Last Week In Congress: How Cascadia’s U.S. lawmakers voted (May 10th-14th)

Good morn­ing! Here’s how Cascadia’s Mem­bers of Con­gress vot­ed on major issues dur­ing the leg­isla­tive week end­ing Fri­day, May 14th, 2021.

In the United States House of Representatives

CRACKING DOWN ON DEBT COLLECTORS: Vot­ing 215 for and 207 against, the House on May 13th passed a bill (H.R. 2547) that would pro­hib­it abu­sive prac­tices by pri­vate firms that col­lect debt from con­sumers, stu­dent-loan bor­row­ers and oth­ers seri­ous­ly in arrears.

The bill would require a two-year grace peri­od before efforts to col­lect med­ical debt from seri­ous­ly ill indi­vid­u­als could begin. And it would allow co-sign­ers as well as bor­row­ers of pri­vate stu­dent loans to dis­charge their debt on the basis of total and per­ma­nent dis­abil­i­ty, just as seri­ous­ly dis­abled bor­row­ers of fed­er­al stu­dent loans and their co-sign­ers can do. The bill also would:

• Pro­hib­it com­pa­nies from col­lect­ing med­ical debt or report­ing it to a cred­it report­ing agency with­out first noti­fy­ing the con­sumer about their rights.
• Lim­it fees to ten per­cent of col­lec­tions in the case of com­pa­nies hired by fed­er­al agen­cies to col­lect debt.
• Pro­hib­it col­lec­tion firms from mak­ing mali­cious, unfound­ed threats against mem­bers of the military.
• Increase mon­e­tary dam­ages imposed by the 1977 Fair Debt Col­lec­tion Prac­tices Act on com­pa­nies using unfair and decep­tive practices.
• Pro­hib­it col­lec­tion firms from using emails and text mes­sages to bad­ger those in arrears with­out their permission.
• Expand pro­tec­tions for small and minor­i­ty-owned busi­ness­es against col­lec­tion actions.

Deb­o­rah Ross, D‑North Car­oli­na, said the bill is need­ed because “debt col­lec­tors often oper­ate with impuni­ty, threat­en­ing ser­vi­cepeo­ple, deny­ing small busi­ness own­ers due process, and harass­ing cus­tomers and home­own­ers with repeat­ed calls, texts, and emails. Harass­ment by debt col­lec­tors neg­a­tive­ly affects stu­dents’ career deci­sions, small busi­ness growth, home­own­er­ship, and fam­i­lies’ finan­cial stability.”

Guy Reschen­thaler, R‑Pennsylvania, said “con­sumers are already pro­tect­ed from harm­ful debt col­lec­tion prac­tices” under exist­ing law, and he added that “it is absolute­ly clear that [Democ­rats] are using the COVID-19 pan­dem­ic as an excuse to dis­man­tle our free-mar­ket sys­tem and force their rad­i­cal, pro­gres­sive agen­da on the Amer­i­can people.”

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

	Vot­ing Nay (2): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Russ Fulcher and Mike Simpson
	Vot­ing Aye (3): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Suzanne Bonam­i­ci, Earl Blu­me­nauer, and Peter DeFazio Vot­ing Nay (2): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Cliff Bentz; Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Kurt Schrader
	Vot­ing Aye (7): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Suzan Del­Bene, Rick Larsen, Derek Kilmer, Prami­la Jaya­pal, Kim Schri­er, Adam Smith, and Mar­i­lyn Strickland Vot­ing Nay (3): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Jaime Her­rera Beut­ler, Dan New­house, and Cathy McMor­ris Rodgers

Cas­ca­dia total: 10 aye votes, 7 nay votes

WORKPLACE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR PREGNANCY: Vot­ing 315 for and 101 against, the House on May 14th passed a bill (H.R. 1065) that would require pri­vate-sec­tor firms and gov­ern­ment agen­cies with at least 15 employ­ees to pro­vide rea­son­able work­place accom­mo­da­tions for work­ers and job appli­cants who are preg­nant or have recent­ly giv­en birth.

The bill would not require employ­ers to make accom­mo­da­tions that impose undue hard­ship on their oper­a­tions. Repub­li­can crit­ics said it gave insuf­fi­cient pro­tec­tion to reli­gious organizations.

Lois Frankel, D‑Florida, said preg­nant women at work now “can be denied…an extra bath­room break, a place to sit, a lighter lift­ing, or [be] fired for ask­ing for sim­ple accom­mo­da­tions or even just dis­clos­ing that she is preg­nant. This leaves many women hav­ing to choose between the health of their preg­nan­cy and putting food on their fam­i­ly’s table. We are putting women in dan­ger every sin­gle day while we hold off on this action.”

Mar­jorie Tay­lor Greene, R‑Georgia, said: “Pass­ing this bill means a small busi­ness or reli­gious orga­ni­za­tion could be forced to pro­vide paid time off to an employ­ee to have an abor­tion even if that vio­lates the reli­gious beliefs of the orga­ni­za­tion. On top of that, these groups can be sued for dam­ages for not tak­ing every step to accom­mo­date preg­nant work­ers. That means church­es and small busi­ness­es, the back­bone of Amer­i­ca, will be tied up in court for years.…”

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

	Vot­ing Nay (1): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Russ Fulcher Not Vot­ing (1): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Mike Simpson
	Vot­ing Aye (5): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Suzanne Bonam­i­ci, Earl Blu­me­nauer, Peter DeFazio, and Kurt Schrad­er; Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Cliff Bentz
	Vot­ing Aye (9): Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Suzan Del­Bene, Rick Larsen, Derek Kilmer, Prami­la Jaya­pal, Kim Schri­er, Adam Smith, and Mar­i­lyn Strick­land; Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Jaime Her­rera Beut­ler and Dan Newhouse Vot­ing Nay (1): Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Cathy McMor­ris Rodgers

Cas­ca­dia total: 14 aye votes, 2 nay votes, 1 not voting

In the United States Senate

NULLIFYING TRUMP ADMINISTRATION BANKING RULE: Vot­ing 52 for and 47 against, the Sen­ate on May 11th nul­li­fied a six-months-old Trump admin­is­tra­tion rule that has made it eas­i­er for state-reg­u­lat­ed preda­to­ry lenders to use fleet­ing alliances with nation­al banks and fed­er­al sav­ings asso­ci­a­tions to avoid state bank­ing reg­u­la­tions includ­ing usury rules cap­ping inter­est rates.

The fed­er­al insti­tu­tions involved in such arrange­ments are not answer­able to state reg­u­la­tions. The Office of the Comp­trol­ler of the Cur­ren­cy (OCC) pub­lished the rule on Oct. 30, 2020. With this vote, the Sen­ate adopt­ed a res­o­lu­tion (S.J. Res 15) that would revoke it by means of the Con­gres­sion­al Review Act.

Defend­ers said the rule right­ful­ly allows nation­al banks to become the lender of record if they have put up the mon­ey and signed their name at the time of orig­i­na­tion. They said nul­li­fi­ca­tion would penal­ize com­mu­ni­ty banks that part­ner with Inter­net-based finan­cial insti­tu­tions (“fin­techs”) to expand their portfolios.

Chris Van Hollen, D‑Maryland, said that under the rule, unscrupu­lous lenders “go to a nation­al bank, and you essen­tial­ly rent their name. And by doing that, you cre­ate a loop­hole that allows you to avoid the state laws that have been put in place to pro­tect against this kind of preda­to­ry lending.…”

Pat Toomey, R‑Pennsylvania, said the rule “ensures that nation­al banks are account­able for the loans they issue through these lend­ing part­ner­ships, and it requires the OCC to super­vise those loans for com­pli­ance with con­sumer pro­tec­tion and anti-dis­crim­i­na­tion laws.”

A yes vote was to send the nul­li­fi­ca­tion mea­sure to the House.

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

Cas­ca­dia total: 4 aye votes, 2 nay votes

ANDREA PALM, DEPUTY HEALTH SECRETARY: Vot­ing 61 for and 37 against, the Sen­ate on May 11th con­firmed Andrea J. Palm, forty-sev­en, as deputy sec­re­tary of the Depart­ment of Health and Human Services.

Palm was a senior HHS staff mem­ber and White House aide and dur­ing the Oba­ma admin­is­tra­tion, and she worked under Hillary Clin­ton when she rep­re­sent­ed New York in the Sen­ate. Palm worked most recent­ly as sec­re­tary-designee of the Wis­con­sin Depart­ment of Health Services.

A yes vote was to con­firm the nominee.

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

Cas­ca­dia total: 5 aye votes, 1 nay vote

CINDY MARTEN, DEPUTY EDUCATION SECRETARY: Vot­ing 54 for and 44 against, the Sen­ate on May 11th con­firmed Cindy M. Marten as deputy sec­re­tary of the Depart­ment of Edu­ca­tion. She was super­in­ten­dent of the San Diego Uni­fied School Dis­trict between 2013–2021. A for­mer class­room teacher and school prin­ci­pal, Marten is a lit­er­a­cy spe­cial­ist who served as pres­i­dent of the San Diego Coun­cil of Lit­er­a­cy Professionals.

A yes vote was to con­firm the nominee.

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

Cas­ca­dia total: 4 aye votes, 2 nay votes

Key votes ahead

This week, the House will take up bills to address hate crimes against Asian-Amer­i­cans and estab­lish a com­mis­sion to inves­ti­gate the Jan­u­ary 6th attack on the U.S. Capi­tol, while the Sen­ate will vote on Biden admin­is­tra­tion nominees.

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!

© 2021 Thomas Vot­ing Reports.