Democrats and Republicans try to outlaw future government shutdowns after Trump backs down over wall funding

Longest closure of services in US history inspires plans to prevent workers going weeks without pay

Carl Hulse
Sunday 27 January 2019 17:31 GMT
Government shutdown: Colorado senator Michael Bennett blasts Ted Cruz's 'crocodile tears' in impassioned floor speech

Was this the shutdown to end all shutdowns?

The answer could be yes. The toll exacted on government operations and federal employees by the record 35-day stalemate — not to mention the political costs to those in the White House and on Capitol Hill — was so punishing that it is giving momentum to a long-standing call to prohibit the government disruptions that have become a regular facet of Washington hardball.

“Shutting down the government should be as off-limits in budget negotiations as chemical warfare is in real warfare,” Senator Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn, said on Friday.

He was not alone in expressing those sentiments. Members of both parties said it was past time to enact legislation that would essentially mean the government would remain open at existing spending levels when an impasse such as the fight over the border wall was reached, rather than shuttering parts or all of the government. That is an outcome that virtually everyone agrees is costly, unnecessary and even embarrassing.

“This never should have happened,” said Senator Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, speaking for many.

Veterans of past shutdowns have come to learn there are few, if any, winners in the end and closing the government has not proved effective as a negotiating strategy for those who use the government as a lever to press their case. It did not work for then-Speaker Newt Gingrich in the 1990s, for Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and House conservatives in 2013, or for Senator Chuck Schumer, D-NY, and fellow Democrats in 2018.

Government workers are penalised through no fault of their own, constituents are inconvenienced, the nation’s image is hurt, and those responsible for running the government look inept, irresponsible and unwilling to reach an accommodation. The tension in this shutdown was evident in the internal finger-pointing that broke out among Republicans as workers missed two pay-checks and airports began to struggle with the absences of security workers and flight controllers.

“I’ve said repeatedly throughout this process that government shutdowns are a bad idea,” said Senator Rob Portman, R-Ohio. “They hurt federal employees and their families, disrupt critical government services and increase the cost to taxpayers. This shutdown confirmed what we already knew about shutdowns. Let’s do something about it now while the pain and inefficiency of this moment is fresh on our minds.”

Mr Portman has for years sponsored legislation to prevent shutdowns, and he introduced the measure again this month as the government limped along partly closed and federal employees lined up for food assistance and other aid.

Under his plan, which has 18 co-sponsors and rising, funding at existing levels would continue for agencies covered by an appropriations measure that was not signed into law by the beginning of the fiscal year on 1 October, preventing any lapse that incites a shutdown. To spur a resolution, funding would be reduced by 1 per cent after 120 days if no agreement is reached and by 1 per cent more every 90 days.

“It is one of these moments where after many years of us trying to get something passed that ends the shutdown, I think there is support coalescing around a legislative response,” Mr Portman said.

Senator Mark Warner, D-Va, whose state is home to tens of thousands of federal employees and contractors, introduced his own proposal, partly with the idea of shaming his colleagues and the Trump administration into avoiding such confrontations.

Searching for a bill title that would deliver the message, he and his staff came up with Stop Shutdowns Transferring Unnecessary Pain and Inflicting Damage in the Coming Years, otherwise known as the Stop Stupidity Act. In the event of funding showdowns, his approach would be to maintain spending for all but the legislative branch and the White House.

“More than a little bit of common sense tells me that we wouldn’t be here 35 days into this shutdown if all our staffs were experiencing the same kind of shortfall and economic distress that 800,000 of our fellow federal workers experienced,” he said on the Senate floor.

Mr Warner acknowledged his title was somewhat tongue in cheek, and he would be receptive to making changes in the interest of enacting a law that would prevent recurrences of the last weeks.

Trump says he will declare a national emergency if no deal is reached on border wall

“The final language in any deal that comes out three weeks from now should put strong provisions and strong penalties in place to prevent this tactic from being used by either party or any White House or Congress in the future,” he said, a view shared by Senator Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.

“The final package should also end government shutdowns once and for all,” Mr Grassley said.

In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi also welcomed the idea on Friday, saying in a meeting with news columnists that she wanted to explore the possibility of legislation that would serve as a shutdown prevention act.

Despite widespread sentiment against shutdowns in Congress, there could be opposition. Some lawmakers might not want to surrender potential leverage in the spending wars. There could be resistance from others who do not like the concept of automatic spending authorisation, arguing that it gives up a fundamental power of Congress. Democrats have feared automatic spending cuts could be a backdoor way for Republicans to cut money for federal programs.

President Donald Trump might be reluctant to sign a bill that includes such provisions, though he has now experienced such backlash to the shutdown and might prefer another way to circumvent Congress, such as declaring a national emergency to build the wall if negotiations fall through.

Congress will still have its opportunities for brinkmanship such as the need to raise the debt limit, though House Democrats have already taken steps to make that more automatic as well, in an attempt to reduce the threat to economic stability — and eliminate a politically charged vote.

Whether they can succeed remains to be seen, but Mr Portman, Mr Alexander and others said they were determined over the next three weeks to press the case for permanent protection against shutdowns.

“We accepted the idea that shutting down the government is an acceptable bargaining chip in a budget negotiation and it should never, ever be, and we should resolve that that should never, ever happen,” Mr Alexander said.

The Washington Post

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies


Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in