CNN "State of the Union with Jake Tapper" - Transcript Interview with Tim Scott
Interview
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Joining me now, the author of the Senate Republican bill on policing reform, Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina. Senator Scott, always a pleasure. Thanks for joining us. We have a lot to get to. But first I do have to ask you --
SEN. TIM SCOTT (R-SC): Good morning, Jake. It's good to be back with you.
TAPPER: -- President Trump just retweeted a video -- President Trump just retweeted a video this morning featuring one of his apparent supporters shouting white power, take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: White power! White power!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There you go! White power! You hear that?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: What is your reaction to the president retweeting that?
SCOTT: Well, there is no question he should not have retweeted it. He should just take it down.
TAPPER: Does it offend you, though? I mean, it offends me and I'm white.
SCOTT: Well, listen, if you watch the entire video, you can't play it because it was profanity laced, the entire thing was offensive. Certainly the comment about the white power was offensive. There is no question. I mean, we could play politics with it or we can't. I'm not going to. I think it is indefensible. We should take it down. That's what I think.
TAPPER: Let's talk about policing reform which is something you put a lot of energy to in the last few weeks. House Democrats --
SCOTT: Yes.
TAPPER: -- passed a bill this week banning chokeholds at the federal level, ending qualified immunity. I know that you're disappointed that Senate Democrats blocked your policing reform legislation from even having a debate, but in order to get something passed, wouldn't a good next step be that the Senate takes up the House bill, go through the amendment process, make it better, so it can get passed, so that there is still a chance for policing reform?
SCOTT: Well, Jake, I think you asked a very important question. I look forward to answering that question very quickly here.
The first thing we need to realize about the House bill, is the House bill rejected all Republican amendments. They simply said that Republicans are not allowed to be a part of the process of getting the House bill together, and passing it, sending it to the Senate.
Our legislation, my legislation simply said, Democrats, I'll give you five amendments, 20 amendments, and managers amendment. They said, no thank you, no thank you, no thank you. So the facts are very simple, that in order for us to have a path forward, it requires the House and the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, to feel heard in the process.
I look forward to having a conversation later this week with some of the House leaders on the legislation because if there is a path forward, we should find it. But what we cannot do is eliminate Republicans in the House and have Democrats in the Senate say, I'm not interested in having a conversation about a bill that has so much in common, it is certainly a crying shame that the average person in this nation will not benefit from the parts of the bill that both sides agree upon, right now, and not having to wait until November to make it an election year issue. That's just unfortunate for kids walking the streets taking jobs, driving down the road. I want to help those kids.
I'm an African-American who had that experience, had that conversation on your show, so I look forward to having the conversation with my House colleagues that have been very serious and give Karen Bass a lot of credit, very serious about getting to a compromise. And I'll say, I spoke to her, last night, I spoke with her last week and we're going to get together this week and that's good because I'm serious about getting something done. But we cannot get something done if the Democrats in the Senate are more interested in presidential politics than they are getting something actually finished this year.
TAPPER: Let me ask you a question. One of the criticisms of your bill is that it didn't go far enough.
[09:50:03]
One of the criticisms from Democrats is it didn't go far enough. Police unions supported your bill, which some Democrats say is evidence, proof that it didn't go far enough. And there is indication that it could possibly -- there could have been some ground to move it.
Lindsey Graham said that he was willing to talk about qualified immunity, where you called qualified immunity -- I mean, removing that for police protections a poison pill. Do you think it's possible you could have pushed your Republican colleagues a little bit more and gotten a more aggressive bill?
SCOTT: Well, actually, that's what the amendment process is. You start in a position where you're willing to negotiate on what's in the best interest, not Republicans and Democrats, by the way, but of actual American citizens who feel like their lives are in jeopardy. That's what my bill wanted to confront. And that's what much of the House bill wanted to confront.
And so the question -- the answer to the question is, yes, without any question. We had an opportunity -- here's a classic example, Jake, the chokehold. The difference between their bill and my bill on the chokehold was the carotid. That is the primary -- the largest difference is whether or not the flow of air plus the flow of blood should be included in the definition.
I told the folks that I was negotiating with, I will accept that as an amendment and I'll offer it myself so that my 52 other Republicans will come along with me. They said no thanks. I said, wait a minute. Wait a minute. You mean to tell me you won't take your own definition as a way to improve the bill? They said no.
On the chokehold, the only thing they banned in the House are the federal agents. In my bill, ban the federal agents because local law enforcement must be under the supervision, first, of the city council. And they know that. I knew that. And that's one of the reasons why if you literally read the House bill, literally read the house bill, it does not ban chokeholds on the local level. There are penalties and so there are mine. My penalties just happen to be higher than the House penalties.
Jake, if we could do that on chokeholds can we do that on qualified immunity? I'm not going after character-driven law enforcement officers. I refuse to stereotype officers, especially as an African- American who has been stereotyped, but the bad officers, let's go full board after those folks. And we could have found the middle ground on that.
Now, here's where the actual difference is. The question is, what is the consequence of trying to demonize and stereotype all law enforcement? Well, New York City is starting to give us the answer. A 79 percent increase in murders over last year right now. A 64 percent increase --
TAPPER: Yes.
SCOTT: -- in shootings right now. A 34 percent increase in robberies. So, what I'm suggesting here is that when we continue to play politics, trying to get 100 percent of what one side says is right and I know only leads to more challenges in the streets of America. That's the place we should not go. That's where we are right now.
We're actually instead of getting 75 percent last week, we're at zero this week. And we'll head into the fourth of July with nothing done. And that is a shame.
TAPPER: Thank you so much, Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina. We really appreciate your time today.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source