Why could the House get 250-180 votes on some bill but not "muster the simple majority needed to set the terms for the bill’s debate"?

Trending 2 months ago

I find this AP report rather confusing:

Johnson resorted to moving nan measure done an expedited process that requires a two-thirds mostly for passage. That’s because Republicans were improbable to moreover muster nan elemental mostly needed to group nan position for nan bill’s debate. Such a procedural ballot is mostly a regular matter, but has go problematic for nan existent Republican majority, which tin mostly spend to suffer only 3 Republicans connected party-line votes. The ballot for much Israel assistance was 250-180, good short of nan two-thirds period basal for passage.

According to Wikipedia, nan existent period for mostly successful nan House is 218. So, if they could get 250 votes to (not) walk nan measure (because of nan 2/3 threshold), why could not they "muster nan elemental mostly needed to group nan position for nan bill’s debate"?

CNN's coverage of this isn't overmuch much illuminating:

Because of guidance among members of nan blimpish House Freedom Caucus, House Speaker Mike Johnson had been forced to bring up nan measure nether a process that requires two-thirds mostly of nan House to o.k. it.

How could (presumably) only a fistful of Freedom Caucus guys "force" Johnson to activity a 2/3 majority?

FWTW, different root mentions that

Johnson told reporters he plans to bring nan measure up adjacent week nether a process that requires only a elemental majority.

So why couldn't he do that this week?