Last Week in Congress
NPI's Cascadia Advocate: Last Week in Congress

Hap­py Moth­er’s Day! Here’s how Cas­ca­di­a’s Mem­bers of Con­gress vot­ed on major issues dur­ing the leg­isla­tive week end­ing Fri­day, May 10th, 2019.

In the United States House of Representatives

Chamber of the United States House of Representatives
The House cham­ber (U.S. Con­gress photo)

HEALTHCARE COVERAGE STANDARDS: The House on May 9th vot­ed, 230 for and 183 against, to pro­hib­it states from offer­ing in their health-insur­ance exchanges dilut­ed ver­sions of the cov­er­age required by the Patient Pro­tec­tion Act. The bill (HR 986) would pro­hib­it the Trump admin­is­tra­tion from grant­i­ng waivers allow­ing states to offer short-term poli­cies that omit or weak­en PPA require­ments. The law’s stan­dards are intend­ed to guar­an­tee cov­er­age for indi­vid­u­als with pre-exist­ing con­di­tions while requir­ing PPA poli­cies to cov­er “essen­tial health ben­e­fits” includ­ing pedi­atric care, men­tal health and sub­stance-abuse treat­ments, emer­gency care, out­pa­tient ser­vices and mater­ni­ty care.

Back­ers of the administration’s waiv­er pol­i­cy said it gives states flex­i­bil­i­ty to devel­op low­er-priced cov­er­age alter­na­tives. But crit­ics call such poli­cies “junk insur­ance” that would even­tu­al­ly bring down the PPA-required cov­er­age by siphon­ing off healthy and younger policyholders.

Jan Schakowsky, D‑Illinois, said: “You can sign up for one of these what we call ‘junk poli­cies,’ and you’re per­fect­ly well, and then all of a sud­den you have some kind of an ill­ness that – guess what – is not cov­ered and won’t be cov­ered because by then you’ll have a pre-exist­ing con­di­tion. (This bill) would pro­tect pre-exist­ing con­di­tions, no ques­tions, peri­od, end of story.”

Greg Walden, R‑Oregon, said no mem­ber of Con­gress wants to elim­i­nate cov­er­age of pre-exist­ing con­di­tions, but “what we’re argu­ing about here is (whether) health insur­ance is afford­able for Amer­i­cans, and are there bet­ter ways using states as lab­o­ra­to­ries to inno­vate and bring down the cost of care and the cost of insurance….”

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

The State of Idaho

Vot­ing Nay (2): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Russ Fulcher and Mike Simpson

The State of Oregon

Vot­ing Aye (4): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Suzanne Bonam­i­ci, Earl Blu­me­nauer, Peter DeFazio, and Kurt Schrader

Vot­ing Nay (1): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Greg Walden

The State of Washington

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, Cathy McMor­ris Rodgers

Cas­ca­dia total: 11 aye votes, 6 nay votes

DEMOCRATIC STANCE ON PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS: Vot­ing 302 for and 117 against, the House on May 9th adopt­ed a Demo­c­ra­t­ic-spon­sored amend­ment to HR 986 (above) that would pro­hib­it the Trump admin­is­tra­tion from grant­i­ng Patient Pro­tec­tion Act waivers that would result in state-run exchanges rais­ing the cost of com­pre­hen­sive cov­er­age for indi­vid­u­als with pre-exist­ing con­di­tions, there­by imper­il­ing the coverage.

Frank Pal­lone, D‑New Jer­sey, said that “by encour­ag­ing states to pro­mote and expand short-term insur­ance plans, the admin­is­tra­tion is giv­ing insur­ers a green light to direct­ly dis­crim­i­nate against peo­ple with pre-exist­ing conditions.”

Greg Walden, R‑Oregon, quot­ed the Cen­ters for Medicare & Med­ic­aid Ser­vices as stat­ing “the administration’s pol­i­cy on Afford­able Care Act waivers does noth­ing to erode pre-exist­ing con­di­tions. (They) can­not be waived.”

A yes vote was to adopt the amendment.

The State of Idaho

Vot­ing Nay (2): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Russ Fulcher and Mike Simpson

The State of Oregon

Vot­ing Aye (5): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Suzanne Bonam­i­ci, Earl Blu­me­nauer, Peter DeFazio, and Kurt Schrad­er; Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Greg Walden

The State of Washington

Vot­ing Aye (10): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Suzan Del­Bene, Rick Larsen, Derek Kilmer, Prami­la Jaya­pal, Kim Schri­er, Adam Smith, and Den­ny Heck; Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Jaime Her­rera-Beut­ler, Dan New­house, Cathy McMor­ris Rodgers

Cas­ca­dia total: 15 aye votes, 2 nay votes

REPUBLICAN STANCE ON PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS: Vot­ing 182 for and 231 against, the House on May 9th defeat­ed a Repub­li­can motion to HR 986 (above) assert­ing that nei­ther cur­rent law nor Trump admin­is­tra­tion poli­cies would allow state-run insur­ance exchanges to sell poli­cies under the Afford­able Care Act that weak­en pro­tec­tions for those with pre-exist­ing conditions.

Greg Walden, R‑Oregon, said: “Repub­li­cans will always pro­tect peo­ple with pre-exist­ing con­di­tions. You can run your ads, you can deceive peo­ple, you can mis­lead peo­ple, but we will always fight to pro­tect peo­ple with pre-exist­ing conditions.”

Elis­sa Slotkin, D‑Michigan, said: “It is not enough to say that you pro­tect pre-exist­ing con­di­tions; it is what hap­pens on the ground that mat­ters. The admin­is­tra­tion has tried every play in the book to under­cut (and) sab­o­tage pro­tec­tions for pre-exist­ing con­di­tions,” and has joined a law­suit “to inval­i­date the entire­ty of the [Patient Pro­tec­tion and] Afford­able Care Act.”

A yes vote was to adopt the motion.

The State of Idaho

Vot­ing Aye (2): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Russ Fulcher and Mike Simpson

The State of Oregon

Vot­ing Aye (1): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Greg Walden

Vot­ing Nay (4): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Suzanne Bonam­i­ci, Earl Blu­me­nauer, Peter DeFazio, Kurt Schrader

The State of Washington

Vot­ing Aye (2): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Jaime Her­rera-Beut­ler and Dan Newhouse

Vot­ing Nay (7): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Suzan Del­Bene, Rick Larsen, Derek Kilmer, Prami­la Jaya­pal, Kim Schri­er, Adam Smith, and Den­ny Heck

Not Vot­ing: Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Cathy McMor­ris Rodgers

Cas­ca­dia total: 11 aye votes, 5 nay votes, 1 not voting

$19.1 BILLION DISASTER RELIEF: Vot­ing 257 for and 150 against, the House on May 10 passed a bill (HR 2157) that would pro­vide $19.1 bil­lion to home­own­ers, busi­ness­es, farm­ers, local gov­ern­ments and oth­er enti­ties rav­aged by wild­fires, hur­ri­canes, flood­ing, mud­slides, tor­na­does, vol­canic erup­tions and typhoons in the Unit­ed States and its ter­ri­to­ries includ­ing Puer­to Rico in recent years. The bill drew GOP oppo­si­tion because it omits $4.5 bil­lion sought by the admin­is­tra­tion in secu­ri­ty fund­ing and human­i­tar­i­an aid on the south­ern border.

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

The State of Idaho

Vot­ing Nay (2): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Russ Fulcher and Mike Simpson

The State of Oregon

Vot­ing Aye (5): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Suzanne Bonam­i­ci, Earl Blu­me­nauer, Peter DeFazio, Kurt Schrad­er; Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Greg Walden

The State of Washington

Vot­ing Aye (8): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Suzan Del­Bene, Rick Larsen, Derek Kilmer, Prami­la Jaya­pal, Kim Schri­er, Adam Smith, and Den­ny Heck; Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Dan Newhouse

Vot­ing Nay (2): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Jaime Her­rera-Beut­ler and Cathy McMor­ris Rodgers

Cas­ca­dia total: 13 aye votes, 4 nay votes

ADDED FUNDING FOR BORDER CHILDREN: Vot­ing 189 for and 215 against, the House on May 10th defeat­ed a Repub­li­can motion to add $2.88 bil­lion to H.R. 2157 (above) for pro­grams to care for more unac­com­pa­nied migrant chil­dren who have entered the Unit­ed States at the south­ern border.

Kay Granger, R‑Texas, said the motion “pro­vides anoth­er oppor­tu­ni­ty to pro­vide the fund­ing nec­es­sary to con­tin­ue to care for these children.

Rosa DeLau­ro, D‑Connecticut, called this the wrong bill for fund­ing those pro­grams, adding, “And keep in mind, this is the one-year anniver­sary of the child-abuse pol­i­cy that sep­a­rates kids at the border.”

A yes vote was to adopt the motion.

The State of Idaho

Vot­ing Aye (2): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Russ Fulcher and Mike Simpson

The State of Oregon

Vot­ing Aye (1): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Greg Walden

Vot­ing Nay (4): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Suzanne Bonam­i­ci, Earl Blu­me­nauer, Peter DeFazio, and Kurt Schrader

The State of Washington

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: 11 aye votes, 6 nay votes

In the United States Senate

Chamber of the United States Senate
The Sen­ate cham­ber (U.S. Con­gress photo)

REVIVAL OF EXPORT-IMPORT BANK: Vot­ing 79 for and 17 against, the Sen­ate on May 7th con­firmed Kim­ber­ly A. Reed as pres­i­dent of the Ex-Im Bank.

A fed­er­al enti­ty impor­tant to the Pacif­ic North­west, the Export-Import Bank finances the sale of Amer­i­can goods and ser­vices abroad when con­ven­tion­al cred­it is dif­fi­cult to obtain because of high polit­i­cal or com­mer­cial risks.

The bank has been side­lined for near­ly four years by con­gres­sion­al con­ser­v­a­tives who see it as an instru­ment of cor­po­rate wel­fare in the ser­vice of man­u­fac­tur­ers like Boe­ing, Gen­er­al Elec­tric, John Deere and Cater­pil­lar. By con­firm­ing Reed and two oth­er Ex-Im direc­tors this week, the Sen­ate gave the bank the quo­rum it needs to once again approve deals of more than $10 mil­lion. Reed worked most recent­ly as head of the Inter­na­tion­al Food Infor­ma­tion Coun­cil Foundation.

Sher­rod Brown, D‑Ohio, said sen­a­tors “have a choice — do they care about these busi­ness­es; do they care about man­u­fac­tur­ing; do they care about work­ers; do they care about the dig­ni­ty of work­ers; or do they care more about their extreme spe­cial inter­est pol­i­tics? I stand with our workers.”

Mike Lee, R‑Utah, said the bank “has unfor­tu­nate­ly been used as a giant tool for cor­po­rate wel­fare oper­at­ed to ben­e­fit the wealth­i­est and the most polit­i­cal­ly con­nect­ed busi­ness­es in Amer­i­ca, as well as their over­seas clients and, believe it or not, for­eign governments.”

A yes vote was to con­firm the nominee.

The State of Idaho

Vot­ing Aye (2):
Sen­a­tors Jim Risch and Mike Crapo

The State of Oregon

Vot­ing Aye (2):
Sen­a­tors Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley

The State of Washington

Vot­ing Aye (2):
Sen­a­tors Pat­ty Mur­ray & Maria Cantwell

Cas­ca­dia total: 6 aye votes

Key votes ahead

The House will take up health­care bills in the week of May 13, while 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. 

Adjacent posts