[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 37 (Thursday, March 2, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1584-S1585]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 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

  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:

                             S. Con. Res. 8

       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

[[Page S1585]]

     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.

                          ____________________