Talk:2018–2019 United States federal government shutdown

Possible affected military section

I'll let mods decide but since 42,000 active Coast Guard members missed their 1st paycheck since the shutdown began, I think a possible section on Military affected might be noteworthy. In addition 6 groups of military veterans held a press conference noting their struggle, so it would be more than a byline or footnote.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/42-000-coast-guard-members-miss-first-paycheck-due-government-n958616?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/veterans-groups-avoid-politics-call-shutdown-end/story?id=60391768&cid=social_twitter_abcn

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Holdenpi (talk • contribs) 23:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Legislation - The bills that caused the shutdown

The following statements are technically incorrect

• "The shutdown stemmed from an impasse over Trump's demand for $5.7 billion in federal funds for a U.S.–Mexico border wall."
• "In December 2018, the Republican-controlled Senate unanimously passed an appropriations bill without wall funding"
• "the House passed a stopgap bill with funding for the wall"
• "The House immediately voted to approve the appropriations bill that had previously passed the Senate unanimously"
• "Trump continued to maintain that he would veto any bill that did not fund an entire border wall"
• "McConnell blocked the Senate from considering any appropriations legislation that Trump would not support, including the bill that had previously passed"

Please refer to the actual legislation at the root of the shutdown.

• HR 1625 - https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1625/actions
• HR 695 - https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/695/actions
• HR 21 - https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/21/actions
• HJ Res 1 - https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-joint-resolution/1/actions

On Mar 23, 2018, the 115th Congress passed HR 1625 which became Public Law #115-141. HR 1625 included $2.2B of funding to Customs and Border Protection for the purpose of "procurement, construction, and improvements". While these funds are used to build walls along the US/Mexico border, there is nothing in HR 1625 that requires or prohibits building walls. HR 1625 passed the House 256-167 and passed the Senate 65-32. Both Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi voted for HR 1625.

On Dec 19, 2018, the Senate passed HR 695 by voice vote. On Dec 20, 2018, the House amended HR 695 to include an additional $5.7B of funding to Customs and Border Protection for the purpose of "procurement, construction, and improvements". Just like HR 1625, nothing in HR 695 requires or prohibits building walls. HR 695 then passed the House 217-185.

Trump wanted to sign HR 695. Every Democrat in Congress opposed HR 695. McConnell would not bring HR 695 up for a vote in the Senate. HR 695 would not have passed the Senate without some Democratic support due to the 60 vote cloture rule. Lack of further action on HR 695 caused the partial government shutdown on December 22, 2018.

On Jan 3, 2019, while the shutdown continued, the new 116th House introduced HR 21 with HJ Res 1 which was similar to the version of HR 695 that passed the Senate on Dec 19th. The legislation did not strip any of the $2.2B in funding approved in HR 1625. Like HR 1625 and HR 695, HR 21 did not require or prohibit building walls. HR 21 passed the House 241-190.

Trump did not want to sign HR 21 and McConnell would not bring HR 21 up for a vote in the Senate. Lack of further action on HR 21 caused the shutdown to continue beyond January 3, 2019.

None of these bills has ever mentioned any wall. Therefore, the following statements are more accurate

• "The shutdown stemmed from an impasse over an additional $5.7 billion of funding for Customs and Border Protection"
• "In December 2018, the Republican-controlled Senate passed an appropriations bill by voice vote which neither expanded nor reduced funding for Customs and Border Protection"
• "the House passed a stopgap bill with an additional $5.7 billion of funding for Customs and Border Protection"
• "The House immediately introduced and voted to approve an appropriations bill which neither expanded nor reduced funding for Customs and Border Protection, similar to the appropriations approved by the Senate in December 2018"
• "Trump continued to maintain that he would veto any bill that did not expand funding for Customs and Border Protection which could be used to build border walls"
• "McConnell blocked the Senate from considering any appropriations legislation that Trump would not support and any legislation that could not meet the 60 vote threshold for cloture, including HR 21 and HR 695"

And most importantly, despite all the rhetoric from both sides, none of this legislation has ever required or prohibited building walls. No legislator ever had the opportunity to vote against or vote for building walls.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamfrantz (talk • contribs) 8 February 2019 (UTC)

article appears to be historically and Constitutionally inaccurate and inconsiderate

Wikipedia is not a forum for sharing original research or claims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

(1) The House passed a spending bill in December 2018 that included $5.7 billion in border wall funding, sending the bill to the Senate. https://www.npr.org/2018/12/20/678602214/senate-approves-temporary-funding-bill-house-likely-to-act-today-avoiding-shutdo - this article appears to ignore the overriding Constitutional significance of that historical fact.

(2) The article instead states "In December 2018, the Senate unanimously passed an appropriations bill without wall funding, and the bill appeared likely to be approved by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and Trump." However this nonsensically ignores the fact that the U.S. Constitution explicitly gives the House of Representatives sole authority to originally author revenue legislation (as it already did as indicated above in (1))-- Section 7: Clause 1 Bills of Revenue - "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_1:_Bills_of_revenue

(3) so the 'bill' that the Senate passed cannot be relevant without a full explanation of the existing House authored and passed revenue legislation that included funding for the wall. The government shutdown in my opinion - and I think an accurate review by future historians will bear this out -- was brought about at least and primarily in part by Senate "'rules" (and/or those people not allowing the Senate to vote on (1) with a simple majority to pass) not authorized by the U.S. Constitution that pre-emptively placed a 60 vote majority requirement on the Senate to pass the House approved funding already passed in (1) which included funding for the wall. There was even in fact no documented filibuster requiring even Senate rules for cloture (that don't exist in the Constitution which is the authority at all times for Congress ie. there would be a REQUIREMENT for actual debate to actually and not speculatively exist for close to the length of the shutdown for even this cloture argument in defiance of the Constitution to make sense). In fact only a simple majority would have and easily could have passed the (1) authored and passed legislation provided by the House, which in turn would have avoided the longest U.S. federal government shutdown in history. By a huge margin of time.

(4) BTW: Democrat pundits and highly uninformed "journalists" are already suggesting that there are now different Senate "rules" in place that will now require only a simple majority to pass legislation in the Senate, considering the 50-50 split in the current 2021 Senate. An apparent un-acknowledged homage to the authority of the U.S. Constitution over arbitrary Senate "rules" that may or may not as a matter of political convenience be in violation of the Constitution. An authority that existed in 2018-2019 despite the attempt by this wikipedia article to color history differently and inaccurately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.188.138.78 (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Your opinion, while potentially interesting, is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Unless you can cite some published reliable sources which could be used to include this commentary in the article, this will be hatted and we'll move on. Wikipedia is not a general discussion forum. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The historical and Constitutional facts here have been cited and are not irrelevant. The House of Representatives did author and pass revenue legislation in December 2018 that included funding for the wall. According to the Constitution and laws regarding due process, the Senate should have either voted on this, or voted to amend with either proposal or concurrence to that existing House authored and written legislation. They did neither. They can't just voice vote on something that's entirely separate to it and disregards the original House passed funding in December 2018 or Artiicle 1: Section 7: Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution. And stipulating that you need 60 votes authorizing legislation to move forward in the Senate without engaging in actual documented debate that would require a Senate vote AFTERWARDS to halt by Senate rules on cloture is violating due process in the Constitution that dictates a simple majority to pass legislation in the Senate (or the addition of the Vice President's vote to break a tie). This article ignores the relevance of all of this and none of it is opinion. Believe me, if you think the issue of the Senate "requirement" for 60 votes to allow legislation to move forward to somehow bypass actual physical debate that may or may not lead to a filibuster in the Senate isn't significant with regard to the Constitution - particularly when that Senate "rule" isn't consistently (or might not going forward) applied - than the next four years should have Wikipedia's integrity as far as consistently documented facts of history with regard to Congress and the authority of the Constitution in major question. And I'm not sure who you are to determine why this isn't relevant to Wikipedia. Do you have some kind of Trump-bias narrative that allows you or this article to ignore why the Senate did not act in accordance with Section 7: Clause 1 of the Constitution with regard to authored, written and passed legislation that included funding for the wall that was forwarded to them from the House in December 2018? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.188.138.78 (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Recent

In the lead, should it be added that this is most recent government shutdown? If another shutdown occurs on October 1, 2023, then change to "followed by 2023 United States federal government shutdown." Cwater1 (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)