House Republicans are exploring whether to expand the powers held by Speaker Pro Tem Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) as the conference looks nowhere near ready to make a final decision on a new Speaker.
Frustrated by the stalemate that is preventing the House from doing any business, GOP lawmakers are taken a new look at what McHenry can do in his new position, with moderate Republicans seeking to expand the position’s power.
Rep. María Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.) in a letter signed by members of the moderate Republican Governance Group — she wouldn’t say how many — backed the prospect of drafting a resolution to give McHenry the option to “reopen business.”
“It’s time for us to keep on working. So if we need more time as a group to pick the leader, then in the meantime, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Right? So let’s keep on moving business while we find the permanent person for the position,” she told reporters huddled outside of the Speaker’s office, where she dropped off the letter.
Other Republicans, however, say they’d oppose any move that would further entrench McHenry in the role or expand his authorities, saying this could take the pressure off members from picking a new Speaker.
“We don’t need to take any pressure off of our conference to come to a final conclusion on a permanent speaker, no pressure taken off of our conference to be any less motivated as a result of giving powers to a temporary speaker pro temp,” Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) told The Hill.
McHenry assumed his position last week after the House voted to remove Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).
Salazar dropped off the letter just hours before Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) dropped his bid for the gavel after he was unable to sway holdout Republicans after winning a 113-99 internal vote Wednesday.
House Democrats, seeking to get ahead of the issue, released a memo last week arguing that McHenry’s authority was limited to organizing the chamber under a rule adopted by Congress after the 9/11 attacks that created the position.
“As can be seen in the plain text of the rule, the acting Speaker pro tempore is provided the authority to do only what is ‘necessary and appropriate’ to the end of the election of a new Speaker,” Democrats wrote in the memo.
The rule also notes differences in authority between an appointed Speaker pro tem and an elected one — something Democrats see as proof McHenry has little power.
“The rule contemplates the election of a Speaker pro tempore instead of a Speaker in the event the House cannot quickly elect a Speaker, an unnecessary provision if the acting Speaker pro tempore had the power to oversee the House’s regular business,” Democrats wrote.
Salazar said much of the extent of McHenry’s power remains unclear, noting the role is essentially covered in two lines of House rules.
“Do we have to consult with a parliamentarian? Who can tell us? This is unprecedented,” she said.
McHenry has offered mixed messages for how he views the power of his new role.
He’s told some members he sees his role as one with limited powers.
Still, he has already taken actions that go beyond managing the election, booting former Democratic leaders Reps. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Steny Hoyer (Md.) from their hideaway offices in the Capitol.
And when asked about whether the House would be able to act to support Israel amid its war with Hamas, he said, “If we need to act as a government we will.”
Rep. Marc Molinaro (R-N.Y.) said he doesn’t share McHenry’s views that the office holds narrow powers.
“I don’t subscribe to the philosophy, and I know he does, and he is a strict constitutionalist, and I accept that. But there is no part of me that believes in the aftermath of 9/11 there was the assumption that a temporary Speaker … would have absolutely no authority to do anything other than select a Speaker,” he said.
“Can you imagine if the temporary Speaker had no authority, we would still be in that room while America was under assault. That is not what I think those folks who created the succession plan intended. And I will say he does not want to assert that authority. But I wouldn’t trust anybody else to assert that authority because he would do so very carefully and judiciously.”
But he said he would back any effort to expand them.
“Ultimately, we will have to govern and if that has to be in a temporary capacity then I’m uncomfortable supporting it,” he said Thursday.
The idea had been backed by some Scalise holdouts.
Rep. Max Miller (R-Ohio), who remained a “no” on Scalise, was not aware of the letter Salazar delivered but said he’d support it, saying he sees a temporary Speaker, whether McHenry or someone else, staying in the role for perhaps as long as two months.
“I fundamentally believe that we should pick somebody to be Speaker pro temp for a number of days that the conference is comfortable with and then let individuals who want to run for Speaker have the ability to do so and establish relationships with members of Congress so they can win the election. These things take months,” he said.
“I feel like that’s very pragmatic. Give the temporary Speaker right now the operating power to do so because my belief is that if we can get people back to work, if I can go back to my committee assignments, if I can continue to pass pieces of legislation and to work out in my district offices tempers will subside.”
Some of the discussion around expanding the Speaker pro tem’s power has been more about responding to the crisis in the Middle East rather than solving the GOP’s leadership vacuum.
McCarthy raised the issue Monday pointing to the war.
“I don’t understand why the Speaker Pro Tem couldn’t lead as well. We should have a resolution on the floor condemning what’s taking place so the rest of the world understands,” he said.
Asked about Israel, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) earlier this week said he would back a “very short-term situation” that would allow McHenry to move a few bills but said that would need to be followed “precisely.”
“We should not be empowering the Speaker pro temp beyond the powers appropriate for that particular task,” he said.
Rep. French Hill (R-Ark.), however, said he would prefer that the GOP conference buckles down and makes a decision.
“I think the proper course of action first is to see if the Republicans can elect a speaker from among their ranks using the traditional methods,” he said in response to a question from The Hill.
“The preferred approach is simply to do what we should do, which is come together and elect a new Republican who has the support of the conference to be the next Speaker of the House, and this all emanates from the fact that it was a mistake last week to vacate the chair.”
Mychael Schnell and Emily Brooks contributed.
Updated at 8:03 p.m.