Lindsey Graham on Government Reform Republican Sr Senator; previously Representative (SC-3)

10-day process to fire Russia probe special prosecutor

Some of his colleagues are concerned. "It's not good politics in the end," said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). "It says you don't trust the president."

Tillis is working with Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) on the bill, which would allow a special counsel a 10-day window to fight a potential removal by the Trump administration and could soon see a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Overwhelming evidence that Russians stole emails from DNC

[TAPE] GRAHAM: If after having been briefed by our intelligence leaders, Donald Trump is still unsure as to what the Russians did, that would be incredibly unnerving to me because the evidence is overwhelming.

[END TAPE] Just yesterday the president referred to the Russia investigation as a hoax. Are you unnerved?

GRAHAM: The president does now finally believe that the Russians stole the emails from the DNC [the Democratic National Committee]. But he believes that collusion is a hoax. All I can say is that it's not a hoax. The Russians stole the emails. They did interfere in our elections. We now know that Trump Junior met with the Russians in Trump Tower & that Bob Mueller is the right guy at the right time. He needs to be allowed to do his job. And whether or not there's collusion--Bob Mueller will tell us. The idea of Jeff Sessions being able to investigate the campaign he was on is unacceptable. Jeff Sessions did the right thing [by recusing himself].

Supreme Court decided gay marriage; it's the law of the land

PATAKI: We're going to have a president who defies the Supreme Court because they don't agree?

SANTORUM: I hope so. If they're wrong.

PATAKI: Then you don't have the rule of law.

SANTORUM: No, what you have is judicial supremacy. You don't have a rule of law when the court has the final say on everything.

GRAHAM: I wasn't the best law student. But on the first day in law school we reviewed a case called "Marbury v. Madison." The group in our constitutional democracy that interprets the Constitution is the Supreme Court. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court have ruled that same-sex marriage bans at the state level violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. I don't agree with it, but that is the law of the land.

2016 election will determine judiciary for decades to come

Constitutional amendment to limit spending by super PACs

Increase campaign contribution limits; but no foreigners

Graham supports the following principles regarding campaign finance issues:
• Increase the amount individuals are permitted to contribute to federal campaigns.
• Ban unregulated soft money campaign contributions to political parties or committees.
• Prohibit non-U.S. citizens from making soft money contributions.
• Require full disclosure of funding sources of issue advocacy commercials.
• Require Congressional candidates to raise over half of their campaign money from their home state.

Voted NO on Congressional pay raise.

Makes appropriations to the Senate for FY2010 for:
1. expense allowances;
2. representation allowances for the Majority and Minority Leaders;
3. salaries of specified officers, employees, and committees (including the Committee on Appropriations);
4. agency contributions for employee benefits;
5. inquiries and investigations;
6. the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control;
7. the Offices of the Secretary and of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate;
8. miscellaneous items;
9. the Senators' Official Personnel and Office Expense Account; and
10. official mail costs.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (D, FL-20): We, as Members of Congress, have responsibility not just for the institution, but for the staff that work for this institution, and to preserve the facilities that help support this institution. We have endeavored to do that responsibly, and I believe we have accomplished that goal.

Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. SCALISE (R, LA-1): It's a sad day when someone attempts to cut spending in a bill that grows government by the size of 7%, and it's not allowed to be debated on this House floor. Some of their Members actually used the term "nonsense" and "foolishness" when describing our amendments to cut spending; they call that a delaying tactic. Well, I think Americans all across this country want more of those types of delaying tactics to slow down this runaway train of massive Federal spending. Every dollar we spend from today all the way through the end of this year is borrowed money. We don't have that money. We need to control what we're spending.

Voted NO on providing a US House seat for the District of Columbia.

• The District of Columbia shall be considered a Congressional district for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives.
• DC shall not be considered a State for purposes of representation in the US Senate.
• Reapportionment [census-based House seats] shall apply with respect to DC in the same manner as it applies to a State, except that DC may not receive more than one Member.
• Effective with the 112th Congress, the House of Representatives shall be composed of 437 Members, including the Member representing DC.
• The State of Utah is entitled to one additional Representative pursuant to this reapportionment.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT): I am cosponsoring the legislation to provide a House seat for DC and an additional House seat for Utah. Representation and suffrage are so central to the American system of self-government that America's founders warned that limiting suffrage would risk another revolution and could prevent ratification of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held in 1820 that Congress' legislative authority over DC allows taxation of DC. Do opponents of giving DC a House seat believe that DC is suitable for taxation but not for representation?

Opponent's argument to vote No:Sen. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ): I make a constitutional point of order against this bill on the grounds that it violates article I, section 2, of the Constitution. I appreciate the frustration felt by the residents of DC at the absence of a vote in Congress. According to many experts, DC is not a State, so therefore is not entitled to that representation. Also, one has to raise the obvious question: If DC is entitled to a Representative, why isn't Puerto Rico, which would probably entail 9 or 10 Members of Congress? [With regards to the seat for Utah], this is obviously partisan horse-trading.

Voted NO on granting the District of Columbia a seat in Congress.

• Considers D.C. a congressional district for purposes of representation in the House.
• D.C. shall not be considered a state for representation in the Senate.
• Limits D.C. to one Member under any reapportionment.
• Increases membership of the House from 435 to 437.
• Entitles Utah to one additional Representative until the next census, and modifies the reapportionment formula thereafter.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. BYRD: In 1978, I voted for H.J. Res. 554, that proposed amending the Constitution to provide for representation of D.C. [That amendment passed the Senate but was not ratified by the States]. While I recognize that others believe that the Constitution authorizes the Congress to "exercise exclusive legislation" over D.C., the historical intent of the Founders on this point is unclear. I oppose S.1257, because I doubt that our Nation's Founding Fathers ever intended that the Congress should be able to change the text of the Constitution by passing a simple bill.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. HATCH. There are conservative and liberal advocates on both sides of this issue,and think most people know Utah was not treated fairly after the last census. For those who are so sure this is unconstitutional, [we include an] expedited provision that will get us to the Supreme Court to make an appropriate decision. It will never pass as a constitutional amendment. There are 600,000 people in D.C., never contemplated by the Founders of this country to be without the right to vote. They are the only people in this country who do not have a right to vote for their own representative in the House. This bill would remedy that situation.

Voted YES on requiring photo ID to vote in federal elections.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. DOLE. I am proposing a commonsense measure to uphold the integrity of Federal elections. My amendment to require voters to show photo identification at the polls would go a long way in minimizing potential for voter fraud. When a fraudulent vote is cast and counted, the vote of a legitimate voter is cancelled. This is wrong, and my amendment would help ensure that one of the hallmarks of our democracy, our free and fair elections, is protected. Opinion polls repeatedly confirm that Americans overwhelmingly support this initiative.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. FEINSTEIN. If one would want to suppress the vote in the 2008 election, one would vote for this because this measure goes into effect January 1, 2008. It provides that everybody who votes essentially would have to have a photo ID. If you want to suppress the minority vote, the elderly vote, the poor vote, this is exactly the way to do it. Many of these people do not have driver's licenses. This amendment would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to actually carry out. It goes into effect--surprise--January 1, 2008 [to affect the presidential election]. I urge a "no" vote.

Voted YES on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress.

Proponents of the amendment say to vote NAY on the tabling motion because:
• Using the term "registered lobbyist'' will create a huge loophole. The Ethics Committee treats the actual listed lobbyists as registered lobbyists, but not the organization.
• So, for example, a company can give a Senator free tickets to a show or a baseball game, as long as a lobbyist doesn't actually offer or handle them. If the lobbyist's secretary makes the call, that would be permitted.
• If these companies can still give gifts, we won't have a real lobbyist gift ban. We won't be able to look the American people in the eye and say, "We just banned gifts from lobbyists,'' because we didn't.

Opponents of the amendment say to vote YEA on the tabling motion because:
• I can tolerate not accepting gifts from lobbyists. But this amendment goes a step further which is problematic.

  For example, I am a big fan of McDonald's. What about the kids working behind the counter? Would they be considered registered lobbyists because McDonald's has lobbyists? Would I not be able to go to lunch with my longtime friend who owns 12 McDonald's?

• Every company in the Fortune 1000 employs a lobbyist, either a private firm or an in-house lobbyist. Under this amendment, every person who works for Exxon, Wal-Mart, Home Depot, and countless other businesses that employ lobbyists in Washington would be considered registered lobbyists.
• If we want to ban the CEO and chairman of the board of the company from paying for a meal, or the head of a labor union, do that specifically. But this is so broadly developed I think it goes way beyond that.

Voted YES on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions.

Voted NO on banning soft money donations to national political parties.

Voted YES on banning soft money and issue ads.

Sponsored bill allowing individual votes on each earmark.

OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: A bill to provide greater accountability of taxpayers' dollars by curtailing congressional earmarking.

SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. McCAIN: This bipartisan bill changes the Senate rules to allow points of order to be raised against unauthorized appropriations and policy riders in appropriations bills and conference reports in an effort to reign in wasteful pork barrel spending.

In 1994, there were 4,126 Congressional earmarks added to the annual appropriations bills. In 2005, there were 15,877 earmarks, the largest number yet, that's an increase of nearly 300%! The level of funding associated with those earmarks has more than doubled from $23 billion in 1994 to $47 billion in 2005.

Our bill would establish a new procedure which would allow a 60-vote point of order to be raised against specific provisions that contain unauthorized appropriations, including earmarks, as well as unauthorized policy changes in appropriations bills and conference reports. Successful points of order would not kill a conference report, but the targeted provisions would be removed from the conference report.

To ensure that Members are given enough time to review appropriations bills, our proposal would also require that conference reports be available at least 48 hours prior to floor consideration.

To promote transparency, our bill requires that any earmarks included in a bill be disclosed fully in the bill's accompanying report, along with the name of the Member who requested the earmark and its essential governmental purpose.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Rules and Administration; never came to a vote.

Require Internet disclosure of all earmarks.

• Establishes a free public searchable website, listing all requests by Members of Congress for congressionally directed spending items (congressional earmarks).
• Requires each congressional committee, within five calendar days of receipt of a request for a congressional earmark from a Member of Congress, to provide the initial information regarding that request that is required to be placed on the website.
• Makes it out of order to consider any legislation unless it meets the requirements of this Act.

The website shall be comprised of a database including the following information, in searchable format, for each earmark:
1. The fiscal year in which the item would be funded.
2. The number of the bill or joint resolution for which the request is made, if available.
3. The amount of the initial request made by the Member of Congress.
4. The amount approved by the committee of jurisdiction.
5. The amount carried in the bill or joint resolution (or accompanying report) as passed.
6. The name of the department or agency, and the account or program, through which the item will be funded.
7. The name and the State or district of the Member of Congress who made the request.
8. The name and address of the intended recipient.
9. The type of organization (public, private nonprofit, or private for profit entity) of the intended recipient.
10. The project name, description, and estimated completion date.
11. A justification of the benefit to taxpayers.
12. Whether the request is for a continuing project and if so, when funds were first appropriated for such project.
13. A description, if applicable, of all non-Federal sources of funding.
14. Its current status in the legislative process

Matching fund for small donors, with debate requirements.

Congressional Summary:Fair Elections Now Act--Amends 1971 FECA with respect to:

• 500% matching payments to candidates for certain small dollar contributions;
• a public debate requirement;
• establishment of the Fair Elections Fund and of a Fair Elections Oversight Board;
• remission to the Fair Elections Fund of unspent funds after an election civil penalties for violation of contribution and expenditure requirements;
• Requires all designations, statements, and reports required to be filed under FECA to be filed directly with the FEC in electronic form accessible by computers.

Statement of support for corresponding Senate bill: (Sunlight Foundation) Now we bring you the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act, a bill that should probably be the least controversial of all. S. 375 would simply require senators and Senate candidates to file their public campaign finance disclosure reports electronically with the Federal Election Commission, the way House candidates and presidential candidates have been filing for over a decade. A version of the bill has been introduced during every congress starting in 2003 (!) yet it has been blocked repeatedly, a victim of political football.

Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., has introduced the most recent version, which would ensure that paper Senate campaign finance reports are a thing of the past. But even with 50 bipartisan cosponsors, the bill faces an uphill battle. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, has repeatedly prevented the bill from coming to the Senate floor. We won't be deterred--as long as McConnell continues to block the bill, we'll continue to highlight that his intransigence results in delayed disclosure of vital, public campaign finance information, not to mention wasting $500,000 in taxpayer money annually. Eventually, we'll win.

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?

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.

Restrict campaign donations from foreigners or 3rd parties.

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to increase the penalties imposed for making or accepting contributions in the name of another and to prohibit foreign nationals from making any campaign-related disbursements.

• Increase civil & criminal penalties for knowing and willful violations of the prohibition against making or accepting contributions in the name of another.
• Sets both civil and criminal fines at not less than 300% of the amount involved in the violation and not more than the greater of $50,000 or 1,000% of such amount.
• Mandates a criminal fine or two years' imprisonment, or both.
• Limits criminal penalties to violations involving an amount aggregating $1,000 or more during a calendar year.
• Changes from discretionary to mandatory the authority of the Federal Election Commission to refer to the Attorney General any instance of probable cause that a violation of such prohibition has occurred.
• Revises the current ban on contributions by foreign nationals to encompass all disbursements by foreign nationals, including any disbursement to a political committee of a political party and any disbursement for an independent expenditure.

Require all laws to cite Constitutional authorization.

A bill to require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws.

Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise explanation of the specific constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. The failure to comply with this section shall give rise to a point of order in either House of Congress. The availability of this point of order does not affect any other available relief.

Constitutional Authority for This Act: This Act proposes to establish new procedures by which legislation shall be considered by Congress and is enacted pursuant to the power granted Congress under article I, section 5, clause 2, of the United States Constitution establishing that each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.

Strict Constitutionalist, according to CC survey.

The Christian Coalition inferred whether candidates agree or disagree with the statement, 'Appointing Judges Who Will Adhere to a Strict Interpretation of the Constitution?' Self-description by Christian Coalition of America: "These guides help give voters a clear understanding of where candidates stand on important pro-family issues" for all Senate and Presidential candidates.

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)

Limit punitive damages; term limits on Congress.

[As part of the Contract with America, within 100 days we pledge to bring to the House Floor the following bills]:

The Common Sense Legal Reforms Act:
“Loser pays” laws, reasonable limits on punitive damages, and reform of product liability laws to stem the endless tide of litigation.

The Citizen Legislature Act:A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators.

Government is too big, too intrusive, too easy with money.

This year’s election offers the chance, after four decades of one-party control, to bring to the House a new majority that will transform the way Congress works. That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public’s money. It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family.

Like Lincoln, our first Republican president, we intend to act “with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right.” To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves.

On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:
1. Require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
2. Select a major independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud, and abuse;
3. Cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
4. Limit the terms of all committee chairs;
5. Ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
6. Require committee meetings to be open to the public;
7. Require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase
8. Guarantee an honest accounting of our federal budget by implementing zero baseline budgeting.

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.