Subject: Update -- Tax Talk of the Town
From: Dana <[email-masked]>
To: Mike Pyle <[email-masked]>
Cc: Mike Schmidt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 19:09:40 -0500

Mike & Co. --

Upbeat tax talk is as common this time of year as predictions that this year the Cubs will win the World Series this fall.  The word is that Messrs. Ryan and McConnell want to run a smooth, efficient, maybe even a productive ship this year on the theory that voters will reward the GOP in November and that they will forget the record of the last seven years.  The Speaker and the President have had a recent meeting and mini-meeting of the minds on taxes.  That might create the right climate for passage of broad tax reform. 
But really the gravitational pull is not toward gravitas, but away from the center, away from the Hill itself.  The GOP presidential nominee might very well have to run against any bipartisan ("Washington") compromise on tax policy, making for an embarrassing intraparty policy conflict at the time the leadership most needs to project unity.

Amid the turbulence of the broader campaign, where do the various tax discussions in the Hill stand, what bills night come up for votes, is there anything that might pass?
Best,
Dana
________________________________
Forms of Reform under Discussion
• Comprehensive -- Defined as involving a bipartisan trade-off between lowering taxes and broadening the base; closing exemptions, deductions, credits, etc.  Both Democratic candidates have outlined plans to reduce loopholes, such as the "Romney loophole" and the "Bermuda loophole," which allow very rich Americans to avoid paying their fair share. 
• Corporate -- Many of the issues with the corporate tax system could be addressed through international tax reform, because so many companies earn capital abroad. However, corporate tax reform at home deals with issues like taxing dividends and leveling the playing field between small and large businesses. 
• International - Deals with foreign earnings of American firms abroad. Specifically, current international tax reform aims at preventing inversions and coming up with a more successful way to tax foreign capital earned by American companies, as well as finding ways to encourage companies to move profits home from abroad.
Forums for Tax Reform
• Ways & Means:  Kevin Brady became Chair of the Committee in November 2015. He reportedly hopes to have an international tax reform proposal out of Ways and Means this year.  He says he wants to allow American companies to bring their foreign profits back and invest at home and to lower the corporate tax rate to less than 20 percent.
Brady gave the opening statement at a hearing on “Reaching America’s Potential.”   For what it's worth, he laid out six goals for his committee in the coming months -- and they are ambitious:

· Tax reforms to boost investment and job creation;
· Welfare reforms to help more people join the workforce and achieve the American dream.
· Health reforms to truly make health care more affordable and accessible; 
· Trade expansion to open more foreign markets to American goods and services;
· Entitlement reforms to strengthen Medicare and Social Security for the long haul and;  
· Government reforms to boost efficiency and effectiveness instead of stifling jobs and higher wages.
 
Brady’s statement that tax reform will come up in the coming weeks, coupled with Ryan’s recent visit with Obama (specifically to find areas of cooperation), may indicate a broad-based reform package making its way forward in 2016.  Another interesting bullet point is trade expansion, despite McConnell’s promise that TPP won’t be voted on before November. 
 • Senate Finance:   The Senate Finance Committee has its focus set on bipartisan working groups designed to produce tax reform on multiple levels -- individual, corporate, and international. However, there have been many challenges and stalemates along the way because of the stringent partisanship currently ailing the Senate. 
This election has been defined, more so than others, by the massively diverse set of tax policies proposed by each candidates – from flat taxes, capital gains reforms, financial transaction taxes and more.  Sen. Hatch, Chair of Finance, has already called for reform efforts in 2016, targeting international corporate rates specifically – but it’s possible that Brady is trying to shift him and others toward more ambitious proposals.  Any high profile move Ryan makes here will likely be a controlling factor on tax policy.  
• Between the Branches -- Speaker Ryan and Pres. Obama met yesterday to discuss a variety of issues, one of which was related to the Earned Income Tax Credit.  Both hope to expand the credit to include low-earning workers who DON'T have children.  It's unclear how successful their cooperation will be, but at the very least, they share a common goal. 
Politico portrayed the meeting as campaign kabuki: “Rather than cut any deals with Obama, Ryan’s hoping to spend 2016 developing what he’s calling a detailed GOP agenda on poverty, taxes, health care and other issues he’s hoping will factor into the presidential campaign and provide a blueprint for House Republicans as they grapple with a new president next year.”  It’s not surprising to see this given the pressure this election will put on the new Speaker.  He needs to set a strong foundation for his own future, and helping Obama score a tax touchdown on him is not on the top of his list of objectives.  
 
During a statement before he met with Obama, Ryan said “We will take our conservative principles and we will apply those conservative principles to the problems of the day to offer our fellow citizens solutions to the problems in their daily lives …. These are not going to be things that we will be able to accomplish with this president still in the White House. It is an agenda for what we will do next year with a Republican president to get our country back on track. This is what 2016’s all about. It’s going to be a year of ideas.”
 
Political Realities
William Gale and Aaron Krupkin, researchers at Brookings, recently wrote a paper titled “Major Tax Issues in 2016;” Keeping in mind both the current political climate and the probable environment for legislation in 2016, the two researchers write that “Comprehensive tax reform is easy to talk about, but hard to do. The pursuit of sweeping tax simplification is a noble goal, but quixotic.”  

At the end of the day 2016 is an election year and any legislative proposals that come forward during it will reflect that.  There are many exciting possibilities for tax reform in 2016, but there is also no reason to think that the political gridlock that has defined Washington for so long will ease up enough while both parties vie for control of the country by drawing contests. 
----------------
Recent Updates

Tax Talk of the Town  (Feb. 3)
Defending Dodd-Frank  (Feb. 2)
Fiscal Pol: Deficit/Debt Dormancy (Jan. 28)
The Fed Holds Rates, for Now  (Jan. 28)
Debate Myths Challenged  (Jan. 25)
Regulating the Regulators  (Jan. 21)
Sanders' Tax/Healthcare Policy  (Jan 20)
HRC's Tax Policy  (Jan. 17)
2016 Tax Agenda on the Hill  (Jan. 16)
Glass-Steagall, Take 2  (Jan. 13)
2016 Tax Policy Issues  (Jan. 8)
Sanders Proposals/GS & TBTF (Jan. 7)
Sanders' Fin Reg Proposals  (Jan. 5)
Year-End Review: Fiscal Policy (Jan. 1)  Year-End Review: Fin. Reg.  (Dec. 29)  Omnibus Review (Dec. 15)
Omnibus Situation  (Dec. 14)
FY 2016 Omnibus Talks (Dec. 10)
Customs Bill  (Dec. 8)
Tax Extender Negotiations  (Dec. 6) o
Brown on HFT  (Dec. 4)
Shelby 2.0 Update  (Dec. 3)

----

> On Feb 2, 2016, at 11:59 PM, Dana <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Mike & Co. --
> Congratulations, team.  Last night's narrow win in Iowa provided a big moral victory and took some of the win out of the challenger's sails.  It also means that, for at least several weeks, the Democratic nomination contest will continue apace.  And it is likely that Wall Street regulation will likely remain one the  campaign's central issues.  
> At the heart of this debate is the Dodd-Frank Act (DFA).   Public opinion is still influenced in the main by memories of the 2008 financial crisis and the recession that followed, so the candidates' views on DFA get special attention.  
> Below, we re-examine these views and try to clear up the misconceptions that make it hard for voters to identify the candidate best able to defend the protections that DFA provides millions of American consumers, investors, and workers. 
> Best,
> Dana
> -----------------
> The assertion that DFA doesn’t do enough to rein in Wall Street has become some sort of progressive shibboleth that as misleading as it is short-sighted and self-defeating.   
> Polling shows the American public believes strong financial regulation is critically needed (74 percent of Democrats, 56 percent Independents, 46 percent Republicans, 64 percent all voters).  Polling has also shown that 66 percent of Americans are either “not very familiar” with or have “never heard of” Dodd-Frank.  It is difficult for reasonable dialogue to be conducted in an environment made up of strong support for regulatory reform on one hand and a lack of knowledge of what is in DFA on the other.
> Any public debate on DFA is hampered by the complexity of the issues involved.  Additionally, there is a perception that it has failed in its objectives.  Beyond the fact that the law isn’t even fully implemented, major financial institutions have already begun restructuring in ways that indicate the law is working properly.   But how many voters know this?
> Has Dodd-Frank Worked?
> The Great Recession and the resulting Dodd-Frank Act changed the trajectory of the financial industry.  The law isn't perfect but it is having a stabilizing effect.  Some of the biggest firms on Wall Street -- MetLife, CitiGroup, General Electric -- have shrunk since the law was enacted and as a direct result of its regulations.  Those that haven't shrunk are under even more pressure to break up or reduce their size now than they were before Dodd-Frank.
> The candidates are split concerning whether or not DFA is an full and sufficient model for regulating financial markets.  While HRC wants to preserve and protect the progress made by DFA while bolstering certain parts of the law, while Sanders considers the law to be well intentioned yet deeply flawed.  However, questions should be raised about judging the DFA’s efficacy right now - each candidate is forming an opinion on the act despite the fact that DFA hasn’t even reached maturity yet - only about 70 percent of DFA provisions have been implemented.  Beyond the implementation gap is the issue that the results of financial reform cannot be seen overnight.  A piece of legislation as large and multifaceted as Dodd-Frank might take a decade to ripen. 
> Even as the greatest effects of DFA remain to be see, recent events indicate that DFA is working as it was intended to.  Any candidate who claims that DFA is in need of major overhaul needs to answer this question: What pressing need is there to overturn a law that has, to this point, largely accomplished its overarching objectives? 
> 2016 Candidates and Dodd-Frank
> The candidates in this year's primaries have given voters two choices: stick with Dodd-Frank and add some tweaks or repeal it/change it fundamentally. There is only one candidate in the former group - HRC. Every other candidate, including Bernie Sanders, intends to greatly change Dodd-Frank, or get rid of it all together, if elected. With that choice in mind, it is necessary to remember how monumental Dodd-Frank was and the political climate that it was passed in - one with a Democratic majority in both houses.   
> DFA enjoyed widespread support in the years immediately following its passage; Clinton needs to ring the alarm bells that her opponents intend to kill off an effective tool for regulating Wall Street for the sake of trying out unproven strategies that are built more on ideology than policy.  
> Obviously, most Republican candidates would prefer to do away with Dodd-Frank completely as it is greatly disliked by their biggest supporters. Bernie Sanders proposes something similar to Glass-Steagall, but also wants to create a list of the banks that are "too-big-too-fail" and "break them up." He outlined his intentions in legislation he proposed to Congress back in May 2015. Bloomberg Politics notes, "Similar to legislation he introduced in previous years, when Democrats controlled the U.S. Senate, the bill has little chance of advancing."  
> So voters can decide on strengthening a law that is already working to reign in Wall Street's risks or abandoning it for either less regulation or poorly aimed regulations. Considering the historical record of these other reform ideas, how can voters be expected to take those suggestions seriously?
> 
> 
>> On Jan 28, 2016, at 8:19 PM, Dana <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> 
>> Mike & Co. --
>> 
>> Ordinarily this time of year, you would perhaps start to spot leaks or hear scuttlebutt about the president's spending plans for the next fiscal year, in anticipation of the statutory February White House budget rollout.  No one noticed when the administration announced it would miss next week's legal budget submission deadline.  
>> 
>> With FY17 toplines set in the omnibus bill passed last month, you may hear little in the Beltway about the budget anytime soon (although the Chair did announce plans yesterday to introduce a budget resolution this year, to the surprise of many, including Majority Leader McConnell).  
>> 
>> Even on the campaign trail in the Granite State, with its famously flinty tax-o-phobes, nary a word is heard about the debt, let alone defaulting it, not this year.  
>> 
>> The federal budget, deficits, and the debt have not yet gotten much air play yet this campaign.  But if we lifted up the car hood, what would we see?  What is our medium-long term fiscal outlook, what would the impact on it of the candidates' proposals be, and what fiscal issues are most likely to arise in the primary debate?
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Dana
>> 
>> --------------
>> 
>> CBO 10-year Deficit Projections
>> 
>> The CBO reported last week that it expects the annual deficit to grow from its current $450 billion to $1.3 trillion by 2016. Candidates issuing calls for increased spending, against this backdrop, may be called to account.  
>> 
>> Perhaps in recognition of this, both HRC and Sen. Sanders have recently and admirably detailed how they would use executive actions to enact parts of their revenue packages without Congressional support.  Both have proposed extensive new spending plans as part of their primary platform. however, it may be time for the candidates to get serious about the fiscal viability of these plans from a fiscal perspective.
>> 
>> Clinton -- Fiscal Stimulus?
>> 
>> HRC has proposed a tax package that will raise federal revenue by $500 billion over ten years, to be used for a $350 billion “College Compact” plan, for tax deductions on health care spending, and to fund an ambitious infrastructure investment package.  Her spending plans are split between those which provide short-term economic stimulus and those which are aimed at providing longer-term boost.  Her $250 billion plan to increase infrastructure investment in the country – paid for by reviving the “Build America Bonds” program and federal revenue --  works on two fronts.
>> 
>> First, hiring middle-class workers in construction, engineering, and the trades the plan puts more money into the hands of people who tend to spend that money quickly.  Second, improving roads, bridges, and tunnels in America the plan will make future transport of goods more reliable, speedy, and safe, all calculated to spur economic growth. 
>> 
>> The “College Compact” aims to forgive student loans, lower college tuition, and make community colleges tuition-free.  By removing the burden of debt from young graduates, HRC hopes to free those people up to begin consuming at a higher rate.  The current home-ownership rate for young Americans is distressingly low largely due to their debt burden after college, HRC would rather young Americans take debt on in an equity-building purchase than spend thirty years repaying their college degree.  
>> 
>> The Sanders Health Care Tax Bill
>> 
>> Sanders’ $14 trillion spending plan, his “Medicare for All” proposal, would require the single largest tax hike in the nation’s history, bringing taxes on the wealthy to levels not seen since Reagan.  These taxes, the size of which already makes them non-starters even among Democrats in Congress, are to be used to enact single-payer healthcare legislation – legislation which didn’t even get a vote during a Democratic majority in Obama’s first term.
>> 
>> Sanders must hope that the economic efficiency of a single-payer health care plan, which finds its savings in the reduced role of middle-men and insurance companies, will result in savings passed onto Americans – Americans who will, in their turn, spend those savings in the economy at large.
>> 
>> He has found political success in his promise to make colleges and universities in America tuition-free.  The impetus behind this plan is similar to that of Mrs. Clinton – students with lower debt burdens are going to spend a greater portion of their income on food and entertainment, as well as on equity-investments like homes.
>> 
>> Campaign Impact
>> 
>> The CBO’s federal budget projections released last week indicated that the annual federal deficit will grow to $1.3 trillion by 2026.  It’s unlikely that the CBO report will be linked to the candidates' spending plans in any meaningful way.  And to be fair, each candidate has put forward proposals to raise revenue equivalent to the costs of their plans (or at least to the extent that their own analyses can be trusted); this is often a rarity amongst politicians running for office and they should be applauded for doing so.  Because of this, both campaigns can claim that their proposals will not raise the federal deficit – it’s unlikely that those claims will remain unchallenged in the future.
>> 
>> Tax Foundation Analysis
>> 
>> Recent analyses by the Tax Foundation, a group which uses dynamic scoring methods to judge revenue, have found that Clinton’s plan will reduce economic output by 1 percent over a decade, while Sanders’ proposals will lower GDP by a staggering 9.5 percent.  Dynamic scoring is a controversial method of analyzing revenue estimates – it takes into account the supposed deleterious effects caused by tax increases and attempts to adjust growth the reflect those effects.
>> 
>> A CRS report published in 2014, however, stated that “A review of statistical evidence suggests that both labor supply and savings and investment are relatively insensitive to tax rates.” 
>> 
>> While each campaign will be inclined to argue that any analysis which mentions economic contraction as an effect of their plans is based on improper economics, it may not matter to voters whether they’re right or not.  American voters have always been tax-averse but will pay for what they want.  Maybe the biggest yet-unanswered question: do they want another overhaul of he nation's healthcare enough to pay a new record in tax increases?
>> 
>> Recent Updates
>> 
>> Fiscal Pol: Deficit/Debt Dormancy (Jan. 28)
>> The Fed Holds Rates, for Now  (Jan. 28)
>> Debate Myths Challenged  (Jan. 25)
>> Regulating the Regulators  (Jan. 21)
>> Sanders' Tax/Healthcare Policy  (Jan 20)
>> HRC's Tax Policy  (Jan. 17)
>> 2016 Tax Agenda on the Hill  (Jan. 16)
>> Glass-Steagall, Take 2  (Jan. 13)
>> 2016 Tax Policy Issues  (Jan. 8)
>> Sanders Proposals/GS & TBTF (Jan. 7)
>> Sanders' Fin Reg Proposals  (Jan. 5)
>> Year-End Review: Fiscal Policy (Jan. 1)  Year-End Review: Fin. Reg.  (Dec. 29)  Omnibus Review (Dec. 15)
>> Omnibus Situation  (Dec. 14)
>> FY 2016 Omnibus Talks (Dec. 10)
>> Customs Bill  (Dec. 8)
>> Tax Extender Negotiations  (Dec. 6) o
>> Brown on HFT  (Dec. 4)
>> Shelby 2.0 Update  (Dec. 3)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jan 28, 2016, at 10:12 AM, Dana <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear Mike & Co.,
>>> 
>>> Pre-primary endorsements from Party leaders in tight contests are rare and sometimes understated.  To wit, President Obama remarks this week that HRC is as prepared to be president as any non-Vice President as anyone: “I think that what Hillary presents is a recognition that translating values into governance and delivering the goods is ultimately the job of politics, making a real-life difference to people in their day-to-day lives.”
>>> 
>>> Yesterday, House Democratic leader Nancy starting doing precisely that, assessing the centerpiece of Sanders' platform:  "He's talking about a single-payer, and that's not going to happen. I mean, does anybody in this room think that we're going to be discussing a single-payer? ... We're not running on any platform of raising taxes." 
>>> 
>>> Far from the cauldron of Congress and the icy campaign trail was an announcement by the Fed with implications for the overall economy and for the election year ahead.  More on the Fed's statement and its implications below.  
>>> 
>>> Please let me know if you have any questions or issue coverage requests. 
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Dana
>>> 
>>> -----------------
>>> 
>>> The Fed's Statement
>>> 
>>> The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) of the Federal Reserve decided yesterday not to raise rates in January.  Last month, the Fed voted to raise interest rates for the first time in nine years, setting its rate target between 0.25 and 0.5 percent.  Today's statement reaffirmed this decision, noting that recent market turbulence had not stayed the Fed from its plan to continue “only gradual increases in the federal funds rate.”  Speculation and hope are rife that the FOMC will hold off raising rates in March and wait until June.  
>>> 
>>> But the statement today indicated no change in the Fed’s plan for previously outlined  rate increases, four 0.25 percent increases this year, with total increases of one percent this year and next.  However, the FOMC is largely comprised of dovish voters, who may change tack if current market corrections continue.   
>>> 
>>> Market Reaction
>>> 
>>> The Dow Jones Industrial average is down from 17.759 on December 16 to 15,951 today; the S&P 500 has declined from 2,073 to 1,879 over the same period.  The 
>>> Fed however expressed confidence in continuing economic growth, calling low inflation and the decline in energy prices “transitory” and predicting 2 percent inflation in the medium-term as energy prices rise again.  
>>> 
>>> In a nod to beleaguered investors, the Committee wrote that it “... is closely monitoring global economic and financial developments and is assessing their implications for the labor market and inflation, and for the balance of risks to the outlook.”  So the Fed has, unusually, acknowledged the global scope of its deliberations.  FOMC also indicated a focus on “labor market indicators [which] will continue to strengthen."
>>> 
>>> For now, though inflation is running just 0.4 percent, well below its two percent target, the Fed has not disavowed its plan to raise rates four times this year.   This cannot be welcome to global equine markets.  Domestic and global capital markets have already lost roughly ten percent since the December rate hike.  Fed policy may be having a decelerating effect on growth and so could be a marginal drag on Democratic prospects.  
>>> 
>>> New FOMC Members
>>> 
>>> The FOMC is made up of rotating board of seven voting members taken from Board of Governors members as well as regional bank officials; these members rotate on an annual basis at the first meeting of each year.  The 2016 committee members are listed below (identified as"hawks," those favoring tight monetary policy or "doves," supporting more accommodative policy). 
>>> 
>>> Janet L. Yellen, Board of Governors, Chair (dove)
>>> William C. Dudley, New York, Vice Chair (dove)
>>> Lael Brainard, Board of Governors (dove)
>>> James Bullard, St. Louis (hawk)
>>> Stanley Fischer, Board of Governors (hawk)
>>> Esther L. George, Kansas City (hawk)
>>> Loretta J. Mester, Cleveland (hawk)
>>> Jerome H. Powell, Board of Governors (swing)
>>> Eric Rosengren, Boston (dove)
>>> Daniel K. Tarullo, Board of Governors (dove)
>>> 
>>> New members this year are James Bullard, Esther George, Loretta Mester, and Eric Rosengren.  The FOMC consists of 12 voting members, with two nominees awaiting Senate confirmation.  A shift in the balance of power between hawks and doves may occur but the doves hold a slim majority for now.
>>> 
>>> Code Breaking
>>> 
>>> Fed watchers have made an art form out of reading between the lines of these policy releases, even the most benign of which can cause huge swings in markets (the Dow dropped over 200 points in the wake of today’s release).  Fed statements are famously difficult to parse but one point was unmistakable: the Fed is keeping a close eye on the labor market -- employment and participation rates, wages, etc. -- as a leading indicator for inflation and overall growth perhaps more than any other variable.  
>>> 
>>> Campaign Consequences
>>> 
>>> None of the candidates has commented on today’s release, not surprisingly, but the policy may draw ire from some on the right, who oppose fiat rate-targeting (though it took no action today) and the left, where lowering rather than raising rate is preferred (except for holders of fixed income securities).  
>>> 
>>> Sen.  Sanders, true to his reputation of standing far outside the Democratic fold, has long opposed the Fed for being too involved with the bankers they are meant to be regulating.  Sanders has called for reform measures at the Fed, including prohibiting people serving on bank boards from serving on the Fed at the same time. 
>>> 
>>> The Fed was confident that economic growth would continue on its steady pace, indicating strength in labor markets and downplaying both financial market reactions and diving commodities prices.  The FOMC sets monetary policy on a long-term basis; the full ramifications of their decisions aren’t felt until months or years out, so any contention that the economy is strong enough to handle higher interest rates is essentially an endorsement of macroeconomic policy in the last few years. Democratic candidates will need to hammer this point home - but it is yet to be seen if voters will understand the message that Democratic policies are responsible for the sunny outlook for the American economy, especially compared to Western Europe, Latin America, and Asia.
>>> Below is the first sentence of the FOMC statement from yesterday, edited to reflect changes from last month's statement:
>>> 
>>> For immediate releaserelease at 2:00 p.m. EST
>>> Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in OctoDecember suggests that economic activity has been expanding at a moderate pacelabor market conditions improved further even as economic growth slowed late last year. Household spending and business fixed investment have been increasing at solidmoderate rates in recent months, and the housing sector has improved further; however, net exports have been soft and inventory investment slowed. A range of recent labor market indicators, including ongoistrong job gains and declining unemployment, shows further improvement and confirms that underutilization of labor resources has diminished appreciably since early this year, points to some additional decline in underutilization of labor resources. Inflation has continued to run below the Committee's 2 percent longer-run objective, partly reflecting declines in energy prices and in prices of non-energy imports. Market-based measures of inflation compensation remain low; somedeclined further; survey-based measures of longer-term inflation expectations have edged downare little changed, on balance, in recent months.
>>> 
>>> --------------------
>>> 
>>> Recent Updates
>>> 
>>> The Fed Holds Rates, for Now  (Jan. 28)
>>> Debate Myths Challenged  (Jan. 25)
>>> Regulating the Regulators  (Jan. 21)
>>> Sanders' Tax/Healthcare Policy  (Jan 20)
>>> HRC's Tax Policy  (Jan. 17)
>>> 2016 Tax Agenda on the Hill  (Jan. 16)
>>> Glass-Steagall, Take 2  (Jan. 13)
>>> 2016 Tax Policy Issues  (Jan. 8)
>>> Sanders Proposals/GS & TBTF (Jan. 7)
>>> Sanders' Fin Reg Proposals  (Jan. 5)
>>> Year-End Review: Fiscal Policy (Jan. 1)  Year-End Review: Fin. Reg.  (Dec. 29)  Omnibus Review (Dec. 15)
>>> Omnibus Situation  (Dec. 14)
>>> FY 2016 Omnibus Talks (Dec. 10)
>>> Customs Bill  (Dec. 8)
>>> Tax Extender Negotiations  (Dec. 6) o
>>> Brown on HFT  (Dec. 4)
>>> Shelby 2.0 Update  (Dec. 3)