Mediaboss Marketing

Forty Republican representatives who voted for the American Health Care Act held shares in health care companies valued at $23 million and earned more than $2 million off those investments, a Daily Beast review of the most-recent financial records found.

The investments may be worth as much as $39 million and grossed as much as $6 million in profits, according to the disclosure reports that require members of Congress to report investments and income within a price range.

Several Republicans with key roles in passing the bill held more than $500,000 in medical stock.

The majority of the companies in which lawmakers own stock represent the giants of the pharmaceutical and medical-device industries. Republicans owned between $1.3 million and $4.9 million worth of stock in Abbott Labs, Johnson and Johnson, and 3M, three of the countrys largest medical-device manufacturers. They also owned between $2.7 million and $5.5 million in pharmaceutical giants Merck, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Shire.

The AHCA would benefit these companies by eliminating billions of dollars in taxes and fees on pharmaceutical and medical-device manufacturersa provision of the bill that doesnt reflect a violation of ethics rules because it will have a broad effect across health care industries, according to ethics experts.

The remaining 174 representatives who voted for the AHCA did not own any health care stock, The Daily Beasts review found. The most recent data is from 2015. Disclosure reports for 2016 were due last week and are not yet fully available.

As an objective matter, it seems like an awful lot of money in one industry that has a lot of regulation and that these members are directly dealing with legislation on, said Larry Noble, a former Federal Elections Commission lawyer who now works for the Campaign Legal Center.

The tens of millions in investments are far from illegal, said Richard Painter, the lead ethics lawyer in George W. Bushs White House, but raise conflict of interest concerns.

Knowing that health care is so sensitive, and that one of the core issues in the debate is how much money is going to the companies and how much is going to patient care, I think this shows lack of sensitivity by members of Congress to be going and investing heavily into these companies, Painter told The Daily Beast. I think theyre arrogant and they dont understand that the public is sick and tired of this problem.

Among the influential members with significant investments is Rep. Thomas MacArthur of New Jersey, who held between $834,000 and $2.3 million in health care investments in 2015. MacArthur made between $142,000 and $472,000 in capital gains and dividends on those investments, according to his disclosure forms.

MacArthur authored an amendment to the AHCA that allows insurance companies to deny coverage to some people with pre-existing conditions. The amendment won over critical support from the right-wing Freedom Caucus, allowing the bill to narrowly pass the House. MacArthur ranks seventh among the 40 AHCA supporters who owned health care stock.

Rep. Chris Collins of New York holds the most investments, with $6.5 million in stock in two medical-device companies, ZeptoMetrix and Audubon Machinery Corporation. Collins serves as a director at ZeptoMetrix and is one of the founders of Audubon Machinery Corporation. (The Office of Government Ethics is investigating Collins investments in an Australian pharmaceutical company.) The New York congressman was responsible for an amendment in the AHCA that requires states to pay more into Medicaid at the expense of counties, saving rural areas like his native Buffalo millions.

Get The Beast In Your Inbox!

Start and finish your day with the top stories from The Daily Beast.

A speedy, smart summary of all the news you need to know (and nothing you don't).

Subscribe

Thank You!

You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason.

Collins amendment flipped at least one no vote to a yes when Rep. Claudia Tenney of New York announced her support in March.

Another influential Republican with significant investments is Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan, who holds between $400,000 and $700,000 in health care stock. Upton wrote an amendment providing up to $8 billion for states to fund high-risk pools for patients with pre-existing conditions. Uptons amendment eased fears that MacArthurs amendment would make it impossible for such patients to buy insurance. The $8 billion Upton proposed wont be nearly enough to pay for all the necessary care, industry analysts say, but it was enough to push the AHCA over the finish line.

Besides MacArthur, Collins, and Upton, the other lawmakers with at least $500,000 in health care stock are: Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas (at least $6 million); Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen of New Jersey (at least $2.2 million); Rep. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin (at least $2.1 million); Rep. Keith Rothfus of Pennsylvania (at least $1.2 million); Rep. Kenny Marchant of Texas (at least $922,000); Rep. James Renacci of Pennsylvania (at least $663,000); and Rep. Rod Blum of Iowa (at least $531,000).

Eighteen pro-AHCA representatives held at least $10,000 in health care investments in 2015; the remaining 12 held at least a single dollars worth of investments.

Staff of several of the representatives did not reply to questions for this story. Camille Gallo, spokesperson for Rep. MacArthur, provided the following statement:

Congressman MacArthur has divested from all holdings in companies that are affected by his committee appointments. This is not required, nor was he asked to do so. Anyone who is alleging that Tom entered public service to make money is embarrassing themselves and needs to find a new witch to hunt.

Gallo did not say whether MacArthur has consulted ethics officials regarding his significant health care investments and large role in the AHCA, something both Noble and Painter say should occur for all members of Congress who are doing more than simply voting on legislation.

A spokesperson for McCaul said that the congressman has zero participation or knowledge of the transactions made as part of his millions of dollars in health care investments, which are held mostly in family trusts controlled by McCauls wife, who is the daughter of the billionaire head of Clear Channel Communications.

He is legally precluded from having any involvement or knowledge of the specific investment decisions made with regard to securities listed as his wifes separate property which are disclosed in his annual personal financial disclosure, spokesperson Lizzie Litzow said of McCaul.

Spokespersons for Renacci and Upton said their investments are similarly controlled as part of family trusts or managed portfolios. A spokesperson for Sensenbrenner said his investments are irrelevant to his vote to repeal and replace Obamacare, a disastrous law that he has opposed since it was signed into lawlong before specific details of its replacement were released. A spokesperson for Rothfus said his vote on the AHCA and other bills are wholly compliant with the requirements of House ethics rules.

Michael Kracker, a spokesperson for Collins, blamed partisan attacks for scrutiny of his investments.

Congressman Collins has followed all Congressional ethical guidelines related to his personal finances during his time in the House and will continue to do so, Kracker said in a statement.

Spokespersons for Frelinghuysen, Blum, and Marchant did not respond to requests for comment.

Members of Congress arent expressly prohibited from owning stocks in individual companies, Painter said, unlike employees of federal agencies and members of the executive branch. As a White House ethics lawyer, Painter said he routinely advised aides and other employees of the executive branch to either completely divest from investments in individual companies or shift their assets to diversified mutual funds in order to comply with ethics rules.

I dont understand why members of Congress dont do that, Painter said. The bottom line is that these folks are supposed to be in Congress to represent their constituents, not maximize their wealth. Its fine if you want to be a stock picker, but go be a stock picker, not a member of Congress.

with additional reporting by Sarah Bertness

Continue reading here:
Pro-Trumpcare Republicans Owned Millions in Health Care Stock - Daily Beast

Sen. John McCain called President Trumps proposed defense budget totally inadequate.

President Donald Trumps defense budget request seeks billions in extra funds for the military but falls well short of what some Republican lawmakers have sought.

CNN reports the sought-after funds represent only a roughly 3% increase over what former President Barack Obama said his administration would seek for fiscal year 2018, causing Trumps request to be met with fierce criticism from defense hawks on Capitol Hill. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain said the budget was totally inadequate, and House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry said it was basically the Obama approach with a little bit more, but not much.

Also read: What Trumps budget would cut and boost

Girding for the CBO report: Republicans in Congress are bracing for a report Wednesday expected to say their Obamacare repeal plan would leave millions of Americans without health insurance, further complicating their efforts to pass legislation quickly. As Politico writes, the Congressional Budget Offices score comes three weeks after House Republicans rushed to vote on the legislation without an update on its cost. The original House bill would have meant that 24 million more Americans would be uninsured over a decade. The new version may not show a much better figure.

Also read: What to watch in the CBOs score of the Republican health-care bill.

Senate pressured on health vote: Senate Republicans, meanwhile, are under increasing pressure to pass an Obamacare repeal-and-replace measure before the congressional recess in August. The Hill writes Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is wary of committing to a specific deadline after the House struggled to pass a bill. But the White House wants the upper chamber to hit the gas, the Hill says.

Infrastructure plan criticized: Trumps $1 trillion infrastructure plan isnt getting the immediate bipartisan support he may have been hoping for, Bloomberg writes. Democrats blasted the plan, contained in Trumps budget, to spend $200 billion over 10 years to spur at least $800 billion in state, local and private infrastructure investment. They said the federal spending would be offset by cuts to existing programs already funding transportation projects. The fuzzy math and sleight of hand cant hide the fact that the presidents $200 billion plan is more than wiped out by other cuts to key infrastructure programs, said Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer.

Read the original post:
Defense budget request falls short for some Republicans | Democrats rip Trump infrastructure plan as 'sleight of hand' - MarketWatch

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) questions former CIA Director John Brennan. Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP

The Republicans still are not serious about investigating the Trump-Russia scandal. That message came through resoundingly when the House Intelligence Committee held a public hearing on Tuesday morning with former CIA chief John Brennan. (Actually, this was not officially a committee hearing. Democrats on the committee were informed earlier that this would be considered a "task force" hearing because the Republican chairman of the committee, Rep. Devin Nunes, could not appear because he had recused himself from the Russia investigation.)

At the witness table, Brennan told a harrowing tale. As CIA director last summer, he saw what was happening with the hack-and-leak attack on the Democratic National Committee, and he reviewed top-secret intelligence and concluded that Russia was mounting this assault to disrupt the election, hurt Hillary Clinton, and help Donald Trump. He also at the time was aware of intelligence that showed contacts between Trump associates and Russia, and that caused him to conclude a thorough FBI investigation was warranted. He testified, "I saw interaction" that warranted concern.

This was a big deal. In March, then-FBI chief James Comey revealed during testimony to this committee that in July 2016 the bureau launched an investigation of contacts between Trump associates and Russia. Now the CIA head from then was stating that there was clear intelligence that justified that probe. He also revealed that in early August he was so concerned about the Russian operation he spoke to the head of Russia's FSB, the country's intelligence service, and warned him to knock it off. Brennan also revealed that in August and September he briefed a small number of congressional leaders and shared with them top-secret intelligence about Moscow's effort to subvert the election in part to benefit Trump. (This means that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan knew many details about the Russian operation but didn't challenge or correct Trump's continued public assertions that Russia was not necessarily the culprit in the DNC hack.)

Yet once again Republicans did not focus on the main elements of the story. When the Republicans on the committee had the chance to question Brennan, they did not press him for more details on Russia's information warfare against the United States. Instead, they fixated on protecting Trump.

The Republicans zeroed in on the issue of whether Trump and his associates colluded with any Russians involved in the attack on US democracyto push Brennan to say he had not seen concrete evidence of such conspiring. Reps. Tom Rooney (R-Fla) and Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) grilled Brennan repeatedly on this point. They posed the same basic query: Did you see any evidence that Trump or his associates plotted with Russians? "I don't do evidence. I do intelligence," Brennan replied. Still, they kept pressing him. They were obviously hoping he would state that he had not come across any such evidence so Trump and his champions could cite Brennan as a witness for their claim no collusion occurred.

In the face of this questioning, Brennan repeatedly stated that the intelligence he saw regarding contacts between Trump associates and Russia was worrisome and deserved full FBI scrutiny. So the Republicans failed in their mission to provide cover for Trumpand they ended up highlighting the legitimacy of the FBI inquiry begun under Comey.

A similar effort fell flat. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) questioned Brennan about the intelligence community assessment released in early January that concluded the Russian clandestine operation was designed to assist Trump. He several times asked Brennan if there had been evidence contrary to this conclusion that was not included in the report. Brennan explained that the assessment was the result of a thorough interagency process that looked to develop a consensus position. Still, King seemed to suggest that the assessment might be open to question. And Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) asserted he had reviewed raw intelligence, and he insisted the information supporting the assessment that Moscow had preferred Trump was not as solid as the intelligence community maintained. Here were Republicans trying to find wiggle room for Trump.

Rooney took another stab at undermining the dominant narrative of the Trump-Russia scandal. He asked whether the Russians had been rooting for Clinton to fail or for Trump to win. "It was both," Brennan replied. Rooney suggested that the Russians had gathered information damaging for Clinton's campaign that it did not release, and he asked Brennan, what would that mean for the conclusion that Russians were trying to help Trump? It appeared as if Rooney thought this would be an a-ha! moment: If the Russians sat on anti-Clinton material, well, that must be an indicator they hadn't' engaged in cyber-skullduggery to help Trump. Brennan shot this down with a simple reply: Since the Russians, like many others, believed Clinton would win, they might have been holding on to that material to damage her once she became president.

Rep. Michael Turner (R-Ohio) also tried to race to Trump's rescue. Complaining that some Democrats on the committee have publicly said they have seen evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, Turner asked Brennan if it would be accurate to characterize the intelligence Brennan saw when he was CIA chief as evidence of collusion. Brennan responded that this would not be an accurate characterization. Turner smiled, as if he had just blown a hole in the Democrats' case. Moments later, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) asked Brennan if he had seen the evidence and material shared by the FBI with the House Intelligence Committee in classified meetings. No, he had not. So Turner had proved nothing.

Perhaps the most absurd act of GOP distraction came when Rep. Ben Wenstrup (R-Ohio) raised an episode from 2012, when President Barack Obama was caught on a hot mic telling Dmitry Medvedev, then the president of Russia, that he would have more flexibility to negotiate with Vladimir Putin after the US presidential election. Calling this moment "pretty disturbing," Wenstrup asked Brennan, "Would you question that interaction?" Brennan didn't take the bait and said he had nothing to say in response. Wenstrup suggested that perhaps this should be investigated. Brennan didn't reply.

Gowdy finished up his questioning by concentrating on leaks and the unmasking within top-secret reports of Americans picked up incidentally by US intelligence surveillance. This has become a favorite topic of Republicans looking to defect from the core features of the Trump-Russia scandal. And Gowdy, a bit defensively, noted he had waited until the end of the hearing to pose these questions so the claim could not be made that Republicans are "hyperfocused" on the matter. Yet compared with previous hearings, Gowdy was restrained in declaiming leaks. This time he did not suggest, as he has before, that journalists should be prosecuted for publishing stories containing classified information.

When the hearing ended, the Republicans departed the room quickly. A few Democratic members lingered. One complained about the slow pace of the committee's investigation. Another pointed out that Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas), who's leading the committee's Russia investigation in Nunes' absence, had barely participated in the hearing. Conaway had opened the hearings without any reference to the interactions between Trump associates and Russia, but he had presented a prayer that invoked Jesus. As one Democrat noted, Conaway did not ask a single question during the proceedings. "That tells you all you need to know," this member said.

The rest is here:
Republicans Focus on Protecting Trump at Russia Hearing - Mother Jones

President Trump's $110 billion weapons deal with Saudi Arabia could have an unannounced side benefit of giving the United States leverage to reduce the Muslim monarchy's support for radical clerics, according to Republican lawmakers.

"There's no doubt there are things the Saudis are going to have to do to improve on as well," Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., told the Washington Examiner.

There are signs Trump is aware that the deal could help him address the problem. Just last year, presidential candidate Donald Trump was accusing Saudi Arabia of funding terrorism. A veto-proof majority of Congress voted last fall to allow the victims of the 9/11 attacks to sue the Saudi Arabian government, and the Saudis were criticized heavily for financing schools around the world that teach a fundamentalist variant of Islam known as Wahhabism.

"That's the issue, in addition to other human rights concerns and other things," Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., said of the Wahhabist schools. "It's the incendiary, it's the kindling."

In public, Trump framed the arms deal as a means of getting Saudi Arabia, long a critical partner for U.S. security interests in the Middle East despite its ideological moorings, to counteract Iranian aggression and support for terrorism in the region. Those interests alone justify the agreement in the minds of many lawmakers.

"What's our list of high priority issues? Terrorism, pushing back against Iran, stability in the Middle East," said Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill. "When you put that kind of in a list, it makes sense to continue a strong relationship with Saudi Arabia."

But Rubio suggested that it could also be a way to extract reforms in Saudi Arabia. "I imagine if a year from now Saudi Arabia, two years from now, has not improved in its ability to control radicalism, portions of that deal would be on the table in terms of revoking it," he told the Washington Examiner.

Roskam concurred. "I think that there will be a great deal of interest in posing those questions to the Saudis, what are their next steps in terms of the recognition of their exporting of Wahhabism," he said.

U.S. policymakers have struggled to strike a balance between the need for that relationship, which has buttressed the American economy and foreign policy interests in the Middle East for decades, and the danger posed by radical Saudi-backed schools. Saudi Arabian leaders are "both the arsonists and the firefighters" in the struggle against most jihadists, the Brookings Institution's William McCants told the New York Times in August.

"They promote a very toxic form of Islam that draws sharp lines between a small number of true believers and everyone else, Muslim and non-Muslim," he said.

The Saudis might not readily agree with that assessment, according to Roskam. "It's not clear to me that the Saudis recognize to the same extent that we do the concern about exporting Wahhabism," he said.

But that's where the arms deal could be useful. "To Senator Rubio's point, if you have a longer-term deal and delivery is not all at once, then you can stage it," Roskam said.

See the article here:
Trump gets new leverage over radical Saudi clerics, Republicans say - Washington Examiner

Top Republican lawmakers have expressed concerns about the cuts President Trump plans to make for the 2018 budget year, which is due out Tuesday.

The blueprint is certain to include a wave of cuts to benefit programs such as Medicaid, food stamps, federal employee pensions and farm subsidies. The fleshed-out proposal follows up on an unpopular partial release in March that targeted the budgets of domestic agencies and foreign aid for cuts averaging 10 percent -- and made lawmakers in both parties recoil.

The new cuts are unpopular as well.

We think it's wrongheaded," Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas, chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, said about the looming cuts to farm programs. "Production agriculture is in the worst slump since the depression -- 50 percent drop in the net income for producers. They need this safety net.

The House had a bitter debate on health care before a razor-thin 217-213 passage in early May of a GOP health bill that included more than $800 billion in Medicaid cuts over the coming decade. Key Republicans are not interested in another round of cuts to the program.

"I would think that the health care bill is our best policy statement on Medicaid going forward," said Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

The presidents budget plan promises to balance the federal ledger over the next 10 years, even while exempting Social Security and Medicare retirement benefits from cuts. To achieve balance, the plan by White House budget director Mick Mulvaney relies on optimistic estimates of economic growth, and the surge in revenues that would result, while abandoning Trump's promise of a "massive tax cut."

Instead, the Trump tax plan promises an overhaul that would cut tax rates but rely on erasing tax breaks and economic growth to end up as "revenue neutral."

Trump's earlier blueprint proposed a $54 billion, 10 percent increase for the military above an existing cap on Pentagon spending, financed by an equal cut to nondefense programs.

Trump's full budget submission to Congress is months overdue and follows the release two months ago of an outline for the discretionary portion of the budget, covering defense, education, foreign aid, housing, and environmental programs, among others. Their budgets pass each year through annual appropriations bills.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Original post:
Hill Republicans wary of cuts in Trump's 2018 budget plan out Tuesday - Fox News