Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, Defense, State, Foreign Operations, and Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act,

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, before I begin, I just want to comment on the Republican leader's remarks.

I listened to Leader McConnell's remarks about the appropriations process. He accused Democrats of wanting to provoke a partisan fight with the President rather than fund our military.

It was a bold accusation considering that it was the President and the Republican majority on the Appropriations Committee who proposed taking funding from the military to spend on the President's wall. That is what Democrats oppose. That is what Leader McConnell called staging a political fight.

Across the country we see communities, military bases, and people in the military saying: Taking away this money hurts us. All Democrats are asking for is to protect the troops from having their resources robbed for a border wall--resources that Congress said should go to the military. By the way, the President promised Mexico would pay for the wall. Let's not forget that.

In March, 12 Republicans voted with us to reject the President's proposal. That is a lot in a place where people fear the President and don't like to buck him. The real question is, Will the rest join us now? That is the issue. Background Checks

Mr. President, on guns and the tragedies that have occurred in the last 6 weeks, it has been over 6 weeks since President Trump, in the aftermath of two tragic mass shootings, signaled that he would be supportive of expanding background checks. It has been over 200 days-- 201, I believe--since the House of Representatives passed a bipartisan bill that would strengthen background checks in the most comprehensive way. Yet, despite those two facts, we still have no idea what policy President Trump might support.

Yesterday, at the request of Speaker Pelosi and me, we held a phone call with the President to urge him to support the bipartisan, House- passed universal background checks bill and to make that position public. We are certainly willing to discuss the finer points of legislation with our Republican colleagues, but we have made one thing clear to the President: The effectiveness of gun safety measures will be severely compromised if we allow the loopholes in our background check system to remain intact.

For example, it has been widely reported that the President is considering legislation dealing with Extreme Risk Protection Orders, ERPOs, as part of the response to last month's horrific shootings. I support ERPOs and believe they can be an important piece of a broader effort to prevent gun violence. But even if we pass a strong bill on ERPOs, someone prohibited from possessing a gun under an Extreme Risk Protection Order could still obtain a firearm by exploiting the gun show loophole and the online loophole.

Let's say a family member of John X. Smith says that he doesn't deserve to have a gun. They go through the proper procedure, and they say he can't have a gun or they take a gun that he has away from him. In the next minute, the same John X. Smith can go online and get a gun. There will be no check on him, so he will get it, or he can go to a gun show and do that.

Without background checks, these other things virtually become get- aroundable: A bad guy who shouldn't have a gun finds a way to get around them, taking advantage of the loopholes that now exist in the law.

We have to do background checks. That is at the base of all of this-- background checks that close all of the loopholes. Allowing law-abiding Americans to have guns, that is the Second Amendment. But saying that felons, those adjudicated mentally ill, and spousal abusers can't, everyone--90 percent of America--agrees with that.

In the wake of the torrent of mass shootings, in the wake of alarming rates of gun violence on a daily basis, our goal should not be to pass something just to pass something. We have a responsibility, bestowed upon us by the American people, to do something meaningful to address the epidemic of gun violence in our country, to save American lives, and to save as many lives as possible, the Senate must consider the bipartisan universal background checks bill.

This is a critical moment for President Trump and for the Nation. The President can provide the kind of leadership on this issue that his party has lacked for decades. He can break the vice grip the NRA has held by congressional Republicans by supporting a policy that well over 90 percent of all Americans already support. Such a commitment would undeniably be popular; it would be historic; and, most important, it would save countless lives.

Speaker Pelosi and I told the President that if he endorsed this legislation and got Leader McConnell to act on it, we would be happy to join him in the Rose Garden for the signing ceremony.

On the other hand, the President could cave to the NRA yet again this week and announce he is supporting only the kinds of policies that will not offend them--policies that will not make a real dent in the problem.

The American people have waited long enough for Congress to do something about the decades-long nightmare of gun violence that seems to get worse and worse. The President can choose, this week, to help break the deadlock--the courageous and correct move--or he can slink away and perpetuate the status quo. China Telecom

Mr. President, on another issue, China telecom, I have spent a lot of time on the Senate floor talking about the Chinese telecom giant Huawei and the threat it poses to our national and economic security. This afternoon, I want to inform my colleagues about similar concerns I have about two other major Chinese companies: China Telecom and China Unicom. Alongside China Mobile, these three companies are the big three of China's government-owned and government-controlled telecommunications network.

Earlier this year, the FCC rejected an application by China Mobile to operate in the United States on national security grounds. The Commission issued a 200-page opinion outlining the various security risks of a state-owned Chinese company operating on U.S. networks. That made sense. But at the same time, it turns out that both China Telecom and China Unicom, the other two major Chinese telecom giants, were granted authorization to operate in the United States in the early 2000s. So today, Senator Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, and I, a Democrat from New York, are sending a letter to the FCC, urging them to review and, if warranted, revoke those authorizations on national security grounds. If China Mobile shouldn't operate here, it seems that neither should China Telecom and China Unicom.

These approvals were issued well over 15 years ago, before the Department of Homeland Security even existed. In that same time, the national security environment has changed dramatically. The Chinese Government has conducted a vicious and predatory campaign of cyber hostilities all over the world, including intrusions and hacks of prominent American companies and American institutions. The facts that these two telecom companies are controlled by the Chinese Communist Party and have access to our networks seem to be very serious problems. At the very least, the FCC should open a proceeding to review these companies and, if necessary, revoke their access.

Senator Cotton and I, as everyone in this Chamber knows, don't see eye to eye on many issues, but on this one we are in complete agreement. We must be really careful about the national security risks posed by China's key telecom companies.

I think Senator Cotton would also agree with the larger point I have been making for months about U.S. access to China's markets. If China doesn't let American businesses compete fairly in its markets, why should we let Chinese companies compete in ours?

Reciprocity is the real answer to the dilemma of China not being fair to us. They don't let our top-notch companies in or let them in under such restraints that many of them don't want to come in or can't operate effectively or have to surrender their family jewels, their intellectual property, to Chinese companies.

If that is the case, and it is, why do we just let any Chinese company come in here, particularly when they might be a real national security risk? China's telecom companies have 10 ``points of presence'' in North American networks. Do you know how many American companies have the same in China? Zero. China Telecom gets access to our networks, but T-Mobile or any other American telecom company can't operate in China. Enough of that. Enough of that. Enough of China trying to take advantage of us. We sort of sit there and do not do anything to protect our workers, our wealth, and the great kinds of ideas Americans come up with in terms of intellectual property.

This isn't just a question of fairness. It is a question of which nation will lead the world in these industries in the coming decades, creating jobs and wealth. I want America to lead. Our businesses need to be able to compete equally and fairly. I am confident, if there were a level playing field, America would prevail, and we would stay the leading economy in the world. If we continue to let China take advantage of us while we sit there with our hands folded, woe is us-- and particularly for our children and our grandchildren.

I conclude by reminding the Trump administration that in the ongoing trade negotiations with Beijing, where the President has been tougher on China than either of the previous two administrations--and that is a good thing--the topic of reciprocity and fair market access should be front and center, and we shouldn't give in until we are treated fairly.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source