Tim Scott on Government Reform

I expect election to be fair and Trump to be elected

Jim Crow 2.0 exaggerates compared to historical Jim Crow

And so when I hear the President talk about Jim Crow 2.0, I rushed to read the new Georgia law one more time. The controversy that the president spoke about: it is illegal to get water while waiting to vote. Now, that claim has been proven false. The only time you can't get water while waiting in line to vote is someone campaigning, you can't bring them water, if you're an election worker, you can bring them water.

Democratic voting rights bill would rig future elections

Photo ID for voting

Scott: Disagree

Look to Constitution for greatness, not to Executive Orders

A smaller, less intrusive government means more resources for the creation of the next generation of entrepreneurs. The success of our economy is seen in the sizes of our ideas, not in the size of our tax bills. We need to cut our taxes, not raise them like President Obama wants to.

Greatness is created in relationships, when people pool their resources together and start small businesses. Every place in this nation, in their garages, in coffee shops, and at their kitchen tables.

Identify constitutionality in every new congressional bill.

The Contract from America, clause 1. Protect the Constitution:

Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does.

Audit federal agencies, to reform or eliminate them.

The Contract from America, clause 5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington:

Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality,

Moratorium on all earmarks until budget is balanced.

The Contract from America, clause 9. Stop the Pork:

Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark.

Member of House Rules Committee.

The House Committee on Rules is more commonly known as the Rules Committee.Rather than being responsible for a specific area of policy, as most other committees are, it is in charge of determining under what rule other bills will come to the floor. As such, it is one of the most powerful committees, and often described as `an arm of the leadership` and as the `traffic cop of Congress.` A rule is a simple resolution of the House of Representatives to permit the immediate consideration of a legislative measure, notwithstanding the usual order of business, and to prescribe conditions for its debate and amendment.

When a bill is reported out of one of the other committees, it does not go straight to the House floor, because the House, unlike the Senate, does not have unlimited debate and discussion on a bill. Instead, what may be said and done to a bill is strictly limited. This limitation is performed by the Rules Committee.

Ban stock trading based on Congressional insider knowledge.

Congressional Summary:Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act (STOCK Act): Amends the Securities Exchange Act and the Commodity Exchange Act to prohibit purchase or sale of either securities or commodities by a person in possession of material nonpublic information regarding pending or prospective legislative action.

• Amends the Ethics in Government Act to require formal disclosure of certain securities and commodities futures transactions.
• Amends the Lobbying Disclosure Act to subject to its registration, reporting, and disclosure requirements all political intelligence activities, contacts, firms, and consultants.

Bill explanation (ProCon.org, `Insider Trading by Congress`, Feb. 3, 2012):

• On Mar. 17, 2011, Tim Walz (D-MN) introduced the STOCK Act where it gained nine co-sponsors by Nov. 4, 2011.
• On Nov. 13, 2011, the TV show `60 Minutes` reported that several members of Congress allegedly used insider information for personal gain. The STOCK Act received 84 additional House co-sponsors in the five days following the report, and Scott Brown (R-MA) filed the STOCK Act in the Senate on Nov. 15, 2011. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) also filed a variation of the STOCK Act in the Senate on Nov. 17, 2011.
• On Jan. 24, 2012, in his State of the Union Address, President Obama said `Send me a bill that bans insider trading by members of Congress, and I will sign it tomorrow.`
• Immediately after the speech, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told reporters, `I think people should have enough sense not to do it [insider trading] without legislation, but I will support legislation.`
• On Feb. 2, 2012, a revised version of the STOCK Act passed in the Senate by a vote of 96-3 with Senators Richard Burr (R-NC), Tom Coburn (R-OK), and Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) dissenting.

No recess appointments without Congressional approval.

Congressional Summary: Resolution Disapproving of the President`s appointment of four officers during a period when no recess of the Congress for a period of more than three days and expressing that those appointments were made in violation of the Constitution.

Text of Resolution:

• Whereas the Constitution states, `Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days`;
• Whereas, on January 4, 2012, President Barack Obama appointed Richard Cordray to be the Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection and appointed Sharon Block, Terence Flynn, and Richard Griffin to the National Labor Relations Board; and
• Whereas these appointments broke the long-established precedent of Congress being in recess for more than three days before the President can make a recess appointment:
• Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives disapproves of the President`s appointment of four officers when no recess of the Congress for a period of more than three days was authorized.

OnTheIssues Notes:Pres. Obama attempted to appoint Elizabeth Warren to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in May 2011; House Republicans disapproved of Ms. Warren. House Speaker John Boehner disallowed the Senate`s adjournment resolution, which meant the Senate was legally not adjourned and Pres. Obama could not make a `recess appointment` which would otherwise be allowed. This Resolution brings the issue to the fore again, for another set of Obama appointments for which House Republicans disapprove.

Prohibit IRS audits targeting Tea Party political groups.

Congressional summary:: Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by the IRS Act: Requires the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) standards and definitions in effect on January 1, 2010, for determining whether an organization qualifies for tax-exempt status as an organization operated exclusively for social welfare to apply to such determinations after enactment of this Act. Prohibits any regulation, or other ruling, not limited to a particular taxpayer relating to such standards and definitions.

Proponent`s argument in favor (Heritage Action, Feb. 26, 2014): H.R. 3865 comes in the wake of an attack on the Tea Party and other conservative organizations. The current IRS regulation is so broad and ill-defined that the IRS applies a `facts and circumstances` test to determine what constitutes `political activity` by an organization. This test can vary greatly depending on the subjective views of the particular IRS bureaucrat applying the test. IRS employees took advantage of this vague and subjective standard to unfairly delay granting tax-exempt status to Tea Party organizations and subject them to unreasonable scrutiny.

Text of sample IRS letter to Tea Party organizations:We need more information before we can complete our consideration of your application for exemption. Please provide the information requested on the enclosed Information Request by the response due date. Your response must be signed by an authorized person or officer whose name is listed on your application.

• Have you conducted or will you conduct candidate forums or other events at which candidates running for public offices are invited to speak?
• Have you attempted or will you attempt to influence the outcome of specific legislation?
• Do you directly or indirectly communicate with members of legislative bodies?
• Do you have a close relationship with any candidate for public office or political party?

Public financing of federal campaigns by voter vouchers.

Congressional Summary:<

• Allow a refundable tax credit of 50% of cash contributions to congressional House campaigns, to be known as `My Voice Federal` contributions.
• Select three states to operate a voucher pilot program.
• Provide, upon request, a `My Voice Voucher` worth $50.
• Authorizes the individual to submit the My Voice Voucher to qualified federal election candidates, allocating a portion of its value in $5 increments.
• Permits an individual to revoke a My Voice Voucher within two days after submitting it to a candidate.
• Establishes the Freedom From Influence Fund in the Treasury [for 6-to-1 matching funds for the vouchers].
• Allows taxpayers to designate overpayments of tax for contribution to the Freedom From Influence Fund.

Supporters reasons for voting YEA:Rep. Sarbanes: Big money warps Congress` priorities and erodes the public`s trust in government. This bold new legislation returns voice and power back to the American people:

1. Empower everyday citizens to fuel Congressional campaigns by providing a My Voice Tax Credit.
2. Amplify the voices of everyday Americans through a 6-to-1 match.
3. Prevent Super PACs from drowning out small donor-backed candidates.

Opponents reasons for voting NAY:(Bill Moyers, Feb. 19, 2015): This citizen engagement strategy, particularly when used to court small donors, is not without its critics. Small donors, at least in the current system, often tend to be political ideologues. That trend leaves many asking: won`t moving to small donors just empower extremists? Sarbanes counters, if Congress changes the political fundraising rules, they will also change the calculus for `the rational small donor who right now isn`t going to give $25 because they`ve figured out that it`s not going to matter.` The prospect of a 6-to-1 match might very well impact how those less ideologically extreme potential donors think about political giving.

Signed term limit pledge: 6 years House; 12 years Senate.

Organizational Self-Description: U.S. Term Limits, the nation`s oldest and largest term limits advocacy group, announced that 14 new signers of its congressional term limits amendment pledge have been elected to the 114th Congress. The group includes five new senators, eight new House members and one House incumbent who signed the pledge for the first time this cycle. The pledge calls for members to co-sponsor and vote for a constitutional amendment limiting House members to three terms (six years) and Senators to two terms (12 years). The USTL President said, `The American people are fed up with career politicians in Washington and strongly embracing term limits as a remedy. Gallup polling shows that 75% of Americans support term limits.`

Opposing legal argument: [ACLU, Nov. 7, 2014]: In U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton (May 22, 1995), the Court ended the movement to enact term limits for Congress on a state-by-state basis. The Court held that the qualifications for Congress established in the Constitution itself could not be amended by the states without a constitutional amendment, and that the notion of congressional term limits violates the `fundamental principle of our representative democracy `that the people should chose whom they please to govern them.``

Opposing political argument: [Cato Institute Briefing Paper No. 14, Feb. 18, 1992]: Several considerations may explain political scientists` open hostility to term limitation:

• Political scientists were instrumental in promoting the professionalization of legislators.
• They are cynical about the attentiveness, general knowledge, and judgmental capacity of the average voter.
• They are committed to the conservation of leadership.
• They perceive attacks on professional politicians as a threat to their own self-proclaimed professionalism.
• And political partisanship may encourage them to oppose term limits.

Constitutional amendment for Congressional term limits.

Excerpts from press release on Term Limits Caucus: Two U.S. Term Limits pledge signers, Republican Rep. Rod Blum (IA-1) and Democrat Rep. Beto O`Rourke (TX-16), have announced the formation of a Term Limits Caucus, which will work to build bipartisan support behind a constitutional amendment imposing term limits on Congress. `The root of this problem is that politicians are incentivized by the system to care more about retaining their position than doing what is best for the country,` Blum said. `Our founding fathers never intended for public service to be a career, rather, serving in Congress was designed to be a temporary sacrifice made for the public good.`

The new working group will marshal pro-term limits members together to pursue common ground. One of its most important duties will be building consensus around the U.S. Term Limits Amendment of three House terms and two Senate terms, to which both Blum and O`Rourke have pledged their exclusive support.

Supporting argument: (Cato Institute): We should limit members to three terms in the House and two terms in the Senate. Let more people serve. Let more people make the laws. And let`s get some people who don`t want to make Congress a lifelong career. Some say that term limits would deprive us of the skills of experienced lawmakers. Really? It`s the experienced legislators who gave us a $17 trillion national debt, and the endless war in Iraq, and the Wall Street bailout.

Supporting argument: (Heritage Foundation): The only serious opponents of term limits are incumbent politicians and the special interests--particularly labor unions--that support them. Special interests oppose term limits because they do not want to lose their valuable investments in incumbent legislators. Many are organized to extract programs, subsidies, and regulations from the federal government--to use the law as a lever to benefit their own constituencies or harm their rivals.

President Trump not guilty of inciting insurrection.

GovTrack.us summary of H.Res.24: Article of Impeachment Against Former President Donald John Trump:

The House impeached President Trump for the second time, charging him with incitement of insurrection. The impeachment resolution accused the President of inciting the violent riot that occurred on January 6, when his supporters invaded the United States Capitol injuring and killing Capitol Police and endangering the safety of members of Congress. It cites statements from President Trump to the rioters such as `if you don`t fight like hell you`re not going to have a country anymore,` as well as persistent lies that he won the 2020 Presidential election.

Legislative Outcome:

Bill introduced Jan 11, 2021, with 217 co-sponsors; House rollcall vote #117 passed 232-197-4 on Jan. 13th (a YES vote in the House was to impeach President Trump for inciting insurrection); Senate rollcall vote #59 rejected 57-43-0 on Feb. 13th (2/3 required in Senate to pass; a YES vote in the Senate would have found President Trump guilty, but since he had already left office at that time, a guilty verdict would have barred Trump from running for President in the future)

Voted NO on two articles of impeachment against Trump.

RESOLUTION: Impeaching Donald Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors.

ARTICLE I: ABUSE OF POWER: Using the powers of his high office, Pres. Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 US Presidential election. He did so through a course of conduct that included
1. Pres. Trump--acting both directly and through his agents--corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph Biden; and a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine--rather than Russia--interfered in the 2016 US Presidential election.
2. With the same corrupt motives, Pres. Trump conditioned two official acts on the public announcements that he had requested: (A) the release of $391 million that Congress had appropriated for the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression; and (B) a head of state meeting at the White House, which the President of Ukraine sought.
3. Faced with the public revelation of his actions, Pres. Trump ultimately released the [funds] to the Government of Ukraine, but has persisted in openly soliciting Ukraine to undertake investigations for his personal political benefit.

ARTICLE II: OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS:
1. Pres. Trump defied a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought [by Congress];
2. defied lawful subpoenas [for] the production of documents and records;
3. and directed current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees.