Senate Breaks Filibuster but Delays Final Vote — How Rules and Amendments Shaped the Shutdown Ending

How a late-night filibuster vote didn’t immediately end the shutdown

Late on Sunday the Senate secured the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster and begin work on an interim spending bill to reopen the government. But that procedural victory did not lead to an immediate final passage — and for reasons beyond simple political gamesmanship. A mix of Senate rules, amendment requests and tactical choices shaped a timeline that could have stretched the shutdown into the following week.

Key players and sticking points

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was the lone Republican to vote against the initial test vote to proceed. Paul objected to a hemp-related provision in the measure that would restrict "unregulated sales" of intoxicating hemp-based products at convenience stores and small retailers while preserving the sale of non-intoxicating CBD products. He used the procedural moment to press for a change to that language.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) said another senator was seeking a separate vote on an amendment to place members' pay in escrow during future shutdowns. Once one senator raises a request in the Senate, others often follow — a dynamic that complicates any attempt to speed action.

Why the Senate didn’t vote right away

The Sunday night vote was to break a filibuster on proceeding to the House-passed spending bill from September — a step that requires 60 votes. By Senate rules, breaking a filibuster opens up to 30 hours of post-cloture debate, unless senators agree to yield that time. Without unanimous cooperation, that sequence can push final procedural votes into the early hours of the next week.

Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) planned to file a substitute amendment that would remove the House text and replace it with the newly negotiated spending package. Because a substitute is treated as a new measure, Thune would then have to file for cloture on the substitute. Cloture motions require an intervening day before they can ripen into votes, which adds mandatory waiting time to the calendar.

In practical terms, that sequencing meant the Senate could not seek cloture on the substitute until the following Tuesday, and any cloture vote would again require 60 votes. If no agreements were reached to expedite debate, the process could have stretched across several additional days — potentially moving final Senate passage to the following Monday and delaying House consideration until midweek.

Politics, speed and the decision to move quickly

Faced with the prospect of extended delays, leadership had an incentive to negotiate and accelerate the process. Paul said leadership appeared ready to accommodate his request, but he also said Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) briefly blocked moving forward. Mullin said Democrats went "radio silent" on whether they would yield back debate time — a sign that any single senator could have prolonged the process.

"I'm not looking to hold things up. I'm looking to try to get things done," Sen. Rand Paul said, calling the hemp provision "really contemptuous."

Paul did secure a vote to strip the hemp language, but that effort was ultimately blocked by other senators. With no sustained, coordinated objections from enough members, the Senate approved the revised spending measure on Monday and cleared the main obstacle to reopening the government. Lawmakers repeatedly emphasized their desire to end the shutdown quickly, even if some rank-and-file members remained unhappy with concessions made during negotiations.

What’s next

The stopgap funding measure resolved the immediate shutdown, but lawmakers face another deadline when the next temporary funding measure expires on Jan. 30. The episode highlights how Senate procedure and a small number of senators can shape the pace of congressional action — especially when urgency runs up against senate rules and individual requests.