Texas Weekly Online

Texas-trans-white
Menu
Menu

Author: shailender

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to why there may be a partial government shutdown Saturday

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to why there may be a partial government shutdown Saturday

Funding for the Department of Homeland Security was already a question for some Democrats before the killing of Alex Pretti. But Saturday’s killing by federal agents gave Democrats who were on the fence about supporting the upcoming government funding plan a reason to solidify their opposition. And the killing only hardened those who were opposed to funding DHS before. From a political standpoint, Democrats are compelled to fight this. Otherwise, their base will balk. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., endured brickbats from the liberal base last March when he and a group of other Democratic senators helped Republicans clear a filibuster to avoid a shutdown. Progressives raged at Schumer. And the Senate’s top Democrat suddenly found himself crossways with House Democratic leaders who expected him to mount more of a fight over government funding. CONGRESS UNVEILS $1.2T SPENDING BILL AS PROGRESSIVE REVOLT BREWS OVER ICE FUNDING The liberal base certainly got that this fall as Democrats withheld their votes to fund the government and fought over expiring Obamacare subsidies. The government shuttered for 43 days. But Democrats never earned a restoration of Obamacare subsidies. The Senate took a vote related to restoring the subsidies. Nothing happened. The House actually passed a bill re-upping the subsidies for three years. But the issue remains at an impasse. Despite the fall brawl, Democratic congressional leaders faced a narrow path to walk for this funding round. They still felt pressure from the left to oppose money for DHS, long before the killing of Renee Good and Pretti. But Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., did not go to the mat to oppose funding this time. They wanted to finesse this, believing that a shutdown was bad politics for them after the fall experience. After all, Democrats never scored precisely what they wanted. By the same token, Schumer and Jeffries didn’t wade deeply into the funding fight, perhaps afraid of breaking a fragile truce on spending bills. That all changed Saturday. Democrat after Democrat published statements that they wouldn’t vote to fund DHS. Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, caucuses with the Democrats. He was one senator instrumental to helping re-open the government last fall. King said he couldn’t support funding this time around. MORE THAN HALF OF HOUSE DEMOCRATS BACK IMPEACHMENT PUSH AGAINST DHS CHIEF KRISTI NOEM So unless something changes by 11:59:59 p.m. ET on Friday, Jan. 30, 78% of the federal government will lack money to operate. The six-bill, $1.2 trillion spending package doesn’t only fund the Department of Homeland Security, but it also provides money for the Pentagon, Health and Human Services, Labor & Housing programs, Transportation and Education. The DHS bill was radioactive in the House. So the House broke that bill off from the rest of the package. The House approved the DHS funding measure 220-207 with seven Democratic yeas. The House approved the remaining bills 341-88. The House then married the six bills together in one package, sent it to the Senate and left town. There was some grumbling from senators that this was a “take it or leave it” package. And after the shooting, all bets were off. On Saturday, Schumer declared that “Senate Democrats will not provide the votes to proceed to the appropriations bill if the DHS funding bill is included.”   Democrats implored Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., to break off the DHS funding bill from the rest of the spending package and handle that separately. Otherwise, they would oppose the entire plan. On Monday, Schumer signaled that “Senate Democrats have made clear we are ready to quickly advance the five appropriations bills separately from the DHS funding bill before the January 30th deadline.” He also said that “Republicans will again be responsible for another government shutdown.” $174B SPENDING PACKAGE TO AVERT SHUTDOWN CLEARS KEY HURDLE IN SENATE Well, this is an amalgamated appropriations bill sent over from the House. Not a Kit-Kat bar. You just can’t break off one piece of it. In short, what Schumer is proposing would spark a government shutdown. It’s not clear that there are the votes to do what Schumer is suggesting. And doubtful that the Senate would have the time. That’s to say nothing of getting the House on the same page before the deadline. Moreover, the House would just have to magically accept the new Senate position. That’s probably not going to happen considering what the House went through just to pass that minibus spending bill. And we have not even mentioned that most of the money that Democrats are crowing about for DHS is already out the door. In the One Big Beautiful Bill, Republicans approved $75 billion for border security and ICE through 2029. In that measure, Republicans converted “discretionary spending” (which Congress controls) into a “mandatory appropriation” through 2029. Yes, this tactic agitates Members of the Appropriations Committee. But this has been done before, notably by Democrats when approving Obamacare. So going after DHS right now would have little impact on the funding for ICE. However, Democrats could demand certain “guardrails” and changes in policy for ICE. From a parliamentary standpoint, ripping the six-bill package apart is a mess. First of all, the Senate must agree on a “motion to strike” the DHS section from the six-bill combo package. The Senate would have to vote on this. Or, in the interest of time, do this via unanimous consent. But because the “motion to strike” by itself is debatable, the issue could set up a possible filibuster. Sixty votes are needed to cut off debate on just that question alone – stripping the DHS provision from the rest of the overall bill. It’s important that a motion to strike the DHS money from the rest of the bill does not mean that the remaining five bills are ready to go. The Senate would have to agree that this is the new bill. Senators would then have to overcome a filibuster once and then vote to pass the bill. Those floor mechanics