Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Congress Fights for Its Own Benefits as America's Priorities Wait in Line

Congress Fights for Its Own Benefits as America's Priorities Wait in Line

Congress: Assemble!

In recent weeks, as the new administration rolls out its shock and awe beginning to President Trump's second term, many have been asking: where is the co-equal legislative branch of government? Depending on your viewpoint, you may be wondering why Congress isn't doing more to push Trump's agenda, or conversely to fight back against the executive's unconstitutional power grab. But fear not! Congress is back, baby. Finally, an issue which gets them all in a lather, with some dramatic power moves. Is it the meltdown on the stock market and the burgeoning trade war with ... pretty much everyone? Is it the 'invasion' at the southern border? The price of eggs? Err... no, none of that. It's about their own voting processes.

At the center of this controversy is House Resolution 23, which has created an unexpected alliance between Rep. Brittany Pettersen (D-Colo.) and Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) while simultaneously causing a rift within the Republican Party.


The resolution, if passed, would allow members of Congress who have given birth or whose spouses have given birth to designate another member to vote on their behalf for up to 12 weeks - a proxy vote. This seemingly straightforward accommodation for new parents has become a flashpoint that recently brought House business to a complete halt.

Procedural Mayhem

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) was implacably opposed - he feels that proxy voting in any form raises constitutional concerns and could lead to a "slippery slope." (For more on the fascinating constitutional implications, see this article from 2020). Yet the issue garnered enough support that Luna successfully executed a 'discharge petition', gathering signatures from more than 200 Democrats and 11 Republicans to force floor consideration of the resolution.

The normal process for a bill to come to the floor is for the Rules Committee to set the time and amendment parameters for the bill. A discharge petition 'discharges' the relevant committee from further consideration of the legislation, and therefore allows a floor vote against the recommendation of the committee.

The situation became even more contentious when House leadership attempted to block consideration of the resolution by using a debate and vote on other bills that Republicans support to stop the resolution from being brought to the floor for a vote, leading to a remarkable rebellion where eight Republicans joined Luna in rebelling and taking down the procedural vote. This internal fracture effectively paralyzed the House, preventing it from addressing other pressing legislative priorities. The Speaker was forced to shut the House down to prevent Luna and Pettersen using the discharge petition to force a vote (which they would have won - the fact they managed to get the votes for the petition meant they had the votes to win).

After days of deadlock, a compromise has emerged. Speaker Johnson and Rep. Luna announced on April 6 that they've reached an agreement to formalize "vote pairing" – an existing but rarely used procedure dating back to the 1800s. This arrangement allows an absent member to coordinate with a colleague voting the opposite way who agrees to abstain, effectively canceling out the absence.

"Speaker Johnson and I have reached an agreement and are formalizing a procedure called 'live/dead pairing' — dating back to the 1800s — for the entire conference to use when unable to physically be present to vote: new parents, bereaved, emergencies," Luna explained in a statement on social media.

Fiddling While Rome Burns, or Crucial Modernization?

While resolved, at least for now, this controversy raises important questions about congressional modernization and work-life balance in America's highest legislative bodies. For supporters, the resolution represents a necessary step toward making Congress more accessible to younger members and those starting families. As Luna pointedly argued, "If we truly want a younger Congress … these are the changes that need to happen."

The timing of this debate is particularly significant as it has delayed consideration of the budget resolution recently passed by the Senate, which provides a framework for President Trump's legislative agenda on tax cuts, border, and energy policy. Some observers question whether this procedural battle over proxy voting deserves to take precedence over these substantive policy matters.

For policy wonks and lovers of procedural minutiae (and who doesn't love an obscure legislative rule being used to cause shenanigans?) this is all good stuff. For many Americans watching from the sidelines, however, the spectacle of Congress grinding to a halt over an issue that primarily affects lawmakers themselves may reinforce a growing sense of disconnection between elected officials and their constituents. At a time when millions of Americans face pressing concerns about inflation, healthcare costs, housing affordability, and global instability, the House's preoccupation with its own internal procedures can appear self-serving and out of touch.

This perception problem is particularly acute given that congressional approval ratings have hovered near historic lows in recent years. When the legislative body responsible for addressing national crises suspends its operations to debate workplace accommodations for its own members – accommodations that many ordinary Americans lack in their own jobs – it potentially widens the trust gap between citizens and their government. Critics argue that this internal focus comes at the expense of addressing legislation that would have tangible impacts on everyday Americans' lives.

However, others view the resolution as addressing a fundamental issue of representation. The current system effectively forces new parents, particularly mothers recovering from childbirth, to choose between their constitutional duty to represent their constituents and their personal responsibilities as parents. This dilemma doesn't just affect the individual members but potentially disenfranchises the hundreds of thousands of Americans they represent.

Working Parents

The proxy voting debate also reflects broader societal conversations about parental leave and accommodations for working parents. While many private sector employees have access to some form of parental leave, members of Congress have traditionally been expected to be physically present for votes regardless of personal circumstances.

Johnson has indicated that beyond the vote pairing agreement, he is "still looking at increasing accessibility for young mothers in the Capitol," including the possibility of "a room for nursing mothers and potentially allowing mothers of young children to use their official funds to travel between their home districts and Washington." These additional accommodations could help address some concerns without fundamentally changing voting procedures.

It's worth noting that this is not the first time Congress has grappled with proxy voting. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the House temporarily implemented a proxy voting system, which some Republicans, including Johnson, strongly opposed on constitutional grounds. This history adds another layer of complexity to the current debate.

The resolution and subsequent compromise highlight an ongoing tension in American politics between tradition and modernization, between adhering to established procedures and adapting to changing social norms. As our elected officials continue to reflect the diversity of American society, questions about how institutional practices accommodate different life circumstances will likely persist.

Whether the vote pairing compromise will fully resolve the issue remains to be seen, particularly since any Democrat who signed the discharge petition could still theoretically call it up for a vote. However, if Republicans abide by the agreement and decline to support the resolution on the floor, the immediate crisis appears to be resolved.

The fact that this issue has commanded such attention—even receiving public support from President Trump—suggests that questions about work-life balance and institutional accommodation are becoming increasingly important in American political life, even as other pressing national issues await congressional action.

About BillTrack50 BillTrack50 offers free tools for citizens to easily research legislators and bills across all 50 states and Congress. BillTrack50 also offers professional tools to help organizations with ongoing legislative and regulatory tracking, as well as easy ways to share information both internally and with the public.

IssueVoter is a nonpartisan, nonprofit online platform dedicated to giving everyone a voice in our democracy. As part of their service, they summarize important bills passing through Congress and set out the opinions for and against the legislation, helping us to better understand the issues. BillTrack50 is delighted to partner with IssueVoter and we link to their analysis from relevant bills. Look for the IssueVoter link at the top of the page.

IssueVoter Bill of the Month (April 2025): Congress Fights for Its Own Benefits as America's Priorities Wait in Line was first published by BillTrack50 and was republished with permission.

Cover Photo: provided by BillTrack50

Read More

Veterans’ Care at Risk Under Trump As Hundreds of Doctors and Nurses Reject Working at VA Hospitals
Photo illustration by Lisa Larson-Walker/ProPublica

Veterans’ Care at Risk Under Trump As Hundreds of Doctors and Nurses Reject Working at VA Hospitals

Veterans hospitals are struggling to replace hundreds of doctors and nurses who have left the health care system this year as the Trump administration pursues its pledge to simultaneously slash Department of Veterans Affairs staff and improve care.

Many job applicants are turning down offers, worried that the positions are not stable and uneasy with the overall direction of the agency, according to internal documents examined by ProPublica. The records show nearly 4 in 10 of the roughly 2,000 doctors offered jobs from January through March of this year turned them down. That is quadruple the rate of doctors rejecting offers during the same time period last year.

Keep ReadingShow less
Protecting the U.S. Press: The PRESS Act and What It Could Mean for Journalists

The Protect Reporters from Excessive State Suppression (PRESS) Act aims to fill the national shield law gap by providing two protections for journalists.

Getty Images, Manu Vega

Protecting the U.S. Press: The PRESS Act and What It Could Mean for Journalists

The First Amendment protects journalists during the news-gathering and publication processes. For example, under the First Amendment, reporters cannot be forced to report on an issue. However, the press is not entitled to different legal protections compared to a general member of the public under the First Amendment.

In the United States, there are protections for journalists beyond the First Amendment, including shield laws that protect journalists from pressure to reveal sources or information during news-gathering. 48 states and the District of Columbia have shield laws, but protections vary widely. There is currently no federal shield law. As of 2019, at least 22 journalists have been jailed in the U.S. for refusing to comply with requests to reveal sources of information. Seven other journalists have been jailed and fined for the same reason.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democrats Score Strategic Wins Amid Redistricting Battles

Democrat Donkey is winning arm wrestling match against Republican elephant

AI generated image

Democrats Score Strategic Wins Amid Redistricting Battles

Democrats are quietly building momentum in the 2025 election cycle, notching two key legislative flips in special elections and gaining ground in early polling ahead of the 2026 midterms. While the victories are modest in number, they signal a potential shift in voter sentiment — and a brewing backlash against Republican-led redistricting efforts.

Out of 40 special elections held across the United States so far in 2025, only two seats have changed party control — both flipping from Republican to Democrat.

Keep ReadingShow less
Policing or Occupation? Trump’s Militarizing America’s Cities Sets a Dangerous Precedent

A DC Metropolitan Police Department car is parked near a rally against the Trump Administration's federal takeover of the District of Columbia, outside of the AFL-CIO on August 11, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Policing or Occupation? Trump’s Militarizing America’s Cities Sets a Dangerous Precedent

President Trump announced the activation of hundreds of National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., along with the deployment of federal agents—including more than 100 from the FBI. This comes despite Justice Department data showing that violent crime in D.C. fell 35% from 2023 to 2024, reaching its lowest point in over three decades. These aren’t abstract numbers—they paint a picture of a city safer than it has been in a generation, with fewer homicides, assaults, and robberies than at any point since the early 1990s.

The contradiction could not be more glaring: the same president who, on January 6, 2021, stalled for hours as a violent uprising engulfed the Capitol is now rushing to “liberate” a city that—based on federal data—hasn’t been this safe in more than thirty years. Then, when democracy itself was under siege, urgency gave way to dithering; today, with no comparable emergency—only vague claims of lawlessness—he mobilizes troops for a mission that looks less like public safety and more like political theater. The disparity between those two moments is more than irony; it is a blueprint for how power can be selectively applied, depending on whose power is threatened.

Keep ReadingShow less