Motion to Discharge--S.J. Res. 54

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. Let me thank Senator Van Hollen for his leadership on this issue, as well as Senators Murphy, Kaine, Merkley, and Schatz, who are leading the effort to make sure that we pass these joint resolutions of disapproval.

Joint resolutions of disapproval are about denying military assistance to countries that break U.S. and international law. That is all they are about: Respect the law; don't break the law.

These resolutions before us today would prevent multibillion-dollar arm sales to both the UAE and Qatar, precisely because both of these countries have violated U.S. and international law, and allowing these sales to go forward would be a dereliction in the duties of the U.S. Senate.

Let me take a moment to say a few words about these countries-- countries that would receive billions of dollars in military aid. As it happens, both of these countries have strongly authoritarian, anti- democratic governments that repress any forms of dissent.

We talk a lot about protests here in the United States. Well, they don't have protests in Qatar. They don't have protests in the UAE. You protest; you go to jail.

These are countries that exploit migrant labor, and these are countries that treat women as third-class citizens.

In the UAE and Qatar, where the ruling families are worth many hundreds of billions of dollars, there are no elections, there is no freedom of the press, and there is no freedom of speech. The ruling families of both of these countries are among the wealthiest and most powerful oligarchs in the entire world.

In the UAE's case, in recent years, they have provided extensive military assistance to the so-called Rapid Support Forces in Sudan, or the RSF. This paramilitary group started the bloody civil war in that country and is responsible for numerous horrific atrocities that, among other things, have contributed to the famine and starvation that is currently taking place in that country.

In January, the U.S. State Department concluded that the RSF, supported by the UAE--the country that would get weapons, if we are not successful in opposing that--has committed ethnic cleansing. I am not quite sure why we would support arms to a country involved in ethnic cleansing.

Clearly, the actions of the UAE are in violation of U.S. and international law. There is no reason, therefore, that we should be providing billions more in arms sales to this country.

The other arms sale we are objecting to today would go to Qatar, a country which has also broken U.S. and international law.

Qatar has channeled hundreds of millions of dollars into a wide variety of political organizations in the Middle East, including the Hamas terrorist organization. And I have no understanding as to why anybody in the U.S. Senate would be voting to support a nation-- providing military aid to a nation--that has provided financial assistance to Hamas.

And while Qatar deserves credit for attempting to facilitate a cease- fire in Gaza, it should also be noted that the political leaders of Hamas have resided in Qatar for many years.

But there is another very serious problem regarding military aid to both Qatar and the UAE. Both of these countries, in a variety of ways, have attempted to corrupt our political system and the President of the United States in violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution and U.S. anti-corruption laws.

I find it interesting, as I am sure millions of Americans do, that President Trump's first major foreign policy trip was not to Europe to reaffirm our longstanding alliances with other democratic countries. It was not to visit our neighbors in Canada or Mexico. No, instead, he chose, on his very first foreign trip, to go to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE.

Now, why was that? Why would the President of the United States go to visit countries that are run by oligarchs, that are strongly anti- democratic and oppress the rights of women?

They are kind of funny places for a President--the so-called leader of the free world--to visit on his first foreign policy trip.

Well, I think we now know the answer to that question. Trump went for the money and to secure business deals for himself, his family, and his cronies.

Shortly before Trump's visit to the Gulf, an investment firm owned by the UAE announced that it would use the so-called stablecoin issued by World Liberty Financial to facilitate a $2 billion cryptocurrency deal. World Liberty Financial just happens to be 60 percent owned by Trump and his family. So by making this deal, the UAE was effectively giving the Trump family $2 billion in cash to invest as it wishes and keep the proceeds.

Even conservative estimates of such a sum would generate somewhere around $85 million in profit a year for the Trump family. Think about that. The UAE is directly giving the Trump family some $85 million a year.

Now, what did the UAE get in return? They don't give away $85 million for nothing.

In Qatar's case, that government announced, during Trump's visit, that they would give him a $400 million luxury jet for use as Air Force One, which he plans to keep for personal use after he leaves office.

Necessary security and communications updates will cost the taxpayers of our country millions of dollars and take several years. So if this plane is actually ever used by the U.S. Government, it will only be for a year or two. But that is really not Donald Trump's concern because he gets to keep this flying palace--this $400 million plane--for use for himself and his family forever--not a bad gift, a $400 million plane.

Once again, it is pretty obvious what Trump gets from this deal. It is not quite so clear how the American people benefit.

Qatar also announced that it was just, coincidentally, financing a $5.5 billion Trump-branded golf course and invested another billion dollars in Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner's company, just for good measure.

Now, what are these authoritarian governments getting in return for the many hundreds of millions of dollars they are funneling to Trump and his family?

Well, it could be the arms sales we are talking about today. It could be other policy priorities of these governments.

For example, just 10 days after the UAE crypto deal with Trump, he lifted restrictions on the export of advance AI microchips to the UAE, which had previously been limited over security concerns. That delivered on a longstanding UAE priority worth billions of dollars to its leaders.

But the deeper truth is we really don't know what these authoritarian foreign powers are getting for their bribes. But we shouldn't have to be asking these questions. This is precisely why the Constitution of the United States and U.S. law make it illegal for Presidents to accept gifts from foreign powers.

The truth is that the autocratic leaders of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar have perfected the art of channeling money to Trump and his family as a way to buy influence and get what they want. Our job is to say no, to say no to providing military aid to one country which is involved in horrific policies which are resulting in famine and starvation and another country which is making huge amounts of money from side deals with the President.

Let us support these resolutions.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source