Foreign Fundraisers for Hillary

Posted on March 18, 2016March 18, 2016 by Denise Simon

Hillary Clinton campaign totals 13 fundraisers in foreign countries

SunLightFoundation: As the 2016 election rolls toward November, candidates are travelling far and wide to raise money to fill their campaign coffers. At Political Party Time, we previously mapped and detailed Hillary Clinton’s fundraising tour de force in the states. While Clinton benefits from many fundraisers outside of the Beltway, she’s also cashing in on at least 13 events outside of the country, according to an analysis of Party Time‘s fundraising data.

Clinton’s campaign has held eight total fundraisers in London, including two in March. And her offshore fundraising operation has so far reached Munich with one fundraiser; Durban, South Africa with one fundraiser; and Mexico City with two fundraisers. It is worth noting, that to the best of our knowledge Clinton herself, won’t be attending any of these fundraising parties.

Donors at these events presumably are U.S. citizens who currently live in the countries where the events are held. However, it is also worth nothing that the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) permits U.S. permanent residents (as well as U.S. citizens) to donate to presidential campaigns.

According to the FEC, “Foreign nationals are prohibited from making any contributions or expenditures in connection with any election in the U.S. Please note, however, that ‘green card’ holders (i.e., individuals lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the U.S.) are not considered foreign nationals and, as a result, may contribute.”

These “foreign nationals” include foreign governments, political parties, corporations, associations, partnerships, persons with foreign citizenship and non-permanent resident immigrants.

Overseas fundraisers are relatively common for leading presidential candidates, but hosting over a dozen events before spring illustrates the vast reach of Clinton’s fundraising machine. By comparison, according to Party Time, no other presidential candidate has any official overseas fundraisers to his/her name. For a map and details click here.

*****

This is clearly not a new rodeo for Hillary and her team. A matter to be noted is the experience she has with regard to the Clinton Foundation. Are we to assume her run for the White House is for more global favors and access?

Hillary’s foreign fundraising mess: Even the liberal press is fed up

FNC: It’s not surprising that Hillary Clinton was the constant target of attacks at CPAC, second only to Barack Obama.

What was striking is how many of those barbs involved foreign money. And that didn’t require much explanation.

I was in the audience when Ted Cruz joked that the former secretary of State could have been there, but no one could find a foreign government to foot the bill.

The more I think about it, the more I find it inexplicable that the Clinton Foundation created this mess. It was entirely predictable that the foreign cash story would blow up as Hillary was gearing up to run for president, creating yet another financial controversy for the dominant Democratic front-runner.

But critics of the liberal media should take note of how the story surfaced. The news side of the Wall Street Journal revealed that the foundation had dropped its self-imposed ban on taking dough from foreign governments now that Hillary was no longer in Obama’s Cabinet.

Then the Washington Post advanced the story with two strong pieces, the second of which said:

“The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration.”

And there was damning detail: “In one instance, foundation officials acknowledged they should have sought approval in 2010 from the State Department ethics office, as required by the agreement for new government donors, before accepting a $500,000 donation from the Algerian government.”

So even when Clinton was secretary of State, foreign regimes looking to curry favor with the administration were able to use the backdoor route of the foundation run by her husband. These included Kuwait, Qatar and Oman. And the foundation didn’t even follow its own rules.

What’s more, what is now the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation thinks it’s all right once again to solicit foreign governments that of course would love to buy influence with a potential president.

A New York Times editorial urged Hillary “to reinstate the foundation’s ban against foreign contributors” and “reassure the public that the foundation will not become a vehicle for insiders’ favoritism, should she run for and win the White House.”

When you’re a Democrat and lose the Times editorial page, you’re in trouble.

Now the broadcast networks have largely blown off the story, except for half a minute on CBS. But I have seen it on CNN and MSNBC as well as Fox.

On CNN’s “New Day,” National Journal columnist Ron Founrier said:

“I wrote a couple weeks ago that this was ethically sleazy and politically stupid. I stand by those words and actually, what we’ve seen since then, I think I’ll double down on them. Again, this proves that the Clintons’ biggest blind spot for all — the admirable things about them is — the biggest blind spot is they actually think that the ends justify the means.”

On yesterday’s “Fox News Sunday,” former Democratic Rep. Jane Harman made no attempt to defend the Hillary situation, saying the appearance is “poor.”

Even the liberal New Republic is uncomfortable, saying “it’s worth questioning why the Foundation has accepted those donations in recent years, particularly in 2014 with the 2016 cycle about to get going. The Foundation had to know that accepting foreign donations would generate negative coverage and would give Republicans an easy way to attack Hillary.” The magazine’s mild verdict? Poor judgment.

Even a Salon headline says: “The Clinton Foundation’s Fundraising Is a Big Problem for Hillary.”

All this is happening while Hillary continues to give big money speeches, a subject that has brought her enormous political grief.

There’s no question that the foundation donations have gone to such worthy causes as earthquake relief and cheaper HIV drugs. But the appearance created by a foreign money pipeline is awful, as even Hillary’s defenders recognize.

The whole mess was utterly avoidable, and even now it’s hard to understand why the Clinton team is providing fodder for places like CPAC.

Click for more from Media Buzz

March Terror Threat Snapshot

Posted on March 17, 2016March 17, 2016 by Denise Simon

March Terror Threat Snapshot: 147 Homegrown Terror Cases Since 9/11

March 17, 2016

March Terror Threat Snapshot: 147 Homegrown Terror Cases Since 9/11

Story highlights:

31 percent of the 147 homegrown jihadist cases since 9/11 happened in just the last 12 months
7,000 Western fighters have traveled to various conflict zones in order to join ISIS
ISIS-related arrests last month in four U.S. states

By Glynn Cosker
Managing Editor, In Homeland Security

U.S. Representative Michael McCaul (R-Texas) released his Terror Threat Snapshot for March 2016 on Wednesday.

McCaul is the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, and his monthly reports detail the threats from Islamic terror groups to the United States and its Western allies. McCaul’s analysis is always a stark reminder that vigilance and knowledge are both vital elements in the current War on Terror.

According to the current report, 31 percent of the 147 homegrown jihadist cases since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks happened in just the last 12 months. Another key fact from the snapshot is that there have been 83 total ISIS-linked arrests in the United States since 2014, with eight people arrested so far in 2016 – in seven different states – on various terrorism-related charges. Also of note, almost 7,000 Western fighters have traveled to various conflict zones in order to join ISIS.

Terror Threat Snapshot’s McCaul: Iranian Regime Grows More Emboldened

“This week’s Islamist terror plots in Canada and Europe are a grim reminder of the heightened threat environment America and our allies confront. ISIS and al Qaeda are growing deeper roots in their sanctuaries around the world while plotting terror against the West,” stated McCaul. “The Iranian regime grows more emboldened as it capitalizes on the economic stimulus afforded to it by President Obama’s disastrous nuclear deal. Unfortunately, these trends will continue to worsen without a resolute, U.S.-led strategy to defeat Islamist terrorists and restore global order.”

McCaul was referring to reports that Iran was building a “complex terror infrastructure” around the world while “escalating its threats against Israel.”

ISIS-Related Arrests in United States Ongoing

The March Terror Threat Snapshot reported on these homegrown cases that occurred last month:

MISSOURI: Safya Roe Yassin was arrested for threatening FBI agents via social media; she ultimately expressed her support for ISIS.

OHIO: Mohamed Berry attacked diners at a Columbus restaurant using a machete; Berry was known to law enforcement as having “expressed radical Islamist views.”

WASHINGTON: Daniel Seth Franey was arrested near Montesano, Wash., for possessing illegal firearms while expressing his support for ISIS; he also advocated for the murdering of U.S. law enforcement members and U.S. military personnel.

MICHIGAN: Khalil Abu-Rayyan was arrested for a planned attack on a church in Detroit; he told authorities that he supported ISIS and said “If I can’t do jihad in the Middle East, I would do my jihad over here.”

On the global front, the terror snapshot reported on events that happened earlier this week in Europe when at least two terror suspects ambushed Belgian and French police in Brussels. One of those attackers was said to have an ISIS flag and a powerful assault rifle in his possession.

Other key points from the March Terror Threat Snapshot:

“ISIS commands a “sophisticated external plotting network” from its sanctuaries and continues to inspire jihadist recruits worldwide. A senior U.K. official recently warned the group has “big ambitions for enormous and spectacular attacks … Al Qaeda and its affiliates – far from being degraded – are poised to build on recent territorial gains by capitalizing further on instability and inaction … Islamist terrorists are infiltrating the West by exploiting massive refugee flows. European security services continue to struggle with the magnitude of a crisis that is “masking the movement” of future terror plotters.”

Stay tuned to In Homeland Security for the April Terror Threat Snapshot report. See the House Homeland Committee’s March Terror Threat Snapshot here.

Gowdy Prevents Cummings From Leaking Benghazi Testimony

Posted on March 17, 2016March 17, 2016 by Denise Simon

Sheesh…. leaking purposely? To save Hillary? Permission granted for Cummings to leak testimony? Has Cummings considered the impact of leaks to media to other witnesses?

Judge for yourself.

Benghazi Republicans limit Democrats’ access to witness records

WaPo: Republicans on the House Select Committee on Benghazi are placing new restrictions on Democrats’ access to key documents out of fear they could be made public before the panel concludes its investigation.

The move arrives amid growing speculation about when Republicans will release their final report about the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attacks and what conclusions it will draw about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is solidifying her position as the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Under new rules communicated Wednesday by Republicans, Democratic lawmakers and staff will no longer be given their own physical and digital copies of witness interview transcripts. Instead, they will only be able to access to hard copies of the transcripts inside GOP offices during business hours.

Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) argued the arrangement became necessary after panel Democrats led by ranking member Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) threatened to unilaterally release transcripts from interviews with key witnesses, including White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and former CIA director David Petraeus.

“Democrats have threatened to leak more transcripts and therefore I have no choice but to protect past witnesses, future witnesses, confidential material and the integrity of the investigation by allowing the Democrats equitable access but not control,” Gowdy said in a statement.

“Once they stated their intention to misuse transcripts, I could not in good faith allow them to do so. Mr. Cummings likes to frequently lecture people how ‘we’re better than this,’ but his actions and the actions of his staff with regards to this investigation unfortunately prove otherwise.”

Cummings accused Republicans of breaking House rules and working to time disclosures in order to maximize harm to Clinton in the election.

“Democrats on the Select Committee will not agree to conditions that prevent us from putting out the facts that witnesses have told the Committee in order to rebut the conspiracy theories about Benghazi,” Cummings said in a statement.

“Republicans are so desperate to keep us from sharing these facts with the public, they denied Democrats any access to some of these witness transcripts for weeks. Republicans are writing a secret, partisan report that they plan to make public shortly before the election – and they are violating House Rules in order to try to silence Democrats from putting out the facts before then.”

The conflict represents yet another stalemate for the dysfunctional select committee and its leaders, Gowdy and Cummings. And the rancor is only expected to build as the investigation approaches its two-year anniversary in May.

Republicans would not provide a deadline for their final report, arguing the Obama administration would merely stonewall on further document and interview requests until that date. Instead, Gowdy has said he hopes for completion as soon as possible “before summer.”

The question remains whether that timetable includes a window for the CIA to complete a classification review of the report, which could take several months. Democrats argue that, adding time for the review, the schedule would put the release of the report just before the general election in November.

Cummings said his side must have full access to the transcripts in order to conduct its work, including efforts to counteract what Democrats see as a Republican campaign to unfairly target Clinton. Aides described the limits on their access to documents as unprecedented and another sign of the GOP’s desire to manipulate the investigation.

“By limiting Democratic access to these transcripts, you impair our ability to share the evidence supporting our fact-based analysis with the public, essentially quieting any dissent from your report from the start,” Cummings wrote to Gowdy on Tuesday.

Gowdy defended his decision.

“I have consulted with the House Parliamentarian and I am confident this arrangement complies with the letter and intent of House rules,” he wrote back on Wednesday.

The process for sharing documents in a congressional investigation is usually straightforward.

Under normal circumstances, the stenographer recording the closed-door interviews would pass along transcripts to the majority — in this case, the Republicans — who would then pass them to Democrats.

This is how the panel functioned until mid-February, when Democrats threatened in a comment to the Washington Post to release transcripts in order to rebut the GOP’s claims of “significant breakthroughs” in the investigation. After that, according to aides from both sides, Republicans withheld transcripts from interviews as they took place.

The new rules for access were not communicated until Republican and Democratic staffers spoke on Wednesday. Aides to Gowdy said he spoke to Cummings on the House floor, offering free access to transcripts if Cummings promised not to release them.

“He would not give me that assurance,” Gowdy said in a statement.

About that Obama SCOTUS Nominee

Posted on March 17, 2016March 17, 2016 by Denise Simon

None of the names have the record or reputation of Justice Scalia. Changing the balance of the Supreme Court is in fact in jeopardy. If all the Justices had the resolve and dedication to the historical spirit of the Constitution as did Scalia. If they did….final opinions and decisions would have been quite different and America would not be angry with a branch of government.

Family of Obama’s Supreme Court Nominee Donated Only to Democrats

Wife and daughter made contributions to DNC, Elizabeth Warren

FreeBeacon: The family of Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s pick to fill the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, has donated only to Democratic campaigns.

Garland, the current Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, does not appear to have ever donated to political parties, candidates, or causes.

However, his wife and daughter have contributed only to Democrats.

Merrick married his wife, Lynn Rosenman, in 1987. In September 1992, Lynn made a $200 donation to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) Services Corporation.

One month after the donation, Merrick provided assistance to Bill Clinton for a presidential debate. This information appeared on a questionnaire to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1995, the Washington Free Beaconreported Thursday.

“I provided volunteer assistance on a Presidential Debate for President Clinton in October 1992 and for Michael Dukakis in October 1988,” Garland wrote of his political activity. “I did some volunteer work for Walter Mondale’s presidential campaign in 1983-84. As a college student, I worked two summers for the campaign of my then-congressman, Abner Mikva, in 1972 and 1974.”

Merrick’s daughter, Rebecca, has also made at least one donation to a Democratic politician.

Rebecca made a $500 contribution to Elizabeth for Massachusetts, the campaign committee of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.), in December 2011.

The New York Timeswrote that if Garland is confirmed, it would result in the most liberal Supreme Court in 50 years.

Gun rights proponents have said that Garland should not be confirmed because of his record opposing gun rights as a federal judge, the Free Beaconreported Wednesday.

The Beacon also reported that Garland generally sides with labor regulators at the expense of businesses.

Juanita Duggan, president of the National Federation of Independent Business, said that her group has “great concerns” about Garland’s record of siding with government regulators.

***** Others on Obama’s short list…..donors

4 Out of 5 Obama SCOTUS Nominees Obama Donors

TruthRevolt: President Obama has whittled down his list of potential Supreme Court nominees to five — four of whom have donated to his own political campaigns.

According to the Free Beacon, the five federal judges to be interviewed for the position include:

Sri Srinivasan (who has donated $4,250 to Obama), Jane Kelly ($1,500 to Obama), Paul Watford ($1,000 to Obama), Ketanji Brown Jackson ($450 to Obama), and Merrick Garland, who has not donated to Obama.

None of the judges are major political donors and the contributions made to Obama account for the majority of each judge’s political giving. The donation from Jackson is the only federal political contribution she made that was large enough to be included in election filings.

Jackson’s donation, according to FB, can be explained by the fact that she worked as an attorney for the Obama 2008 campaign:

On her official questionnaire filed with the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee she disclosed that she “was an election poll monitor for both the primary and general elections on behalf of Lawyers for Change, Obama for America Presidential Campaign.”

Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who chairs the judiciary committee, reaffirmed the senate’s vow that none of the president’s nominees will be confirmed:

“Everybody knows any nominee submitted in the middle of this presidential campaign isn’t getting confirmed. Everybody. The White House knows it. Senate Democrats know it. Republicans know it. Even the press knows it,” Grassley said during a committee hearing on Thursday.

Still, one wonders what Obama thinks is to be gained by putting forth candidates who have financially contributed to his past campaigns.

***** Additional items from the National Law Journal:

Garland, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit since 1997 and chief judge since 2013, didn’t earn any income on top of his judicial salary in 2014, according to the most recent financial disclosure report that he filed last year. He didn’t report any outside income the previous two years.

If he’s confirmed to the Supreme Court, Garland would get a pay bump. As of 2016, federal appeals judge earned $215,400. Associates justices earned $249,300.

Related: Read Garland’s financial reports filed in 2013, 2014 and 2015

His reimbursed travel from 2012 to 2014 was limited to one or two trips annually to Harvard Law School, his alma mater, and Yale Law School. He participated in moot courts and career forums.

Garland reported no gifts, no financial agreements and no financial liabilities. He serves on the board of directors of the Historical Society of the D.C. Circuit, but he holds no other positions with nonprofits, private companies or other organizations.

Garland’s financial holdings include a mix of bank accounts, trusts, brokerage accounts and IRAs. Judges don’t report the precise value of their accounts, stocks and other assets, but instead list a range. They must report their own investments as well as those of a spouse and any dependent children, and the reports don’t specify which holdings are joint or individual.

He is also very PRO-labor: In nearly two decades on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Judge Merrick Garland has rarely ruled against the National Labor Relations Board. But when he has overturned NLRB’s decisions, departing from his typical deference to federal agencies, he has done so to the benefit of labor unions.

The month before Scalia’s death, the high court heard arguments in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a case that could decide whether public-sector employees can be required to pay union fees.

After arguments in January, the U.S. Supreme Court was seen as leaning 5-4 against labor. But Garland’s appointment to the court would likely flip the court. And if Garland has an opportunity to rule on the case, his vote could give a victory to the California Teachers Association and confidence to public-sector unions concerned that the decision could jeopardize future revenue from dues.

Rating Congressional Members, Scores on Protecting Taxpayers

Posted on March 17, 2016March 17, 2016 by Denise Simon

Credit where credit is due….

2015 Congressional Ratings

Since 1989, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) has examined roll call votes to help identify which members of Congress have defended taxpayer interests and which have backed down on their promises of fiscal responsibility. The Ratings separate the praiseworthy from the profligate by evaluating important tax, spending, transparency, and accountability measures. CCAGW applauds those members of Congress who stood up for taxpayers and ignored the temptations of satisfying local or special interests. However, those who supported a big-government agenda should be prepared to face the consequences for their spendthrift behavior.

CCAGW’s 2015 Congressional Ratings, for the first session of the 114th Congress, scored 100 votes in the House of Representatives and 35 votes in the Senate. By comparison, CCAGW rated 85 votes in the House of Representatives and 13 votes in the Senate in the second session of the 113th Congress.

CCAGW rates members on a 0-100% scale. Members are placed in the following categories: 0-19% Hostile; 20-39% Unfriendly; 40-59% Lukewarm; 60-79% Friendly; 80-99% Taxpayer Hero; and 100% Taxpayer Super Hero.

HOUSE AND SENATE BREAKDOWN

In 2015, 17 lawmakers (15 senators and two representatives) earned the coveted title of Taxpayer Super Hero by achieving the highest possible score of 100 percent: Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), David Perdue (R-Ga.), James Risch (R-Idaho), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), and David Vitter (R-La.), as well as Reps. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) and Tom McClintock (R-Calif.).

In 2014, 17 lawmakers (nine senators and eight representatives) received a perfect score.

There are 36 Taxpayer Heroes in the Senate, an increase of 57 percent from the 23 Taxpayer Heroes in 2014. In 2015, there are 152 Taxpayer Heroes in the House of Representatives, two more than the 150 Taxpayer Heroes in 2014.

On the other end of the spectrum, 26 representatives had a score of zero and 25 senators had a score of zero. In 2014, one representative had a score of zero and 30 senators had a score of zero.

The first session of the 114th Congress was the first time since 2007 that the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate. As a result, there were many more victories on behalf of taxpayers than in prior years, but numerous amendments to cut wasteful spending even further were defeated.

VICTORIES

House

Repeal of Obamacare. H.R. 596, which would repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, passed by a vote of 239-186.

Elimination of Duplicative Climate Change Programs. During consideration of H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act, Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Ca.) offered an amendment that would eliminate a requirement for the Government Accountability Office to identify certain overlapping climate science-related initiatives. The amendment was rejected by a vote of 187-236.

Repeal of the Medical Device Tax. H.R. 160, the Protect Medical Innovation Act of 2015, which would repeal the 2.3 percent medical device tax included in Obamacare, passed by a vote of 280-140.

Congressional Approval of “Major Rules.” H.R. 427, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act of 2015, which would require Congress to approve all regulatory proposals with an economic impact greater than $100 million (“major rules”), passed by a vote of 243-165.

Senate

Elimination of the Federal Estate Tax. During consideration of S. Con. Res. 11, the fiscal year (FY) 2016 Budget Resolution, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) offered an amendment to eliminate the federal estate tax. The amendment was adopted by a vote of 54-46.

Solar Panel Rebates. During consideration of S. 1, the Keystone XL Pipeline, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) offered an amendment to establish a rebate program for individuals and businesses for the purchase and installation of solar panels on residential and commercial properties. The amendment failed by a vote of 40-58.

Obamacare for Members of Congress. During consideration of S. Con. Res. 11, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) offered an amendment to compel all members of Congress, the President, Vice President, and all political appointees to obtain their health insurance on the individual healthcare exchanges under Obamacare. The amendment was adopted by a vote of 52-46.

LOSSES

House

Prohibiting Federal Employment for Delinquent Tax Debt. H.R. 1563, the Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act, would make existing and future federal employees with “delinquent tax debt” ineligible for employment with the federal government. The bill was rejected by a vote of 266-160 (284 votes were needed for passage).

Across-the-Board Cuts to Appropriations Bills. There were seven amendments in the Ratings to make across-the-board spending reductions in appropriations bills, but they all failed. For example, during consideration of H.R. 2028, the FY 2016 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, an amendment offered by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) to cut 1 percent across the board was rejected by a vote of 159-248.

Essential Air Service (EAS). During consideration of H.R. 2577, the FY 2016 Transportation and Housing & Urban Development Appropriations bill, Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Ca.) offered an amendment to eliminate funding for the EAS. The amendment was rejected by a vote of 166-255.

Export-Import Bank Reauthorization. The Export-Import Bank Reform and Reauthorization Act, H.R. 597, passed in the House by a vote of 313-118. This vote, along with several amendments related to the Export-Import Bank, are included in the Ratings, as CCAGW has long opposed this corporate welfare program.

Senate

Keystone XL Pipeline Veto Override. After the House and Senate voted to approve the Keystone project, the Senate failed to override the president’s veto by a vote of 62-37, five votes short of the necessary two-thirds majority.

Repeal the Individual Mandate in Obamacare. During consideration of H.R. 2, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) offered an amendment to repeal the individual mandate in Obamacare. The amendment failed by a vote of 54-45 (60 votes were needed for passage).

Repeal Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). During consideration of H.R. 1314, Trade Promotion Authority, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) offered an amendment to eliminate the extension of the TAA program. The amendment failed by a vote of 35-63.

FURTHER ANALYSIS

CCAGW also analyzed ratings based on party affiliation and House membership in the Republican Study Committee.

The averages were: Senate Republicans – 93 percent, up 8 percentage points from 85 percent in 2014; Senate Democrats, including Independents – 5 percent, unchanged from 2014; House Republicans – 82 percent, down 2 percentage points from 84 percent in 2014; House Democrats – 4 percent, down 5 percentage points from 9 percent in 2014; House Republican Study Committee – 86 percent, down 1 percentage point from 87 percent in 2014.

CCAGW congratulates the members who stood by taxpayers and championed fiscal responsibility throughout the first session of the 114th Congress and encourages the constituents of the non-Heroes to demand better results in the 2016 election and beyond.