Executive Session

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, first, I thank my colleague. I was asked by my colleague from North Carolina if I would agree with his remarks, and he said he thought so. I definitely do. I think Erdogan is doing very bad things to the Turkish people, to our NATO alliance in the Middle East. He has had a vehemently anti-Israel position. To allow him to get away with all of this stuff without putting maximum pressure on him makes no sense. So I thank my colleague from North Carolina. National Defense Authorization Bill

Madam President, on other subjects, later today the Senate will move to the consideration of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act. The annual Defense authorization is something our friend Senator McCain cares deeply about and has talked to me about regularly, and we wish he were here to shepherd it on the floor as we have seen him do many times before.

It is important that we get this done for our military, for our broader national security, for Senator McCain, and to ensure that this critical authorization bill moves forward on a steady track. Any time we say the name or see the name written, ``John S. McCain,'' our hearts go pitter-patter a little bit, and we pray for his speedy recovery.

The NDAA is an opportunity to revise and improve our national security to meet the evolving threats of a world that is changing so very fast. I just want to highlight a few provisions in the bill that are important.

Just this morning, Secretary Ross announced that the Trump administration will relax penalties on Chinese telecom giant ZTE. Instead of permanently crippling ZTE, the administration will settle for a smaller fine than the company paid in 2017 and a reorganization of the company's board. It is essentially a slap on the wrist.

As a reminder, ZTE has been a threat to our national security, and that was stated by the Republican-led FCC, Republican-led FBI, and Republican-led Pentagon. This is not a partisan issue. ZTE was guilty not only of evading U.S. sanctions but lying to U.S. officials about it afterward. ZTE has been deemed such a threat to our telecommunications networks that the FCC recommended forbidding the sale of any ZTE products in the United States.

But, inexplicably, President Trump, after talking tough, did a total reversal. Once again, it seems President Xi has outfoxed President Trump. There is absolutely no good reason that ZTE should get a second chance, but with this deal, the President has inexplicably thrown him a lifeline. President Xi must be laughing all the way to the forbidden palace. He has once again taken advantage of President Trump on an issue vital to our security.

Many believe ZTE could be a mechanism for spying on our military and on lots of different parts of the United States. China has shown no reluctance to do that in the past, and we are just rolling over for no reason, having gotten nothing in return. This is a serious mistake, a 180-degree turn away from the President's promise to be tough on China. Donald Trump should be aiming his trade fire at China, but instead he inexplicably aims it at allies, such as Canada and Europe. When it comes to China, despite his tough talk, this deal with ZTE proves that President Trump just shoots blanks. This guy--the art of the deal? He has gotten taken to the cleaners by President Xi, and the rest of the world is probably laughing at him.

We cannot allow the damage from this action by Secretary Ross to stay. We must undo it. It will be up to Congress to reverse this deal if the President goes forward with it, which he has announced this morning he will.

The Banking Committee already adopted an amendment that would prohibit the administration from weakening sanctions against the Chinese telecoms, including ZTE; however, the President has rushed to undo the sanctions before that bill could pass, so it won't affect ZTE because the sanctions have just been lifted by the administration.

Now that the President has rushed to give this company relief, we will offer a bipartisan amendment, led by Senators Cotton and Van Hollen, that retroactively imposes the sanctions originally leveled against ZTE, reversing the consent agreement signed this morning. This is a bipartisan bill. Senator Cotton and Senator Van Hollen don't agree on much, but thank God, when it comes to national security, they are agreeing. This Chamber should overwhelmingly vote for the Cotton-Van Hollen amendment, which I am proud to cosponsor, as I believe Senator Cornyn and others on the other side will do. We must do that. We hope Leader McConnell will allow a vote or, at minimum, put it in the managers' package. We cannot move forward with this danger to national security without doing something about ZTE.

There is also a provision in the Defense bill to expand the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, known as CFIUS, so that the board can review minority-position investments and joint ventures in critical technology and infrastructure companies.

Too often, foreign companies--usually Chinese--backed by some hostile foreign governments--usually the Chinese Government--and they are hostile to us economically, make no mistake about it. That word is not too strong. They try to gain controlling or minority positions in critical American technology companies to pilfer their intellectual property and reproduce it in their own countries. They don't allow us to sell the goods; they instead buy minority interests in American companies, learn how to do it, produce it in China, and then undercut us and sell it here. No wonder we lose millions of jobs to China.

This must be stopped. Because these foreign companies go to great lengths to avoid a CFIUS review and sneak in under the radar, we ought to widen the scope of cases that CFIUS can look at, better protecting our national security and our economic security, and the Defense bill, fortunately, is the first opportunity to do that.

Now back to ZTE, the ZTE example is perhaps the best example of how this administration's trade policies are in shambles. The President has talked tough on China. President Trump and I agree very strongly--or we had agreed. I don't know where he is now, but in the past, we have agreed. We just had a conversation a few weeks ago about the need to combat China's rapacious trade practices. Initially, I was hopeful the President would follow through. He seemed to do this out of conviction. But it seems that even though President Trump roars like a lion on China, he behaves like a lamb. Instead of ramping up pressure on China, he tells them he is weak. He tells them he will back off. He tells them he is not for real. President Trump has directed far too much of the administration's energies on trade toward punishing allies such as Canada and Europe instead of focusing on the real menace, the No. 1 menace--China.

So if President Trump is listening this morning, I tell him: Be strong on China. Don't trade away our leverage for anything short of real concessions on intellectual property theft and market access--the two things that most threaten our long-term economic standing, that most threaten the American economy, the American worker, and American jobs. Emoluments Clause

Now on another matter, Madam President, today the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia will hear oral arguments in a case concerning the potential violation of the emoluments clause by the President of the United States--none other than the President of the United States violating this clause. The emoluments clause of the Constitution of the United States--written over 200 years ago into the Constitution by our Founding Fathers--prohibits any member of our government from profiting from their office, accepting any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign state.

The reason for the emoluments clause is plain: The Framers were worried that members of our government could be co-opted or influenced by the bribery of foreign capitals and thus prohibited even the potential for self-enrichment. They knew then what we know now: We don't want double-dealing by our elected officials, and when they have private interests, you never know--are they acting in what they believe is the national interests or what will help make them a profit?

With President Trump, we sincerely hope that no such self-enrichment is going on, but it remains a great concern to millions of Americans that President Trump has maintained a stake in vast business empire holdings all over the world. President Trump continues to profit from these holdings while he refuses to divest--an appalling departure from well-established practices of past Presidents. It shows a degree of selfishness that we haven't seen in Presidents. The President still refuses to disclose his tax returns and the precise extent of his foreign holdings--another radical and disturbing departure from past Presidents. This President acts like he is in the swamp, not like he is cleaning it up.

The President's actions certainly present the possibility of exposure to violation of the emoluments clause, so I believe it is a good thing that the courts are looking at this issue and taking it seriously. That is what our Constitution says they should do. It is a good thing the courts are taking it seriously. We cannot afford to have the Office of the Presidency of the United States corrupted for narrow, selfish means.

President Trump could easily--if you want to be President, you give up all the stuff you own. Every President has done it. There are blind trusts. There are all kinds of ways to do it. But this President seems to think he is measured by a different standard than anyone else. Everyone else makes their tax returns public; he does not. Everyone else divests themselves of any interest in foreign business to avoid even the appearance of conflict; he does not. It is a double standard.

When the President says he wants to clean up the swamp when he goes to his rallies and gets cheered, what are those people cheering for? He has made the swamp worse than any President I know. Pardon Power

In other news, Madam President, we have learned that the President is very keen on his pardon power. The President went so far as to tweet earlier this week that he believes he has the absolute right--his words--to pardon himself.

Let me remind President Trump of a very simple fact: President Trump, you do not have the right to pardon yourself. No one--no one--in America is above the law, not even the President--especially the President. If the President did have the right to pardon himself, he could engage in blatant corruption and self-dealing without consequence. The President could violate the emoluments clause, for example, and simply exonerate himself for taking bribes from foreign interests. Surely that is not what our Framers intended. It would turn the Presidency into a farce and render American democracy greatly defunct.

When the President says and tweets things like this, we have to be very clear about how wrong he is. We cannot allow the morality of this government, the shining example the Founding Fathers put together, to just recede. President Trump is doing that on almost a daily basis, and we need not just Democrats, we need Republicans and Independents to stand up when he says things like that.

I was glad to hear that a number of my Republican colleagues said he doesn't have the power to pardon himself. I was proud of Senator Grassley, who always speaks his mind--sometimes I like it, sometimes I don't, but he always speaks his mind--who talked about how wrong it was for the President to say he could pardon himself.

The idea that the President could pardon anyone, anytime, himself included, is antithetical to the very idea of a democracy.

President Trump, you are not King by another name.

I hope the President will focus instead on the Nation's business in the months ahead.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source