How Our State's Members Of Congress Voted Last Week
Here’s how area members of Congress voted on major issues in the week ending April 27. (A little background about why I’m re-posting this can be found here.)
House
FINANCIAL DEREGULATION: Voting 312 for and 111 against, the House on April 25 passed a bill (HR 3336) to exempt derivatives transactions by small banks, credit unions, nonprofit-cooperative lenders and farm-credit institutions from transparency and collateral requirements set by the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial-regulation law. Under Dodd-Frank, derivatives contracts such as credit-default swaps are to be publicly traded on exchanges and subjected to collateral rules. But the law also gives the Commodity Futures Trading Commission leeway to allow banks with certain asset levels — say under $10 billion — to continue to trade swaps privately, outside of the exchanges and without collateral rules. The rationale is that regulation increases the cost of borrowing and small banks do not create systemic risk when their deals go bad. This bill, which would write a small-bank exemption into law, is being debated as the CFTC drafts regulations to spell out small banks’ obligations under the Dodd-Frank law.
Dodd-Frank authorized the first comprehensive regulation of the then-$600 trillion U.S. derivatives industry, whose unraveling helped cause the U.S. and global economic meltdown in 2008 and paved the way for massive taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street firms through the Bush administration’s Troubled Asset Relief Program.
Frank Lucas, R-Okla., said: “Within the banking system, 96 percent of the … value of derivatives is held by the five largest banks. The very small remaining percentage of the derivatives exposure in our financial system is spread across hundreds of small institutions. That’s why Congress never intended for these community lenders to be regulated the same as the largest global financial institutions.”
No member spoke against the bill.
A yes vote was to pass the bill.
Voting yes: Rick Larsen, D-2, Jaime Herrera Beutler, R-3, Doc Hastings, R-4, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-5, Dave Reichert, R-8
Voting no: Norman Dicks, D-6, Jim McDermott, D-7, Adam Smith, D-9
Not voting: None
STUDENT LOAN INTEREST RATES: Voting 215 for and 195 against, the House on April 27 passed a Republican bill (HR 4628) to prevent student loan interest rates from doubling on July 1 from the present 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. This affects the pocketbooks of some 7.4 million students who have received Stafford Loans for college expenses. The bill would offset the subsidy’s $5.9 billion annual cost by cutting the 2010 health law’s fund to promote preventive care, or “wellness,” programs. The bill is now before the Senate, where Democrats, who control that chamber, also want to keep the student-loan interest rate from doubling on July 1. But they would offset the cost by effectively raising payroll taxes on some wealthy owners of S Corporations.
A yes vote was to pass the bill.
Voting yes: Herrera Beutler, Hastings, McMorris Rodgers, Reichert
Voting no: Larsen, Dicks, McDermott, Smith
Not voting: None
WOMEN’S, CHILDREN’S HEALTH CARE: Voting 178 for and 231 against, the House on April 27 defeated a Democratic motion that sought to prevent health care spending cuts in HR 4628 (above) from reducing benefits in or raising the cost of private medical insurance for women and children. The motion sought to protect treatments such as mammogram, cervical cancer and pregnancy screenings from being diminished by the “pay for” in the Republicans’ student-loan bill. Starting in 2014, most private health policies will be sold in the state-based insurance exchanges created by the 2010 health law.
A yes vote backed the motion.
Voting yes: Larsen, Dicks, McDermott, Smith
Voting no: Herrera Beutler, Hastings, McMorris Rodgers, Reichert
Not voting: None
CYBERSECURITY, CIVIL LIBERTIES: Voting 248 for and 168 against, the House on April 26 sent the Senate a bill (HR 3523) to expand data-sharing between federal security agencies and private businesses in order to bolster U.S. defenses against cybersecurity attacks from terrorists, foreign governments, rogue hackers, overseas business competitors and others. Named the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, the bill lowers privacy, security-classification and anti-trust barriers to enable data-sharing between the public and private sectors. While the bill’s purpose is to protect computer systems against crippling shutdowns and information thievery, it was criticized as an infringement on privacy rights and other civil liberties. The bill grants immunity from prosecution to companies that share customer data with the government.
Mike Rogers, R-Mich., said: “We needed to stop the Chinese government from stealing our stuff. We needed to stop the Russians from what they’re doing to our networks and to people’s personal information … We needed to prepare for countries like Iran and North Korea so that they don’t do something catastrophic to our networks … and cause real harm to real people.
Rush Holt, D-N.J., said the bill “fails to narrowly define the privacy laws it would contravene; it fails to put the cybersecurity efforts in a civilian agency; it fails to require companies to remove personal, identifiable information about individuals; it fails to sufficiently limit the government’s use of information (and) it fails to create a robust oversight and accountability structure.”
A yes vote was to pass the bill.
Voting yes: Larsen, Herrera Beutler, Hastings, McMorris Rodgers, Dicks, Reichert, Smith
Voting no: McDermott
Not voting: None
Senate
POSTAL SERVICE OVERHAUL: Voting 62 for and 37 against, the Senate on April 25 approved a restructuring of the U.S. Postal Service aimed at putting the agency on a profitable basis by October 2015. The bill (S 1789) would use buyouts and early retirements to trim today’s 547,000-employee workforce by 100,000 positions; start new delivery services that do not compete unfairly with the private sector; use $11 billion in retirement-fund assets to finance the massive staff reduction; delay rural post-office closings for at least one year; continue Saturday deliveries for at least two years; close some mail-distribution centers; cut payments to employees’ retirement and health care accounts; reduce worker’s compensation obligations and cap the pay of top postal executives at $199,000. The service posted a $5.5 billion loss in fiscal 2011. The House will take up a competing measure.
Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said the bill must be passed because “if we wait much longer, we will be faced with a choice between a shutdown of mail service … or a massive taxpayer bailout.”
Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said he “would like to remind everyone voting for this that we are, in fact, adding $11 billion to our deficit.”
A yes vote was to pass the bill.
Voting yes: Maria Cantwell, D, Patty Murray, D
Voting no: None
Not voting: None
COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING RIGHTS: Voting 23 for and 76 against, the Senate on April 25 defeated an amendment to S 1789 (above) to strip U.S. Postal Service employees of their collective-bargaining rights, in response to the fact that 80 percent of the agency’s total expenditures are labor costs.
Rand Paul, R-Ky., said: “Before we close one post office, before we end Saturday mail, before we ask citizens to get poorer services for higher prices, maybe we ought to look at the root of the problem,” which, he said, is collective bargaining that raises labor costs.
Susan Collins, R-Maine, said that while the bill tweaks labor-management arbitration procedures, “there is no justification for completely removing the right of workers to collectively bargain.”
A yes vote backed the amendment.
Voting yes: None
Voting no: Cantwell, Murray
Not voting: None
LOCAL POSTAL AUTONOMY: Voting 35 for and 64 against, the Senate on April 25 defeated an amendment to S 1789 (above) to start testing a decentralization of the U.S. Postal Service in which local postmasters would have autonomy to cut costs, define service levels and launch innovative programs without approval from headquarters. Opponents called this a step toward privatization that could end the postal service as a nationwide institution with uniform standards.
Rand Paul, R-Ky., said postmasters tell him “there is a lot of middle management in the Postal Service making unwise decisions, and if given more autonomy they would introduce cost-saving measures to try to save the post office for their local community.”
Susan Collins, R-Maine, said the local autonomy “would create chaos by allowing for inconsistent delivery standards across the country. It would cause cream-skimming of profitable delivery areas, and that would harm rural America.”
A yes vote backed the amendment.
Voting yes: None
Voting no: Cantwell, Murray
Not voting: None
UNION DUES, POLITICAL DONATIONS: Voting 46 for and 53 against, the Senate on April 25 defeated a Republican bid to add the so-called “Paycheck Protection Act” to S 1789 (above). Under that proposed law, individual postal workers would have to give permission before their union dues could be spent on political contributions.
Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said the act “protects the First Amendment rights of postal workers by requiring … unions to obtain prior approval from their workers before they spend their dues money on behalf of political parties, political candidates or other political advocacy.”
Joseph Lieberman, I-Ct., said: “No postal employee himself or herself is forced to involuntarily support the advocacy or political activities of a union. That is their choice — whether to join (the union). But once they do, their leadership has the right to participate in a political process.”
A yes vote backed the amendment.
Voting yes: None
Voting no: Cantwell, Murray
Not voting: None
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT: Voting 68 for and 31 against, the Senate on April 26 sent the House a bill (S 1925) to renew the Violence Against Women Act through fiscal 2016 and expand it to cover gay men and undocumented immigrants who are abused by spouses or partners. The bill also expands protections for children and the elderly and Native American women. The bill increases the number of visas available to battered women from abroad; sets criminal penalties for certain actions by international marriage brokers; expands the availability of safe homes for victims of domestic violence; makes it easier to bring charges under the Telecommunications Act against persons making obscene or harassing telephone calls and addresses rape and other sexual crimes on college campuses, in part by requiring schools to publish crime statistics.
Since it was enacted in 1994, the law has funneled several billions of dollars in grants to state and local governments and nonprofit organizations for a wide variety of programs aimed at preventing domestic and dating violence, stalking and sexual assaults and helping victims recover when those crimes occur. Agencies such as the departments of Justice and Homeland Security and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention disburse the grants through laws such as the Victims of Child Abuse Act, the Higher Education Act and the Immigration and Nationality Act.
A yes vote was to pass the bill.
Voting yes: Cantwell , Murray
Voting no: None
Not voting: None
REPUBLICAN SUBSTITUTE: Voting 37 for and 62 against, the Senate on April 26 defeated a Republican substitute to S 1925 (above). While the GOP plan also extended coverage to gay men, it was less comprehensive and costly than the underlying bipartisan bill. The substitute differed, in part, by setting mandatory minimum sentences for child pornographers, bolstering the role of U.S. Marshals in tracking sex offenders and imposing stricter oversight over Department of Justice funding of anti-violence programs.
Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said: “It has been asserted on the Senate floor that we do not protect victims of same-sex sexual violence, but we do. We neutralize in our bill any reference or discrimination … We cover every person who is a victim.”
Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said: “I regret to say that the Republican proposal undermines core principles of the Violence Against Women Act. It would result in abandoning some of the most vulnerable victims and strips out key provisions that are critically necessary to protect all victims — including battered immigrants, Native women, and victims in same-sex relationships.”
A yes vote backed the GOP substitute.
Voting yes: None
Voting no: Cantwell, Murray
Not voting: None
RULES FOR UNION ELECTIONS: Voting 45 for and 54 against, the Senate on April 24 failed to kill a new rule by the National Labor Relations Board that will advance the date of union-organizing elections by days or weeks. This defeated a GOP measure (SJ Res 36) that sought to quash the rule, which is due to take effect April 30. Under the rule, elections on whether workers will form into collective-bargaining units could be held as soon as 10 days after the NLRB certifies the election petition, not the usual 35 days or longer. Both sides consider the length of the delay crucial because studies show that when employers gain time to persuade workers to reject unionization, they are more successful, while unions tend to fare better when elections are held promptly. The new rule quickens the election timetable mainly by reducing the number of pre-election hearings and filings and deferring certain challenges until after voting has occurred.
Established in 1934, the NLRB is charged with investigating allegations of unfair labor practices by employers and resolving disputes between employees and management over the implementation of labor laws. The five-member board is presidentially appointed and subject to Senate confirmation.
Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., said quickly held elections “make it logistically impossible for small-business owners to fully discuss the effects of unionization with their employees, partly because they will not even know what those effects are, and neither will their employees.”
Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said the NLRB rule “addresses some of the most abusive situations where unscrupulous companies are manipulating the process and creating delays so they can buy more time to intimidate workers.”
A yes vote was to kill the new rule.
Voting yes: None
Voting no: Cantwell, Murray
Not voting: None
— Thomas Voting Report, Inc.
