Shutdown showdown yields to bipartisan compromise — of sorts 

Last Wednesday, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), for lack of votes, pulled the six-month stop-gap government funding bill that included a requirement for proof of citizenship to register to vote. Former President Donald Trump had promptly weighed-in, urging Republicans not to pass the bill without the proof of citizenship requirement, thereby endorsing the government shutdown alternative.  

Johnson subsequently brought up the continuing appropriations bill the next day. Predictably, it lost, 202-220, with 14 Republicans joining 206 Democrats in voting against the measure. The proof of citizenship to register to vote had earlier passed the House in July as a separate measure, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (SAVE), 221 to 198, with all but five Democrats voting against. Democrats explained that it was already illegal for non-citizens to vote in U.S. elections and that the additional burden of the superfluous bill would discourage voter turnout. 

When the House defeated the funding bill last week, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) vowed the Senate would step in and take the initiative to pass a clean CR, even though the Constitution requires that every money bill to originate in the House. That threat did not go down well in the House.  

When Johnson polled his members on their preferred path forward, their response came back loud and clear: The majority did not want to shut down the government. Johnson subsequently informed Trump that there would not be a government shutdown over the voter registration issue, but that there would be plenty of opportunities in the future to press the issue in other contexts. 

Why did House Republicans seem to balk at their own standard-bearer’s position? The simple answer is that members did not want to be trapped in Washington in October in the midst of reelection campaigns due to a government shutdown, with all the hardships and confusion that portends. Just as a horse quickens its pace as it draws closer to the barn because that’s where its hay is, members accelerate their home visits and constituent contacts the closer to an election because that’s where the votes are. Once it became clear that the voter eligibility safeguard was off the table, the path to a resolution became much clearer.   

Last Monday, the joint leadership announced a bicameral, bipartisan compromise of sorts (House Republicans are torn). The proposed compromise spending bill expires on Dec. 20, instead of next March, and includes an extra $230 million for the Secret Service to protect top federal candidates. Wednesday the House voted 341-82 to pass the bill, with 132 Republicans and 209 Democrats voting in favor, and 82 Republicans voting against. 

Republicans have been ambivalent, at best, about continuing resolutions. Last year, Congress passed four of them between Sept. 30, 2023 and March 1, 2024 to complete the process. On average, House Republicans voted 55 percent to 45 percent in support of the measures while Democrats averaged 99 percent in favor.  

Opponents of continuing resolutions strongly support the regular 12-bill process because continuing appropriations maintain the previous year’s spending levels, thereby perpetuating mounting debt and deficit problems. Proponents, on the other hand, point out the only realistic alternative is a government shutdown, which has disastrous consequences.  

Over the years, we have had plenty of experience with this revolving nightmare of stop-gap government funding. The last time all 12 regular appropriations bills were enacted on time was 1997. Congress has been playing catch-up ball ever since — or, perhaps more accurately, playing an ongoing game of kick-the-can-down-the-road. 

There are bound to be changes in House membership in this next election, due to retirements and incumbent defeats. There is always the hope, if not the promise, that a new Congress will want once again to get the vital money trains back on track and running on time. The new membership can help propel such reform efforts. The bonus is that better pacing of the appropriations process will enable the authorizing committees to do a better job of conducting hearings, bill markups and floor debates of major authorizing bills, producing better, more thoughtful results. 

Very few members come to the House wanting to blow-up the place using government shutdowns over expiring appropriations or debt limit breaches. The challenge is those few members can make a difference in outcomes given narrow majority control.  

Leaders must deal with them to hang on to majority control of the chamber. Leaders must also find ways to ensure an uninterrupted, functioning government that benefits all the people. That responsibility includes involving all members in devising and maintaining a system that best protects and promotes the national interest. In trying times like these, that is a perpetually evolving challenge.  

Don Wolfensberger is a 28-year congressional staff veteran culminating as chief-of-staff of the House Rules Committee in 1995. He is author of “Congress and the People: Deliberative Democracy on Trial” (2000), and, “Changing Cultures in Congress: From Fair Play to Power Plays” (2018).