[PIF]

Of the ones I heard:

Most argued that structural reform was needed; others argued that the House Speaker’s job is to govern the House, which no one has done in a long time. Until those things were done they would continue to vote NO.

All mentioned spending to one degree or another, but that was not fundamental to their vote. All seemed to feel that the bill used blanket numbers, rather than specific numbers - using $100 million instead of $96.2 million to address the specific need.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

It would be ludicrous for Republicans to suggest that the Speaker needs to take stronger control of the House, given that they expressly reduced the power of the Speaker at the beginning of this Congress. That was one of the conditions on which people agreed to vote for McCarthy.

The reform I'd like to see is the reduction of the discharge petition period from 30 days to 3. Essentially, that would let any bill that has the support of a majority of members be brought to a vote even if the leaders of each party don't support it.

That theoretically weakens the power of the Speaker, but that matters a lot less when the margin is as tiny as it is going to be.