the 2024 fiscal year, which technically began in October. Lawmakers have already kicked the can down the road twice, opting for temporary funding agreements instead of longer-term compromises.
The Sunday agreement hewed closely to one struck between former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., and President Joe Biden last year to raise the debt ceiling.
The majority of that funding was required by law, but another $69 billion was agreed to on the side to get Democrats on board.
A group of right-wing Republicans had demanded lower spending levels, and the agreement became one of the reasons McCarthy was booted from the speakership in early October.
When Johnson became the new speaker after three weeks of chaos in the chamber, those ultraconservative members said they were willing to adhere to the plan – but said they couldn’t support the additional $69 billion they called “gimmicks.”
And following the topline agreement’s announcement over the weekend, Johnson and GOP leadership enraged the conference’s right flank. In retaliation, 13 of those members tanked a procedural vote on Wednesday, freezing action on the House floor and forcing the lower chamber to close up shop for the day, earlier than expected.
Several of those members also mulled introducing a motion to vacate, which would tee up a vote to oust Johnson,
though others indicated the ultraconservative lawmakers weren’t willing to take that step yet.
“Most of America can see it. They’re just feckless people. It’s just easier for them to scream and vote no because it takes a lot of courage to explain a yes vote and everything that’s inside of it,” Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio, said of the hard-right faction among House Republicans.
But on Thursday afternoon, the House once again voted on the procedural rule, and in a sign that talks continue to progress between the right flank and GOP leaders, most of those members voted for the rule, allowing the House to continue consideration of legislation.
But some Republicans warned against Johnson possibly reneging on the deal. Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., told reporters the speaker should “stick to his guns” and that it would be a “mistake” to change the agreement he reached with Schumer and other Democratic leaders.
House Democrats immediately criticized the possibility of Johnson abandoning the original deal.
Reacting to reports Johnson was considering reneging, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said “there’s nothing more to discuss” considering the spending numbers were already agreed to last summer between McCarthy and Biden.
The new deal “will make clear that House Republicans are determined to shut down the government, crash the economy and hurt the American people,” Jeffries said.
“These are individuals who don’t want to govern, they do not know how to govern,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said. “What is it that they don’t understand about governing and getting something done? … They truly do want to shut the government down.”
“We’re having thoughtful conversations about funding options and priorities.”
If House Bill 1989 is approved, students will have the ability to transfer to a different district than where they are assigned and part of the money earmarked for their education will go to the new district. Districts use a mix of local tax revenue and state and federal funding to educate students.
“Local taxes stay local,” he said of property taxes generated within a district. “State money follows the student.”
Calling himself a “strong supporter of public schools,” he said families ought to be able to decide which school is the best fit for their child.
“I believe that open enrollment is a step in the right direction in educational reform to offer choice and accountability within the public school system,” he told the committee. “This is an opt-in bill where the decision is left in the hands of the local district if they want to opt in and receive students and they determine what grades they will take those students and in what programs.”
The proposal includes a 3% cap on the number of students who can transfer out of most districts.
Under the plan, districts willing to accept students will notify the state by Dec. 1. Families must apply for a transfer by Feb. 1 and decisions will be made by April 1.
The bill includes a request for $80 million to help provide transportation for students who qualify for free or reduced price schools meals or who qualify for special education services.
“This bill allows the 899,000 students in the state of Missouri in the public school system the opportunity to have a choice within the very system that their parents pay taxes to,” Pollitt said.
He gave the committee a preview of some of the concerns that will likely be raised.
“You’ll hear things that this forces competition among school districts. I’m totally in favor of competing with our programs, with our sports,” he said. “There’s nothing in this bill that requires a school district to consolidate.”
According to a 2022 report by the Education Commission of the States, at least 43 states have voluntary policies permitting inter-district open enrollment and 19 states require some level of open enrollment.
State Rep. Kathy Steinhoff, a Democrat from Columbia, said she is highly skeptical that open enrollment will help the state’s public education system.
“I appreciate the fact that this bill puts a lot of safeguards in place. It’s very well thought out. It really considers so many things that make me fearful of an open enrollment bill that would be like the Wild Wild West,” she said. “I can tell that you’ve really considered unintended consequences, but the idea of unintended consequences are the ones we haven’t thought of.”
Steinhoff and others asked how meeting the needs of students who qualify for special education services will be handled as part of the proposal. “You don’t want a bill that ends up being challenged in court and then the bill falls apart.”
Pollitt said under open enrollment, districts that accept transfers will not be required to add programs or teachers.
Steinhoff said she sees “merit to being able to give families some choices” but questioned if students with special needs or a history of discipline issues will be able to participate at the same level.
“It doesn’t sound like it is allowing all Missouri students to have a choice, like certain special education students and certain students that have discipline records probably would not have the same opportunities,” she said.
Representatives from the American Federation for Children and the Quality Schools Coalition told the committee they support the bill.
Matt Michelson, director of education policy for the Missouri State Teachers Association, said the group opposes the bill. “Our members are deeply concerned about the prospects of consolidation that could happen under this bill, also increasing student mobility and the detrimental effects of student mobility.”
He said open enrollment will increase the workload of administrators but noted the bigger issue was an existing issue of recruiting and retaining enough teachers.
Michelson said transportation funds requested in the open enrollment bill could be better spent elsewhere. “We know $80 million could go a really long way at addressing some of the low salaries we have across the state, and hopefully keep keeping high quality teachers in the classroom.”
Mike Lodewegen, an advocate with the Missouri Council of School Administrators, said the group opposes the bill.
He argued districts that lose students due to open enrollment may have to cut staff and programs, which could hurt the students who remain in districts where they are assigned.
“Students leave for whatever reason, they may be performance-related, it may be familial-related, it may be ideological in nature. Those students leave and that money also follows that student,” he said. “The students that are left are then forced to have to deal with the school that is left.”
Michelson said the biggest impact may be on small districts “on the bubble.” He pointed to the Halfway district, which is between Buffalo and Bolivar in Polk County.
He said with limited jobs in Halfway, parents who live in Halfway may be tempted to enroll students in the cities where they are employed. “What is the threshold that that community and that school is going to meet to say ‘We no longer need a school, we no longer can have a school’ and what does that mean for our rural communities?”
Otto Fajen, legislative director for the Missouri National Education Association, said the proper level of oversight is needed for open enrollment to work as intended.
“The tendency if you don’t have the right guidelines for implementing it or monitoring it, for making sure that you’re evaluating its impact, the tendency is for it to segregate and also to not have equitable opportunity for all students,” Fajen said.
He said to win the support of MNEA, safeguards against “re-segregation” must be in place along with wording that ensures equitable access for students eligible for special education services.
“Those are two areas that still need work,” he said.
Lisa Pannett, a lobbyist for ArmorVine, expressed concern that some of the requirements and procedures for how open enrollment would work in Missouri would be left to the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
Pannett said ArmorVine, which promotes Christian principles of freedom and liberty, is worried the framework put in place could include diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts.
“As conservatives, we should be concerned when we leave these things open to DESE. DESE has been a problem for us. They’re the ones bringing in the woke agenda,” she told the committee. “And when we allow DESE to come in and set these kinds of standards and guidelines, it’s a problem.” mains high as shortage remains