(A)Political - September 20th

Good morning everyone,

It’s been a full week on Capitol Hill. Let’s get into it! As a reminder,

Senate Democrats are forcing a GOP rethink of government funding stop-gap procedures, as partial government shutdown looms. The Trump admin is now overhauling the H-1B visa system, with pricey visas as the newest addition. Senate nominations go ‘nuclear,’ 48 trump nominations have now been confirmed by the Senate.

• Senate Democrats Reject GOP Funding Bill, Gov. Shutdown 10 Days Away

• H-1B Visas Get Sticker Shock

• Senate Nominations Go ‘Nuclear’ With 48 Nominations Confirmed

Senate Democrats Reject GOP Funding Bill, Gov. Shutdown 10 Days Away

_{By: Atlas}

Senate Democrats blocked a Republican-led stopgap funding bill, leaving no agreement in place to keep the federal government open past Sept. 30. The House had approved the measure earlier in the day and sent it to the Senate with limited time remaining. Senators then rejected the bill and left Washington for a weeklong recess. For publication on Sept. 20, the government is 10 days from a partial shutdown absent congressional action.

Senate Votes and Immediate Fallout

The House-passed continuing resolution (CR) would have extended current funding levels through Nov. 21 and provided additional security funds for the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. In the Senate, the measure failed to clear the 60-vote threshold required to advance, falling on a 44–48 vote. One Democrat, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, voted in favor. Two Republicans, Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Rand Paul of Kentucky, voted against. Democrats attempted to advance their own short-term bill funding the government through Oct. 31; that proposal failed on a 47–45 vote.

After the votes, Senate leaders indicated the chamber could reconvene as late as Sept. 29. That schedule would leave minimal time to process another bill before funding expires at 12:01 a.m. on Oct. 1. House leaders signaled the chamber would not meet again before Oct. 1, effectively placing the next move on the Senate unless leadership changes course.

What Was in Each Proposal

Republicans characterized their CR as a straightforward extension of current spending, with a limited set of add-ons. The text included targeted sums for security at the Capitol, for protection of certain executive branch officials, and for Supreme Court security. It did not address health-policy provisions sought by Democrats and did not include broader policy riders.

Democrats opposed the House bill on content, not duration. They sought to add an extension of Affordable Care Act premium tax credits and to reverse Medicaid reductions enacted earlier in the year. They also pressed for guardrails on impoundment—language designed to limit the executive branch’s ability to withhold or delay congressionally appropriated funds. On timing, Democrats were open to a short-term extension but conditioned support on those health and budget-execution items. Their own CR ran to Oct. 31 and kept funding largely flat, while incorporating the health provisions and impoundment language Republicans opposed.

Both parties framed their bills as temporary measures to provide space for negotiations on the 12 full-year appropriations measures. Republicans argued that adding health policy to a short-term bill exceeded the scope of a stopgap. Democrats countered that the items they sought were time-sensitive and should be resolved now rather than deferred to later negotiations.

Deadlines, Mechanics, and Recess Plans

Federal funding expires at the start of the new fiscal year absent enacted appropriations or a CR. If Congress does not act by Oct. 1, agencies begin standard shutdown protocols. Components designated as “non-excepted” suspend operations; many federal employees are furloughed and paid retroactively once funding resumes. “Excepted” functions continue, including activities necessary for the safety of life and protection of property. Mandatory programs such as Social Security and Medicare benefit payments continue, though certain supporting activities can slow if they depend on appropriated staff.

The House approved the Republican CR 217–212, largely along party lines. In the Senate, neither party’s bill approached the 60 votes needed to proceed. Several senators missed the votes; both parties cited absences in explaining the tallies. In practice, any Senate path forward requires bipartisan support or a revised measure that draws crossover votes.

The calendar is a constraint. With the Senate signaling Sept. 29 as the earliest return date and the House not planning floor action before Oct. 1, any solution would require expedited procedures and rapid agreement on text. Leadership could recall members earlier, but no such plan was announced after the votes. If the Senate were to move first with a modified CR that includes limited health provisions, the House would then have to decide whether to take up that bill before the deadline. If instead the Senate brings back the House bill unchanged, the outcome would hinge on whether enough Democrats shift to support it.

Scenarios Ahead

One option is a narrow compromise that extends funding into November while adding a limited health-care component. The items Democrats have flagged—extension of ACA premium tax credits and reversal of the Medicaid reductions—are specific and testable in legislative text. Republicans could accept a pared-down version or insist those issues be deferred to full-year talks. Either approach would require quick drafting, parliamentarian review, and votes in both chambers.

Another option is a repeat vote without changes. Given the recorded tallies, the math does not change unless members switch positions or absences are resolved to one side’s advantage. Leadership statements after the votes left room for additional discussions but did not identify a specific compromise.

Agencies and counterparties are preparing in parallel. Departments have updated contingency plans; unions have alerted members to possible furloughs; contractors and grantees are reviewing cash flows and deliverables in the event of delayed payments or paused approvals. State and local governments that rely on federal reimbursements are assessing which programs would be affected by a lapse and which would continue.

The broader appropriations process remains in the background. Even if Congress enacts a short-term extension, negotiators still must resolve the 12 annual bills. The dispute over whether a CR should include health-policy provisions previews the debates likely to recur in full-year negotiations. If Congress misses the deadline, a shutdown would begin while talks continue, with operational impacts that widen as the lapse lengthens. If a short-term bill advances, attention shifts to committee work and leadership talks on longer-term totals and policy riders.

As of publication, the facts are straightforward. The House passed a CR running to Nov. 21. The Senate rejected that bill and did not advance a Democratic alternative that ran to Oct. 31. The government is 10 days from a funding deadline. The next signal will be whether Senate leaders schedule another vote before Sept. 30, and if so, whether the text changes to incorporate any of the items Democrats have identified, or remains a straight extension at current levels.

Subscribe to (A)Political to read the rest.