American Bridge President Jessica Mackler released the following statement, officially welcoming Todd Young to the #PartyOfTrump after his primary win tonight:
“Tonight, Todd Young joins Donald Trump and the gang. But Young has long been a politician first and a fighter for the Hoosier state second. Just like Trump, the congressman is against equal pay, and he’s already refusing to do the job he’s campaigning for, pushing to ‘delay, delay, delay’ the confirmation of Judge Merrick Garland. From voting against equal pay to Supreme Court obstructionism, Young and Trump are one and the same.”
Background:
Young Said He Would Support Trump As The GOP Presidential Nominee
Young Said He Would Support Trump As The GOP PResidential Nominee
Asked If He Would Support Trump As The GOP Nominee, Young Said He Intended To Support The Republican Nominee. According to the Terre Haute Tribune Star, “Asked if he would support Donald Trump if Trump is the Republican nominee for president, Young said, ‘I intend to support the Republican nominee.’” [Terre Haute Tribune Star, 3/30/16]
Young’s Campaign Manager Said Young “Will Support The Republican Nominee Whoever It Is.” In a column for the Elkhart Truth, Brian Howey wrote, “Despite the growing data set, Republican U.S. Senate candidates Marlin Stutzman and Todd Young, along with Gov. Mike Pence, are vowing to support the nominee. ‘Todd said he will support the Republican nominee whoever it is,’ campaign manager Trevor Foughty said after Politico reported that the Bloomington Republican attended an anti-Trump meeting in Florida last week that included House Speaker Paul Ryan.” [Elkhart Truth, 3/25/16]
Todd Young Voted Against Paycheck Fairness Act
Young Voted At Least Twice Against The Paycheck Fairness Act
2013: Young Effectively Voted Against Considering The Paycheck Fairness Act, Which Would Make It Easier For Women To Successfully Sue Over Pay Discrimination, And Increase Employer Penalties In Such Cases. In April 2013, Young effectively voted to block House consideration of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which, according to the Congressional Research Service, would “increase penalties for employers who pay different wages to men and women for ‘equal work,’ and would add programs for training, research, technical assistance, and pay equity employer recognition awards. The legislation would also make it more difficult for employers to avoid [Equal Pay Act] EPA liability, and proposed safeguards would protect employees from retaliation for making inquiries or disclosures concerning employee wages and for filing a charge or participating in any manner in EPA proceedings. In short, while this legislation would adhere to current equal work standards of the EPA, it would reform the procedures and remedies for enforcing the law.” The vote was on ordering the previous question – and preventing further amendment of – the proposed rule governing House consideration of a bill concerning the National Labor Relations Board. Because the un-amended rule did not permit consideration of the Paycheck Fairness Act, the effect of the House’s 226 to 192 vote to order the previous question on the rule was to block House consideration of Paycheck Fairness Act for the time being. [House Vote 97, 4/11/13; Congressional Quarterly, 4/11/13; CRS Report #RL31867, 11/22/13; “The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means,” House Rules Committee Minority Staff Memo, 3/18/10]
2014: Young Effectively Voted Against A Valid-For-Three-Months-Only Version Of The Paycheck Fairness Act, Which Would Make It Easier For Women To Successfully Sue Their Employers For Pay Discrimination, And Increase Employer Penalties In Such Cases. In September 2014, Young effectively voted against an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have added “the text of a measure (HR 377) to tighten prohibitions on pay discrimination based on sex.” Specifically, it would have added the Paycheck Fairness Act, which according to the Congressional Research Service, would “increase penalties for employers who pay different wages to men and women for ‘equal work,’ and would add programs for training, research, technical assistance, and pay equity employer recognition awards. The legislation would also make it more difficult for employers to avoid [Equal Pay Act] EPA liability, and proposed safeguards would protect employees from retaliation for making inquiries or disclosures concerning employee wages and for filing a charge or participating in any manner in EPA proceedings. In short, while this legislation would adhere to current equal work standards of the EPA, it would reform the procedures and remedies for enforcing the law.” The underlying bill funded the government through December 11, 2014; and the proposed amendment stated that the equal pay provisions would be in effect only through that date. The vote was on a motion to recommit the bill and report it back with the specified amendment; the House rejected the motion by a vote of 199 to 228. [House Vote 508, 9/17/14; Congressional Quarterly, 9/17/14; H.R. 377, 1/23/13; CRS Report #RL31867, 11/22/13; H.J.Res. 124, 9/17/14; Congressional Record, 9/17/14; Congressional Actions, H. J. Res. 124]
Young Opposed Holding Hearings On Merrick Garland’s Nomination To The Supreme Court
VIDEO: Young Argued The Senate Was “Fulfilling Its Constitutional Duty” By Refusing To Fill The Supreme Court Vacancy, Because The Senate Election Was A Year Ago And The Presidential Election In 2012 “Was Now Several Years Ago.” In an appearance on FOX 59, Young said, “You know, my view is that right now, the U.S. Senate is fulfilling its Constitutional duty. It’s a Republican-controlled Senate, and the American people voted for this Republican-controlled Senate just over a year ago, as opposed to the Presidential election previously which was now several years ago, so now the people have spoken about the type of Senate they want, they are advising this President about his nominees, consistent with their constitutional duties, and you know, I happen to agree with, let’s call it the Joe Biden rule of thumb, which is when you have a highly-politicized, charged atmosphere, it would be unfair to the nominee, it would be unfair to the American people, and it would be unfair even to the President to hold hearings and go through the motions which would, let’s face it, probably be a circus atmosphere during this time.” [FOX 59, 4/17/16]
Young Voted Against Increasing The Minimum Wage
2014: Young Effectively Voted Against Raising The Minimum Wage To $8.20 An Hour Through December 11, 2014. In September 2014, Young effectively voted against an amendment to legislation funding the government through December 11, 2014, that, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have added “the text of a measure (HR 1010) that would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to increase the federal minimum wage for employees to $8.20 an hour, $9.15 an hour after one year, and $10.10 an hour after two years.” The amendment “would [also have] extend[ed] the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank for 5 years, include[d] the text of a measure (HR 377) to tighten prohibitions on pay discrimination based on sex, [and] allow[ed] student loan debt to be refinanced at rates available to current borrowers.” The proposed amendment stated that the minimum wage, equal pay and student loan provisions would be effective only through December 11, 2014. The vote was on a motion to recommit the bill and report it back with the specified amendment; the House rejected the motion by a vote of 199 to 228. [House Vote 508, 9/17/14; Congressional Quarterly, 9/17/14; H.J.Res. 124, 9/17/14; Congressional Record, 9/17/14; Congressional Actions, H. J. Res. 124]
Published: May 3, 2016