Contact FreedomWorks
400 Capitol Street, NW
Suite 765
Washington, DC 20001
Toll Free 1.888.564.6273
Local 202.783.3870
As Professor Turley noted in his written testimony to the House Judiciary Committee, “[T]he problem with the abuse of power allegation is its lack of foundation.” President Trump denied on multiple occasions that there was any quid pro quo tying the aid to Ukraine to investigations. The most notable claim that there was a quid pro quo comes from a former national security adviser who was relieved of his duties in a very public manner and is seeking to cash in on his time in the White House through a book deal.
In addition to the charge of “abuse of power,” charge of “obstruction of Congress” rings hollow, too. House Democrats had not exhausted all legal mechanisms to compel testimony. House Democrats complain that federal courts would have taken too long to solve the disputes over subpoenas, yet they took 29 days to appoint impeachment managers and transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Even if federal courts took months, or even years, to settle the legal disputes, with a presidential election on the horizon, the electorate would have had the final word.
This Democrat-only Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution would undo updated borrower defense regulations that will be a marked improvement over the existing set of regulations that were issued under President Obama. The revised borrower defense regulations set to go into effect in July 2020 are the result of more than two years of deliberations and significant input from the public and from higher education stakeholders, following years of broad relief granted to groups under the existing regulations. As such, fortunately, the new regulations address many of the flaws of the existing structure of borrower defense.
Acting EPA Administration Andrew Wheeler has done a phenomenal job balancing protecting the environment and abiding by his constitutional obligations, all while preserving free market principles He will no doubt add to that legacy as full-time Administrator. Acting Administrator Wheeler recognizes that Washington bureaucrats do not know what’s best for America’s businesses, and does not try to run their companies. Instead, he gives the private sector the flexibility it needs to efficiently lower emissions and find the most cost-effective way to help the environment. He also understands that property rights are fundamental to our liberty and that government agencies have no business regulating our backyards.
As the administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Neomi Rao was charged with overseeing the implementation of government policies and reviewing draft regulations. This experience makes her uniquely qualified to assess the constitutionality of government regulations. Rao also founded the Center for the Study of the Administrative State at the Antonin Scalia Law School. There is perhaps no judicial nominee better positioned to reign in the excesses of the federal bureaucracy. Given this history, Neomi Rao is a fantastic pick and will carry on Brett Kavanaugh’s legacy on the D.C. Circuit of reigning in the excesses of the administrative state. She was already leading the way on regulatory reform as the head of OIRA facilitating billions in reduced regulatory economic burdens over the last two years. Now she has the opportunity to do so from the bench and set precedents that cannot be easily undone by future administrations.
The “Green New Deal” resolution seeks to transition America’s mostly free market economy into a socialist economy, bordering on full-fledged communism. The so-called “Green New Deal” is not grounded in any sense of reality. By one unofficial estimate, the resolution’s goals of government-run healthcare, a complete transition to renewable energy, “free” college for all, and universal basic income would cost $6.6 trillion annually, or 31 percent of projected gross domestic product (GDP) for 2019. To put this into perspective, the Congressional Budget Office projects that federal spending in 2019 will total $4.4 trillion, or 20.8 percent of GDP. This unofficial estimate does not include retrofitting or rebuilding every single building in the United States, a high-speed rail system that promises to make air travel unnecessary while ignoring the existence of oceans (sorry, Hawaii), increased subsidies for electric vehicles -- which currently draw their power from a grid fueled predominantly by a combination of coal, natural gas, and oil-fired electric power plants -- to replace all of the gas-fueled vehicles currently on the road, or any of the other unicorns promised to come down this socialist rainbow.
The Lee amendment would authorize $10.18 billion for the VCF over the next ten years (through 2029), which is the amount that the Congressional Budget Office has estimated is necessary for that time period. From 2030 through 2092, the Lee amendment would authorize another $10 billion for claims. This simple appropriation of funds would prevent the bill from, as written currently, giving a government program a completely blank check from Congress.
The Paul amendment would further the fiscal responsibility in the Lee amendment by requiring that the reauthorization of the VCF does not add new debt. “Any new spending that we are approaching, any new program that's going to have the longevity of 70, 80 years, should be offset by cutting spending that's less valuable," Sen. Paul said on the Senate floor.
Scalia is clearly a knowledgeable and highly qualified pick, having previously been appointed as the Department of Labor’s solicitor under President George W. Bush. He has since enjoyed a successful career as a lawyer on labor and employment issues. During his legal career, Scalia has been successful in pushing back against federal overreaches into workplace regulation. Such a voice at the Department of Labor will be valuable in ensuring that its mission to protect workers does not further spill over into unnecessary, job-killing red tape.
Introduced by Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), S.J.Res. 52 targets guidance issued by the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Health and Human Services that made it easier for states to get “state innovation waivers” under Section 1332 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Trump administration has taken regulatory steps to provide more affordable private health insurance options through association health plans and short-term, limited-duration plans. In October 2018, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued guidance that further eases the process of applying for and receiving a waiver. The October 2018 guidance focuses on the coverage that is made available on the exchanges by health insurance companies rather than what consumers had purchased. States must still meet statutory requirements to be eligible for a waiver, but the guidance explains that the comprehensiveness and affordability requirement may be considered met “if access to coverage that is as affordable and comprehensive as coverage forecasted to have been available in the absence of the waiver is projected to be available to a comparable number of people under the waiver.” If an individual decides to purchase a more affordable, less comprehensive plan, the comprehensiveness and affordability requirement under Section 1332 will be met because there will be more comprehensive offerings on the exchanged that they could have opted to purchase. The guidance issued by the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Health and Human Services is not a cure-all for the issues that America’s health insurance system faces. Much more has to be done to address these issues, particularly through the legislative process. Unfortunately, congressional Democrats aren’t interested in solutions; many want more government involvement and the elimination of private health insurance.
The REINS Act would require congressional approval for economically significant rules promulgated by federal regulatory agencies. Under the REINS Act, the House and Senate would have to vote on a proposed rule and the president would have to sign it before enforcement of the rule can begin. The bill would give Congress 70 days to pass a resolution to approve a rule. If a resolution is not passed, the rule cannot take effect. Should Leader McConnell bring this bill to the floor, FreedomWorks will substitute the cosponsor key vote for the roll call vote.
Between his time as an aviator in the United States Navy, his firsthand experience serving as the executive director of the Tulsa Air and Space Museum and Planetarium, and his work in Congress, Bridenstine is extraordinarily qualified for the role of NASA administrator. In this role at NASA, Bridenstine will have the ability to bring much-needed reform to the agency, implementing the same principles of free markets and government efficiency that he tirelessly fought for in Congress. Serving on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Bridenstine became a champion of issues pertaining to air and space exploration.
The passage of this CRA would do nothing to change the prohibition against discrimination in the Equal Credit Opportunity Act that the guidance cites. It would simply roll back the gross regulatory overreach of the CFPB in claiming for itself -- behind closed doors and a screen of smoke -- a power that Congress, in the law that created the CFPB, explicitly banned the CFPB from having. As Sen. Moran said, the CFPB “had to work its magic to find a way to regulate auto dealers.” Good governing is done through accountable and transparent processes, not magic.
S.J.Res. 52 would undo the Restoring Internet Freedom Order and reinstate the Obama administration’s Internet red tape. This will hurt tech companies, as well as consumers. Internet access is becoming vital to commerce, and many Americans still lack connectivity. In order to get service to these most vulnerable parts of the country, we need an Internet free of the meddling hand of government, so it can innovate and expand as it did for so many years before the Obama-era regulations took effect.
S.J.Res. 52 would undo the Restoring Internet Freedom Order and reinstate the Obama administration’s Internet red tape. This will hurt tech companies, as well as consumers. Internet access is becoming vital to commerce, and many Americans still lack connectivity. In order to get service to these most vulnerable parts of the country, we need an Internet free of the meddling hand of government, so it can innovate and expand as it did for so many years before the Obama-era regulations took effect.
Sen. Toomey’s amendment would apply the principles of the REINS Act to CFIUS to make sure Congress has a final say on these regulations. This will mean that only regulations that try to address truly predatory behavior will pass, while those that are unnecessary and anti-market will be stopped from taking effect. This was the intent of Congress when it authorized CFIUS and it should not abandon its ability to set policy in this way. Sen. Toomey’s amendment gives Congress this oversight.
Approving this initial $15 billion rescissions request in full -- pulling back funds sitting in useless accounts that can only otherwise be used to spend more in the future -- is a task that conservatives in Congress should wholeheartedly endorse. It is one of few opportunities to exercise any semblance of fiscal discipline. It is only one small step towards actually tackling Washington’s out-of-control spending addiction, but it represents a chance to begin this fight.
This amendment would add work requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps. The Senate stripped out this pro-work provision from their version of the Farm Bill. Work requirements are important for helping people rise out of welfare and becoming independent of government assistance. A vote to table the Lee-Cruz Amendment would prevent them from being added back in to the Senate text.
This amendment would prohibit funds from being used to carry out the District of Columbia’s recently-passed Health Insurance Requirement Act. The D.C. mandate states that a “taxpayer who fails to pay the District of Columbia shared responsibility payment imposed...shall be subject to all collection, enforcement, and administrative provisions applicable to unpaid taxes or fees, as provided in Chapter 18, Chapter 41, Chapter 42, Chapter 43, and Chapter 44 of this title.” When dissected fully, this includes levying and seizing property, or even imprisoning individuals for choosing not to purchase health insurance.
When it comes more broadly to the rampant expansion of the unconstitutional regulatory state, Judge Kavanaugh is perhaps second to none in standing up for the Constitution. According to Kavanaugh, if Congress hasn’t yet opined on a matter of deep economic significance, any regulation relating to that matter should be presumed unconstitutional. He recognizes that lawmaking, under Article I of the Constitution, was delegated to Congress, not unelected executive branch bureaucrats.
When it comes more broadly to the rampant expansion of the unconstitutional regulatory state, Judge Kavanaugh is perhaps second to none in standing up for the Constitution. According to Kavanaugh, if Congress hasn’t yet opined on a matter of deep economic significance, any regulation relating to that matter should be presumed unconstitutional. He recognizes that lawmaking, under Article I of the Constitution, was delegated to Congress, not unelected executive branch bureaucrats.
The First Step Act would reform the federal criminal justice system to make our communities safer by reducing crime and focusing limited resources on the most dangerous offenders. By increasing access to and instituting incentives for inmate participation in recidivism reduction programming and by modestly modifying some sentencing laws, the First Step Act would provide much-needed changes to the federal criminal justice system. The bill would reform four areas of sentencing law by reforming 18 U.S.C. 924(c) stacking to clarify that enhancements for second and subsequent offenses are used only on those who are true recidivists, by tailoring 21 U.S.C. 841 to modify mandatory minimum sentence enhancements and those who they may apply to, by applying the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 retroactively, and by expanding the existing federal safety valve for judges sentencing individuals with little to no criminal history.