What silly things were in bill that locked the house
Executive summary
The stopgap bill that ended the 43‑day 2025 federal shutdown was H.R.5371, the Continuing Appropriations, Agriculture, Legislative Branch, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Extensions Act, 2026; it reopened most of the government through January 30, 2026 and provided back pay to furloughed federal workers [1]. Reporting and congressional materials show the measure included at least one last‑minute provision that angered Republicans — and a separate, widely criticized Senate‑inserted clause letting senators sue over phone‑record subpoenas drew unanimous House outrage and was quickly killed [2] [3].
1. The basic facts — what the bill did and why it mattered
H.R.5371 is a continuing resolution that restored FY2026 appropriations to most agencies through Jan. 30, 2026 (or until enactment of full appropriations), funded agriculture and several other programs through the fiscal year, guaranteed back pay for employees not paid during the shutdown, and blocked or nullified reductions in force implemented during the lapse [1]. The House voted to concur with the Senate amendment and pass the package 222–209, ending the longest shutdown in U.S. history that began Oct. 1, 2025 [4] [5].
2. “Silly” or surprising provisions that drew attention
Newsweek and other outlets flagged a “last‑minute provision” added to the bill that enraged some Republicans; the item prompted Speaker Mike Johnson to say moves were underway to repeal it, reflecting intra‑party anger over transparency and process [2]. Reuters and the New York Times describe another controversial insertion from Senate Republicans — language that would have allowed senators to sue the government over existence of phone‑record subpoenas — which blindsided senior appropriators and provoked a unanimous 426–0 House vote to excise it or kill it afterward [3] [5]. Those are the primary unconventional or politically combustible inclusions documented in the available reporting [2] [3].
3. How different actors framed those items
House Republicans’ Appropriations Committee and leadership publicly decried the surprise language and sought corrective action; the Republican House press office framed the passed package as a “clean funding extension” to restore order after the shutdown [6]. Conversely, Newsweek reported that critics deemed the late insertion a threat to transparency and accountability even within the GOP, prompting calls for repeal [2]. The New York Times’ coverage emphasized bipartisan fury when a provision was inserted quietly by Senate Republicans, showing that outrage crossed party lines [3].
4. What the records and bill text show — and what they do not
The official congressional summary and bill text confirm the CR’s funding terms, back pay provisions, and protections against reductions in force [1]. They do not, in the materials cited here, enumerate every minute amendment or characterize them as “silly” — that label is a political judgment reported by outlets reacting to last‑minute insertions and the resulting fights [2] [3]. Available sources do not mention other specific novelty items beyond the contested phone‑record provision and the unnamed last‑minute clause Newsweek described [2] [3].
5. Political context and consequences tied to the inclusions
The timing and stealth of the Senate insertion angered House leaders and rank‑and‑file members, yielding a unanimous vote to void at least one contentious element, and spurring intra‑GOP efforts to repeal the other last‑minute add‑on [3] [2]. Reporters tied these procedural fights to broader political fallout from the shutdown: the package’s passage and the controversies around its text played into narratives about transparency, legislative process, and blame for the shutdown that shaped subsequent political dynamics and public perception [2] [5].
6. Bottom line for someone asking “what silly things were in the bill”
Based on the reporting and congressional documents available, the most prominent “silly” or striking items were: [7] a last‑minute provision in the bill that prompted Republican leaders to pledge repeal or correction, and [8] a separate, quietly inserted Senate provision enabling senators to sue over phone‑record subpoenas that provoked bipartisan fury and a unanimous House vote to nullify it [2] [3]. If you’re looking for a complete line‑by‑line catalogue of trivial or odd clauses, available sources do not list additional specific enactments beyond those reported controversies [2] [3].