NPI's Cascadia Advocate

Offering commentary and analysis from Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, The Cascadia Advocate is the Northwest Progressive Institute's unconventional perspective on world, national, and local politics.

Sunday, September 29th, 2019

Last Week (September 23–27) In Congress: How Cascadia’s U.S. lawmakers voted

Good morn­ing! Here’s how Cas­ca­di­a’s Mem­bers of Con­gress vot­ed on major issues dur­ing the leg­isla­tive week end­ing Fri­day, Sep­tem­ber 27th, 2019.

In the United States House of Representatives

Chamber of the United States House of Representatives

The House cham­ber (U.S. Con­gress pho­to)

PROVIDING WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT TO CONGRESS: Vot­ing 421 for and none against, the House on Sep­tem­ber 25th called upon Joseph Maguire, the act­ing direc­tor of nation­al intel­li­gence, to pro­vide the appro­pri­ate con­gres­sion­al com­mit­tees with a whistle­blow­ers com­plaint alleg­ing mis­con­duct by Don­ald Trump cen­tered on his inter­ac­tions this year with the Ukrain­ian gov­ern­ment.

When this vote occurred, adopt­ing House Res­o­lu­tion 576, the admin­is­tra­tion already had sent the com­plaint to Capi­tol Hill after hav­ing sequestered it from law­mak­ers since late August. The Sen­ate adopt­ed an iden­ti­cal dis­clo­sure res­o­lu­tion on a voice vote (no roll call was tak­en).

Speak­er Nan­cy Pelosi, D‑California, said:

“Our nation­al secu­ri­ty depends on this [whistle­blow­er] frame­work. This vote today is about more than just any one pres­i­dent. This res­o­lu­tion is about the preser­va­tion of our Amer­i­can sys­tem of gov­ern­ment.”

Minor­i­ty Whip Steve Scalise, R‑La., vot­ed for the res­o­lu­tion but said of Democ­rats: “Instead of mov­ing on, they keep going down the impeach­ment path. Peo­ple are sick and tired of the con­stant harass­ment of the pres­i­dent.”

A yes vote backed release of the whistle­blow­er’s com­plaint to Con­gress.

The State of Idaho

Vot­ing Aye (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, and Cathy McMor­ris Rodgers

Cas­ca­dia total: 17 aye votes

BLOCKING REPUBLICAN MEASURE ON IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY: Vot­ing 232 for and 193 against, the House on Sep­tem­ber 25th blocked a Repub­li­can attempt to force con­sid­er­a­tion of a res­o­lu­tion (House Res­o­lu­tion 590) dis­ap­prov­ing of Speak­er Nan­cy Pelosi’s deci­sion to begin a for­mal impeach­ment inquiry against Don­ald Trump. Pelosi, D‑California, had announced the inquiry the day before, bas­ing it, in part, on Trump hav­ing asked the Ukrain­ian gov­ern­ment to pro­duce dam­ag­ing infor­ma­tion about for­mer Vice Pres­i­dent Joe Biden, a poten­tial Demo­c­ra­t­ic oppo­nent of his in the 2020 pres­i­den­tial elec­tion.

This res­o­lu­tion was quashed by a par­lia­men­tary rul­ing that it did not qual­i­fy as a “priv­i­leged ques­tion” enti­tled to floor action under House rules. On the vote being report­ed here, Democ­rats upheld that rul­ing after it was appealed by Repub­li­cans. As a priv­i­leged res­o­lu­tion, the mea­sure was not debat­able.

A yes vote was in oppo­si­tion to allow­ing debate on the GOP res­o­lu­tion.

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, 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, and Cathy McMor­ris Rodgers

Cas­ca­dia total: 11 aye votes, 6 nay votes

LIMITING SEPARATION OF MIGRANT CHILDREN AND PARENTS: Vot­ing 230 for and 194 against, the House on Sep­tem­ber 25th passed a bill (H.R. 2203) that would impose stricter require­ments for the Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­ri­ty’s treat­ment of migrant fam­i­lies, includ­ing a ban on remov­ing chil­dren from par­ents or guardians with­in 100 miles of the U.S.-Mexico bor­der except by court order. When a sep­a­ra­tion is ordered, the Depart­ment must elec­tron­i­cal­ly track of the loca­tion of the dis­lo­cat­ed fam­i­ly mem­bers.

The bill would:

  • cre­ate a DHS ombuds­man­’s office for receiv­ing and act­ing on com­plaints relat­ed to immi­gra­tion prac­tices includ­ing the abuse of migrants;
  • improve the train­ing of U.S. Cus­toms and Bor­der Pro­tec­tion (CBP) offi­cers for deal­ing with vul­ner­a­ble pop­u­la­tions;
  • pro­vide Con­gress with a plan for requir­ing immi­gra­tion offi­cers to wear body cam­eras and estab­lish an inde­pen­dent com­mis­sion to inves­ti­gate and make a pub­lic account­ing of the Trump regime’s treat­ment of migrant fam­i­lies at and near the bor­der since Jan­u­ary 2017.

In addi­tion, the bill would reverse Trump admin­is­tra­tion poli­cies designed to dis­suade immi­grants from Mex­i­co and the North­ern Tri­an­gle coun­ties of El Sal­vador, Guatemala and Hon­duras from seek­ing asy­lum in the Unit­ed States.

Sylvia Gar­cia, D‑Texas, said: “Our Amer­i­can val­ues, moral con­science and Con­sti­tu­tion require that we treat all indi­vid­u­als on Amer­i­can soil humane­ly and respect­ful­ly. This bill helps ensure that that hap­pens.”

Mike Rogers, R‑Alabama, said: “All this bill does is waste tax­pay­ers dol­lars on a duplica­tive new [ombuds­man­’s] office designed to demor­al­ize law enforce­ment and serve the demands of ille­gal immi­grants.”

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, 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, and Cathy McMor­ris Rodgers

Cas­ca­dia total: 11 aye votes, 6 nay votes

REPORTING CRIME IN SANCTUARY CITIES: Vot­ing 207 for and 216 against, the House on Sep­tem­ber 25 defeat­ed a bid by Repub­li­cans to allow vic­tims of crimes by undoc­u­ment­ed immi­grants in sanc­tu­ary cities to report the inci­dent to the Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­ri­ty ombuds­man­’s office that would be cre­at­ed by H.R. 2203 (above). More than 400 munic­i­pal­i­ties nation­wide are known as sanc­tu­ary cities because they decline to coop­er­ate with fed­er­al immi­gra­tion enforce­ment on grounds it would dis­rupt their com­mu­ni­ty polic­ing efforts.

Spon­sor Mark Green, R‑Tennessee, said his amend­ment would allow vic­tims and their fam­i­lies an oppor­tu­ni­ty to be heard by pol­i­cy­mak­ers in Con­gress and by the Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­ri­ty. “Why would we not let the vic­tims be heard?”

Veron­i­ca Esco­bar, D‑Texas, said Green com­plete­ly missed the point of the office of the ombuds­man, say­ing: “An ombuds­man is sup­posed to be focused on over­sight relat­ed to the inner work­ings of the depart­ment, not on exter­nal pol­i­cy issues.”

A yes vote was to adopt the Repub­li­can 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: 6 aye votes, 11 nay votes

NULLIFYING TRUMP BORDER EMERGENCY: Vot­ing 236 for and 174 against, the House on Sep­tem­ber 27th adopt­ed a mea­sure (Sen­ate Joint Res­o­lu­tion 54) that would nul­li­fy a fake nation­al emer­gency Don­ald Trump declared on the south­west bor­der over immi­gra­tion con­cerns.

Trump has used the Feb­ru­ary 15th dec­la­ra­tion as author­i­ty for divert­ing $3.6 bil­lion appro­pri­at­ed for mil­i­tary con­struc­tion at bases domes­ti­cal­ly and over­seas to a non-mil­i­tary account for build­ing 175 miles of bor­der bar­ri­ers.

If Trump vetoes the mea­sure as he is expect­ed to do, two-thirds major­i­ty votes in both cham­bers would be required for an over­ride.

Joaquin Cas­tro, D‑Texas, said it was “a dis­grace that mon­ey is being stolen from over two dozen states and ter­ri­to­ries, ensur­ing that Amer­i­can tax­pay­ers, not Mex­i­co as the pres­i­dent repeat­ed­ly promised, are actu­al­ly pay­ing for the wall.”

Ross Spano, R‑Florida, said: “When are Democ­rats going to get seri­ous about secur­ing our bor­der? […[ My con­stituents did not elect me to stand by silent­ly as we tran­si­tion to open bor­ders in this coun­try and I will not.”

A yes vote was to send the res­o­lu­tion to the pres­i­dent.

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

Vot­ing Nay (1): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Dan New­house

Cas­ca­dia total: 14 aye votes, 3 nay votes

MEDICAL SCREENING OF UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS: Vot­ing 230 for and 184 against, the House on Sep­tem­ber 26th passed a bill (HR 3525) that would require U.S. Cus­toms and Bor­der Pro­tec­tion to con­duct med­ical screen­ings with­in twelve hours of undoc­u­ment­ed immi­grants appre­hend­ed on the south­west bor­der and estab­lish an elec­tron­ic data­base that all rel­e­vant Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­ri­ty depart­ments could use to track their med­ical his­to­ries.

These require­ments do not apply to migrants legal­ly seek­ing U.S. asy­lum at ports of entry because their med­ical care is main­ly han­dled by oth­er agen­cies.

Under this bill, vul­ner­a­ble groups includ­ing chil­dren would receive pri­or­i­ty care and pedi­atric med­ical experts would be assigned to each of the nine Cus­toms and Bor­der Pro­tec­tion sec­tors in the south­west. Lau­ren Under­wood, D‑Illinois, said elec­tron­ic record­keep­ing for undoc­u­ment­ed migrants is need­ed because “when I was at the bor­der, I saw busy, over­worked Bor­der Patrol offi­cials hav­ing to keep health records on paper. I also saw how these records dont always fol­low migrants between facil­i­ties and trans­fers of cus­tody.”

Jim Banks, R‑Indiana, said the bill “would require the Bor­der Patrol to divert resources from its core mis­sion of pro­tect­ing our nations bor­ders and cre­ate a new med­ical screen­ing sys­tem for those who ille­gal­ly cross and enter the coun­try between ports of entry. I believe every part of that is wrong­head­ed.”

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, 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, and Cathy McMor­ris Rodgers

Cas­ca­dia total: 11 aye votes, 6 nay votes

GIVING HEALTH-RECORDS PREFERENCE TO VETERANS: Vot­ing 202 for and 213 against, the House on Sep­tem­ber 26th defeat­ed a Repub­li­can motion that sought to give vet­er­ans pre­ferred access to an elec­tron­ic health-records sys­tem that would be estab­lished by H.R. 3525 (above) in the Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­ri­ty for track­ing med­ical his­to­ries of new­ly arrived undoc­u­ment­ed immi­grants, par­tic­u­lar­ly chil­dren and those with seri­ous ill­ness­es.

Mark Green, R‑Tennessee, said con­stituents would find it appalling that “we are about to give this health record sys­tem to ille­gal immi­grants before our vet­er­ans receive it.”

Major­i­ty Leader Ste­ny Hoy­er, D‑Maryland, called the motion the gim­mick of gim­micks. “It does noth­ing for vet­er­ans health­care, not a sin­gle thing,” Hoy­er said in remarks on the House floor. “You know it. I know it. Every­body in this House knows it. All it does is try to delay this bill for ten years.”

A yes vote was to adopt the Repub­li­can motion.

The State of Idaho

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

The State of Oregon

Vot­ing Aye (2): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Greg Walden; Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Kurt Schrad­er

Vot­ing Nay (3): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Suzanne Bonam­i­ci, Earl Blu­me­nauer, and Peter DeFazio

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: 7 aye votes, 10 nay votes

OPENING FEDERAL BANKING SYSTEM TO MARIJUANA FIRMS: Vot­ing 321 for and 103 against, the House on Sep­tem­ber 25th passed a bill (H.R. 1595) that would per­mit cannabis-relat­ed busi­ness­es to use fed­er­al­ly reg­u­lat­ed banks and cred­it unions in states where mar­i­jua­na usage has been legal­ized.

Mar­i­jua­na, a prod­uct of cannabis, is a pro­hib­it­ed sub­stance under fed­er­al law but allowed for recre­ation­al or med­i­c­i­nal use in a major­i­ty of the states (includ­ing Wash­ing­ton), the Dis­trict of Colum­bia and four U.S. ter­ri­to­ries.

Cannabis-relat­ed firms usu­al­ly are forced to deal in cash because the Fed­er­al Deposit Insur­ance Cor­po­ra­tion and the Nation­al Cred­it Union Admin­is­tra­tion pro­hib­it finan­cial insti­tu­tions from accept­ing their deposits. The bill also would allow the indus­tri­al hemp indus­try and firms that sup­port cannabis-based busi­ness­es to use the fed­er­al bank­ing sys­tem with­out fear of reprisal.

Ed Perl­mut­ter, D‑Colorado, said the bill would…

“… help law enforce­ment root out ille­gal trans­ac­tions to pre­vent tax eva­sion, mon­ey laun­der­ing and oth­er white-col­lar crime. Most impor­tant­ly, this will also reduce the risk of vio­lent crime in our com­mu­ni­ties.”

David Kustoff, R‑Tennessee, said that with this bill, “We are vot­ing to nation­al­ly legal­ize mar­i­jua­na through­out our bank­ing sys­tem rather than tak­ing a direct vote to legal­ize what is cur­rent­ly an ille­gal sub­stance.”

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

The State of Idaho

Vot­ing Aye (1): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Mike Sim­spon

Vot­ing Nay (1): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Russ Fulcher

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 (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, and Cathy McMor­ris Rodgers

Cas­ca­dia total: 16 aye votes, 1 nay vote

In the United States Senate

Chamber of the United States Senate

The Sen­ate cham­ber (U.S. Con­gress pho­to)

PASSING STOPGAP FUNDING THRU NOVEMBER 21ST: Vot­ing 81 for and 16 against, the Sen­ate on Sep­tem­ber 26th passed a con­tin­u­ing res­o­lu­tion (H.R. 4378) to pro­vide stop­gap appro­pri­a­tions for the first sev­en weeks of fis­cal 2020, which starts Octo­ber 1st. Avert­ing a gov­ern­ment shut­down, the bill would fund agen­cies at 2019 lev­els while giv­ing nego­tia­tors time to reach agree­ment on reg­u­lar appro­pri­a­tions bills for the 2020 bud­get year.

A yes vote was to send the bill to Don­ald Trump.

The State of Idaho

Vot­ing Aye (1): Repub­li­can Sen­a­tor Mike Crapo

Vot­ing Nay (1): Repub­li­can Sen­a­tor Jim Risch

The State of Oregon

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

The State of Washington

Vot­ing Aye (2):
Demo­c­ra­t­ic Sen­a­tors Maria Cantwell and Pat­ty Mur­ray

Cas­ca­dia total: 5 aye votes, 1 nay vote

NULLIFYING TRUMP BORDER EMERGENCY: Vot­ing 54 for and 41 against, the Sen­ate on Sep­tem­ber 25th sent the House a mea­sure (Sen­ate Joint Res­o­lu­tion 54) that would nul­li­fy a nation­al emer­gency Don­ald Trump declared Feb­ru­ary 15th on the U.S.-Mexico bor­der (see House issue above) as a back­door means of obtain­ing funds for wall con­struc­tion that Con­gress has declined to appro­pri­ate. The pres­i­dent has used the emer­gency dec­la­ra­tion to divert $3.6 bil­lion from mil­i­tary-con­struc­tion projects to his wall project.

Minor­i­ty Leader Chuck Schumer, D‑N.Y., said the bill pro­vides “the surest and like­ly the only way to restore fund­ing the Pres­i­dent has stolen from our troops and mil­i­tary projects across the coun­try. Pres­i­dent Trump promised Mex­i­co would pay for the wall, not Amer­i­can tax­pay­ers, and cer­tain­ly not the mil­i­tary — the men and women and their fam­i­lies involved in keep­ing our nation secure.”

No sen­a­tor spoke against the res­o­lu­tion. A yes vote was to send the res­o­lu­tion to the House, where it was approved and sent to Trump.

The State of Idaho

Vot­ing Nay (2):
Repub­li­can Sen­a­tors Jim Risch and Mike Crapo

The State of Oregon

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

The State of Washington

Vot­ing Aye (2):
Demo­c­ra­t­ic Sen­a­tors Maria Cantwell and Pat­ty Mur­ray

Cas­ca­dia total: 4 aye votes, 2 nay votes

EUGENE SCALIA, SECRETARY OF LABOR: Vot­ing 53 for and 44 against, the Sen­ate on Sep­tem­ber 26th con­firmed Eugene Scalia to be Sec­re­tary of the Depart­ment of Labor. Scalia, the son of deceased Supreme Court Jus­tice Antonin Scalia, has been employed in a Wash­ing­ton law firm with a spe­cial­ty of rep­re­sent­ing cor­po­ra­tions in labor-man­age­ment dis­putes.

Back­ers said he occa­sion­al­ly took the side of unions while serv­ing as the depart­men­t’s chief attor­ney under Pres­i­dent George W. Bush.

A yes vote was to con­firm the nom­i­nee.

The State of Idaho

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

The State of Oregon

Vot­ing Nay (2):
Demo­c­ra­t­ic Sen­a­tors Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley

The State of Washington

Vot­ing Nay (2):
Demo­c­ra­t­ic Sen­a­tors Maria Cantwell and Pat­ty Mur­ray

Cas­ca­dia total: 2 aye votes, 4 nay votes

LWIC will be on hiatus for two weeks

The House and Sen­ate are in recess until the week of Octo­ber 14th, so there will be no fur­ther install­ments of Last Week In Con­gress until mid-Octo­ber.

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

  • Donate now to support The Cascadia Advocate


    Thank you for read­ing The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate, the North­west Pro­gres­sive Insti­tute’s jour­nal of world, nation­al, and local pol­i­tics.

    Found­ed in March of 2004, The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate has been help­ing peo­ple through­out the Pacif­ic North­west and beyond make sense of cur­rent events with rig­or­ous analy­sis and thought-pro­vok­ing com­men­tary for more than fif­teen years. The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate is fund­ed by read­ers like you: we have nev­er accept­ed adver­tis­ing or place­ments of paid con­tent.

    And we’d like it to stay that way.

    Help us keep The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate edi­to­ri­al­ly inde­pen­dent and freely avail­able by becom­ing a mem­ber of the North­west Pro­gres­sive Insti­tute today. Or make a dona­tion to sus­tain our essen­tial research and advo­ca­cy jour­nal­ism.

    Your con­tri­bu­tion will allow us to con­tin­ue bring­ing you fea­tures like Last Week In Con­gress, live cov­er­age of events like Net­roots Nation or the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Nation­al Con­ven­tion, and reviews of books and doc­u­men­tary films.

    Become an NPI mem­ber Make a one-time dona­tion