Congress
Republicans broach a longer stopgap bill as shutdown enters fourth week
When House Republicans first passed a stopgap spending bill last month, it was written to give Congress a seven-week window to come to a long-term deal on government funding.
With the government shutdown now running into a fourth week, that original Nov. 21 deadline is looming fast — and numerous Republicans acknowledged Monday a new, longer stopgap bill will be needed.
What they don’t yet agree on is how much more time to give themselves to score a more enduring deal given that negotiations with Democrats to end the shutdown are virtually nonexistent.
GOP leaders are discussing dates ranging from mid-December to deep into 2026, and — in hopes of bringing Democrats aboard a shutdown-ending stopgap — they have offered to hold a separate vote on extending key health insurance subsidies alongside it.
But reopening the timing debate is risky and divisive inside the GOP. Leaders face a similar dilemma as they did before the shutdown began: Appropriators generally want a shorter stopgap, allowing them to write bipartisan bills, while conservative hard-liners want a longer continuing resolution running until March or even to the beginning of the next fiscal year, according to three Republicans granted anonymity to discuss private conversations.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune raised the possibility Monday that lawmakers would need “something much longer term” into 2026 if the current stalemate continues.
“I’m for doing the appropriations process, but, you know, at some point [Democrats] may not leave any alternatives,” Thune said when asked if he would support a CR until next Oct. 1.
Going that far into next year would spark pushback from members of the Appropriations Committee, who want to lock in a fiscal 2026 funding deal as soon as possible. The deeper Congress goes into the fiscal year, they worry, the less appetite there will be for reaching an agreement that doesn’t just extend funding levels set more than 18 months ago.
“We’re probably going to have to extend the CR date because the Democrats have held us up for weeks now,” Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) told reporters Monday. “Having said that I don’t want to go into next year and I am adamantly opposed to having a long-term CR.”
The backdrop of the timing debate is a bipartisan negotiation process that has almost completely broken down, if it ever really started in the first place. Thune and other senators acknowledged one-off conversations here and there in interviews Monday, but the group of rank-and-file senators who gathered early in the shutdown to try and forge a deal have made no significant progress.
“They’re not really happening,” Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) said on Monday of the bipartisan talks, adding that the two sides were at an “impasse.”
Getting Democrats to agree to a longer CR is far from a sure thing. They’re almost certain to balk at the idea of going into next year without an agreement on extending Affordable Care Act subsidies that are set to expire at the end of the year.
While Senate Republicans are willing to give Democrats a vote on extending those subsidies immediately after they vote to reopen the government, Democrats have been holding out for firmer guarantees that an extension can pass the House and get signed into law by President Donald Trump.
Private Senate GOP discussions about changing the expiration date for a stopgap spilled into public view when Mullin suggested more than a week ago that Republicans needed to start thinking about a longer window, potentially to Dec. 18 or 19. House GOP hard-liners argued strongly against that December timeline in conversations with senior Republicans, according to two other people granted anonymity to describe private talks.
But with the clock ticking, Mullin opened the door Monday to a 2026 expiration date given the current shutdown stalemate.
The idea of going deeper into the year — or potentially next year — has gained traction with a growing number of Republicans who acknowledge that they will need more than just a month to negotiate a sweeping deal that would set new funding levels, and new policy priorities, for the rest of the fiscal year.
“The 11/21 extension is no longer tenable & should be extended much further out,” Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.), a close Trump ally, tweeted Monday.
A Democratic trio attempted to pass an artificial intelligence bill via a unanimous consent request on Tuesday but were blocked on the Senate floor.
Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Andy Kim (D-N.J.) sought to pass their Artificial Intelligence Risk Management and Security Act using the procedural mechanism, which allows expedited consideration of legislation but fails if one senator opposes it.
“The whole world has recognized that we’ve got to do something,” Warner said in a speech on the floor. “We should not miss the moment to put a safety protocol in place now.”
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) objected to the bill, preventing any chance of passage.
“Congress must not legislate on the issue of artificial intelligence hastily or in a closed manner,” he said on the floor, adding that it gave some in the government too much power to dictate the technology that could be permitted to be released.
As some lawmakers grow concerned over dire warnings from AI labs’ top executives about the technology’s risk to humanity, Congress’ attempts to legislate AI guardrails have largely stalled.
In the past few weeks, two other AI-related bills, the Ratepayer Protection Act and AI Emergency Button Act, were also nixed in an attempt to pass them unanimously.
Warner, Schatz and Kim’s new bill would have established a new safety board within the Commerce Department to vet models before they are deployed and set safety standards for the industry. It would also have created a reporting process for safety and security incidents.
Sen. Darline Graham sought to take up her brother’s mantle Tuesday, going after former special counsel Jack Smith for obtaining the late-Sen. Lindsey Graham’s phone data.
“You should be ashamed of yourself,” the South Carolina Republican told Smith as he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, adding that the anguish the prosecutor caused her brother “makes me sick.”
Lindsey Graham, until his unexpected death in July, was among the most vocal in his outrage over revelations that Smith secretly collected electronic data from GOP lawmakers as part of the Biden-era investigation into President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
The late senator was also unapologetic in his support for a provision tucked into a government funding package, which was later repealed, allowing senators to sue the federal government for $500,000 or more if they discover their electronic records were seized without notification — language specifically designed to compensate Smith’s targets.
But Smith replied that Lindsey Graham was not a target of his investigation and was not suspected of wrongdoing — in fact, he considered Darline Graham’s brother “a patriotic public servant” who likely would have been a “witness” in his case against Trump for attempted election subversion.
“Your brother investigated the claims that Donald Trump was making,” Smith told Darline Graham. “He found them to be false.”
The federal government’s internal watchdog told Congress Tuesday that it has concluded President Donald Trump acted unlawfully in unilaterally canceling $810 million in federal funding.
In a letter to congressional leaders obtained by Blue Light News, the Government Accountability Office’s top lawyer panned Trump’s declaration Friday that he is nixing money Congress appropriated through a controversial budget maneuver called a “pocket rescission.”
“The Constitution vests in Congress the power of the purse,” GAO General Counsel Edda Emmanuelli Perez wrote,
adding that “Congress did not cede this important power” by enacting the 1970s impoundment law intended to stop presidents from withholding money Congress approves.
“Any withholding of appropriated funds beyond their date of expiration, regardless of size, subverts both the constitutional process for enacting federal law and Congress’s constitutional power of the purse,” Perez added. “The President may not force the expiration of budget authority Congress has already enacted and did not rescind.”
It is unclear what practical effect, if any, the letter will have on the interbranch funding fight. Outside groups sued the administration last year over a prior pocket rescission, but the Supreme Court issued a preliminary ruling that they did not have standing to challenge the matter. The Trump administration has argued that only the head of the GAO is able to sue under the 52-year-old law governing rescissions.
-
Politics2 years agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics2 years agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics2 years agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words