[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 8 Introduced in Senate (IS)]
<DOC>
115th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. CON. RES. 8
Clarifying any potential misunderstanding as to whether actions taken
by President Donald J. Trump constitute a violation of the Emoluments
Clause, and calling on President Trump to divest his interest in, and
sever his relationship to, the Trump Organization.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
March 2, 2017
Mr. Cardin (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. McCaskill, Ms. Warren, Mr.
Carper, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Reed,
Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Brown, Mr. Casey, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr.
Udall, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Bennet, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Franken, Mr.
Coons, Mr. Blumenthal, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Murphy, Ms. Hirono, Mr.
Heinrich, Mr. Markey, Mr. Booker, Mr. Peters, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms.
Harris, Ms. Cortez Masto, and Ms. Duckworth) submitted the following
concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs
_______________________________________________________________________
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Clarifying any potential misunderstanding as to whether actions taken
by President Donald J. Trump constitute a violation of the Emoluments
Clause, and calling on President Trump to divest his interest in, and
sever his relationship to, the Trump Organization.
Whereas article I, section 9, clause 8 of the United States Constitution
(commonly known as the ``Emoluments Clause'') declares, ``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.'';
Whereas, according to the remarks of Governor Edmund Randolph at the 1787
Constitutional Convention, the Emoluments Clause ``was thought proper,
in order to exclude corruption and foreign influence, to prohibit any
one in office from receiving or holding any emoluments from foreign
states'';
Whereas the issue of foreign corruption greatly concerned the Founding Fathers
of the United States, such that Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 22
wrote, ``In republics, persons elevated from the mass of the community,
by the suffrages of their fellow-citizens, to stations of great pre-
eminence and power, may find compensations for betraying their trust,
which, to any but minds animated and guided by superior virtue, may
appear to exceed the proportion of interest they have in the common
stock, and to overbalance the obligations of duty. Hence it is that
history furnishes us with so many mortifying examples of the prevalency
of foreign corruption in republican governments.'';
Whereas the President of the United States is the head of the executive branch
of the Federal Government and is expected to have undivided loyalty to
the United States, and clearly occupies an ``office of profit or trust''
within the meaning of article I, section 9, clause 8 of the
Constitution, according to the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department
of Justice;
Whereas the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice opined in 2009
that corporations owned or controlled by a foreign government are
presumptively foreign states under the Emoluments Clause;
Whereas President Donald J. Trump has a business network, the Trump
Organization, that has financial interests around the world and
negotiates and concludes transactions with foreign states and entities
that are extensions of foreign states;
Whereas the very nature of a ``blind trust'', as defined by former White House
Ethics Counsels Richard Painter and Norm Eisen in an opinion piece in
the Washington Post entitled, ``Trump's `blind trust' is neither blind
nor trustworthy'', dated November 15, 2016, and the Congressional
Research Service report ``The Use of Blind Trusts By Federal
Officials'', is such that the official will have no control over, will
receive no communications about, and will have no knowledge of the
identity of the specific assets held in the trust, and that the manager
of the trust is independent of the owner;
Whereas, on January 11, 2017, President-elect Donald J. Trump and his lawyers
held a press conference to announce that he would be placing his assets
in a trust and turning over management of the Trump Organization to his
two adult sons, Donald Trump, Jr., and Eric Trump, and executive Allen
Weisselberg; that there will be no communication with President Trump
and no new overseas business deals; that an ethics advisor will be
appointed to the management team to fully vet any new proposed domestic
deals; and that the Trump Organization will donate any profits from any
foreign governments that use Trump hotels to the Department of the
Treasury;
Whereas this arrangement is not sufficient because of its utter lack of
independent accountability and transparency, such that the director of
the Office of Government Ethics has stated that ``[t]he plan the
[President] has announced doesn't meet the standards that the best of
his nominees are meeting and that every president in the last four
decades have met'';
Whereas the director of the Office of Government Ethics has characterized the
promise to limit President Trump's direct communication about the Trump
Organization as ``wholly inadequate'' because President Trump would
still be well-aware of the specific assets held and could receive
communications about and take actions to affect the value of those
assets, especially when those running the business are his own children,
whom Trump will see often;
Whereas the promise that no new overseas business deals will be agreed to by the
Trump Organization fails to explain what constitutes a deal, and whether
expansions to existing properties, licensing or permitting fee
agreements, or loans from foreign banks like Deutsche Bank AG would
qualify as ``deals'';
Whereas the promise that the Trump Organization will donate profits from any
foreign governments that use Trump hotels does not include Trump golf
courses and other properties; does not explain whether the promise
covers foreign government officials who register under their own names
or third-party vendors hired by foreign governments to do business with
the Trump Organization; does not explain whether foreign organizations
signing tenant agreements with domestic Trump businesses, such as the
Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, which is Trump Tower's biggest
tenant, qualifies; does not define what constitutes ``profits''; does
not address the fact that revenue received by a failing business still
provides value to that business even if there is no net profit; and has
no mechanism for the public to verify that the promise is being
fulfilled;
Whereas President Trump's lawyer claimed that ``it would be impossible to find
an institutional trustee that would be competent to run the Trump
Organization'' when there are dozens if not hundreds of highly qualified
trustees who handle complicated business situations like the disposition
of the Trump Organization;
Whereas, at the January 11, 2017, press conference, President-elect Trump's
lawyer implied that the only reason people have raised the Emoluments
Clause is over ``routine business transactions like paying for hotel
rooms'' and claimed that ``[p]aying for a hotel room is not a gift or a
present, and it has nothing to do with an office. It's not an
emolument.'';
Whereas a comprehensive study of the Emoluments Clause written by Richard
Painter, Norman Eisen, and Lawrence Tribe, two of whom are former ethics
counsels to past Presidents, has concluded that ``since emoluments are
properly defined as including `profit' from any employment, as well as
`salary,' it is clear that even remuneration fairly earned in commerce
can qualify'';
Whereas numerous legal and constitutional experts, including several former
White House ethics counsels, have also made clear that the arrangement
announced on January 11, 2017, in which the President fails to exit the
ownership of his businesses through use of a blind trust or equivalent,
will leave the President with a personal financial interest in
businesses that collect foreign government payments and benefits, which
raises both constitutional and public interest concerns;
Whereas Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, William J. Clinton, and
George W. Bush have set the precedent of using true blind trusts, in
which their holdings were liquidated and placed in new investments
unknown to them by an independent trustee who managed them free of
familial bias;
Whereas the continued intermingling of the business of the Trump Organization
and the work of government has the potential to constitute the foreign
corruption so feared by the Founding Fathers and to betray the trust of
America's citizens;
Whereas, on January 20, 2017, President Trump swore an oath to preserve,
protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, the rights,
privileges and limitations of which are defined and guarded by the
Federal judiciary of the United States; and
Whereas Congress has an institutional, constitutional obligation to ensure that
the President of the United States does not violate the Emoluments
Clause of the Constitution, Federal law, or fundamental principles of
ethics, and is discharging the obligations of office based on the
national interest, not based on personal interest: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),
That Congress--
(1) finds the promised actions outlined by President Donald
J. Trump at his January 11, 2017, press conference wholly
inadequate and insufficient to ensure compliance with the
Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution;
(2) calls upon President Trump to follow the precedent
established by prior Presidents and convert his assets to
simple, conflict-free holdings, adopt blind trusts managed by
an independent trustee with no relationship to Donald J. Trump
or his businesses, or take other equivalent measures;
(3) calls upon President Trump not to use the powers or
opportunities of his position as President of the United States
for any purpose related to the Trump Organization; and
(4) regards, in the absence of express affirmative
authorization by Congress, dealings that Donald J. Trump, as
President of the United States, may have through his companies
with foreign governments or entities owned or controlled by
foreign governments as potential violations of the Emoluments
Clause.
<all>