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

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

In the United States House of Representatives

SENDING IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES TO SENATE: Vot­ing 228 for and 193 against, the House on Jan­u­ary 15th adopt­ed a res­o­lu­tion send­ing to the Sen­ate the two arti­cles of impeach­ment against Pres­i­dent Trump the House approved on Decem­ber 18th. Min­neso­ta Demo­c­rat Collin Peter­son, who vot­ed with Repub­li­cans in oppo­si­tion, was the only mem­ber to break par­ty ranks.

The mea­sure (House Res­o­lu­tion 798) also appoint­ed sev­en House Democ­rats to make the case for impeach­ment in a Sen­ate tri­al now underway.

If con­vict­ed by a two-thirds vote of sen­a­tors present, Trump would be removed from office. Trump has denied any wrong­do­ing, and lead­ers of the Senate’s Repub­li­can major­i­ty have pre­dict­ed acquittal.

Jer­rold Nadler, D‑New York, said “This tri­al is nec­es­sary because Pres­i­dent Trump grave­ly abused the pow­er of his office when he strong-armed a for­eign gov­ern­ment to launch inves­ti­ga­tions into his domes­tic polit­i­cal rival.…And then he vio­lat­ed the Con­sti­tu­tion by stonewalling Con­gress’ efforts to investigate…”

Minor­i­ty Leader Kevin McCarthy, R‑California, said: “This was all an exer­cise in raw par­ti­san pol­i­tics con­trary to the inten­tions of our founders…the fastest and weak­est and thinnest impeach­ment in Amer­i­can history.”

A yes vote was to send the two impeach­ment arti­cles to the Sen­ate (see the impeach­ment vote in this spe­cial edi­tion of LWIC) and appoint tri­al managers.

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

RELAXING EVIDENCE STANDARD FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION: Vot­ing 261 for and 155 against, the House on Jan­u­ary 15th passed a bill (H.R. 1320) that would relax the stan­dard of proof for plain­tiffs to win law­suits filed under the Age Dis­crim­i­na­tion in Employ­ment Act of 1967.

The law pro­tects job appli­cants and employ­ees against age-based bias in hir­ing and fir­ing, pro­mo­tions, com­pen­sa­tion and oth­er con­di­tions of employment.

Under a 2009 Supreme Court deci­sion, plain­tiffs must prove by a pre­pon­der­ance of the evi­dence that their age was the sole basis for an adverse employ­ment decision.

This bill would restore the law’s orig­i­nal, less-restric­tive stan­dard under which plain­tiffs must prove age was only a moti­vat­ing fac­tor — not the sole fac­tor — behind the deci­sion. In addi­tion, the bill spec­i­fies that the less demand­ing stan­dard also applies to law­suits filed under the Amer­i­cans With Dis­abil­i­ties Act of 1990 (com­mon­ly abbre­vi­at­ed as the ADA), the Reha­bil­i­ta­tion Act of 1973 and the anti­re­tal­ia­to­ry pro­vi­sions of Title VII of the Civ­il Rights Act of 1964.

The Pacif­ic North­west­’s own Suzanne Bonam­i­ci, D‑Oregon, said “age dis­crim­i­na­tion in the work­place remains dis­turbing­ly per­va­sive. Accord­ing to the AARP, three in five work­ers over the age of 45 report­ed see­ing or expe­ri­enc­ing age dis­crim­i­na­tion on the job. Amer­i­cans are liv­ing and work­ing longer, and we must do all we can to pro­tect them from discrimination.”

Tim Wal­berg, R‑Michigan, said: “Right now, we have an econ­o­my that is boom­ing… Our focus should be on pro­tect­ing work­ers and encour­ag­ing greater work­force par­tic­i­pa­tion and not reward­ing lawyers through increased oppor­tu­ni­ties to gar­ner legal fees… This bill is designed to help attor­neys, not workers.”

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

Cas­ca­dia total: 13 aye votes, 3 nay votes, 1 not voting

BLOCKING ADMINISTRATION RULE ON STUDENT LOANS: Vot­ing 231 for and 180 against, the House on Jan­u­ary 16th nul­li­fied a new Trump admin­is­tra­tion rule that would offer poten­tial debt relief to cer­tain stu­dents defraud­ed by their col­lege in obtain­ing a fed­er­al edu­ca­tion loan but quash Oba­ma-era “bor­row­er defense” pro­tec­tions for stu­dents enrolled in for-prof­it colleges.

The mea­sure (House Joint Res­o­lu­tion 76) was spon­sored by Democ­rats. The Trump rule would apply to defraud­ed stu­dents at pri­vate and pub­lic insti­tu­tions as well as for-prof­it col­leges but would help far few­er stu­dents than the Oba­ma rule because of stricter eli­gi­bil­i­ty stan­dards for obtain­ing relief.

Andy Levin, D‑Michigan, said Trump admin­is­tra­tion offi­cials “will go to the ends of the earth to defend preda­to­ry for-prof­it col­leges at the expense of our stu­dents and tax­pay­ers.” He said their rule “cre­ates unnec­es­sary obsta­cles for stu­dents seek­ing debt relief” from these schools.

Vir­ginia Foxx, R‑North Car­oli­na, said: “Where the Oba­ma admin­is­tra­tion went hay­wire was when they blurred the dis­tinc­tion between what acts or omis­sions con­sti­tute fraud ver­sus an inad­ver­tent mis­take.” She said that under the Oba­ma rule, “a sin­gle mar­ket­ing error” could sub­ject the school to finan­cial duress.

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

Cas­ca­dia total: 11 aye votes, 6 nay votes

In the United States Senate

SETTING NEW RULES FOR NORTH AMERICAN TRADE: Vot­ing 89 for and 10 against, the Sen­ate on Jan­u­ary 16th passed a bill (H.R. 5430) giv­ing final con­gres­sion­al approval to the Unit­ed States-Mex­i­co-Cana­da Agree­ment (USMCA), which would replace the twen­ty-five-year-old North Amer­i­can Free Trade Agree­ment (NAFTA) as the frame­work for com­merce among the three countries.

The agree­ment requires Mex­i­co to guar­an­tee work­ers the right to join unions and engage in col­lec­tive bar­gain­ing; autho­rizes fast-track probes of labor vio­la­tions in Mex­i­co and fac­to­ry-spe­cif­ic penal­ties when trans­gres­sions are found; gives U.S. dairy and poul­try farm­ers more access to Cana­di­an mar­kets; rais­es envi­ron­men­tal stan­dards but does not address cli­mate change; sets wage require­ments that ben­e­fit U.S. and Cana­di­an auto fac­to­ries over Mex­i­co’s; and pro­tects Inter­net com­pa­nies against lia­bil­i­ty for their users’ content.

Our own Ron Wyden, D‑Oregon, said the agree­men­t’s strong rules on dig­i­tal trade and tech­nol­o­gy “pro­tect every sin­gle Amer­i­can indus­try” while empow­er­ing the Unit­ed States “to fight back against author­i­tar­i­an gov­ern­ments that use the Inter­net as a tool to repress their own peo­ple, bul­ly Amer­i­can busi­ness­es and work­ers and med­dle with the free speech rights of Amer­i­can citizens.”

Pat Toomey, R‑Pennsylvania, object­ed to the fact that the bil­l’s $843 bil­lion open­ing price tag was not off­set else­where in the fed­er­al bud­get and there­fore would increase the nation­al debt.

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

Cas­ca­dia total: 6 aye votes

CONFIRMING PETER GAYNOR AS FEMA CHIEF: Vot­ing 81 for and eight against, the Sen­ate on Jan­u­ary 14th con­firmed Peter T. Gaynor as admin­is­tra­tor of the Fed­er­al Emer­gency Man­age­ment Agency, where he had been deputy admin­is­tra­tor and then act­ing admin­is­tra­tor between Octo­ber 2018 and March 2019. Gaynor, the direc­tor of the Rhode Island Emer­gency Man­age­ment Agency between 2015–2018, is a Marine Corps vet­er­an who served in Iraq.

A yes vote was to con­firm the nominee.

Cas­ca­dia total: 6 aye votes

Key votes ahead

The Sen­ate will con­duct an impeach­ment tri­al of Pres­i­dent Trump dur­ing the week of Jan­u­ary 20th, while the House will be in recess.

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!

© 2020 Thomas Vot­ing Reports.