Good morning! Here’s how Cascadia’s United States Senators voted on major issues during the legislative week ending Friday, March 20th.
The House was in recess.
In the United States Senate
APPROVING $100 BILLION TO ADDRESS CORONAVIRUS: Voting 90 for and eight against, the Senate on March 18th sent Donald Trump a $100 billion economic security and stimulus package to help families, individuals and small and medium-size businesses cope with the first wave of the coronavirus outbreak in the United States. In part, the bill (H.R. 6201) would fund free virus testing for all who request it; emergency food aid for the poor, seniors and K‑12 students; enhanced unemployment benefits; and stepped up Medicaid and public-health outlays.
In addition, the bill would authorize ten days’ paid sick leave through December to individuals and households affected by the pandemic, using tax credits to reimburse employers the full cost of providing the leave.
The payments would have to be at least two-thirds of normal pay and capped at $1,000 per week. Government employees would receive equivalent sick-leave benefits. But companies with five hundred or more employees, which account for slightly more than half of the U.S. workforce, would be exempted from having to pay sick leave, and those with fewer than fifty workers, which supply about a quarter of the private work force, could request hardship exemptions.
The bill is projected to deliver paid sick leave to only twenty to twenty-five percent of the country’s private workforce, a share Congress is expected to increase in its next coronavirus economic security legislation. The bill also would provide workers at companies affected by the coronavirus with up to fifteen days’ paid medical and family leave, which would kick in after expiration of the sick leave.
As with sick leave, firms employing more than five hundred workers would be exempted and those with fewer than fifty workers could seek exemptions.
John Thune, R‑South Dakota, said: “This is a time for all of us to come together to ensure that medical professionals, American businesses and American families have what they need to combat the coronavirus and to deal with its effects.”
James Lankford, R‑Oklahoma, said:
“The first principle we should have as Congress is, do no harm… We need to take action, but we need to take action that helps people keep their jobs… My fear is that we didn’t do that just now. We might have just made it worse.”
A yes vote was to send the bill to the White House.
 | Voting Aye (2): |
 | Voting Aye (2): |
 | Voting Aye (2): |
Cascadia total: 6 aye votes
DECLINING TO EXPAND SICK LEAVE AND FAMILY LEAVE: Voting 47 for and 51 against, the Senate on March 18th defeated a Democratic-sponsored bid to amend H.R. 6201 (above) to include more inclusive paid sick leave during the pandemic and first-time, permanent availability of paid leave to the private sector during all types of emergencies under the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act.
First, the amendment sought to provide all private-sector employees and independent contractors affected by any public-health emergency including the coronavirus outbreak with 14 days’ paid sick leave through 2021, with employers receiving immediate Treasury reimbursement for their payments when they show documentation to the Department of Labor.
This provision was more advantageous to both workers and employers than the sick-leave benefit in the underlying bill.
Second, the amendment sought to permanently expand the family and medical leave law to include twelve weeks’ paid leave for private-sector workers during emergencies; the act now authorizes paid emergency leave (also twelve weeks) only to federal civil servants. The amendment also attempted to permanently provide workers with seven days’ accrued paid sick leave under the 1993 law. There was no comparable provision in the underlying bill.
Co-sponsor Patty Murray, D‑Washington (the Pacific Northwest’s most senior senator), said her amendment was “good for workers who need to stay home if they are sick or to take care of their family without losing a job or their paycheck, and it is good for small businesses that want to keep their workers and communities safe and that are struggling to stay afloat during this crisis.”
Ron Johnson, R‑Wisconsin, called the Democratic approach “a new mandate on business [that] is going to do a great deal of economic harm. It may sound good, but it is not the right way to go.…We need to learn the lesson from 2009, where overregulation hampered our recovery.”
A yes vote was to adopt the amendment.
| Voting Nay (2): |
| Voting Aye (2): |
| Voting Aye (2): |
Cascadia total: 4 aye votes, 2 nay votes
KEEPING PAID SICK LEAVE UNDER FEDERAL CONTROL: Voting fifty for and forty-eight against, the Senate failed to reach a sixty-vote threshold for adopting a Republican-sponsored bid to transfer the administration of paid sick leave in H.R. 6201 (above) from employers and federal agencies to state-run unemployment insurance programs. In the underlying bill, employers would pay the sick leave and then receive full Treasury reimbursement by means of tax credits. Under the amendment, state jobless programs would make payments and reimburse employers, and then shut down the program at the end of the year.
Co-sponsor Ron Johnson, R‑Wisconsin, said his amendment “does not saddle small businesses, American businesses, with a new mandate that they don’t have a great deal of confidence in. And it would definitely be temporary” with an expiration date of December 31st, 2020.
Patty Murray, D‑Washington., called the approach unworkable because displaced employees “would be on their own until they were compensated by the state, and the unemployment system in each state would be drastically overburdened at a time when workers are going to need it in the event they are laid off.”
A yes vote was to adopt the Republican amendment.
| Voting Aye (2): |
| Voting Nay (2): |
| Voting Nay (2): |
Cascadia total: 2 aye votes, 4 nay votes
DECLINING TO OFFSET COST OF CORONAVIRUS BILL: On a tally of three for and 95 against, the Senate on March 18th defeated an amendment that sought to offset the projected $100 billion cost of H.R. 6201 (above) by cuts elsewhere in the federal budget. The amendment also sought to limit the payment of the bill’s child tax-credits to families with a Social Security number, a provision seen by critics as anti-immigrant. As later signed into law by Donald Trump, the bill would consist almost entirely of deficit spending.
Sponsor Rand Paul, R‑Kentucky, said his amendment “has nothing to do with not liking immigrants; it has to do with saying taxpayer money shouldn’t go to non-people. You should have to be a person to get taxpayer money. It just says you have to have a Social Security number.”
Our own Ron Wyden, D‑Oregon, said:
“I would just ask my colleagues to save the immigration debates for another time when we are not in the middle of a pandemic.”
A yes vote was to adopt the amendment.
| Voting Nay (2): |
| Voting Nay (2): |
| Voting Nay (2): |
Cascadia total: 6 nay votes
Key votes ahead
Congress will take up its third coronavirus relief package in the week of March 23rd, a measure that could promptly send at least $500 billion in direct payments to individuals and households and provide bailouts to numerous industries.
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.