I have made no secret of my respect and fondness for my former boss, U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet. During the four years I worked for him I saw example after example of his dedication to doing what he believes is right for the good people of Colorado and the U.S. at large. Most of the staff called him “Michael,” as he preferred, but as a retired career military officer, I just could not bring myself to be that informal. I called him Senator or Sir, and a couple of times, Boss. He understood my formality, and never pressed me to be more casual. 

Which, of course, brings me to people from Germany who do not ride buses…

Or at least that is what some people think when they hear the phrase “non-germane riders.” That phrase is a truly nerdy term used by those of us in political science to refer to a small bit of legislation that is tacked onto a larger and major piece of legislation, that is in no way connected to the actual purpose of the larger bill. We have seen lots of examples of that practice from lots of senators and House members over the years. Just a few years ago, back in 1991 (Ed: um, that was about 30 years ago. You are getting old), we saw a bit of a dust up over the use of a rider to add half a million dollars in federal funds to turn the late band leader Lawrence Welk’s North Dakota boyhood home into a historic site. That is not bad for a town with only 600 residents. Such spending is often called “pork barrel” spending and is usually condemned, unless you are a beneficiary of said pork.

This type of spending mini-bill is what we poli sci nerds call a “non-germane rider.” Simply put, it means a new bit of legislation that is added to a larger bill, in hopes that, lamprey-like, the larger and more important bill will be passed with the rider attached.

Sometimes the riders are seemingly trivial (such as Mr. Welk’s homestead) and other times the rider is very significant, but for some reason or another likely faces opposition if presented as a stand-alone bill.

Recently Colorado Politics reported that Sen. Bennet, along with 2nd Congressional District U.S. Rep. Joe Neguse and 28 other members of Congress, requested wildfire mitigation and recovery funds be added to the (hopefully) soon-to-be-passed COVID-19 relief bill. This proposal certainly meets the standard to be called a non-germane rider, and generally I oppose such things (like, yet again, the aforementioned Welk spending). But as a proud Coloradan, I also know of the vital importance of wildfire legislation, and this seems like a very reasonable use of the rider system. Does that make me a hypocrite? 

Maybe…

If Bennet and the others were asking for funding to, say, erect a statue to honor failed congressional candidates, like myself, I would be flattered, but I hope I would have the integrity to oppose such a wasteful spending, even if it meant my stone visage would one day gaze out across a city park while pigeons landed on my head. But we are not talking pigeon landing pads here, we are talking about wildfires.

Having evacuated from the Waldo Canyon fire myself several years ago, I recall the fear I felt as I saw the fire crest the last foothill behind my house. As we evacuated, ash was falling in my yard. This year, of course, we have seen far worse, with massive fires scorching hundreds of thousands of acres, destroying structures and claiming lives. Three of the biggest fires in our state’s history came in 2020.

I would argue that riders, as a concept, can be good or bad, and how you see them depends on where you stand on the issue involved. I suspect this rider is being added because representatives from non-wildfire areas might resist such spending in a stand-alone bill. And it could also be because Bennet and the others understand the urgency of the issue and want to get monies flowing as soon as possible to decimated firefighters and other mitigators around the West. Knowing Bennet and his staff as I do, I am quite sure the proposal is well reasoned and written (OK, I admit that is a cheap shot at the Trump legal “filings” this week that had the wrong number of electoral votes and invented a county of Edison in Michigan, but I digress…).

So, should the Bennet funding be cleaved onto the COVID bill? Yes, it should. Bennet and the others are not trying to sneak funding through in the dead of the night, nor are they hiding what the money is for. They simply recognize the urgency of the situation. 

What then, is the lesson? Simply put, you should not merely oppose all non-germane riders all the time as a matter of principle. There are times and places where such riders are both needed and appropriate. We should be ever vigilant of congressional spending, but that does not mean that any unusual spending is necessarily flawed or wrong. Michael Bennet continues to look out for the welfare of Colorado, along with Neguse and the others, and that is a good thing. 

Plus, as I understand it, lots of Germans ride buses, so there’s that.