How the partial government shutdown came to be: A look behind the scenes

“We must cultivate our garden.” – "Candide" by Voltaire
The cultivation of the third government shutdown of 2018 began with a late-night Senate quorum call on Dec. 19.
Not an ersatz quorum call where a clerk reads “Mr. Alexander” and then falls silent for 15 minutes before uttering the next name on the scroll, “Ms. Baldwin.” Heaven knows when they would ever get to “Mr. Barrasso” or Mr. Bennet.”
No. The Senate was in a live quorum call in an effort to coerce senators to the chamber to eventually vote to fund the government. In this instance, the Senate was truly trying to determine whether Sens. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., John Barrasso, R-Wyo., Michael Bennet, D-Colo., and their 96 colleagues were present. A moment later, the Senate determined there wasn’t a quorum in the chamber. So the next vote was to “instruct the Sergeant at Arms to request the attendance of absent senators.”
In other words, if you’re a senator, you had better hop-to because they are about to bring the heat.
The live quorum call and Sergeant at Arms request was a crafty maneuver by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who planned to advance the stopgap spending bill without new border-wall funding. But McConnell wanted all 100 senators -- or as many were around late that Wednesday -- to be on hand so no one could complain he pulled a fast one. McConnell submitted the legislation to a voice vote. That is to say, not a roll-call tally, but a vote where everyone in favor hollers yea and those opposed shout nay.

McConnell wanted all 100 senators -- or as many were around late that Wednesday -- to be on hand so no one could complain he pulled a fast one.

A few senators called yea. None declared nay.
And with that, the Senate had approved the emergency spending bill. It would keep the government funded through Feb. 8.
But the House had to sync up.
The House Rules Committee is the way station for most legislation en route to the House floor. The Rules panel does just what it says it does. It establishes “rules” for debate. Parameters of how the House will handle a given bill, such as a time allotment and what amendments, if any, are even in order. If you don’t have a “rule” from the Rules Committee, you can’t consider the bill. The same goes if the full House defeats the “rule” on the floor.
The House GOP leadership controls the Rules Committee. The leadership mandates time and amendment restrictions. But late on Dec. 19, Republican members of the Rules Committee realized they had a problem. The Senate had just approved a bill without new wall funding. The Senate did so without debate or even a roll call vote. Orders from the Republican high command were to prepare a “rule” for the Senate-OK'd measure and put the legislation on the floor the next day. But there was a lot of angst among GOPers on the Rules Committee. Many of them didn’t want to craft a rule without border-wall funding. Moreover, rank-and-file Republicans were reluctant to consider a bill without new wall money. Hard-line Trump administration officials were coaxing Republicans to put up a fight for the wall. They argued that the GOP should back a bill with no new wall dollars only if it had a “majority of the majority” in the House. After all, this was a last-ditch effort.
Rules Committee Republicans faced a conundrum. They sensed a potential revolt by GOPers. They could follow marching orders and create a “rule” based around the construct of the Senate bill. The rule itself would likely require a weird coalition of some Republicans and lots of Democrats just to pass. Same with the bill. Or, the rule could crumble on the floor and go down to defeat. That would be a true embarrassment to Republicans and spark a mutiny.
Why did the Republican leadership misread the rank-and-file so badly? Why the noise about a border wall when the GOP was ready to fold? Why hand over the keys of the castle to the Democrats early?
You thought the comments about the macaroni-and-cheese dish by Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms were ugly on Twitter? This was about to get uglier.
“We decided to stay and fight,” said one House Republican.
Seven members of the House Rules Committee showed up to the 11 p.m. ET meeting on Dec. 19. Not a single Democrat on the committee surfaced. The panel first heard concerns from Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., about the disposal of nuclear waste. Then members of the Freedom Caucus made their appeals about the wall.
The hour grew late. It was after midnight. Key administration officials were out of pocket. The same with senior House Republican leaders.
The Rules Committee Republicans recessed their meeting. Not adjourned. But recessed “subject to the call of the chair.” That means they were coming back -- but exactly when wasn’t clear. But that’s what you do on Capitol Hill when there’s uncertainty. You recess the House, Senate or a committee “subject to the call of the chair.” Most significantly, the committee filed no “rule” for the Senate-passed stopgap spending bill. It would be up to the House Republican leadership to decide how to proceed on Thursday morning.

That’s what you do on Capitol Hill when there’s uncertainty: You recess the House, Senate or a committee “subject to the call of the chair.”

House Republicans met in a conference at 9 a.m. the next day, Dec. 20. Multiple sources tell FOX News that House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., asked GOPers to approve the Senate bill. The speaker explained how passing the interim spending bill now without new border-wall funding would make Democrats look bad in February. Democrats would be trying to launch their new House majority while bogged down in a spending fight with the administration just after President Trump’s State of the Union speech.
Mr. Trump phoned the Speaker a few moments into the conference meeting. Ryan excused himself. The gig was up. House Republicans would aim to pass a bill that funded the government but included $5 billion for the border wall.
“It was one last chance to stand up for our majority,” said one House Republican.
Later that night, the House approved the funding measure with wall money. The House and Senate were out of alignment. There was almost no way the Senate could tackle a bill with the wall. The partial government shutdown was all but a fait accompli.
Some questions:
McConnell put the “clean” spending bill on the floor Dec. 19. The Kentucky Republican repeatedly doubted there would be a shutdown. Did McConnell misread President Trump? Did the president and the White House mislead McConnell? Did House Republican leaders mislead McConnell?
How did Ryan and other House GOP leaders initially misread the White House and the desire of rank-and-file Republicans? Did they inflate the vote count of what a “majority of the majority” could support? Did the White House mislead Ryan into thinking the president would sign a Band-Aid bill without wall money?
And then there’s House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. She argued for weeks that Republicans couldn’t pass a bill on their own with wall funding. Pelosi is the best vote counter in Washington in decades. How did Pelosi misinterpret things? Or did Pelosi’s bravado backfire and provoke Republicans to vote yea? Regardless, the outcome on the wall vote was a shot across the bow of the speaker-in-waiting from the soon-to-be loyal opposition.
“We must cultivate our garden,” declared Candide. House Republicans knew what awaited them if they caved again with no new wall dollars. President Trump and most GOPers had long cultivated the expectation of a border wall. Perhaps even better yet, they cultivated a skirmish with Democrats if they refused to fund the wall. For if Republicans didn’t “cultivate their garden” when it came to the border wall, they may well find themselves cultivating something else: an insurrection with the conservative base.

Texas Border Cartoons

Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke helps stranded migrants dropped off by ICE in El Paso

In this Thursday, Nov. 29, 2018 photo, a migrant family from Central America waits outside the Annunciation House shelter in El Paso, Texas, after a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer drops them off. (AP Photo/Russell Contreras)

Where's the Father of these Kids?

Congressman Beto O’Rourke is seeking donations to help support more than 200 migrants allegedly stranded at a bus station in Texas.
O’Rourke was in El Paso Monday, where he asked the public to donate money to a group which helps house, feed and clothe mostly illegal aliens. The migrants were reportedly dropped off at a Greyhound station by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials over the weekend after being released from detention.
O’Rourke spoke about needing more time from authorities in the future, so they can find somewhere to go.
“We’re trying to ensure that ICE gives the community notice next time, when they know that there’s not going to be space in existing migrant shelters, to give the community 24-hours heads up so that we can find hotel rooms, beds, alternative shelters, food, volunteers, everything that these people will need to make sure that they are okay,” he stated.
This comes amid the partial government shutdown, where negotiations are underway over a dollar amount for a border wall.
The congressman’s visit also comes as many continue to speculate about a potential 2020 run against President Trump.

Trump visits troops in Germany after surprise Iraq stop

President Trump made his second unannounced visit to U.S. troops abroad on Wednesday, according to reports.
On his way back from meeting troops in Iraq, Trump stopped at Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany for refueling and met with service members there.
Trump slowly made his way down a rope line at the German base, shaking hands, signing autographs, chatting and posing for selfies. Some service members held up “Make America Great Again” caps for Trump to sign.
The president’s earlier visit to a base in western Iraq, about 100 miles west of Baghdad, was his first to U.S. forces in harm’s way overseas.
He said it’s because of U.S. military gains against the Islamic State terror group that he can withdraw 2,000 forces from Syria. Trump said the U.S. mission in Syria was to strip ISIS of its military strongholds — not to be a nation builder. He said that’s a job that should be shouldered by other rich nations — reiterating his America First policies and an ideology that challenges America’s role as global cop.
Trump met with U.S. diplomats and senior military leaders and wished troops a happy holiday.
On Trump’s meeting with senior military leaders, Trump Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said: “The generals and President Trump came up with a powerful plan that will allow us to continue our path to total victory. People will see results in a short period of time.”
Asked whether “total victory” referred to the Islamic State group, she said, “It certainly has to do with that.”
Aboard Air Force One, Sanders told reporters that Iraq’s prime minister had accepted an invitation from Trump to visit the White House.
The two leaders spoke by phone. They did not meet when Trump was in Iraq.
The White House said security concerns and the short notice of the trip prevented Trump from meeting with Adel Abdul-Mahdi.
Abdul-Mahdi’s office said in a statement that “differences in points of view over the arrangements” prevented the two from meeting face-to-face, but they discussed security issues and Trump’s order to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria over the phone.
Trump’s visit didn’t come without local opposition.
The head of a powerful Iraqi militia that enjoys backing from Iran is threatening to expel U.S. forces from Iraq after the unannounced visit.
Qais Khazali, the head of the Asaib Ahl al-Haq militia, promised on Twitter that Iraq’s parliament would vote to expel U.S. forces from Iraq, or the militia and others would force them out by “other means.”
Khazali is an avowed opponent of the U.S. who rose to prominence as a leader in the Shiite insurgency against the U.S. occupation. He was detained by British and U.S. forces in Iraq from 2007 to 2010.
Asaib Ahl al-Haq is represented in Iraq’s parliament by the Binaa bloc, one of the two rival coalitions which together control nearly all the seats in the lawmaking body.
Likewise, the head of one of two main blocs in Iraq’s Parliament is denouncing Trump’s unannounced visit, calling it a “blatant violation of Iraq’s sovereignty.”
Iraq’s government has close military and diplomatic ties with Washington, though few parties want to be seen as overly close to the U.S.
The Islah bloc is considered closer to the U.S. than the rival Binaa bloc, which espouses close ties with Iran.

If Dems keep rejecting Trump’s border-wall compromise offers, they’ll own shutdown: Marc Thiessen

Despite President Trump’s own declaration early on that he’d be “proud” to shut down the government over funding the U.S.-Mexico border wall, the political loser could end up being the Democrats, Washington Post syndicated columnist Marc Thiessen argued on Wednesday's "Special Report" All-Star panel.
It has almost been a week since the partial government shutdown began and it seems that neither the president nor congressional Democrats are backing down in this fight. The president told reporters Tuesday that he doesn’t know when the shutdown will end, saying the government won't be fully operating again “until we have a wall or fence --  whatever they’d like to call it.”
The All-Star panel, which included Thiessen, Washington Post opinion writer Karen Tumulty, and RealClearPolitics co-founder and president Tom Bevan, weighed in on who the shutdown ultimately benefits.
Thiessen told the panel that time was “on the president’s side” in his battle with Democrats, invoking remarks made by likely incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., about how Trump’s wall was becoming a “beaded curtain” and a “sign that Democrats are not negotiating and that they’re not taking it seriously.”
He compared that to federal Budget Director Mick Mulvaney’s recent counteroffer of a reported $2.1 billion for the wall instead of the $5 billion that was initially promised.
“So the president is trying to compromise and come to an agreement and the Democrats are making snarky jokes and thinking they have him on the run and not engaging. For the short term, he owns the shutdown because he claimed the mantle of the shutdown. He said ‘I want to shut down the government over border security.’ But over time, if he seems to be the one -- Americans want compromise on this --  if he’s the one that’s compromising and the Democrats are demanding absolute surrender, then it’s gonna backfire on them because that’s not what the American people want!” Thiessen said. “And over time, as he keeps making -- if he can be responsible and keep making concrete offers that are concessions to the Democrats -- then over time, they will start to own the mantle of the shutdown. So I think he’s right to stick to his guns and be reasonable and make reasonable offers.”
Tumulty dismissed those who say that the partial government shutdown is “no big deal,” reminding the panel that government workers who “live paycheck to paycheck” are still affected by the shutdown.
Meanwhile, Bevan determined that it’s only the “first quarter” in this battle over border funding and that things are going to get “ratcheted up” in the new year. He also told the panel that we’ll find out next week if Thiessen’s prediction was right.
“Democrats are going to come back, Nancy Pelosi is going to put a bill in the House on January 3 to reopen the government, and then they’re going to put the pressure on Trump, ‘Why won’t you sign this? Why won’t you do this?’” Bevan elaborated. “Now, there won’t be border funding in that and that’s when the fight is really going to heat up and we’re going to see who’s got the leverage and where the pressure points are and whether Marc’s scenario plays out where Trump can flip this on them and say ‘Listen, I’m negotiating in good faith. You guys aren’t negotiating at all. So now it’s your shutdown.’ But it is going to get serious in about a week.”

2019 Democratic House Cartoons

Retiring Rep. Jimmy Duncan salutes President Trump for troop withdrawal from Syria

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 9:00 AM PT — Tuesday, Dec. 25, 2018
A retiring Republican congressman salutes President Trump for his decision to bring home troops from Syria.
During his final speech on Monday, Tennessee GOP Representative, Jimmy Duncan Jr., said the U.S. cannot afford to be the policemen of the world.

FILE – In this April 4, 2018, file photo, a U.S. soldier sits on an armored vehicle on a road leading to the front line with Turkish-backed fighters, in Manbij, north Syria. (AP Photo/Hussein Malla, File)

He added, wars in the Middle East have cost trillions of dollars, and resulted in the loss of thousands of young Americans, and thousands more innocent women and children.
He also said, the wars have created more enemies of the U.S. around the world.
Duncan will retire at the end of the year after serving 30 years in Congress.

Lawmakers to return to Capitol Hill amid partial shutdown with no obvious change to border impasse

It seemed so simple a few days ago.
Back when James Mattis was still Defense Secretary…
Back when kids calling the NORAD tracking hotline still held a marginal belief in Santa Claus…
Back when the government was fully funded.
All 100 senators agreed to a stopgap spending bill (a “Continuing Resolution” or “CR” in the Congressional lingua franca) a week ago Wednesday night. The bill would run the government until February 8. The House was poised to follow suit and pass the CR on Thursday or Friday, keep the federal lights on and dispatch everyone home for the holidays.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) deposited the interim spending bill on the Senate floor early in the day on Wednesday.
“I don’t believe he would bring it up unless he had assurances that the President would sign the CR,” said Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard Shelby (R-AL). “But you never know.”
Shelby’s instincts were right.
You never know with President Trump.
There were strong signals from the White House last Thursday morning that Trump would grudgingly sign a stopgap spending bill to fund the government – even though the package lacked money for a border wall.
But you never know.
Trump’s oscillation began when he got an earful from the conservative House Freedom Caucus Wednesday night. Freedom Caucus Leader Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) declared that Trump’s base would revolt if he signed the "Band-Aid" bill. Meadows predicted that signing the legislation would inflict “major damage” to Trump’s 2020 re-election bid.
The gig was up Thursday morning when Trump dialed House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), summoning him from a House GOP Conference meeting. It just wasn’t Freedom Caucus members who were upset about advancing a spending bill without the wall. Many rank-and-file members were irate. They felt hung out to dry – again. They campaigned on the wall. They swallowed hard when wall funding wasn’t tucked into the March package. Same with interim spending bills in September and November. Would the leadership wash their hands of the issue and rush home for the holidays?
Ryan puts the brakes on everything after the phone call. The House wouldn’t accept the Senate’s bill. The House would take the Senate’s “clean” spending measure and tack on $5 billion for the wall.
“We came out of our conference today more unified,” boasted Meadows. “I looked at (President Trump) in the eyes today and he was serious about not folding without a fight.”
Meadows said the GOP leadership realized they had to push for the wall. The “clean” Senate bill wouldn’t do.
“The assumption was that there were not enough votes there,” said Meadows.
+++++++++++++
Friday, December 21st was both the shortest and longest day of the year in Washington. However, the political day ran past midnight into Saturday, December 22nd.
The bill to fund the government - in any form - was still ricocheting around the Capitol, caroming from the House to the Senate, back to the House and returning to the Senate.
The Senate struggled to even start a debate on the House-amended plan that provided funding for the wall. A roll call vote started at 12:31 p.m. ET Friday to “proceed” to the House-plan. That required a majority vote. But many senators were absent, having already fled Washington for the holidays. The vote remained open for hours with the yeas, in favor of starting debate, lagging behind the nays.
Vice President Mike Pence and Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney finally materialized at the Capitol to talk with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Pence’s services could be required to break a tie. Behind the scenes, Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) helped broker an agreement just to initiate debate.
At 5:49 p.m. ET, the Senate finally closed the procedural vote after five hours and 18 minutes. It was the longest vote in Senate history, besting the five-hour-and-15-minute marathon from February 2009 on President Obama’s stimulus package.
On the government funding procedural vote, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) was a no. Flake then flipped to yea. Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL), one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate and facing a tough re-election in 2020, voted aye. Corker had lurked around the Capitol all day but had not yet cast a ballot. Corker voted yes, making it a 47-47 tie. Pence then broke the tie, 48-47, formally getting the Senate on the bill.
“Most of the conversation today has been about process and not the negotiations themselves,” said Flake. “The House bill is dead.”
In other words, it was a challenge to even convince a majority of senators to consider the House plan with the wall. That’s to say nothing of securing 60 votes to end a filibuster and usher a final version of the package to passage.
There was a flurry of activity at the Capitol late Friday afternoon. One senior House Republican source close to the negotiations indicated there was a “sense of optimism now,” adding, “I think they are trying to clear it with the White House.”
The prospective plan was to agree to brand-new, full spending measures for the rest of the fiscal year. Not interim measures through February or anything like that. But the wall was the holdup – as it’s always been the holdup.
By nightfall, the House adjourned for the day, with most lawmakers dashing to the four winds. That assured a partial government shutdown that night at midnight.
Congress would be in session on Saturday. But few lawmakers would be anywhere near the Capitol to solve the crisis.
+++++++++++++
Only a skeleton crew of staff and lawmakers darkened the door of the Capitol on Saturday. Members of the press corps certainly outnumbered the number of aides and members.
Ryan was at the Capitol to open up a rare Saturday session of the House at noon, precisely 12 hours after the government lurched into a partial shutdown. But what was the plan to bridge the impasse? Would Ryan’s Speakership end on January 3 at noon with parts of the federal government shuttered?
Ryan was having none of it, never breaking stride as he booked his way through Statuary Hall of the Capitol, bound for his office.
“It goes over there,” said Ryan, pointing toward the United States Senate chamber across the Capitol Rotunda. “Over there. You know that.”
Ryan portrayed himself as a mere bystander. And in this instance, he was more than willing to deflect the Christmastime quandary to the world’s greatest deliberative body.
That said, some whispered at the Capitol that the outgoing Speaker, off the job when the new Congress convenes, should have taken a hit. They suggested that Ryan should have taken the clean Senate bill, lacking wall money and put it on the floor. Lots of Republicans would have balked. But it likely would have passed with a coalition of many Democrats and some GOPers. What did Ryan have to lose? He’s out the door soon. His last act of Speaker may have been an effort to keep the government open.
But President Trump wouldn’t have signed the plan. And so Ryan went a different direction.
It was thought the administration had an outside chance to reach a deal Saturday afternoon with lawmakers and perhaps summon everyone back to Washington to vote Sunday night.
The sides were “swapping paper,” but in reality, they were nowhere near an agreement.
That afternoon, Trump summoned a group of hardline conservatives to the White House to discuss the border wall - a group that included Meadows, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) would only embolden the president on the wall fight.
Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard Shelby was also invited.
Multiple sources say the White House included Shelby as an effort to show him how serious they were about the wall.
But some Republicans fretted there could now be an issue with the conservatives. The House GOP brass did an about-face and pushed a funding bill on the floor with the wall late Thursday. That steeled their resolve. How could House Republicans now accept anything less than $5 billion since the leadership forced a vote on the revamped bill?
“We often have that problem when we over-conservatize,” said a senior House Republican leadership source.
And so the House and Senate return on December 27. But so far, there’s nothing obvious to break the dam.
British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan once declared that the most important factors in politics were “events.”
We’ve seen other instances where “events” sparked expeditious resolutions to shutdowns.
Such was the case during the January shutdown. Democrats quickly folded after it was found the public was hammering them in public opinion polls.
A wild car chase and shootout at the Capitol in October 2013 – along with the debt ceiling – helped bring a hasty end a two-and-a-half week shutdown over defunding Obamacare. One U.S. Capitol Police officer was injured in the mayhem. Lawmakers put aside their differences and reopened the government. Lawmakers argued that USCP officers were on the job and willing to put their lives on the line to defend the Capitol - even though they weren’t getting paid.

So what will end this shutdown? An unforeseen event? Terrorism? An international crisis? A deeper market shock? President Trump signing a bill without full wall funding? Democrats accepting wall funding?
You never know.