Last Week In Congress: How Cascadia’s U.S. lawmakers voted (December 9th-13th)

Good morn­ing! Here’s how Cascadia’s Mem­bers of Con­gress vot­ed on major issues dur­ing the leg­isla­tive week end­ing Fri­day, Decem­ber 13th.

In the United States House of Representatives

REQUIRING NEGOTIATION OF MEDICARE DRUG PRICES: Vot­ing 230 for and 192 against, the House on Decem­ber 12th passed a bill (H.R. 3) that would require phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­nies to nego­ti­ate with the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment the prices of approx­i­mate­ly two hun­dred and fifty top-sell­ing pre­scrip­tion drugs offered in Medicare Part D and employ­er health plans.

The nego­ti­at­ed U.S. retail price of a cov­ered drug could not exceed 120 per­cent of the aver­age price that Aus­tralia, Cana­da, France, Ger­many, Japan and the Unit­ed King­dom have nego­ti­at­ed for their residents.

Man­u­fac­tur­ers declin­ing to nego­ti­ate the price of spe­cif­ic drugs would be sub­ject­ed to excise tax­es of up to 95 per­cent on sales of that drug.

The bill would cap Medicare Part D out-of-pock­et costs at $2,000 per year and add den­tal, vision and hear­ing ben­e­fits to Medicare Part D.

Man­u­fac­tur­ers and the Depart­ment of Health and Human Ser­vices would start nego­ti­a­tions in 2021, with Medicare Part D receiv­ing its first price cuts in 2023.

Nego­tia­tors would add at least fifty reduced-price drugs to Medicare Part D and com­mer­cial plans each year, with the con­ver­sion com­plet­ed by 2026.

Nego­ti­at­ed prices would be indexed for infla­tion and remain in effect until a gener­ic or biosim­i­lar com­peti­tor emerges. Low­er insulin prices for seniors would be nego­ti­at­ed in the law’s first year.

Thomas Suozzi, D‑New York, said: “For too long, ‘Big Phar­ma’ has cashed in because our gov­ern­ment, the largest pur­chas­er of pre­scrip­tion drugs in the world, has been pro­hib­it­ed from nego­ti­at­ing low­er drug prices. Amer­i­cans pay near­ly four times as much for pre­scrip­tion drugs as peo­ple in oth­er countries.”

Kevin Brady, R‑Texas, called the bill “a dan­ger­ous trade­off of low­er drug prices in the short term but few­er life­sav­ing cures in the future, and not just a few cures lost, but many….up to 38 cures lost, accord­ing to the Con­gres­sion­al Bud­get Office, and up to 100, accord­ing to the Coun­cil of Eco­nom­ic Advisers.”

A yes vote was to pass the bill.

	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

DEFEATING REPUBLICANS’ FAUX PLAN FOR REDUCING DRUG PRICES: Vot­ing 201 for and 223 against, the House on Decem­ber 12th defeat­ed a Repub­li­can ver­sion of H.R. 3 (above) that omit­ted the require­ment for man­u­fac­tur­ers to nego­ti­ate drug prices with DHHS.

In addi­tion to this “free-mar­ket” pro­vi­sion, the Repub­li­can sub­sti­tute would:

• cap Medicare Part D out-of-pock­et costs at $3,100 per year;
• expand finan­cial incen­tives for drug com­pa­nies to dis­cov­er cures;
• cap the cost of insulin for seniors at $50 per month;
• require drug adver­tis­ing to list retail prices;
• expand the use of Health Sav­ings Accounts for drug purchases;
• and require the U.S. trade rep­re­sen­ta­tive to ensure U.S. tax­pay­ers do not sub­si­dize the drug costs in for­eign markets.

The Repub­li­can plan also pro­posed per­ma­nent­ly cap­ping the IRS thresh­old for deduct­ing med­ical expens­es at 7.5 per­cent of adjust­ed gross income, avert­ing a sched­uled increase to ten per­cent in 2020.

Robert Lat­ta, R‑Ohio, said the GOP plan “low­ers the costs of pre­scrip­tion drugs and caps seniors’ out-of-pock­et costs. It encour­ages inno­va­tion and will increase com­pe­ti­tion, while enhanc­ing trans­paren­cy and get­ting more gener­ic med­i­cines to mar­ket faster. The Amer­i­can peo­ple deserve solu­tions that will be signed into law.”

Anna Eshoo, D‑Calif., asked: “So what is the dif­fer­ence between what the Repub­li­cans are say­ing and what the Democ­rats are say­ing? At the core [our bill] is that there will be direct nego­ti­a­tions with the drug man­u­fac­tur­ers to bring the price of drugs down. Our Repub­li­can friends do not sup­port that.”

A yes vote was to adopt the Repub­li­can alternative.

	Vot­ing Aye (2): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Mike Simp­son and Russ Fulcher
	Vot­ing Aye (2): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Greg Walden; Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Kurt Schrader Vot­ing Nay (3): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Suzanne Bonam­i­ci, Earl Blu­me­nauer, and Peter DeFazio
	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

ENSURING INNOVATION IN DRUG RESEARCH: Vot­ing 196 for and 226 against, the House on Decem­ber 12th defeat­ed a Repub­li­can motion that would pre­vent core pro­vi­sions of HR 3 (above) from tak­ing effect until after the sec­re­tary of Health and Human Ser­vices has cer­ti­fied that the law would not reduce the num­ber of appli­ca­tions from inno­va­tors seek­ing to put new drugs on the market.

Fred Upton, R‑Michigan, said Repub­li­cans “want to make sure that we have the resources to devel­op the cures that all of us want for the thou­sands of dis­eases where we don’t have a cure.”

Cas­ca­di­a’s very own Dr. Kim Schri­er, D‑Washington, said: “We absolute­ly must remain the leader in the world in inno­va­tion, but the thing is, we can reduce drug prices and still have mon­ey for research.”

A yes vote was to adopt the motion.

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

OVERHAULING VISAS FOR FARM WORKERS: Vot­ing 266 for and 165 against, the House on Decem­ber 11th passed a bill (H.R. 5038) that would over­haul the H‑2A visa pro­gram, which admits undoc­u­ment­ed migrants for tem­po­rary U.S. agri­cul­tur­al jobs the domes­tic work­force is unable or unwill­ing to fill. Over time, the bill could enable hun­dreds of thou­sands of these work­ers to apply for legal res­i­den­cy for them­selves, spous­es and minor children.

In addi­tion to meet­ing labor short­ages, the bill would grant up to 40,000 Green Cards annu­al­ly to those who com­plete a lengthy path to per­ma­nent sta­tus and estab­lish a manda­to­ry fed­er­al “E‑Verify” sys­tem by which agri­cul­tur­al employ­ers could deter­mine work­ers’ immi­gra­tion status.

Under the bill, migrants employed in U.S. farm work for at least 180 days over the two pre­ced­ing years would qual­i­fy for Cer­ti­fied Agri­cul­tur­al Work­er sta­tus, which they could con­tin­u­al­ly renew by work­ing at least 100 days annu­al­ly in farm jobs.

In addi­tion, new Amer­i­cans (and spous­es and minor chil­dren) employed in U.S. agri­cul­ture before the law takes effect would qual­i­fy to pur­sue legal sta­tus. Those with at least 10 years of pre-enact­ment farm employ­ment could apply for per­ma­nent res­i­den­cy by pay­ing a $1,000 fine and work­ing four more years; those with few­er than ten years would have to pay the fine and work eight more years. All appli­cants would have to clear crim­i­nal and nation­al-secu­ri­ty back­ground checks.

The bill would freeze over­all migrant farm work­ers’ pay for one year, then allow wages to rise by 3.25 per­cent annu­al­ly over the next nine years; autho­rize up to 20,000 H‑2A visas annu­al­ly for jobs at year-round oper­a­tions includ­ing dairies; expand the avail­abil­i­ty of migrant hous­ing; and require medi­a­tion in place of law­suits to resolve dis­putes under a 1983 migrant work­place law.

Zoe Lof­gren, D‑California, said:

“We have farm work­ers who have been here for a very long time with­out their papers, liv­ing in fear, and in some cas­es, being arrest­ed and deport­ed. We need to allow them to get an agri­cul­tur­al-work­er visa that is tem­po­rary and renew­able so they can do the work…that their employ­ers need them to do.”

Tom McClin­tock, R‑California, said:

“I under­stand agriculture’s need for labor,” but this bill “ignores enforce­ment and rewards any­one who has ille­gal­ly crossed our bor­ders, both with amnesty and a spe­cial path to cit­i­zen­ship, as long as they claim to have worked part-time in the agri­cul­ture sec­tor for the last two years.”

A yes vote was to pass the bill.

	Vot­ing Aye (2): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Mike Simp­son and Russ Fulcher
	Vot­ing Aye (5): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Suzanne Bonam­i­ci, Earl Blu­me­nauer, Peter DeFazio, Kurt Schrad­er; Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Greg Walden
	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

APPROVING $738 BILLION FOR MILITARY IN 2020: Vot­ing 377 for and 48 against, the House on Decem­ber 11th adopt­ed the con­fer­ence report on a $738 bil­lion mil­i­tary pol­i­cy bud­get (S. 1790) for fis­cal 2020, includ­ing $69 bil­lion for com­bat oper­a­tions and more than $57 bil­lion for active-duty and retiree health care. Also known as the 2019 Nation­al Defense Autho­riza­tion Act, this bill:

• sets a 3.1 per­cent pay raise for uni­formed personnel;
• con­fronts glob­al warm­ing as a nation­al-secu­ri­ty threat;
• requires Pen­ta­gon strate­gies for coun­ter­ing Russ­ian inter­fer­ence in U.S. elections;
• … and funds pro­grams for mil­i­tary vic­tims of sex­u­al assault.

In addi­tion, the bill cre­ates the U.S. Space Force as the sixth branch of the mil­i­tary; ends the “wid­ow’s tax” on Pen­ta­gon death ben­e­fits received by an esti­mat­ed 65,000 sur­vivors who also receive vet­er­ans’ sur­vivor ben­e­fits and estab­lish­es twelve weeks’ paid fam­i­ly and med­ical leave for the fed­er­al civil­ian work­force to accom­mo­date child­birth, adop­tions, fos­ter care and seri­ous illnesses.

Michael Waltz, R‑Florida, said: “We are in a hot war with extrem­ists around the world, and we are in a cold war with­Russ­ian and Chi­na and oth­er rogue states. If the coun­try isn’t safe, every­thing else that we do in this body is sec­ondary. Our domes­tic pri­or­i­ties, our econ­o­my, our edu­ca­tion, trade, every­thing else that we debate in this Con­gress is at risk if we fail to pro­tect this great nation.”

Ro Khan­na, D‑California, said: “This defense bud­get is $120 bil­lion more than what Pres­i­dent Oba­ma left us with. That could fund free pub­lic col­lege for every Amer­i­can. It could fund access to high-speed, afford­able inter­net for every American.When are we going to do our Arti­cle I duty and stop fund­ing these end­less wars and start fund­ing our domes­tic priorities?”

A yes vote was to approve the fis­cal 2020 mil­i­tary budget.

	Vot­ing Aye (2): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Mike Simp­son and Russ Fulcher
	Vot­ing Aye (3): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Suzanne Bonam­i­ci and Kurt Schrad­er; Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Greg Walden Vot­ing Nay (2): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Earl Blu­me­nauer and Peter DeFazio
	Vot­ing Aye (9): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Suzan Del­Bene, Rick Larsen, Derek Kilmer, Kim Schri­er, Adam Smith, and Den­ny Heck; Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Jaime Her­rera-Beut­ler, Dan New­house, and Cathy McMor­ris Rodgers Vot­ing Nay (1): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Prami­la Jayapal

Cas­ca­dia total: 14 aye votes, 3 nay votes

APPROVING MEASURES TO ADDRESS CLIMATE DAMAGE: Vot­ing 262 for and 151 against, the House on Decem­ber 10th approved a ten-bill leg­isla­tive pack­age (H.R. 729) that would autho­rize $1.4 bil­lion over five years for pro­grams to help Atlantic, Pacif­ic and Great Lakes coastal com­mu­ni­ties and cer­tain inland areas deal with the harm­ful effects of cli­mate damage.

The pack­age would:

• tai­lor the 1972 Coastal Zone Man­age­ment Act to address ris­ing sea levels;
• fund a Dig­i­tal Coast Pro­gram for sup­ply­ing data to help com­mu­ni­ties pre­pare for storms and their consequences;
• fund sci­en­tif­ic ini­tia­tives to con­serve the ecosys­tem and fish pop­u­la­tions of the Great Lakes, which hold eigh­teen per­cent of the world’s fresh water sup­ply and have 9,000 miles of shoreline;
• pro­mote the use resilient nat­ur­al mate­ri­als instead of hard bar­ri­ers to pro­tect facil­i­ties and ecosys­tems against flooding;
• … and autho­rize loan guar­an­tees in sup­port of eco­nom­ic, cul­tur­al and recre­ation­al “work­ing water­front” projects under­way in many coastal communities.

Jared Huff­man, D‑Caliornia, said: “Because of cli­mate change, coastal cities will be dev­as­tat­ed from sea-lev­el rise, and com­mer­cial fish­eries could be either total­ly col­lapsed or moved beyond the reach of our coastal com­mu­ni­ties, all in my chil­dren’s life­times. So, yes, adap­ta­tion and mit­i­ga­tion will be cost­ly, but the cost of doing noth­ing is expo­nen­tial­ly higher.”

Paul Gosar, R‑Arizona, said the pack­age large­ly dupli­cates exist­ing Nation­al Ocean­ic and Atmos­pher­ic Admin­is­tra­tion pro­grams and asked: “So why are we here? To cre­ate giant…slush funds that future Demo­c­ra­t­ic Con­gress­es work­ing with future Demo­c­ra­t­ic pres­i­dents will have avail­able to fun­nel mon­ey to their schemes to com­bat cli­mate change.”

A yes vote was to pass the bill.

	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

NO REDUCTION OF MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTIONS: Vot­ing 160 for and 259 against, the House on Decem­ber 10th defeat­ed an amend­ment to HR 729 (above) to scale back the 1972 Marine Mam­mal Pro­tec­tion Act in order to speed fed­er­al approval of appli­ca­tions for oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mex­i­co and coastal-restora­tion projects on shore­lines includ­ing Louisiana’s.

The law is designed, in part, to pro­tect whales, dol­phins, por­pois­es and oth­er marine life against mil­i­tary and indus­tri­al sonar test­ing in gulf and ocean­ic U.S. waters. But crit­ics (who are aligned with indus­tries that pol­lute) call it one of sev­er­al over­lap­ping envi­ron­men­tal laws that undu­ly hin­der eco­nom­ic development.

Mike John­son, R‑Louisiana., said: “For any­one to insin­u­ate that this amend­ment will destroy pro­tec­tions and result in wet­land and species decline is sim­ply untrue. In fact, [it] would fur­ther sup­port coastal habi­tats and species restora­tion, U.S. nation­al-secu­ri­ty inter­ests and Amer­i­can ener­gy independence.”

Ed Case, D‑Hawaii, said: “We under­stand that for some indus­tries inter­est­ed in the exploita­tion of our oceans that the Marine Mam­mal Pro­tec­tion Act is inconvenient.”

A yes vote was to adopt the amendment.

	Vot­ing Aye (1): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Mike Simpson Vot­ing Nay (1): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Russ Fulcher
	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: 5 aye votes, 12 nay votes

In the United States Senate

CONFIRMING JOHN SULLIVAN AS AMBASSADOR TO RUSSIA: Vot­ing 70 for and 22 against, the Sen­ate on Dec. 12 con­firmed Deputy Sec­re­tary of State John J. Sul­li­van, six­ty, as U.S. ambas­sador to Rus­sia, replac­ing Jon Hunts­man, who resigned in Octo­ber. In addi­tion to hold­ing Depart­ment of State posi­tions in the Trump admin­is­tra­tion, Sul­li­van was Depart­ment of Com­merce gen­er­al coun­sel and Depart­ment of Defense deputy gen­er­al coun­sel under Pres­i­dent George W. Bush, an attor­ney in pri­vate prac­tice and deputy gen­er­al coun­sel to Pres­i­dent George H. W. Bush’s reelec­tion cam­paign in 1992.

A yes vote was to con­firm the nominee.

	Vot­ing Aye (2): Repub­li­can Sen­a­tors Jim Risch and Mike Crapo
	Vot­ing Aye (2): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Sen­a­tor Jeff Merkley Vot­ing Nay (1): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Sen­a­tor Ron Wyden
	Vot­ing Nay (2): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Sen­a­tors Maria Cantwell and Pat­ty Murray

Cas­ca­dia total: 3 aye votes, 3 nay votes

STEPHEN HAHN, FOOD AND DRUG COMMISSIONER: Vot­ing 72 for and 18 against, the Sen­ate on Dec. 12 con­firmed Dr. Stephen Hahn, 59, an oncol­o­gist and can­cer researcher, as com­mis­sion­er of the Food and Drug Admin­is­tra­tion (FDA), replac­ing Dr. Scott Got­tlieb, 45, who resigned in March. Hah­n’s nom­i­na­tion proved con­tro­ver­sial over his refusal to endorse fed­er­al reg­u­la­tion of e‑cigarettes.

An active clin­i­cal physi­cian and med­ical admin­is­tra­tor, Hahn leaves the post of chief med­ical exec­u­tive of the MD Ander­son Can­cer Cen­ter in Hous­ton to take charge of the FDA. He worked at the Nation­al Can­cer Insti­tute from 1989–1999, serv­ing as chief of its Prostate Can­cer Clin­ic, among oth­er positions.

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 Maria Cantwell and Pat­ty Murray

Cas­ca­dia total: 2 aye votes, 4 nay votes

Key votes ahead

The House is expect­ed to vote on arti­cles of impeach­ment against Don­ald Trump dur­ing the week of Decem­ber 16th and may also take up a pro­posed U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade pact, which is fac­ing at least one unex­pect­ed rat­i­fi­ca­tion hur­dle.

The Sen­ate will con­sid­er the 2020 mil­i­tary bud­get 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.