Introductory Statement on S. 1053

On 2025-03-13, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) delivered a floor speech titled "Introductory Statement On S. 1053" in the Senate. The speech addressed taxes and also covered the environment, foreign policy. It referenced legislation including S1053, S1746, S1747.

Introductory Statement on S. 1053

Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 48 (Thursday, March 13, 2025) [Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 48 (Thursday, March 13, 2025)] [Senate] [Pages S1746-S1747] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] By Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Ms. Cortez Masto, Mr. Scott of South Carolina, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Sullivan, Ms. Warren, Mr. Hagerty, Mr. Kim, Mr. Ricketts, Ms. Slotkin, Mr. Banks, Mr. Bennet, Mr. McCormick, and Mr. Fetterman): S. 1053. A bill to protect the national security of the United States by imposing sanctions with respect to certain persons of the People's Republic of China and prohibiting and requiring notifications with respect to certain investments by United States persons in the People's Republic of China, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, a lot has changed in Washington, DC, in the last 6 weeks. That is an understatement, perhaps. But one of the things that President Trump has done is shifted the Overton window when it comes to the People's Republic of China. Years ago, when the Clinton administration invited China to join the World Trade Organization, the idea behind that was that somehow communist China would change with being part of the rules-based international order. Well, of course, we know China doesn't follow the rules and has taken advantage of the United States for decades. But under President Trump, that will no longer be the case. For example, last month, the White House announced its America-first investment policy, which will be critical for holding China to account. One of the avenues that China has exploited to gain the upper economic hand is through both inbound and outbound flows of capital. By investing in U.S. companies, the People's Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party can obtain access to intellectual property and know-how. And, of course, they have no shame. Again, they don't play by our rules. They are not afraid to cheat or steal our technology if it is possible. On the other side of the coin, U.S. investments from the United States are flowing into China and have for a long time. A 2021 estimate was that the market value of U.S. investments in China was valued at more than $1 trillion. Now, the reason why that is important is that China has used that investment to build their economy and their military. It has allowed them to advance technologies that one day might be used against the United States. So I am very glad that President Trump, by his Executive order, has brought this issue from the back burner to the front. It is no secret to any of my colleagues that I have been working on this issue for a while now. I was proud to partner with President Trump during his first administration to update CFIUS, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. This interagency committee reviews foreign investments and real estate transactions to determine whether they pose any security risks for the United States. Through the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act, or what was known as FIRRMA, we strengthened and modernized CFIUS to rise to the occasion of new threats coming from the People's Republic of China. The President's America-first investment policy builds on this by directing CFIUS to restrict PRC investments in U.S. tech, agriculture, energy, raw materials, and more. But as Chinese companies get richer and richer from American investment, it is clear that restricting inbound investment is not enough. We need to prevent the People's Republic of China from using capital investments by the United States to gain access to and copy our technological advances--most importantly, in certain critical sectors. As of 2023, U.S. investors were investing close to $2 billion in Chinese critical technology sectors, including semiconductors, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence. A report from the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission noted: ``The United States is the most important foreign source of investment to semiconductors, quantum computing, and AI in China.'' Let me say that again. ``The United States is the most important foreign source of investment to semiconductors, quantum computing, and AI in China.'' So it is these investments, which are largely opaque to us, as policymakers, that are helping China basically compete with us. We know, of course, it is not just about economic competition. We know that China has a strategy of military-civil fusion, which means that these investments are not simply benefiting China's economy and consumer tech sector; they are directly helping build China's military strength. It is not too dramatic to say that as I stand here, U.S. dollars are funding the development of technologies that could one day be used against Americans, potentially even to kill Americans or American troops. Inbound and outbound investments are simply two sides of the same coin. We can't be giving away all of our intellectual property and our incredible innovation for Chinese companies to copy at will, and we can't be giving them the capital to recreate our ideas or reverse- engineer and then use them against us. How can we expect to outcompete our most significant competitor on the world stage if we are sending billions of dollars directly into their arsenal? President Trump has been a great partner with Congress on ending this exploitative relationship with China. Again, this is not dealing with another country on the basis of good faith and a knowledge that everybody is operating from the same set of rules and norms. China does not, and we have recognized that more recently, but it is important to reemphasize because some people, I think, still naively assume China operates by the same rules the United States does. So I am glad the President is as excited as I am to finish the job we started with CFIUS reform. Today, I am proud to announce that I am introducing legislation to finally tackle this issue called the Foreign Investment Guardrails to Help Thwart China Act. The acronym is FIGHT China. Two years ago, I sponsored an amendment to the NDAA requiring transparency for these outbound investments. It passed the Senate overwhelmingly with a final bipartisan vote of 91 to 6. We don't see many votes here in the Senate these days where there is such strong bipartisan support, so I am grateful for that. Regrettably, even in the face of such overwhelming consensus, this amendment did not make its way into the final version of the bill for reasons I won't dwell on now. But, as my colleagues can attest, I am not one to give up easily, and this issue is simply too important to American national security to take no for an answer, so I have continued to work with great partners in the House, in the Senate, and in the Trump administration to continue to make progress on this and bring us to where we are today. The legislation we are introducing today has been the culmination of years of work, and I believe it is stronger as a result of the input and the collaboration that have occurred. The FIGHT China Act will establish a program at the Department of Treasury to prohibit U.S. investments in certain sensitive technologies in the PRC. Now, some people may say: Well, if you stop all U.S.-based investment in China, that is a big problem. But we are not talking about that. I could care less how many Starbucks or Burger Kings are built in China. It only addresses certain of the most sensitive technologies. These include advanced semiconductors, artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and hypersonics. Of course, all of these have a military application. So this is not just an economic question; this is a national security issue. We know that all of these critical industries directly support the Chinese military, and this is the military that has been instructed by President Xi to be ready to invade Taiwan or to absorb Taiwan one way or another, either by force or by coercion, by 2027. It is simply foolish to continue to send money to fuel these technologies that could be used perhaps in the next few years against the United States and our allies. This legislation would create a notification regime to create more transparency around investments that are not prohibited. You know, as long as we are blind to how much money is [[Page S1747]] being invested in China and in what technology and in what sectors it is being invested in, we as policymakers can't do our job and the administration can't do its job, which is primarily to keep our country safe and the American people safe. This legislation will authorize the President to impose sanctions against any PRC entity that engages in PRC military or intelligence sectors. I want to express my gratitude to our colleagues, people like Senators Cortez Masto, Warren, Banks, Slotkin, Ricketts, Bennet, Hagerty, Kim, McCormick, Schumer, Sullivan, Fetterman, and others for their partnership on this legislation. I especially want to recognize the chairman of the Banking Committee, which has principal jurisdiction over this subject matter, Senator Tim Scott, and thank him for working with me and cosponsoring this legislation. Last but not least, President Trump has been a great partner to see this project to the finish line. Everything we are doing here is working hand in glove with the administration to ensure that the People's Republic of China is not allowed to meddle with the United States under the guise of simply doing business. But time is running short. We know that China, as I said, has an interest in reincorporating Taiwan as early as 2027, not 2 years from now. Now is not the time to continue to allow them access to copy all of our work, in particularly the most sensitive areas. Nor is it the time to allow them to continue to benefit from U.S. investment dollars now that they are no longer a developing country, but they are one of the most advanced ec

Referenced legislation: S1053