The foreign affair bill, which was presented by the senator of the state of Florida, is the most beneficial to The United States. The bill stated that a minimum of 250 million and maximum of one billion dollars should be given to other countries in financial aid from the United States. A markup was done to this bill by setting a 27 country limit and the 250 million dollar limit was removed. The testimony given that the US spends approximately 71 billion dollars in the financial aid of other countries was appalling. Through a roll call vote, the majority being in favor of the bill, the beneficial bill was able to pass the committee. By voting in favor of the bill, my role in this trial was one of a politico. If the matter was on issues that my constituents care about (such as immigration or gun control laws) I would have voted as per my constituents' wishes; if the matter was more complex or less salient issues in which my constituents didn't seem to care about (some foreign policy or regulatory matters) I would have voted as per my viewpoint. In this case the vote was based on a foreign affair policy, and I made the decision, acting upon my conservative views and potentially helping the United States save approximately 44 billion dollars. Senator Mike was able to prove as an effective senator by getting his bill passed without the use of log rolling or the use of a filibuster.  The unnecessary earmarks and riders that were attempted to be put on the bill by the opponents were unsuccessful furthering the success of this bill. My bipartisan bill with the democratic senator of Texas was not ignore, therefore made it possible to pass the pigeonholing. As the conservative senator of Texas, I had proposed high officials being allowed to have firearms on educational/school campuses, which was a bill proposed in order to please my constituents and a bill that was backed up by the second amendment. I, however, do not view myself as an effective senator due to some reasons that led my own presented bill to die in committee.  My unsuccessful attempt at a refutation testimony led to a pathetic division vote in which only three people spoke for the bill.