Michael Bennet and Cory Gardner are asking the U.S. Senate to accept responsibility for otherwise irresponsible behavior. It is a brilliant display of common sense that should not go unnoticed.
The Democrat Bennet and the newly elected Republican Gardner introduced a resolution Thursday that, in the event of a government, shutdown would essentially force the Senate to remain in session until the situation was resolved. If adopted, the resolution would establish new procedures involving a series of quorum calls and roll-call votes to keep senators on or near the Senate floor until a bill was passed ending the shutdown. Warrants could be issued for any senators who refused to show up, and the Senate sergeant at arms could then be directed to bring them to the floor.
When these provision are in effect, a two-thirds majority would be required to recess or adjourn the Senate between 8 a.m. and 11:59 p.m. At midnight, a simple majority could do so, but only by a roll-call vote and only until 8 a.m. At no time could the Senate recess or adjourn by unanimous consent.
If that seems excessive, consider what is at stake. Threatening to shut down the government over a political fight is hostage-taking on a global scale. It is effectively holding a gun not just to the United States government, but to the nation as a whole. To actually shut down the government, as has happened, puts at risk not only government operations, but the economy, security and ordinary Americans’ lives.
As a negotiating tactic, threatening to shut down the government over politics is reprehensible. Currently fashionable anti-government rhetoric notwithstanding, people depend on the government for a lot of normal, everyday functions that are neither controversial nor overly politicized. That includes everything from Social Security and delivering the mail to issuing passports and ensuring public health. While some functions have been protected – the military, for example, and air-traffic control – any shutdown would still affect broad sections of society.
As it happens, that also means sensible politicians recognize the danger in such a stunt – not only to the nation, but to themselves politically. Republicans found out during the Clinton administration that shutting down the government can backfire and do more harm to those instigating the closure than their political foes.
But that there is probably a political component to Bennet and Gardner’s motivation takes nothing away from the value of their measure. However, it can be done, steering the Senate back toward careful deliberation and away from the moral equivalent of food fights is always worthwhile.
Colorado’s senators seem to agree. As Bennet said, “Washington’s habit of turning routine responsibilities into manufactured crises has to end. This type of political theater is hurting our economy and competitiveness.”
Gardner showed he was on the same page, saying, “Responsible governing bodies do not shut themselves down over political disputes. Coloradans don’t shut their communities down because of a disagreement, and the Senate shouldn’t be allowed to do so either. ... I wish we didn’t need legislation like this, but I’m happy to support it.”
Good for him – and for Bennet as well. Colorado’s U.S. senators are from opposing parties and no doubt disagree on many things. Both, however, seem to understand that their constituents – like most Americans – are tired of the games and extraneous nonsense that increasingly consume so much of Congress’ time.
Let’s hope a majority of their colleagues get it as well.
