House relents, finally ends record-breaking Homeland Security shutdown

[ShazzieB]

11. This article was very confusngly written, imo.

The headline says "House relents, finally ends record-breaking Homeland Security shutdown," which sounds like big news. The first paragraph says "Congress finally ended the historic Department of Homeland Security shutdown, resolving the longest crisis of its kind in American histor,." which sounds like REALLY big news.

But later, it says the following (underlining added by me):

On Wednesday night, the House cleared a key hurdle in ending the shutdown by greenlighting a budget blueprint to funnel $70 billion to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol. The broader DHS funding bill doesn't, however, include funding for immigration enforcement, which became a sticking point for GOP hardliners in the House. The Senate unanimously approved the DHS bill weeks ago, but Johnson let it sit as he worked to smooth over party infighting.

If I'm reading this correctly, the House ignored the bill the Senate had already passed (which had no funding for ICE) and passed a different version that includes $70 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol. So we have one bill that was passed unanimously by the Senate and another that was passed unanimously by the House, and they disagree in at least one important way. That doesn't sound like a victory for anybody to me. If anything, it sounds like a recipe for another impasse...doesn't it? Or am I missing something?

It sounds to me like this article overstates the House's "accomplishment" and plays down/ignores the implications of the fact that there are now TWO opposing bills, each one passed unanimously by one house of Congress. The article uses the words "resolving" and "resolved" in describing what the House did, but I don't see how anything been resolved, other than the GOP infighting that led to Johnson shutting down the House.

Is anyone else seeing it this way? If I read it wrong, I blame USA Today, lol. I had to reread portions of the article several times before I was able to piece together what (I think) actually happened. My reading comprehension is usually very good. I hope it's not failing me here.