Iran Broke Int’l Law Arresting U.S. Sailors

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

CNO Richardson, Who Will Make Final Review Of Farsi Island Investigation, Says Iranian Actions Violated Law

USNI:

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson is awaiting the findings of a U.S. 5th Fleet investigation into the boarding and seizure of two Navy riverine command boats in January, but he told senators this week ahead of the investigation’s conclusion that Iran’s actions violated international law.

The results of the investigation are currently with leadership at U.S. 5th Fleet and ultimately will be reviewed by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson, a Navy official told USNI News on Wednesday.

The service elected Richardson to be the final arbiter of the investigation because the majority of the issues that led to the 10 sailors being held by the Iranians had to do with manning, training and equipping issues rather than operational problems, the official said.

Press reports have said one of the RCBs had suffered mechanical issues and that the crews had worked late into the night before the incident cannibalizing parts from a third boat. The crews had never made the transit from Kuwait to Bahrain before and suffered problems with their navigation gear while underway.

What remains unclear, and will likely be revealed in the final report, is the rules of engagement the crews were operating under when they were approached by Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy boats. Several experts have said that the IRGCN violated international law by boarding and seizing the ships and that there are typically protocols for the crew to follow if they’re approached by those seeking to board. It is still unknown if those rules were clearly established and communicated to the crews.

During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Tuesday, Richardson said that “there is always the inherent right to self defense in our rules of engagement. The specific ROE and what exactly unfolded as that happened will be part of the detailed investigation when that’s complete.”

Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. John Richardson testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 15, 2016. US Navy Photo

“Clearly international law would prohibit boarding U.S. sovereign territory, which those riverine craft were,” he added.

Committee chairman Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) expressed concern at both the administration’s response at the time of the incident and at recent news reports that Iran gained thousands of pages of information from Navy laptops, GPS systems and maps during the 18-hour detention.

“By failing to affirm and defend basic principles of international law, the Administration has placed our Navy and Coast Guard vessels, and the men and women who sail them, at greater risk in the future,” McCain said in his opening statement.

McCain later added that Iran forced the sailors to apologize on video photographed them on their knees with their hands behind their heads, broadcast images of a sailor crying while being detained, and then awarded the Iranian sailors involved in the incident.

“Wouldn’t you agree this was a humiliation for the most powerful nation on earth?” McCain asked.

Richardson told him that “according to international law there was no authority to board those vessels – those were sovereign U.S. vessels, they had the right to be where they were and they should not have been seized.” McCain, however, seemed unsatisfied that the Navy so far had only expressed protest and not taken any other action towards Iran.

Pentagon chief: Iran went against law in sailors’ detention

TheHill: Iran’s detention and treatment of 10 U.S. sailors earlier this year was inconsistent with international law, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said Thursday.

“As I made clear then, Iran’s actions were outrageous, unprofessional and inconsistent with international law, and nothing we’ve learned about the circumstances of this incident since then changes that fact,” Carter told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Thursday’s remarks appear to be his strongest public statements against Iran’s behavior in January.

Carter previously said Iran’s actions angered him, but avoided labeling the incident a violation of international law.

“I was very, very angry at it,” Carter told reporters in January. “And I’m not going to give you the international law answer, but I can tell you, Americans wouldn’t have done that.”

On Jan. 12, Iran detained the sailors for 16 hours after their two riverine boats strayed into Iranian waters.

Since the incident, Iran has been releasing propaganda, such as videos showing sailors kneeling with their hands behind their head, apologizing and crying. This week, Iran also claimed that it collected 13,000 pages worth of information from laptops and other devices during the detention.

Carter’s labeling of the incident as inconsistent with international law comes after the Navy has repeatedly called it that.

Sen. John McCain who has been critical of the administration’s handling of the incident, said he appreciated Carter’s comments.

But McCain also pressed Carter on whether he’s planning any specific action to respond to the incident.

“You’ve made it quite clear that you’re outraged and all that, but what specifically do you recommend to do in response to that?” asked McCain, chairman of the committee.

During the incident, Carter said, the Pentagon was prepared to protect the sailors. But he did not offer a recommendation for how to respond to Iran’s behavior since then.

“At the time of the incident, we prepared to protect our people,” he said. “Turns out they were released in time. We later had the opportunity to see them being filmed and the way they were, and it made it very clear that that’s not the kind of behavior we would want to engage in.”

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.