Mr. President, it is with a renewed sense of purpose that I reintroduce my resolution on the Emoluments Clause. It is a resolution intended to uphold the values and strictures of one of our most…
Mr. President, it is with a renewed sense of purpose that I reintroduce my resolution on the Emoluments Clause. It is a resolution intended to uphold the values and strictures of one of our most sacred documents. I am referring, of course, to the Constitution, the instrument that, in but a short time, President-elect Donald Trump will take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend.
Our Founding Fathers could not have been clearer that any Federal office holder of the United States must never be put in a position where he or she could be influenced by a foreign governmental actor. It was a concern made explicit by Alexander Hamilton's writings in Federalist No. 22, in which he noted examples of republics that had been ruthlessly dismembered by their hostile neighbors who had paralyzed the victim republic by bribing its officers and officials.
The Founding Fathers addressed this grave concern by placing the Emoluments Clause within the Constitution as an explicit bar on foreign corruption and interference. Article I, section 9, clause 8 of the United States Constitution declares that:
No title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States:
And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under
them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of
any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind
whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Longstanding precedent has made it plain that the President of the United States, as the head of the executive branch of the government, clearly occupies an ``office of profit or trust''. As such, the Emoluments Clause clearly applies to and constrains whomever holds the office of the Presidency.
Past American presidents have recognized the danger of foreign corruption and interference, or merely the perception of corruption and interference, and have accordingly taken great pains to avoid even the appearance of impropriety with regard to their personal wealth and investments, ensuring that such investments never interfere with performing their duties as President of the United States. Presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush all had their assets placed into blind trust while they were President. To fulfill his promises of greater government transparency, President Obama went even further and invested the vast majority of his funds in U.S. Treasury bonds.
The President-elect has claimed he will ``absolutely sever'' his ties to the Trump Organization, which has financial interests around the world and negotiates and concludes transactions with foreign states, as well as entities that are extensions of foreign states. We have a constitutional duty to ensure that he does. It is easy to imagine circumstances in which a foreign government will want to give President Trump a personal gift through his businesses with the intent to curry favor with him and seek to influence his decisions in ways that benefit them, instead of the American people--precisely the danger our Founding Fathers sought to protect against with the Emoluments Clause.
This is not an esoteric argument about rules that do not affect real people. Put simply, the American public has a right to know that the President of the United States is always acting in their best interest, and not take the risk that his actions are influenced by some benefit or gift from a foreign government like Russia or China. The citizens of this country need to know that when the President of the United States is making decisions about potential trade agreements, sending troops into war, or spending America's great resources, those actions are motivated by the public interest, and not because they might advance or harm
the President's private pecuniary interests.
We should be concerned when the President-elect is connected to an organization that has dealings with countries and entities that are not interested in distinguishing between doing business with President Trump and the profit-making organization that bears his name. The President-elect's failure thus far to dispose of his business interests in a comprehensive fashion has left this door wide open, and we are already seeing indications that foreign companies and businesses are beginning to take advantage. Kuwait's National Day event, which has traditionally been held at the Four Seasons in Washington, D.C., was moved to the Trump International Hotel, allegedly because of pressure-- or perhaps merely a suggestion--from the President-elect's associates. Similarly, Bahrain has chosen to schedule an event to take place at the Trump International Hotel.
News reports suggest that one day after a phone call between President-elect Trump and the President of Argentina, permits under review for the Trump building in Buenos Aires were suddenly approved. In China, just days after the presidential election, Donald Trump scored a legal victory in a decade-long trademark dispute over the right to use the Trump name for real estate agent services in commercial and residential properties in China. The timing of these actions is interesting, to put it mildly.
I sincerely regret the necessity of reintroducing this resolution. Just after Thanksgiving, when President-elect Trump held a press conference to state that on December 15, 2016, he would make an announcement about his future with the Trump Organization, I publicly said how encouraged I was to see the President-elect's positive response. When I first introduced this resolution, my intent was to create an opportunity for the President-elect to act and remove this as an issue, so that he could put aside any appearance of impropriety and devote himself to good work on behalf of the American people. That is why I was disappointed when Mr. Trump abruptly canceled his December 15 announcement--and, as of today, he has not yet rescheduled it. This issue is far too critical to kick the can down the road, or to ignore, before an incipient violation of the Constitution becomes an actual violation.
Even before Mr. Trump's cancellation of his December 15 announcement, I was deeply concerned by statements he and his lawyers made with regard to the disposition of his numerous business interests. Mr. Trump's lawyers had initially announced that the Trump Organization would be placed into a ``blind trust'' managed by Donald Trump's older children. That arrangement is, unfortunately, by its terms the complete opposite of an actual blind trust. An actual blind trust is an arrangement which the official has no control over, will receive no communications about, and will have no knowledge of the identity of the specific assets being held, and in which the trust's manager operates independently of the owner.
Around the same time President-elect Trump cancelled his December 15th announcement, he tweeted another idea for disposition of his businesses, stating that ``[t]wo of my children, Don and Eric, plus executives, will manage them. No new deals will be done during my term(s) in office''. Let me be absolutely clear: the arrangement tweeted by Mr. Trump is not sufficient and is hardly independent. Mr. Trump would be well-aware of the specific assets held, and he could receive communications about and take actions to affect the value of those assets. The idea that President-elect Trump's children, who are listed as members of his transition team and have already been present at meetings or phone calls with foreign leaders, can ever be truly ``independent managers'' is simply not a credible resolution of this concern.
This inadequate suggested arrangement is not a blind trust and will not ensure compliance with the Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution. Indeed, numerous legal and constitutional experts, including Richard Painter, a former adviser to George W. Bush, have made clear that such an arrangement will leave the President-elect with a personal financial interest in businesses that collect foreign government payments and benefits. The notion that the American people should be satisfied by an unbinding promise that no new deals will be pursued--a promise that does not define what constitutes a ``deal'' and which can be reneged on at any time--does not pass the laugh test.
I must admit, I have also been quite disturbed and disappointed by the recent excuses and suggestions by surrogate speakers and supporters of the President-elect as to why no action need be taken and, indeed, by statements the President-elect has made himself. President-elect Trump has tweeted, [p]rior to the election it was well known that I have interests in properties all over the world.'' This is undoubtedly true. But the American people, in voting for a candidate, cannot--and, in fact, would not--want to excuse a potential future violation of the Constitution by that candidate. Indeed, I would say that President- elect Trump has this idea backwards. Prior to the election, he was well aware of the fact that he had interests in unique properties all over the world. Since the President-elect has referred to himself as ``a constitutionalist,'' he must have known of the importance of complying with the Constitution by severing his foreign business connections in advance of his inauguration, which makes his continued failure and delay on this front all the more inexplicable.
On November 22nd, President-elect Trump stated, ``The law's totally on my side, meaning, the president can't have a conflict of interest.'' This regrettable statement selectively picks facts and shows a troubling disregard for the Constitution and for the duties owed to the American people. While the President, Vice President, Members of Congress, and Federal judges may be granted specific, limited exemptions from conflicts of interest so that they may act and carry out their duties, that law does not supersede the Constitution nor, frankly, have anything to do with the very specific provisions of the Emoluments Clause, which are intended to prevent foreign governmental financial influence over the President.
Even as some of the President-elect's most trusted surrogates have acknowledged that the potential ethics challenges facing President- elect Trump are ``a very real problem,'' they have persisted in arguing that Mr. Trump is somehow exempt from constitutional strictures, and even from the temptation of corruption itself, by virtue of his great wealth. For example, former Speaker Gingrich has claimed ``that this is a new situation we've never seen before, and the rules [that] were written for people who were dramatically less successful literally do not work,'' while Mr. Trump's leading candidate to head the administration's Council of Economic Advisors has claimed that ``[w]ealthy folks have no need to steal or engage in corruption.'' Really? That is a transparently false idea that one does not have to look very far to disprove. We need only glance at the countries where the Trump Organization has done business--places like Russia, Azerbaijan, Argentina, and Nigeria--to find numerous examples of already-wealthy government officials who have used their positions to lie, cheat, extort, and further enrich themselves and their families at the expense of the people they are supposed to be serving.
It was the enduring wisdom of our Founders to recognize that America is not magically immune from the corruption problems in other countries, and that not all men are angels. This is why we place our trust in the Constitution, not in individuals. A man with more wealth and extensive foreign holdings than prior presidents is, by an order of magnitude, more vulnerable to foreign corruption and interference than any president before him. The Emoluments Clause has greater bearing on Mr. Trump's presidency than his predecessors, not less.
No man can gain such wealth and power that he outgrows the limits of our Constitution. John Adams said it best: ``We are a government of laws, and not of men.'' No matter our political or partisan sympathies, we all recognize that the Constitution is the law of the land, and that when the needs and ambitions of any man conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution must win out.
It has also been suggested by some of Donald Trump's supporters that the
Emoluments Clause does not actually apply to the office of the Presidency. Not only does this conflict with longstanding understanding of the Emoluments Clause in the Executive Branch, it contravenes both the strict interpretation of the plain words of the Constitution, as well as the traditional values and practices adopted by previous presidents.
To get around the ethics challenges facing Mr. Trump, it has been suggested by the President-elect's supporters that a panel of five ``experts'' regularly monitor the Trump Organization businesses and tell the President ``don't go over these bounds''. It has even been suggested that the President-elect can simply sidestep ethics issues that clearly violate the law by pardoning advisors ``if anyone finds them to have behaved against the rules''. These 'ideas' are non- starters that cut dangerously against the plain intent of the Emoluments Clause. I am afraid they show a disregard for the values of our Constitution.
The solution to this problem is simple, not complex, and is set forth by my resolution: President-elect Trump has only to follow the precedents established by prior presidents and convert his assets to simple, conflict-free holdings; adopt blind trusts managed by truly independent trustees with no relationship to Mr. Trump or his businesses; or to take other, equivalent measures. This solution also has the benefit of having been successfully implemented by every modem president before Mr. Trump.
This resolution and its aims should not be viewed through the distorting prism of politics. I want the Trump administration to have the support from Congress to succeed on behalf of the American people. Nevertheless, I believe that Congress has an institutional, constitutional obligation to ensure that the President of the United States, whoever that person may be, does not violate our Constitution, acts lawfully, and is discharging the obligations of the office based on the broad interests of the American people and not his or her own narrow, personal interests.
Despite the late hour--just days before the inauguration--it is still possible for President-elect Trump to live up to the values of the Constitution, give the American people the transparency they deserve, and completely sever his relationship with the Trump Organization before he takes the oath of office on January 20, 2017. To do so would avoid a constitutional crisis that would not serve the best interests of the President, Congress, or the American people. Therefore, I ask for prompt, bipartisan support to advance this vital resolution.
