By Voterama in Congress

 

WASHINGTON – Here’s how Alabama’s members of Congress voted on major issues in the week ending July 13.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Renewal of Federal Fisheries Law

Voting 222 for and 193 against, the House on July 11 passed a GOP-drafted bill (HR 200) that would extend through fiscal 2022 the main law for regulating commercial and recreational fishing in federal coastal waters ranging from three to 200 miles offshore.

The 1976 Magnuson-Stevens law is designed to conserve stocks and prevent overfishing while protecting declining species and fragile habitats and providing economic and recreational opportunities.

This bill would clear the way for increased commercial and sport fishing by steps such as scaling back science-based catch limits and conservation measures, shortening time frames for restocking populations and expanding from three to nine miles the zone for sport fishing of species including red snapper off the Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana coasts. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration spends nearly $600 million annually to administer the law with the help of locally run regional councils.

Don Young, R-Alaska, said the bill would “ensure a proper balance between the biological needs of fish stocks and the economic needs of fishermen in coastal communities. … Harvest levels will still be based on science and set at levels where overfishing will not occur.”

David Cicilline, D-Rhode Island, said the bill “weakens critical tools, like annual catch limits, which ensure that fisheries remain full for years to come. This bill will gut science-based management for fisheries, roll back development of effective fisheries management techniques and reduce accountability for recreational fisheries.”

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

Voting yes: Bradley Byrne, R-1, Martha Roby, R-2, Mike Rogers, R-3, Robert Aderholt, R-4, Mo Brooks, R-5, Gary Palmer, R-6.

Voting no: Terri Sewell, D-7.

Constitutional Amendment to Nullify Citizens United

Voting 228 for and 184 against, the House on July 11 blocked a bid by Democrats for floor debate on a proposed constitutional amendment (HJ Res 31) that would restore broad congressional and state powers to regulate money in politics. This would nullify the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling, which equated political spending with free speech in a way that allows corporations, unions, super PACs and other groups to anonymously spend unlimited, undisclosed sums to advocate the election or defeat of specific candidates.

Ted Deutch, D-Florida, said Citizens United must be overturned because “unlimited spending doesn’t produce more speech. It produces louder speech. It compromises the free speech rights of everyone else in America. It corrupts elections when people are sent to Washington to work on behalf of corporate interests rather than voters’ interests. And it leaves our elections vulnerable to attacks from foreign adversaries.”

No member spoke on the other side of the issue.

A yes vote was in opposition to calling the measure up for debate.

Voting yes: Byrne, Roby, Rogers, Aderholt, Brooks and Palmer.

Voting no:  Sewell.

Expanded Campaign-Finance Disclosures

Voting 225 for and 186 against, the House on July 11 blocked a Democratic bid for floor debate on a bill (HR 6239) that would require corporations, unions, super PACs and other entities to publicly disclose their funding of political activity and identify their large contributors. A sponsoring organization’s top-ranking official would have to publicly certify campaign advertisements, just as candidates must for their campaign spots. Each ad would have to identify the sponsoring group’s top five donors. Among other provisions, the bill would clear the way for the Securities and Exchange Commission to require publicly traded corporations to disclose their political spending to shareholders and prohibit political spending by U.S. companies largely under foreign ownership or control.

Bradley Byrne, R-Alabama, who opposed debate on the bill, said that if Democrats “want to address (disclosure) … then I am sure they could foreswear taking any corporate contributions, any anonymous contributions to their accounts for themselves. So they could lead by their example, and I look forward to seeing them do that.”

Sponsor David Cicilline, D-Rhode Island, said his bill “closes one of the biggest loopholes that the Citizens United ruling opened, namely, that corporations, billionaires and even foreign governments can secretly funnel hundreds of millions of dollars into 501(c)(4)s in order to covertly influence our campaigns.”

A yes vote was in opposition to calling the bill up for debate.

Voting yes: Byrne, Roby, Rogers, Aderholt, Brooks and Palmer.

Voting no: Sewell.

2018-2019 Intelligence Budget

Voting 363 for and 54 against, the House on July 12 approved a two-year budget (HR 6237) of more than $170 billion for the 16 U.S. civilian and military intelligence agencies, with the actual figure classified. In part, the bill would require stronger defenses against ongoing Russian attacks on America’s electoral system, expand U.S. intelligence capabilities in space and require a more thorough assessment of North Korea’s revenue sources that would enable the United States to better target economic sanctions on Pyongyang.

Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said the bill requires “critical updates to Congress in the event the United States faces a foreign cyber-attack or other active measures that threaten the heart of our democracy: our elections. There is no doubt that Russia will continue to exert a malign influence on the heart and soul of our democracy. This cannot be tolerated.”

No member spoke against the bill.

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

Voting yes: Byrne, Roby, Rogers, Aderholt, Brooks, Palmer and Sewell.

Voting no: None.

Expansion of `Unfunded Mandates’ Law

Voting 230 for and 168 against, the House on July 13 passed a bill (HR 50) that would expand an anti-regulatory law requiring the government to limit, or at least keep track of, the compliance costs that federal laws and rules impose on states, localities, tribal governments and the private sector. The 1995 “unfunded mandates” law helps entities, including the business community, to push back against federal regulations. The bill adds 15 independent agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, to the list of departments and agencies required to submit proposed new rules with compliance costs above $100 million to the Office of Management and Budget for clearance.

Doug Collins, R-Georgia, said the bill “continues the trend of empowering state and local governments and lightening the grip of the federal government.”

Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland, quoted a comment from groups opposing the bill: “The Wall Street economic collapse, food and product safety recalls and numerous environmental disasters demonstrate the need for regulatory systems that protect the public, not corporate interests.”

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

Voting yes: Byrne, Roby, Rogers, Aderholt, Brooks and Palmer.

Voting no: None.

Not voting:  Sewell.

 

Sale of Water Facilities In U.S. West

Voting 233 for and 184 against, the House on July 12 passed a bill (HR 3281) that would make it easier for private organizations to acquire taxpayer-owned water infrastructure from the federal Bureau of Reclamation. Present law requires Congress to approve these transactions in advance. Under this bill, the bureau could act on its own to clear sales that would take effect after 90 days unless both houses of Congress vote to kill the deal. Purchasers would be required to hold a water-service contract with the bureau and meet other conditions. About 30 such transactions have occurred in the past 20 years, a frequency expected to increase significantly if the bill were to become law, given that hundreds of private firms would qualify as potential purchasers.

Established in 1902, the bureau owns more than 600 dams and reservoirs and a network of conveyance units, above and below ground, that provide water throughout the West for purposes such as farming and human consumption. In addition, the bureau operates 53 power plants and ranks behind only the Tennessee Valley Authority as the largest producer of hydroelectric power in the United States.

Dan Newhouse, R-Washington, said the bill uses “commonsense streamlining efforts to transfer federal water projects to local water entities like irrigation districts and local water user associations.”

Jared Huffman, D-California, said: “This may be how Mr. Trump liquidates real estate during one of his infamous bankruptcies, but it is no way to manage public infrastructure.”

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

Voting yes: Byrne, Roby, Rogers, Aderholt, Brooks, Palmer.

Voting no: Sewell.

SENATE

Defense of NATO Against Trump Barbs

Voting 97 for and two against, the Senate on July 10 adopted a measure intended to bolster the North Atlantic Treaty Organization against President Trump’s verbal assaults on the 69-year-old Western alliance. Trump has charged that member countries fail to pay their fair share of the cost defending Europe, among other criticisms. The motion was offered in relation to a military spending bill (HR 5515) for fiscal 2019. The senators voting no were Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Rand Paul, R-Kentucky. The House passed a similar pro-NATO measure on a non-record vote.

The motion reaffirms U.S. support of the alliance and America’s “ironclad commitment” to Article 5 of the NATO pact, which obligates member states to defend any other NATO country that comes under attack. In addition, the motion declares it U.S. policy to marshal “all elements of (its) national power to deter and, if necessary, defeat Russian aggression” in Europe; expresses U.S. support for a “rules-based international order” and calls upon the administration to submit to Congress a strategy for countering Russian subversion of democratic institutions in America and abroad.

Sponsor Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, said it is important that the 2019 military budget “recognizes our traditional, long-term support for NATO.”

James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, also a supporter, said that, while the motion sends “the right message” to NATO’s 28 other countries, it also would “add legitimacy” to Trump’s request that they pay more to support the alliance’s military bulwark against Russia.

A yes vote was to adopt the motion.

Voting yes: Richard Shelby, R; Doug Jones, D.

Voting no:  None.

 Brian Benczkowski, Criminal Division Chief

Voting 51 for and 48 against, the Senate on July 11 confirmed Brian A. Benczkowski, 48, a former congressional staff member without litigation experience, as assistant attorney general for the criminal division of the Department of Justice. In recent work at a Washington law firm, Benczkowski represented Russia’s Alfa Bank in a dispute over its server sharing data with a Trump Organization server during the 2016 presidential campaign. All parties were cleared of wrongdoing. Backers said the nominee is qualified to manage the department’s criminal probes, while critics noted he has never tried a case or worked in criminal law yet will oversee hundreds of federal prosecutors.

Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said: “There is no credible allegation that Mr. Benczkowski did anything wrong or unethical related to (Alfa Bank). He has promised to recuse himself from handling any matters involving Alfa Bank, and he has promised to consult with ethics officials regarding any other times he may need to recuse.”

Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, said: “Alfa Bank was at the very center of scrutiny into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, even making an appearance in the Steele dossier. Yet Mr. Benczkowski took on Alfa Bank as a client on an issue related to the Russia investigation at the same time he was being considered for a senior position in the Trump Justice Department, totally blinded to the obvious conflict of interest.”

A yes vote was to confirm Benczkowski.

Voting yes: Shelby.

Voting no: Jones.

Congressional Say in Trump Trade Policy

By a vote of 88 for and 11 against, the Senate on July 11 adopted a non-binding motion asserting Congress “should have a role” in U.S. trade policies implemented under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which qualifies national security as a basis for imposing tariffs on imports. In recent weeks, President Trump has cited Section 232 in slapping tariffs on products from trading partners including China, Canada, Mexico and the European Union.

Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, said, “These tariffs are a big mistake. Using national security as an excuse to impose them is an even bigger mistake. … Tariffs are taxes. They raise the price of what we buy and sell. Tariffs reduce revenues, profits, wages and jobs.”

 

Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, voted for the motion but said: “I strongly support (steel tariffs) because thousands of steelworkers across the country have lost their jobs due to Chinese steel overcapacity. Tough trade enforcement against China cheating has long been overdue.”

A yes vote was to rebuke President Trump over his tariffs policy.

Voting yes: Shelby, Jones.

Voting no: None.

KEY VOTES AHEAD

The Senate will conduct votes on judicial and executive-branch nominees in the week of July 16, while the House schedule was to be announced.