Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

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

News

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

What Really Guides Lawmakers’ Decisions on Capitol Hill
us a flag on white concrete building

What Really Guides Lawmakers’ Decisions on Capitol Hill

The following article is excerpted from "Citizen’s Handbook for Influencing Elected Officials."

Despite the efforts of high school social studies teachers, parents, journalists, and political scientists, the workings of our government remain a mystery to most Americans. Caricatures, misconceptions, and stereotypes dominate citizens’ views of Congress, contributing to our reluctance to engage in our democracy. In reality, the system works pretty much as we were taught in third grade. Congress is far more like Schoolhouse Rock than House of Cards. When all the details are burned away, legislators generally follow three voices when making a decision. One member of Congress called these voices the “Three H’s”: Heart, Head, and Health—meaning political health.

Keep ReadingShow less
Illustration of someone holding a strainer, and the words "fakes," "facts," "news," etc. going through it.

Trump-era misinformation has pushed American politics to a breaking point. A Truth in Politics law may be needed to save democracy.

Getty Images, SvetaZi

The Need for a Truth in Politics Law: De-Frauding American Politics

“Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?” With those words in 1954, Army lawyer Joseph Welch took Senator Joe McCarthy to task and helped end McCarthy’s destructive un-American witch hunt. The time has come to say the same to Donald Trump and his MAGA allies and stop their vile perversion of our right to free speech.

American politics has always been rife with misleading statements and, at times, outright falsehoods. Mendacity just seems to be an ever-present aspect of politics. But with the ascendency of Trump, and especially this past year, things have taken an especially nasty turn, becoming so aggressive and incendiary as to pose a real threat to the health and well-being of our nation’s democracy.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

A memorial for Ashli Babbitt sits near the US Capitol during a Day of Remembrance and Action on the one year anniversary of the January 6, 2021 insurrection.

(John Lamparski/NurPhoto/AP)

How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

In the wake of the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, President Donald Trump quickly took up the cause of a 35-year-old veteran named Ashli Babbitt.

“Who killed Ashli Babbitt?” he asked in a one-sentence statement on July 1, 2021.

Keep ReadingShow less
Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

Supreme Court, Allen v. Milligan Illegal Congressional Voting Map

Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

A wave of redistricting battles in early 2026 is reshaping the political map ahead of the midterm elections and intensifying long‑running fights over gerrymandering and democratic representation.

In California, a three‑judge federal panel on January 15 upheld the state’s new congressional districts created under Proposition 50, ruling 2–1 that the map—expected to strengthen Democratic advantages in several competitive seats—could be used in the 2026 elections. The following day, a separate federal court dismissed a Republican lawsuit arguing that the maps were unconstitutional, clearing the way for the state’s redistricting overhaul to stand. In Virginia, Democratic lawmakers have advanced a constitutional amendment that would allow mid‑decade redistricting, a move they describe as a response to aggressive Republican map‑drawing in other states; some legislators have openly discussed the possibility of a congressional map that could yield 10 Democratic‑leaning seats out of 11. In Missouri, the secretary of state has acknowledged in court that ballot language for a referendum on the state’s congressional map could mislead voters, a key development in ongoing litigation over the fairness of the state’s redistricting process. And in Utah, a state judge has ordered a new congressional map that includes one Democratic‑leaning district after years of litigation over the legislature’s earlier plan, prompting strong objections from Republican lawmakers who argue the court exceeded its authority.

Keep ReadingShow less