House Rules Committee approves closed rule; rejects effort to restore remote voting for new parents

The House Committee on Rules on March 29, 2025, voted 9-4 to report a closed rule that sets terms for consideration of several measures on the House floor and rejected amendments that would have removed a provision blocking a discharge petition tied to remote voting for new parents.

Representative Griffith, the member from Virginia who moved the rule, described the package as providing closed rules for consideration of S.J. Res. 18 (a joint resolution disapproving a Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection rule on overdraft lending), S.J. Res. 28 (a joint resolution on Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection definitions for large participants in digital payment applications), H.R. 1526 (the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025), and H.R. 22 (the Save Act). The motion also laid House resolutions 23 and 164 on the table and included language that precludes certain motions to discharge committees and strikes such motions from the calendar in some cases.

The rule as reported waives points of order and sets one hour of general debate for multiple items, provides motions to recommit or commit where specified, and designates managers for debate. It also includes a provision (section 5) that, as the committee debated, would prevent the House from voting on a separate resolution promoted as allowing new parents to vote remotely via proxy or similar means.

Representative Luna offered an amendment to strike section 5, arguing the provision “prevents the House of Representatives from voting on the Luna, Pedersen and Jacobs resolution on remote voting for new parents.” Luna said the amendment was necessary because, she asserted, a bipartisan majority had already signed a discharge petition in support of the new-parents proxy vote and that the rule would “outright kill a discharge petition that was already signed by a majority of the House,” calling the committee’s action “unprecedented.”

Several members spoke at length on both sides of the question. Representative McGovern said he opposed proxy voting in general and said he had “never voted by proxy” because he believed it “undermines the fabric of that sacred act of convening.” Representative Roy likewise opposed returning to a proxy structure, arguing that the founding-era debates rejected proxy voting and that physical presence matters to the institution. By contrast, representatives including Scanlon and others on the committee defended limited proxy or remote voting in the specific case of new parents and said proxy voting during COVID-19 allowed the House to continue acting during a national emergency.

The committee rejected Luna’s amendment to strike section 5 on a recorded roll call, 4 yeas to 9 nays. The committee also rejected a separate amendment to strike section 4 (which would have removed a duplicate closed rule provision for the Save Act), an effort to make certain Johnson amendments to H.R. 22 in order (amendments 3, 4 and 13), Representative Dexter’s amendment number 9 to H.R. 22 (a military-voter certification requirement), and an amendment (number 21) addressing name-change and distance exceptions for in-person registration. All of those proposals failed by recorded votes of 4 yeas to 9 nays, the committee clerk reported.

After debate and a series of unsuccessful amendment votes, the committee voted to report the rule package. The roll call on the motion to report was 9 yeas and 4 nays. The committee designated Representative Griffith as the manager for the majority and Representative McGovern for the minority. Without objection, the committee adjourned.

Votes at a glance: - Motion to report the rule (moved by Rep. Griffith): Passed, 9 yeas, 4 nays. Result: rule reported; Rep. Griffith will manage the rule for the majority; Rep. McGovern will manage for the minority. - Amendment (Rep. Luna) to strike section 5 (would have removed the provision blocking consideration of the remote-voting discharge petition): Failed, 4 yeas, 9 nays. - Amendment to strike section 4 (remove duplicate closed rule for Save Act): Failed, 4 yeas, 9 nays. - Motion to make Johnson amendments 3, 4 and 13 in order for H.R. 22: Failed, 4 yeas, 9 nays. - Amendment No. 9 to H.R. 22 (Rep. Dexter; military-voter certification): Failed, 4 yeas, 9 nays. - Amendment No. 21 to H.R. 22 (Rep. Leslie Fernandez; name-change and rural-distance exceptions): Failed, 4 yeas, 9 nays.

Why it matters: The Rules Committee controls how and whether major measures reach the House floor. The provision at the center of the debate would bar a floor vote brought by discharge petition on a resolution designed to allow new parents to vote remotely; committee members described the move as either a defense of institutional norms (opponents of the change) or as a denial of a bipartisan majority’s will (supporters of the amendment). The committee’s action preserves closed procedures for the bills named in the rule and blocks the specific discharge avenue tied to the remote-voting measure.

Key quotes from the hearing: - "This rule is unprecedented. Never, never in the history of the House has the Rules Committee acted to just outright kill a discharge petition that was already signed by a majority of the House," Representative Luna said in support of her amendment. - "I never proxy voted. Not once because I knew the damage that it was doing to the institution," Representative Roy said in opposition to expanding proxy or remote voting. - "Proxy voting allowed Congress to safely operate during a national crisis," the committee’s ranking member, Representative Scanlon, said, citing the COVID-19 experience and voting participation statistics compiled during that period.

The committee’s reported rule will define debate and amendment structure for multiple measures when they reach the House floor; it does not itself change the underlying text of the bills or joint resolutions named in the package.