In a notable moment in the Senate on Thursday, a request from Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) to pass a bill aimed at providing financial relief to federal workers during the 2025 government shutdown was met with opposition from Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.). Van Hollen’s proposal, known as the True Shutdown Fairness Act, seeks to ensure payment for all federal employees, military personnel, and federal contractors during the shutdown. Furthermore, it aims to prevent the Trump administration from executing mass layoffs or engaging in employee restructurings, commonly referred to as reductions in force.

This request was made in advance of a Senate vote on a different bill proposed by Johnson. His legislation focuses specifically on ensuring that active-duty military members and essential federal employees continue to receive pay amid the ongoing government shutdown.

Addressing his colleagues on the Senate floor, Van Hollen emphasized the importance of reopening the government as the most effective way to support federal workers. He criticized House Republicans for their absence during the shutdown, accusing them of being “AWOL” and taking an extended recess instead of addressing the crisis.

“Federal employees should not bear the brunt of a situation they did not cause. They are innocent bystanders in this political standoff,” Van Hollen stated, urging for a resolution that considers the well-being of those affected by the shutdown.

“We should not be punishing federal employees for something they had nothing to do with. They’re not responsible. They’re innocent bystanders,” he said.

Johnson noted that there was a lot of overlap between Van Hollen’s bill and his own Shutdown Fairness Act.

He suggested that Van Hollen support the procedural motion to allow the Senate to proceed to his own bill, so that it could be debated and amended — and perhaps even passed — on the Senate floor.

Johnson said that simply approving Van Hollen’s bill by unanimous consent without review and debate would not be the right way to go about it.

“Passing it by unanimous consent is not the way to get it done,” he said.