[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 94 (Wednesday, June 5, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3226-S3227]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                TARIFFS

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, yesterday on the floor I said I don't 
believe President Trump will follow through on his threat to impose 
tariffs on Mexico. Why? First, because the President has a tendency for 
bluster. There are many examples of the President taking a maximalist 
position before eventually backing off and announcing some different 
solution. Nine times out of ten, after a few months, everyone realizes 
that the so-called solution isn't real and doesn't work, but the 
President needs a way out of his bluster. That may well be true with 
the tariff issue.
  Second, most Senate Republicans oppose the President's idea of 
slapping tariffs on Mexico. They know how that could destabilize our 
economy and Mexico's and that it could actually make the migration 
problem worse.
  Publicly, the President has continued the tough talk on tariffs with 
Mexico--he responded to my statement on the floor with a tweet last 
night--but ultimately I continue to believe he will back off. That has 
been his MO. When he does, I would urge him to consider a real solution 
to the border problem, not some fake solution that he and the Mexicans 
announce, and then it does nothing--they don't follow through, it 
doesn't have effect, whatever.
  Here is a commonsense policy that will actually reduce the problems 
at the border: Many of the migrants that arrive at our southern border 
are fleeing untenable situations--gang violence, drug cartels, 
corruption, domestic abuse, economic depravity. If you are starving, if 
you are worried that your child will be mugged, if you are worried that 
your daughter will be raped, you ain't staying there. The governments 
of those countries have failed to provide safety or security for people 
living within their borders in Nicaragua, in Honduras, and in El 
Salvador. Their citizens--or some of them--feel compelled to embark on 
a dangerous 1,000-mile journey on foot rather than stay put because 
staying put is even worse for them.
  These are not evil people. The President would like to make them all 
out to be drug dealers or criminals. Most of them are poor people who 
are trying to escape the dangers created by the problems of gang 
violence, economic hardship, social oligarchy.
  We Democrats have crafted legislation that would help address the 
problems in those three Central American countries that are causing the 
migrants to flee in the first place.
  First, we would allow asylum seekers to apply for asylum within their 
own countries. That thousand-mile trek across Mexico is dangerous. It 
is often expensive. You have to pay a coyote or buy off drug dealers or 
other criminals. Let them apply in Honduras, in El Salvador, in 
Guatemala and not amass at the border. Second, we provide significant 
security assistance to Central American countries to build their 
capacity, crack down on the gangs and drug cartels and human 
trafficking that is endemic in those countries, and we would increase 
the number of immigration judges and personnel to reduce the current 
backlog of cases at the border.

  These policies make eminent sense, and unlike the President's plan to 
impose tariffs on Mexico, our proposals do not threaten the U.S. 
economy. We would urge our Republican colleagues to join us in this 
commonsense solution.
  When the President inevitably retreats from his tariff threat--which 
may be as soon as this afternoon--we should proceed on these 
commonsense policies, not some fake thing that sounds good in an 
announcement and then goes away like we have seen over and over again 
when the President conducts foreign policy--North Korea being one of 
the most notorious examples.
  Over the past year, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, despite some 
positive domestic reforms, has too often acted like a brute in the 
Middle East rather than a stabilizing force.
  I understand that Saudi Arabia worries about Iran. I share those 
concerns about the Iranian Government, but the Saudis have all too 
often reacted in the wrong way. In Yemen, the Saudis are fighting a 
proxy war that has resulted in untold human suffering and the slaughter 
of innocents of many children. Internally, the Saudi Government has 
conducted a widespread campaign of political repression, including the 
imprisonment of women's rights campaigners. We all know how the Saudis 
were responsible for the vicious torture and chilling murder of a 
journalist and American resident Jamal Khashoggi.
  Despite these gross violations of international norms and values, the 
Trump administration has just cozied up with Crown Prince Muhammad bin 
Salman and offered almost no criticism.
  We have just learned, according to reports, that the Trump 
administration approved seven transfers of American nuclear technology 
to the Saudis, including two after Khashoggi's murder. Now the 
administration is using its favorite tool, claiming emergency powers to 
justify another 22 arms sales to the Saudis and others, including 
precision-guided munitions for Saudi's operations in Yemen.
  Has the Trump administration lost all perspective when it comes to 
Saudi Arabia--providing excuses and cover for the brutal murder of a 
journalist and American resident, aiding and arming the Saudis in a 
human rights tragedy in Yemen, which will only come back to hurt him in 
the long run. What are we doing here?
  Congress has already voted, in bipartisan majorities, to unwind 
America's involvement in Yemen, which, of course, the President vetoed, 
and now we ought to vote to disapprove these arms sales.
  The chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign 
Operations, Senator Graham, urged by our ranking member of Foreign 
Relations and our leader on this issue, Senator Menendez, has 
thankfully announced the bipartisan effort to do just that. I strongly 
support that effort.
  Let me say, my Republican friends, over the last years of the Obama 
administration, bitterly complained about the way President Obama used 
Executive authority. The amount of Executive authority used by 
President Obama could fit in a thimble compared to the abuse of 
Executive authority by President Trump. Yet it seems, in the past, our 
Republican colleagues who so criticized Obama for much less have been 
totally silent when President Trump abuses Executive authority, but now 
maybe there are some green shoots.
  Maybe some of our Republican colleagues in the Senate are waking up 
to the idea that in America we have a three-branch government, not a 
one-branch government, and maybe some of our Republican colleagues are 
recognizing that and beginning to act--the possible green shoots. Two 
instances; one is tariffs. Our Republicans don't like these tariffs. 
Will they have the guts, if the President implements them, to oppose 
the President? We will see.
  Now, on Saudi arms sales, a number of Senate Republicans are 
beginning to

[[Page S3227]]

say we need to constrain the President the way the Congress has 
traditionally constrained the executive branch. I am hopeful, but I am 
also skeptical.
  If the past is prologue, my Republican friends will ultimately back 
down. Leader McConnell, his MO, will let a few of them off the hook so 
they can go home and say they supported it but never enough to make 
sure Congress provides an effective check on the President. It is sort 
of a wink and a nod. Well, let's hope this time it is different. Let's 
hope that these murmurings among Republicans about the Saudi arms sales 
and about the tariffs are real, and they will actually stand up to him, 
which is what a Congress should do even when they are of the same party 
as the President.

                          ____________________