Hey Congress, Show Up To Work. Or Quit.
Unaware that she is defeating her own argument, one female members of the House of Representatives from California has been dragging her baby onto the floor of the House as a prop to prove that it’s impossible to get to Washington and be present for votes with a newborn.
Hello? You’re there, Rep. Brittany Petterson of California.
Clearly it’s possible.
Plus, you have a free daycare center on the premises provided to you courtesy of taxpayers. Do you have any idea how many new mothers would kill for a situation like that?
Terrified of being labeled anti-woman, a number of Congress members - mostly Democrats but a handful of Republicans as well - are trying to force on a measure that would allow “new mothers and spouses” to vote remotely for 12 weeks following the arrival of a newborn.
TWELVE WEEKS?
That’s three months.
And that measure wouldn’t limit this perk to just new mothers. Spouses are included!
Before anyone starts screeching about the hardships of working with newborns, let me say been that like many American mothers, I’ve been there, done that.
I managed to work not only after having one baby, but after having another just 17 months later.
And I didn’t have a job that paid $174,000 a year, that included free taxpayer-sponsored childcare IN MY WORKPLACE, free travel back and forth, free healthcare and a pension.
The American taxpayers are doing everything possible to accommodate new mothers and fathers. But 12 weeks maternity/ paternity leave?
No. Just no.
No one forces a candidate to run for Congress. If a member finds herself unable to represent the people who elected her she should resign and let a special election send someone to Capitol Hill who is able to be there.
Over the years many members have resigned to care for family members. Take Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy, for instance.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi allowed proxy votings during covid. In an editorial opposing the measure, The Wall Street Journal reminds us how that privilege was abused.
Proxy voting in Congress is one of those Covid memories that no longer feels quite real. Were people really wiping down groceries and wearing masks at the beach? But House Republicans this week are fighting—among themselves, naturally—about bringing back proxy voting in some instances.
Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, who had a baby in 2023, is trying to force consideration of a measure to permit proxy voting for 12 weeks by any new mothers and fathers serving in the House. It’s a sympathetic case. But Speaker Mike Johnson and his allies are opposed, arguing that proxy voting is unconstitutional and that making any exception to the rule would be a slippery slope.
(The Constitution requires a quorum of members be present for any votes, clearly communicating that being present in the chamber is required.)
The Covid experience suggests Mr. Johnson is correct. The way the system worked then, lawmakers filed a letter to the House clerk attesting that they were unable to be physically present because of the public-health emergency. That soon became an all-purpose excuse. An analysis by Roll Call in 2022 found that proxy votes were 50% higher on days lawmakers were flying out of town.
The Journal editors provide examples. This for instance:
The Inflation Reduction Act passed with 220 votes, 158 by proxy, during what the House had scheduled as summer recess. Iowa’s now-former Rep. Cindy Axne said aye, after which she was spotted on Instagram taking a vacation in France. “The deal is, I’m a family member. I’m a mom of two boys,” Ms. Axne said. “I had a trip planned for eight months, and paid for, because that was the only time that I could go.”
Proxy voting is like remote working that infested the entire federal government following covid. When people are able to work in their pajamas, putting on clothes and commuting becomes an unbearable burden.
Collegiality, brainstorming and the art of compromising disappear when workers don’t engage with each other.
There’s a rich irony that at the same time the Trump administration is demanding that federal employees show up, members of Congress want to stay home.
Sorry, but that should be a no.
The Congressional Institute also makes a compelling argument AGAINST proxy voting. The writers claim that while the Founding Fathers endured tremendous hardships to gather, they were adamant that the business of the country could only be conducted by elected leaders meeting in person.
Congress is, by definition, the gathering of people together to solve issues. This cannot – and should not – be done remotely.
Observers of Congress agree that one of the primary causes of divisive partisan polarization is that Members no longer form relationships and friendships. Back when Members met five days a week instead of three, they moved their families to Washington DC. Their kids went to school together, and their spouses formed friendships with other spouses. It’s human nature to be much more civil to someone whose spouse is friends with yours or whose kid is on your kid’s soccer team.
Most importantly, legislators need to legislate. There is a give and take created by amendments and debates that require direct human interaction. Too little of that goes on now – how much worse will it be if members are just “emailing it in?” Today, leaders from the House and Senate negotiate with the President, and the other 533 legislators vote on their agreement. That’s not legislating.
Proxy voting might be more efficient than waiting for everyone to physically get to Washington DC. But efficiency was not a goal of the founding fathers. They wanted the people’s representatives to get together and work out compromise and consensus. Isolated Members voting from remote locations will further harm civility and undermine Congress’ already weakening place in the Constitution’s balance of power.
We’ve seen what happens when a president is too feeble to govern and when members of the House simply disappear.
Get your derrieres to work. Or quit.
