Major heartburn erupts over Mike Johnson's spending bill
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
House Speaker Mike Johnson speaks at a press conference at the Capitol on Dec. 17, 2024. Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images.
On top of the anticipated conservative opposition to House Speaker Mike Johnson's (R-La.) deal with Democrats to fund the government, consternation is emerging from unusual corners of Congress.
Why it matters: Provisions raising congressional pay and allowing members of Congress to opt out of the Affordable Care Act have some lawmakers sweating the potential political fallout.
- "They all want the [pay raise] and actual health insurance but don't want to vote for them," one House Republican told Axios.
- "There's some grumbling," said a senior House Democrat.
Driving the news: The spending bill would repeal language in a stopgap spending bill passed earlier this year that freezes an automatic cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for members of Congress.
- It would be the first time since 2009 that members of Congress got a pay increase.
- It also includes language that would allow members to join the Federal Employee Health Benefits plan.
State of play: House Republicans' conservative wing is lining up against the bill, which they say is over-stuffed with legislative hobby horses. Some are singling out the pay raise in their condemnations.
- Some of that opposition has been driven by billionaire Elon Musk, a close confidante of President-elect Trump, publicly criticizing the bill.
- But it's not just the GOP's right flank, according to the House Republican who spoke on the condition of anonymity, who said there is some opposition "from every corner" and that the bill "is on thin ice."
- Swing-district Rep. Zach Nunn (R-Iowa) told Axios he is still considering the bill, but: "I have opposed stock trades, I have opposed benefits for members ... so this kind of falls in that whole category."
Zoom in: Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), one of the Democrats' most politically endangered members, said he will oppose the bill if the pay raise and ACA provisions are included.
- Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.), Golden's fellow co-chair of the centrist Blue Dog Coalition, called for leadership to "remove this [COLA] provision" in a statement shared with Axios.
- "It shouldn't be in there," said Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) – though he signaled he will vote for the bill because of disaster aid funding.
- Former House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), a longtime champion of raising congressional pay, acknowledged that Democrats "are not happy in some instances."
By the numbers: The House is likely to vote on the bill under a process that requires a two-thirds majority – roughly 290 votes – to pass legislation.
- That means it would need virtually all House Democrats and around half of Republicans.
- Democratic leadership is supportive of the bill, with a Democratic leadership aide stressing in a statement to Axios that the ACA provision was the result of a "bipartisan negotiation."
What we're hearing: Democratic leadership is advising members on how to message their vote for the bill to counter public blowback to the provisions, according to multiple lawmakers familiar with the matter.
- House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) "is being very clear that we need to point out, first of all, it's a Republican bill ... [and] it's complying with existing law rather than voting for an affirmative pay raise," said one senior House Democrat.
- Jeffries told Axios in a statement: "The legislation complies with existing law as set forth in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989."
- Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) told Axios when asked about the provisions: "I mean, this is a Republican majority-run [bill], so these are what Republicans are putting on the floor."
The other side: The pay raise is "an unfair burden to many members and their families," said Rep. John Duarte (R-Calif.), who noted that he lost reelection and thus won't benefit from the pay raise.
- Several Democrats similarly argued that the COLA provision lowers the barrier of congressional service to those without independent wealth.
- Some also argued that the ACA provision puts them on even footing with the rest of the federal workforce, which isn't forced to use the ACA.
- One House Democrat told Axios: "It really doesn't sell that you believe in the program if you have to force people to be on it ... it's a bad look."
