206
submitted 1 year ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

As the government shutdown deadline edges closer, a bipartisan idea is gaining new traction on both sides of a Capitol: taking shutdowns off the table entirely.

Senators and House members began circulating a letter on Friday pushing legislation that would automatically fund the government past spending deadlines like Sept. 30. It’s a longshot, but if passed it would amount to a permanent end to shutdown threats. Addressed to top party leaders on both sides of the Capitol, the missive asks for floor votes on the effort in both the House and the Senate, according to a draft copy obtained by POLITICO.

There are several different proposals floating around the Capitol about ending shutdowns entirely, as Congress stares down a Sept. 30 deadline and a House GOP that seems incapable of passing any sort of solution. But one bipartisan proposal from Sens. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) and James Lankford (R-Okla.) has at least some bipartisan buy-in, a signal of senators’ increased frustration with Speaker Kevin McCarthy and the House gridlock.

“A number of senators, on a bipartisan basis, would like a vote on a bill authored by Senators Lankford and Hassan,” the letter reads. “The Prevent Government Shutdowns Act would do exactly what the title suggests. It’s a simple bill that offers an eminently reasonable solution to one form of recurring congressional gridlock.”

Their bill would trigger two-week stopgap bills and require Congress to focus solely on spending bills if Congress misses its Sept. 30 funding deadline. Reached by telephone on Friday, Lankford said he’s aware of the letter and said it’s one part of a broader behind-the-scenes push to get a vote.

“There’s Democrats talking to Democrats, Republicans talking to Republicans about the bill,” he said. “There’s lots of conversations that are going out there. This letter is just one more of them.”

A bill aimed at stopping government shutdowns passed through a Senate committee in 2019, though it never passed the full chamber. On Friday, the former chair of the committee, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), confirmed that he’s aware of a renewed effort that began on Friday to get a floor vote and praised the bill’s bipartisan supporters. He had sought a vote on that legislation as part of a package of spending bills this week, though that package stalled out as the Senate broke for the weekend on Thursday.

Many in Congress may be reluctant to hold a vote on a bill that continues government funding indefinitely, dramatically changing the precedent for how Capitol Hill handles shutdowns. Currently, congressional leaders can use shutdown deadlines as take-it-or-leave-it gambits to their members, empowering party chiefs to devise must-pass bills.

Now that the shutdown is so close, though, individual senators have increasing leverage in both the Republican-controlled House and Democratic-controlled Senate, where all 100 senators will need to come to an agreement to even hold a final vote on a funding bill before a potential Oct. 1 funding lapse. The Senate left town on Thursday and won’t return until Tuesday due to the Yom Kippur holiday.

And the anti-shutdown effort is not just a GOP affair. In addition to Hassan, Centrist Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona plus Independent Sens. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Angus King of Maine all support the bill. Still, the legislation has more Republican co-sponsors than Democratic backers at the moment, raising questions about just how many Democrats might sign on.

For many lawmakers, the most urgent task is a temporary funding patch that averts a shutdown before they return to negotiating other, long-term funding legislation. But for those who have been seeking a moment to pass a bill ending shutdown threats in the future, now seems the time to act.

“Maggie and I’ve been trying to be able to get this on the floor for five years, every time that there was a government shutdown,” Lankford said. “Then after the shutdown is over, and we’ve gotten things resolved, people seem to move on to the next topic.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2023
206 points (97.7% liked)

politics

19097 readers
1920 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS