Congress Is Back – And ‘Busy’ Ahead of Midterms

In 1948, President Harry Truman dubbed the 80th Congress the “do-nothing Congress” despite it passing a whopping 906 bills. It also created the DOD, CIA, and Air Force, established the Marshall Plan, the Truman Doctrine, the Taft-Hartley Act, and joined the United Nations. If only he could have seen the 119th! In 2025, the first year of the current session, lawmakers accomplished very little by comparison – and with the longest partial government shutdown in US history and the complete failure to pass the SAVE America Act, the first half of 2026 didn't seem to be faring much better.

But then they took a little break after finally ending the record-shattering shutdown, and when they returned, they were ready to roll. From bipartisan attention to sexual misconduct and the hypocrisy of senators collecting paychecks during a shutdown to a ban on former lawmakers becoming lobbyists, the 119th Congress came back from a two-week recess with a vengeance. But is this newfound fervor for getting things done genuine, or are the career politicians just looking for soundbites as November’s midterm elections loom?

A Do-Nothing Congress Does It All

Before addressing what the 119th Congress did this week, let’s look at something it didn’t do. Lawmakers in the House held a vote over a motion to force President Donald Trump to end his operations in the Middle East, but they didn’t pass it – though not for lack of trying. Democrats forced a vote on a war powers resolution on Thursday, May 14, which failed in a 212-212 tie, with one Democrat joining the GOP in opposition and two vulnerable Republicans siding with the rest of the left-wing legislators for it.

This represents perhaps the biggest partisan victory for Republicans since returning to work – but it was far from the only thing the elected elites accomplished. On Wednesday, a discharge petition to bolster Ukraine in its war against Russia got its 218th signature, representing a majority in the House and teeing up a vote on the matter. The GOP at large opposed it, but two Republicans and an independent who once was a Republican joined all the Democrats to force consideration of the bill, handing the Democrats a hefty partisan win of their own this week.

In a more unified front, however, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) announced a bipartisan effort to combat sexual misconduct in the legislature Wednesday. Led by the chairs of the Republican and Democratic women’s caucuses – Florida Republican Kat Cammack and New Mexico Democrat Teresa Leger Fernández – the partnership ostensibly will “identify reforms and solutions to make Congress a safter work environment for women and all survivors,” according to a joint statement by the two party leaders.

“No woman – regardless of party, title, or position – should ever feel unsafe in her workplace. Period,” Cammack said in a statement of her own.

The Super-Charged Senate

Democrats tried to stymie the president’s Iran agenda in the Senate, as well. On Wednesday, the GOP majority shot it down 50-49, though, yet again, three Republicans joined all but one Democrat in supporting the war powers resolution.

And just like in the House, the most sensational news comes in bipartisan form. A unanimous Senate passed a resolution on Wednesday to “suspend” pay for senators during any future government shutdown. The only upper-chamber lawmaker not to vote for the measure was Sen. Pete Ricketts of Nebraska – and his office announced that he did support the resolution; he just couldn’t make the vote in person because of a scheduling conflict.

Also this week, Sen. Rick Scott, a conservative Republican from Florida, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a progressive Democrat from Massachusetts, teamed up to introduce a bill to prevent former lawmakers from becoming lobbyists. Yet another popular talking point on both sides, this bill would ban both senators and House members from being registered lobbyists or being paid to try to influence lawmakers and staff on behalf of companies or groups, a common loophole allowing them to lobby unofficially without registering.

Is It Real – Or Just Political Theater?

If you’re thinking that seems like an awful lot of enthusiasm for change after a year-and-a-half of next to nothing, you aren’t wrong. In fact, the top comment on The Hill’s coverage of the anti-lobbying ban may well sum it up: “Another bill that has no chance, but we see a lot of them before midterms.” Does this bill actually stand a chance of passing both chambers and becoming law? Perhaps – but even if it does, that doesn’t change the suspicious timing. Pay-to-play schemes and former legislators leveraging their influence for the highest bidder are nothing new in the Swamp – so why now? Both Warren and Scott are freshly re-elected and don’t have to face voters themselves until 2030, but the clarion call to clean up politics as usual always plays well to both parties’ bases.

As well, the Senate’s unanimous resolution to “suspend” payment during shutdowns isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. On its face, such news sounds noble. But there’s a problem: The US Constitution establishes congressional pay, and actually removing it would therefore require a constitutional amendment. A full reading of the resolution, however, reveals the workaround:

“During any period in which a Government shutdown is in effect, the Secretary of the Senate shall disburse and hold any payments otherwise required to be made with respect to such period for the compensation of each Senator.

“The Secretary of the Senate shall release to each Senator any payments held under paragraph (1) with respect to a Government shutdown as soon as practicable after the date on which the Government shutdown ends.”

So in simpler terms, senators will still get paid – they just won’t get the checks until after the shutdown is over. According to a March report from SpotlightPA, regarding the most recent financial disclosures, at least 73 of the 100 senators are millionaires. Given that, going without one or two paychecks of $14,500 or more per month, only to collect them all at once shortly after, probably isn’t throwing many, if any, into dire financial straits.

So is it possible that 100 senators suddenly agreed to stand unified with the unpaid federal workers in the next shutdown, or that both sides of the aisle really want to limit their own options once they’re out of Congress? Sure. Just as a bipartisan House coalition could actually root out all the abusers haunting the halls of power. But such sensational, made-for-media moments certainly don’t hurt when it comes to public opinion in an election year, either.