The U.S. Senate did some interesting things today, including voting on yet another motion to end the war in Iran -- which would have actually passed if John Fetterman had voted with his fellow Democrats, since there are now three Republicans backing the idea. But what caught my eye was a 99-0 vote (!) that is mostly symbolic and merely a baby step, but it is at least a baby step in the right direction.

To state the obvious, very few things pass unanimously in the Senate these days. So a 99-0 vote is rather startling on any issue. All the senators voted to advance a measure proposed by John Kennedy, but there will be a few more votes before it actually passes the Senate. The measure would withhold senators' pay during government shutdowns. This is actually an issue that I have long advocated for (in fact, since George W. Bush was president), in one form or another. Especially after seeing how well it worked at the state level, here in California.

Before you get too excited about this prospect though, let's first examine why it is merely a baby step and why it may never actually happen. Note that word used there: withhold. The measure would not actually forfeit their pay, it would just be held back until the shutdown was resolved. Once the federal government was fully up and running and funded again, the senators would get all this back pay in a lump sum.

That's not much of a penalty. For most senators, it would amount to no more than a minor inconvenience. Even for those who aren't already multimillionaires, all they'd have to do is go down to a bank and take out some sort of short-term loan or line of credit with the collateral of: "I'm going to get paid eventually, and I'll pay the loan back when I do." It'd be more of an annoyance than a punishment.

Also, as written the measure would only apply to the Senate, and it would only take effect after the midterm elections. This last part is due to the Constitution itself, where there are a few stumbling blocks to changing the way Congress is paid in any way. The Constitution originally had only this to say about congressional pay (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1):

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.

This was a change from what had existed under the Articles of Confederation, where national officeholders were paid by their own states, who could increase or decrease or even halt these payments at will (to reward or punish them for whatever they were doing). But the framers of the Constitution determined that since Congress was (theoretically, at least) supposed to work for the good of the whole country rather than just their home states, they should be paid by the whole country -- and not by their individual states.

Then came the Twenty-Seventh Amendment to the Constitution. The story of the last amendment made (to date) to the Constitution is a fun one, as I've pointed out before, mostly because it was proposed as a part of the Bill of Rights (which initially had twelve amendments) back at the very start of our constitutional government. Only ten of them were ratified in 1791, however. It took until 1992 -- 201 years -- to ratify the eleventh, and it took the determination of a college student who had proposed the concept in a paper he wrote for a class on government that he only got a "C" grade for writing. Annoyed at the low grade and determined to prove the concept, he then singlehandedly pushed enough state legislatures to ratify the amendment, which he finally succeeded in doing.

Here's the entire text of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment:

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

The newly-proposed measure would not take effect until after an intervening election (this year's midterms), as a sort of nod to this amendment (one assumes). But it is also likely why the measure would only withhold pay rather than dock that pay completely. If senators had to forfeit their pay, there would inevitably be a constitutional challenge to the law, which might wind up being successful.

The new measure would also only apply to the Senate. It would take a separate measure to apply the same concept to the House. Senator Kennedy even admitted the limitations of what he proposed:

[Senator John] Kennedy said the measure was not as strong as he would like. He said he would prefer legislation forcing senators to forfeit their pay during shutdowns -- rather than having it withheld temporarily -- and barring them from leaving Washington as long as the government is shuttered.

"If you do that, you'd stop shutdowns," Kennedy said. "But I can't pass that."

A different bill has been introduced in the current Congress that would not just withhold but forfeit all congressional pay while the government is shut down. It is called the "No Budget, No Pay Act." A similar bill was actually passed in 2103 and signed by the president, but it only was in effect for one year and pay was never actually withheld (so it wasn't challenged in court).

There is a real solution to the problem, of course. If a "No Budget, No Pay" constitutional amendment passed, then it would bypass all questions of constitutionality (meaning the courts couldn't overturn it). And it seems like the rare type of issue that isn't even partisan -- which would be absolutely crucial to get a constitutional amendment passed and ratified by enough states. Both Republicans and Democrats have regularly been using not only government shutdowns but also "continuing resolutions" that merely kick the whole budgeting process down the road until everyone is so exhausted they pass something to get them through whatever remains of the fiscal year. And each time it happens, it disgusts the other side of the aisle. The public in general is disgusted with both parties using these tactics, which is why such a constitutional amendment might indeed be possible, even considering how politically divided the nation is. Yanking congressional pay -- with no retroactive pay even possible -- would have the effect of lighting a fire under Congress, and they would start passing budgets on time once again.

Until that actually happens, we have to applaud even baby steps that are taken towards such a goal. Seeing Senator Kennedy's measure advance with a 99-0 vote only proves how bipartisan such an issue truly could be. If it passes its final Senate vote with an equally-impressive majority, then the House would be hard-pressed not to hold their own vote on the measure (especially since it only deals with Senate pay). Temporarily withholding pay isn't the same thing as denying pay altogether, but it is at least a symbolic step in the right direction.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant