Senate Moves Forward on Spending Bill Amid Shutdown Concerns
The Senate did not delay the final vote on a temporary spending bill intended to end the government shutdown. You might have assumed they would, especially after the Senate managed to overcome a filibuster just before 11 p.m. on a recent Sunday night. So, why didn’t they wrap it up immediately? The bill still needed to go to the House, and, quite frankly, the situation was dire. Flights were getting delayed, federal employees were facing pay issues, and SNAP benefits were at risk. It seemed like a no-brainer to act quickly.
But, as it turns out, the situation is more complex. Surprisingly, the Senate did make moves, at least from their point of view.
Some senators were simply not ready to vote to end the shutdown that night. It was clear the Senate would eventually act to fund the government, but the stakes were rising almost by the hour.
Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) diverged from his party, being the only Republican to oppose a procedural vote that would advance the bill. He wanted changes related to a cannabis bill.
The proposed legislation aims to curb the “unregulated sale” of certain cannabis products at gas stations and small shops, while still allowing non-intoxicating CBD to be sold in other hemp-related products.
Now, with the Senate needing just 51 votes to pass the bill after breaking the filibuster, why was there any blockage from people like Paul?
Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) shared that some senators were hoping for a vote on an amendment that would put lawmakers’ pay on hold during future government shutdowns. Along with Paul, this would also require votes on cannabis-related amendments.
Paul’s requests aren’t new, but they do underline the delicate balance of negotiations within the Senate. If one senator gets what they want, others are likely to make their own demands.
Paul expressed his belief that leadership might be willing to consider his amendments, but noted that Senator John Kennedy (R-La.) blocked progress temporarily.
Meanwhile, according to Mullin, Democrats have been largely quiet on whether they’d be willing to return some debate time to expedite the bill’s consideration. A single senator can extend the process significantly, making teamwork essential for quick resolution.
When it came to the vote itself, the focus was on advancing the earlier spending package approved by the House, which had been delayed due to the filibuster. The Senate broke that obstruction and began working on the bill.
After breaking the filibuster, the Senate could wrap up 30 hours of debate unless Paul decided to maintain his position. If no agreement was reached, it would result in a small procedural vote happening much later.
But there’s more to the equation.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) had planned to introduce an “alternative” amendment, hoping to swap out the old text with a new spending proposal. However, due to Senate rules, he couldn’t initiate that process immediately.
If the Senate had actually adopted this new text, it would lead to another reintroduction of the bill on a later day, causing more delays.
The urgency is apparent, as any scenario unfolding as described would only prolong the shutdown.
Looking ahead, if all went as planned, the Senate might pass the revised spending bill on a particular day, but the House wouldn’t take it up until later.
This could mean a longer shutdown, which many would like to avoid.
That said, it appears unlikely any quick solution will happen. Senate leaders need to navigate these waters carefully to prevent further delays, especially with Paul’s demands still in play. Some Democrats feel frustrated with their party’s overall handling of the situation, and when push comes to shove, they often glance to others for voting support.
In a nutshell, most senators are eager to put an end to the shutdown, but whether they can agree on the details remains a significant hurdle.
Ultimately, the need for consensus will resurface when the next funding deadline approaches on January 30th.
