National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019--Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this week the Senate continues its consideration of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act. Among important provisions related to our military readiness and operations abroad, the NDAA presents crucial opportunities to address other matters of national security.

In addition to the critical improvements to CFIUS we must make in this bill, one of the most concerning issues is the decision by the Trump administration last week to reduce the harsh penalties previously imposed and then to provide relief to the Chinese telecom giant ZTE, lifting restrictions on the company and allowing it to continue to sell its products in the United States. ZTE was guilty of evading U.S. sanctions on Iran and North Korea and then lying to U.S. officials about it afterward.

Asked about the decision to relax penalties, President Trump's trade adviser, Peter Navarro, said: ``It's going to be three strikes you're out on ZTE.'' Why are we giving ZTE three strikes? If you purposely evade U.S. sanctions and then lie about it, that is reason enough to bring the hammer down and leave it there. I have another expression for the Trump Administration: ``Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.''

It seems the administration was outmaneuvered by the Chinese on ZTE once again. Congress should reverse what the administration has done by reinstituting the hard penalties on ZTE, and we should do it on the NDAA bill that will be on the floor this week.

You might ask: Why is this related to defense? This is the Defense bill.

It is precisely related. Cyber security experts, national security experts, principal government agencies, the Republican-led FCC, the Republican-led FBI, and the Republican-led Pentagon have all deemed the sale of ZTE products in the United States a national security threat. Even if they hadn't violated sanctions and even if they hadn't lied about it, they shouldn't be here. This gives the Chinese Government-- which in many ways takes advantage of the United States militarily and economically and is spying on us by cyber warfare--a great opportunity to get right inside all of our communications.

This is what Director Christopher Wray, appointed by President Trump, had to say:

We're deeply concerned about the risks of allowing any company or entity that is beholden to foreign governments . . . to gain positions of power inside our telecommunications networks. That provides the capacity to exert pressure or control over our telecommunications infrastructure. It provides the capacity to maliciously modify or steal information. And it provides the capacity to conduct undetected espionage.

``Undetected espionage,'' the head of the FBI says, is what allowing ZTE in America will do. That is the Nation's chief law enforcement official--a Republican, appointed by President Trump--testifying that ZTE's technology is an espionage risk. What the heck are we doing cutting a deal with China--which is no friend of ours on economics and is stealing our jobs, stealing our intellectual property--letting them into the United States so they can have a window on hearing what our companies, our Defense Department, and everyone else are doing?

Does that make any sense? I don't think so. That is why we have had bipartisan support and concern. I want to salute Senator Cornyn, Senator Rubio, and Senator Cotton. Their views and mine are not the same on a whole lot of issues, but on America's security and letting China spy on us, we are the same.

I urge the Republican leader and the leaders of the bill to include a bipartisan amendment, offered by Senators Cotton and Van Hollen, to reverse the agreement made by the administration and prevent it from being able to provide ZTE relief for at least a year. We have to do this.

God forbid that this country declines, and if they write a book on it, this will be one of the key points. We have a chance to stand up to China, to protect our national security, and to tell the Chinese that they can't keep taking advantage of us, and we are going to back off, for no stated good reason, because, clearly, Secretary Ross has said the deal he has put in is a good one. Forget about it. It is as weak as a wet noodle--fining them $1 billion. They don't care. They are backed by the Chinese Government. Putting some outside observers on the board--come on. They will not know what is going on because the Chinese Government controls just about all the big companies in China. So I hope we will stop this. Nominations of Thomas Farr and Ryan Bounds

Mr. President, alongside the consideration of the NDAA, we are told that the majority intends to see the confirmation of more judicial nominations during this work period. In the next few weeks, the Senate is likely to take up two highly controversial nominees: Thomas Farr, for the Eastern District of North Carolina, and Ryan Bounds, for a Ninth Circuit seat in Oregon.

Thomas Farr has spent a lengthy legal career defending the interests of corporations against workers. That seems to be a trademark of so many of the nominees of this administration and this Republican Senate. He has not once but twice defended the gerrymandering of congressional districts by North Carolina's Republicans, and probably worst of all, he defended North Carolina's restrictive voter ID law, which ``targeted African Americans with almost surgical precision.'' That is not some politician's words. Those are the judges of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, a rather conservative court. For somebody to target African- Americans and say, ``let's make it less likely they vote and give them less power,'' is such a grand step backward in this country, no matter what State you come from-- North Carolina, New York, Oregon. And we are going put this guy on the bench? Shame on us. Shame on us.

By the way, the only reason Farr can be considered for this nomination is that an Obama nominee, Jennifer May-Parker, was blocked for nearly 3 years via the blue slip. Our Republican friends used the blue slip and kept this seat vacant, and now they have undone the blue slip in an act of partisanship, narrowness, and enmity in this country, and now they are going to fill it with someone like Mr. Farr--again, shame.

Like Mr. Farr, Mr. Bounds is also controversial. Recently, we learned that Mr. Bounds had some rather offensive writings that he failed to disclose to the bipartisan Judicial Advisory Committee established by Senators Wyden and Merkley. That certainly validates their decision to withhold the blue slip. Despite the opposition of both home State Senators, the majority is moving forward. In doing so, they will further erode the century-old blue slip tradition that they themselves used to block an unprecedented number of nominees when Obama was President. Net Neutrality

Mr. President, on another matter, the Republican-led FCC's repeal of net neutrality goes into effect today. The rules enacted by the Obama administration to bar large internet service providers from charging customers more for certain content are gone. The rules to bar large internet providers from slowing down certain websites are gone. The rules ensuring an open and free internet with a level playing field for small businesses, public schools, rural Americans, people without a lot of money, and communities of color are gone.

Democrats tried to forestall this day by writing and then passing a CRA Act resolution through the Senate. It is bipartisan; some Republicans helped us. It couldn't have passed without them. Then, as a unified Senate caucus, Democrats sent a letter last week urging Speaker Ryan to schedule a vote, which I believe would have passed had it been put on the floor of the House of Representatives. Ryan refused to bring up the companion legislation to restore net neutrality. Once again, our Republican friends in the Senate, the House, and the administration have done it over and over, siding with the big, powerful special interests--in this case, internet service providers--over the average person, who is sort of powerless. How many of us rail against our cable bills? How many of us feel helpless when it comes to getting that cable bill? This increases the power of the same people.

Do our Republican friends really want to do that? I guess so. Let me put it this way. By refusing to bring up the Senate-passed resolution to restore net neutrality, House Republican leaders gave a green light to the big internet service providers to charge middle-class Americans, small business owners, schools, rural Americans, poorer people, and communities of color more than they did before.

With the exception of three brave Republicans in the Senate, it should be crystal clear to the American people that Republicans in Congress chose to protect special interests. Healthcare

Mr. President, finally, I wish to address a bit of news on healthcare. On Thursday evening, the Trump Administration made a startling announcement: It would no longer defend the constitutionality of protection for Americans with preexisting conditions. This decision is a shameful capstone in the Trump administration's yearlong sabotaging our Nation's healthcare system. It is the most dangerous, most potent example of sabotage to date, even as premium increases hit double digits in State after State because of Republican actions. If the Trump administration gets its way, our entire healthcare system will be thrown into chaos.

A mom goes to a health insurance company: My daughter has cancer.

We are not going to fund you.

She goes to another one.

We are not going to fund you.

The mother suffered. The family suffered. Their child is agonizing, dying of cancer, and they can't get insurance now because the Trump administration is no longer saying that we are going to protect people who apply with preexisting conditions.

What is going on here? What is going on? And our Republican friends do nothing. The one thing I can tell you is that healthcare is going to be the biggest issue in 2018. It is far more important to the vast majority of Americans than any other issue. It is far more important than the tax cut they get, because for most Americans whatever they got back in tax cuts--for many, many Americans, and my guess is most--is a lot less than the amount their premiums are increasing. It is a killer for small businesses and others who want to insure their workers.

President Trump, when he ran, explicitly and repeatedly said that he was going to protect folks with preexisting conditions. He has once again undone what he has promised. He has dropped the ball on healthcare, letting middle-class Americans, average Americans, and working families pay an awful price.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source