House Speaker Mike Johnson might want to take a “scalpel” to repeal the Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act, but conservative Republicans and Trump surrogates are still pressing him to use a sledgehammer.
New comments this week from Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, as well as rank-and-file members reveal what close observers have been witnessing for months: that a battle is simmering in the conference over what to do about hundreds of billions of dollars in clean energy subsidies, should Republicans win the House, Senate and presidency this November.
“Something tells me that’s going to be an issue of contention next year between some of my colleagues and their districts where they might have interests who love the largesse of Washington, D.C.,” said Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.), a member of the far-right House Freedom Caucus.
Donalds said he disagreed with Johnson’s recent comments that he would “use a scalpel and not a sledgehammer” when considering whether to undo some or all of the the IRA clean energy tax programs, should the GOP get the chance.
“Look, at the end of the day, the IRA tax credits are unaffordable,” Donalds said. “In my view, they need to go away. We have enough government subsidies flowing out of this town, we don’t need more.”
But Donalds is at odds with a growing number of House GOP colleagues — backed by powerful industry groups and business interests — who are calling on Johnson to keep those credits in place if he is still leading the conference next year, cognizant that the incentives are leading to major job and economic growth in their districts.
It’s far from clear which side will prevail.
Republican leaders have been working for months on what they would promote through the budget reconciliation process, if they have a governing trifecta come January, but exactly what they might do on the IRA remains something of a question mark.
It’s similarly not clear what Johnson really meant when he signaled an openness to keeping some of the tax credits, which many environmental advocates consider the heart of the climate law.
On Tuesday, at an America First Policy Institute event, he also promised to “cut the wasteful Green New Deal spending in the Democrats’ so-called Inflation Reduction Act” and expressed support for clawing back unspent funds for a variety of programs established by the IRA.
He didn’t give specifics, reflecting the overall fluidity of the debate. Johnson’s office declined further comment on his remarks.
Seeking ‘sledgehammer’ alternatives
In its current makeup, Johnson’s conference is divided. On one side are hard-line conservatives keen on rescinding government “handouts” that they claim favor China and hurt U.S. conventional energy production.
“Look, I can’t speak to what was motivating the speaker and won’t try,” said Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), when asked about Johnson’s openness to keeping some of the IRA tax credits.
“My answer is — a sledgehammer to the so-called Inflation Reduction Act is what is needed. It’s devastating for American economic growth and opportunity, for small businesses. You can’t even put into words how bad it is.”
On the other side are Republican lawmakers who expressed relief Wednesday that Johnson appeared to have softened his IRA repeal plans. Many such lawmakers are from districts that have benefited from an influx of federal dollars to build battery plants, clean energy equipment and other green projects
“Look, when you have a bill that big, there are going to be some good parts to it, there are going to be some bad parts to it,” said Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.), chair of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing and Critical Materials. He has been a relentless cheerleader for a vehicle and battery plant in his district that has been subsidized by the IRA.
He said he hadn’t spoken to anyone in leadership but was “encouraged” that Johnson’s latest comments suggested “they understand where we are coming from.”
Carter was one of 18 members who sent a letter to Johnson back in August advocating for him to protect parts of the law, warning that companies might be forced to abandon projects before the financial rewards benefit their communities.
It’s not clear how many of those lawmakers are going to win reelection in November, as many of the signers are in some of the toughest races this cycle. But it’s becoming evident the number of House Republicans who right now support the IRA energy credits exceeds 18, and more have shown a willingness to defer to those advocates.
Even Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), who is running to be the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee next year and said Wednesday he would fight to gut the IRA’s $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund —the “green bank” program to fund carbon cutting projects that’s up against a September deadline — conceded “we have to be sensitive” to the companies that have made investments based on the IRA.
‘You could not get the votes’
Ultimately, what Guthrie’s comments reveal is that while Republicans are stuck on the issue of the energy tax credits, they are in agreement that they should scrap the other programs in the IRA designed to combat the climate crisis and accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels.
Indeed, members interviewed Wednesday took little issue with Johnson’s suggestion he planned to take money for green programs in the climate law that hadn’t been spent yet to offset the massive tax overhaul package Republicans hope to pursue.
“I know they are trying to get all the money out the door before we take over,” Guthrie said of the Biden administration. “That’s what we’re hearing, anyway, which is unfortunate. They should spend it wisely rather than get the money out the door.”
In response, EPA spokesperson Nick Conger said in an email: “The climate crisis requires immediate action. Communities are suffering from pollution. EPA is focused on responding to these challenges with urgency.”
That’s the reason why Democrats have expressed little excitement about Republicans recognizing some parts of the IRA might be worth keeping.
Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) called Johnson’s comments “contradictory.” In an interview, she said, “I don’t know what he means by clawing back IRA funding, but I am completely opposed to that.”
Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.) even cast doubts about whether Johnson was actually talking about preserving some IRA tax credits when he used the “scalpel” rhetoric.
He said he interpreted that comment as Johnson saying he supports establishing “criteria, better fiscally responsible criteria, in place to ensure those incentives are not fleecing taxpayers, that there is some economically sustainable glidepath for those types of projects like wind, solar and others.”
“Am I opposed to any type of subsidy or incentive? No.” Graves added. “But you gotta set them up on an economically sustainable glide path, and the IRA didn’t have appropriate criteria to ensure that.”
Graves, who is retiring this year, also declared that the Inflation Reduction Act is not getting repealed anytime soon, even if Republicans sweep the November elections: “You could not get the votes to repeal the IRA. Let’s be clear: You couldn’t. I don’t care what the majority is.”
And doing so, he said, could actually hurt what few conservative priorities were included in the law, such as the mandated oil lease sales — a concession to win the endorsement of from Sen. Joe Manchin (I-W.Va.).
Asked if there are the votes to repeal the law, Roy didn’t mince words: “If there’s not votes for that, Republicans should fold [the] tent.”
