Last Week In Congress: How Cascadia’s U.S. lawmakers voted (May 13th-17th)

Good morn­ing! Here’s how Cas­ca­di­a’s Mem­bers of Con­gress vot­ed on major issues dur­ing the leg­isla­tive week end­ing Fri­day, May 17th, 2019.

In the United States House of Representatives

DEMOCRATIC REPAIR OF PATIENT PROTECTION ACT: Vot­ing 234 for and 183 against, the House on May 16 passed a bill (HR 987) that would bol­ster sec­tions of the Patient Pro­tec­tion Act the Trump admin­is­tra­tion has allowed to dete­ri­o­rate while pur­su­ing dis­man­tle­ment and repeal of the law.

In an effort to reduce pre­scrip­tion drug costs, the mea­sure also would change laws and reg­u­la­tions to expand and accel­er­ate the mar­ket­ing of gener­ic ver­sions of brand-name drugs. Revers­ing a pres­i­den­tial order, the bill would restore the Patient Pro­tec­tion Act’s orig­i­nal three-month lim­it on short-term health insur­ance plans that do not meet core cov­er­age require­ments, includ­ing pro­tec­tions for peo­ple with pre-exist­ing conditions.

The bill would also autho­rize spend­ing $100 mil­lion annu­al­ly over 10 years on adver­tis­ing cam­paigns and “nav­i­ga­tor” pro­grams to boost PPA enroll­ment. And it would rec­om­mend a $200 mil­lion out­lay to estab­lish insur­ance exchanges in states that now send res­i­dents to the fed­er­al exchange to buy PPA coverage.

Enroll­ment in fed­er­al and state PPA exchanges, or mar­ket­places, peaked at 12.7 mil­lion in the last year of the Oba­ma admin­is­tra­tion, and has declined by 930,000 enrollees, or 7.3 per­cent, dur­ing the Trump admin­is­tra­tion, accord­ing to the Gov­ern­ment Account­abil­i­ty Office. Unof­fi­cial tal­lies show that in 2018 about 25 mil­lion indi­vid­u­als received cov­er­age in Patient Pro­tec­tion Act exchanges or as a result of the law’s expand­ed Med­ic­aid eli­gi­bil­i­ty, while 2.6 mil­lion young adults were cov­ered by their par­ents’ health plan under terms of the law.

Mary Gay Scan­lon, D‑Pennsylvania., said the bill would “reverse the sab­o­tage of the [Patient Pro­tec­tion Act] by this admin­is­tra­tion with respect to mar­ket­ing and out­reach, and rescind the Trump administration’s efforts to pro­mote junk plans that lack the pro­tec­tions of the [Patient Pro­tec­tion and] Afford­able Care Act.”

Phil Roe, R‑Tennessee, said that by scal­ing back short-term, non-PPA com­pli­ant cov­er­age, the bill would “dou­ble down on try­ing to force [the PPA] on peo­ple who don’t want it and can’t afford it….If (Democ­rats) want to get rid of junk plans, they can start by work­ing with us to get rid of [the PPA].”

A yes vote was to send the bill to the Senate.

	Vot­ing Nay (2): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Russ Fulcher and Mike Simpson
	Vot­ing Aye (4): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Suzanne Bonam­i­ci, Earl Blu­me­nauer, Peter DeFazio, Kurt Schrader Vot­ing Nay (1): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Greg Walden
	Vot­ing Aye (8): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Suzan Del­Bene, Rick Larsen, Derek Kilmer, Prami­la Jaya­pal, Kim Schri­er, Adam Smith, and Den­ny Heck; Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Jaime Herrera-Beutler Vot­ing Nay (2): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Dan New­house and Cathy McMor­ris Rodgers

Cas­ca­dia total: 12 aye votes, 5 nay votes

CANCER RESEARCH V. HEALTH LAW ENROLLMENT: Vot­ing 188 for and 228 against, the House on May 16th defeat­ed a Repub­li­can motion to H.R. 987 (above) to shift mil­lions of dol­lars from Patient Pro­tec­tion Act enroll­ment accounts to Nation­al Insti­tutes of Health research into child­hood cancer.

The mea­sure tar­get­ed the Patient Pro­tec­tion Act’s nav­i­ga­tor pro­gram, in which the gov­ern­ment hires out­side groups to help indi­vid­u­als and small busi­ness­es sign up for med­ical insur­ance in PPA mar­ket­places. The Trump admin­is­tra­tion has cut the nav­i­ga­tor bud­get by about 90 per­cent while pre­sid­ing over a 7.3 per­cent decline since 2016 in enroll­ment in the PPA’s state and fed­er­al marketplaces.

Greg Walden, R‑Oregon, said: “If you sup­port low­er­ing the cost of pre­scrip­tion drugs and you sup­port the work of the NIH in its effort to save count­less lives of chil­dren with can­cer, then you vote yes” on this motion.

Lucy McBath, D‑Georgia (a mem­ber of the House­’s fresh­man class), did not address the fund­ing clash between can­cer research and Patient Pro­tec­tion Act enroll­ments, but said Repub­li­cans should vote against the motion if they “are seri­ous about pro­tect­ing pre-exist­ing con­di­tions,” which the under­ly­ing bill does.

A yes vote was to adopt the motion.

	Vot­ing Aye (2): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Russ Fulcher and Mike Simpson
	Vot­ing Aye (1): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Greg Walden Vot­ing Nay (4): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Suzanne Bonam­i­ci, Earl Blu­me­nauer, Peter DeFazio, Kurt Schrader
	Vot­ing Aye (3): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Jaime Her­rera-Beut­ler, Dan New­house, and Cathy McMor­ris Rodgers Vot­ing Nay (7): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Suzan Del­Bene, Rick Larsen, Derek Kilmer, Prami­la Jaya­pal, Kim Schri­er, Adam Smith, and Den­ny Heck

Cas­ca­dia total: 6 aye votes, 11 nay votes

EXPANDED PROTECTION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION — EQUALITY ACT: Vot­ing 236 for and 173 against, the House on May 17th passed a bill (H.R. 5) that would expand the Civ­il Rights Act of 1964 and Fair Hous­ing Act of 1968 to pro­tect LGBTQ+ (les­bian, gay, bisex­u­al, trans­gen­der, queer) indi­vid­u­als against dis­crim­i­na­tion based on their sex­u­al ori­en­ta­tion and gen­der identity.

The pro­posed Equal­i­ty Act, spon­sored by David Cicilline, would also expand the Civ­il Rights Acts list­ing of pub­lic accom­mo­da­tions to include retail stores, banks and trans­porta­tion and health­care ser­vices, and it would des­ig­nate sex­u­al char­ac­ter­is­tics as a pro­tect­ed class in pub­lic accommodations.

In addi­tion, the bill would pro­hib­it the Reli­gious Free­dom Restora­tion Act of 1994 from being invoked to sanc­tion dis­crim­i­na­tion against the LGBTQ+ community.

Jack­ie Speier, D‑California, said the bill is need­ed because the Trump admin­is­tra­tion “is seek­ing to make our LGBTQ fam­i­lies and friends not just sec­ond-class cit­i­zens, but to deny them the fun­da­men­tal Amer­i­can rights etched into our Con­sti­tu­tion. Con­gress can­not erase hatred with leg­is­la­tion, but…has an oblig­a­tion to lead, to stamp out dis­crim­i­na­tion wher­ev­er it exists.”

Vicky Hart­zler, R‑Missouri., said the bill “does not end dis­crim­i­na­tion” but “impos­es top-down, gov­ern­ment-led dis­crim­i­na­tion against all Amer­i­cans who hold a dif­fer­ing view of human sex­u­al­i­ty and gen­der. This gross­ly mis­named bill pun­ish­es every­day cit­i­zens, silences free speech and view­point dis­agree­ments and dis­crim­i­nates against peo­ple of faith. In real­i­ty, this bill should be called the Women’s Inequal­i­ty Act.”

A yes vote was to send the bill to the Senate.

	Vot­ing Nay (2): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Russ Fulcher and Mike Simpson
	Vot­ing Aye (5): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Suzanne Bonam­i­ci, Earl Blu­me­nauer, Peter DeFazio, and Kurt Schrad­er; Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Greg Walden
	Vot­ing Aye (7): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Suzan Del­Bene, Rick Larsen, Derek Kilmer, Prami­la Jaya­pal, Kim Schri­er, Adam Smith, and Den­ny Heck Vot­ing Nay (3): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Jaime Her­rera-Beut­ler, Dan New­house, and Cathy McMor­ris Rodgers

Cas­ca­dia total: 12 aye votes, 5 nay votes

TITLE IX AMENDMENT TO PROPOSED EQUALITY ACT: The House defeat­ed, 181 for and 228 against, a Repub­li­can motion that sought to void H.R. 5 (above) if it were to under­cut pro­tec­tions con­ferred by Title IX of the Edu­ca­tion Amend­ments of 1972. The title ensures women and girls the same access as men and boys to fed­er­al­ly fund­ed edu­ca­tion pro­grams, includ­ing sports activ­i­ties, in school­ing through the col­le­giate level.

Gre­go­ry Steube, R‑Florida, said: “Requir­ing bio­log­i­cal females to face com­pe­ti­tion from bio­log­i­cal males will mean the end of women’s sports in any mean­ing­ful sense.” Katy Hill, D‑California, told Repub­li­cans: “You are on the wrong side of his­to­ry, and we will be wait­ing for you on the oth­er side when we reject this amend­ment” and pass the bill.

A yes vote was to adopt the motion.

	Vot­ing Aye (2): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Russ Fulcher and Mike Simpson
	Vot­ing Aye (1): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Greg Walden Vot­ing Nay (4): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Suzanne Bonam­i­ci, Earl Blu­me­nauer, Peter DeFazio, Kurt Schrader
	Vot­ing Aye (3): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Jaime Her­rera-Beut­ler, Dan New­house, and Cathy McMor­ris Rodgers Vot­ing Nay (7): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Suzan Del­Bene, Rick Larsen, Derek Kilmer, Prami­la Jaya­pal, Kim Schri­er, Adam Smith, and Den­ny Heck

Cas­ca­dia total: 6 aye votes, 11 nay votes

In the United States Senate

JEFFREY ROSEN, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: Vot­ing 52 for and 45 against, the Sen­ate on May 16th con­firmed Jef­frey A. Rosen, the deputy sec­re­tary of the Depart­ment of Trans­porta­tion, as deputy attor­ney gen­er­al. He replaces Rod J. Rosen­stein as the sec­ond rank­ing offi­cial at the Depart­ment of Jus­tice. Rosen, 61, pre­vi­ous­ly served in the George W. Bush admin­is­tra­tion and has alter­nat­ed between gov­ern­ment assign­ments and work in pri­vate prac­tice in Washington.

A yes vote was to con­firm the nominee.

	Vot­ing Aye (2): Repub­li­can Sen­a­tors Jim Risch and Mike Crapo
	Vot­ing Nay (2): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Sen­a­tors Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley
	Vot­ing Nay (2): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Sen­a­tors Pat­ty Mur­ray & Maria Cantwell

Cas­ca­dia total: 2 aye votes, 4 nay votes

WENDY VITTER, FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE: Vot­ing 52 for and 45 against, the Sen­ate on May 16th con­firmed Wendy Vit­ter, the gen­er­al coun­sel of the Roman Catholic Arch­dio­cese of New Orleans, as a fed­er­al dis­trict, or tri­al-lev­el, judge for the East­ern Dis­trict of Louisiana. Repub­li­cans said Vit­ter’s long expe­ri­ence as a parish-lev­el dis­trict attor­ney helped qual­i­fy her for the fed­er­al judge­ship, while Demo­c­ra­t­ic crit­i­cized her views on wom­en’s repro­duc­tive-rights, for mak­ing false state­ments about Planned Par­ent­hood, and for declin­ing to say whether she feels the Supreme Court cor­rect­ly decid­ed the land­mark 1954 Brown v. Board of Edu­ca­tion school-deseg­re­ga­tion ruling.

Mitch McConnell, R‑Kentucky, said: “Ms. Vitter’s impres­sive legal career includes expe­ri­ence in pri­vate prac­tice and a decade in the Orleans Parish Dis­trict Attorney’s Office, where she han­dled more than 100 felony jury trials.”

Robert Casey, D‑Pennsylvania, said Vit­ter “has a long record of oppos­ing con­tra­cep­tion, and has pro­mot­ed false infor­ma­tion about the safe­ty of oral con­tra­cep­tives. These views are not only out­side of the main­stream — the judi­cial or legal main­stream — but they are also not sup­port­ed by science.”

A yes vote was to con­firm the nominee.

	Vot­ing Aye (2): Repub­li­can Sen­a­tors Jim Risch and Mike Crapo
	Vot­ing Nay (2): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Sen­a­tors Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley
	Vot­ing Nay (2): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Sen­a­tors Pat­ty Mur­ray & Maria Cantwell

Cas­ca­dia total: 2 aye votes, 4 nay votes

Key votes ahead

The House will take up bills to reju­ve­nate the Con­sumer Finan­cial Pro­tec­tion Bureau and reform rules for 401(k) retire­ment accounts in the week of May 20th. The Sen­ate will debate dis­as­ter aid and judi­cial nominations.

Edi­tor’s Note: The infor­ma­tion in NPI’s week­ly How Cas­ca­di­a’s U.S. law­mak­ers vot­ed fea­ture is pro­vid­ed by Votera­ma in Con­gress, a ser­vice of Thomas Vot­ing Reports. All rights are reserved. Repro­duc­tion of this post is not per­mit­ted, not even with attri­bu­tion. Use the per­ma­nent link to this post to share it… thanks!

© 2019 Thomas Vot­ing Reports.