Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Page S1750]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Declaration of National Emergency
Mr. SCHUMER. By the end of this week, the Senate will vote on a
resolution to terminate the President's emergency declaration. I have
laid out the number of reasons why the Senate must vote to terminate.
The President has not demonstrated that an emergency exists. During the
announcement of the declaration, the President said he ``didn't need to
do this.'' A few weeks later, 58 former national security officials,
including former Secretaries of State and Defense, said there was ``no
factual basis'' for an emergency declaration. For the sake of the
facts, the Senate must vote to terminate.
We also have no idea which military construction projects might be on
the chopping block. Republican Senators who vote against this
declaration do so at their own peril. They may be voting to deprive
necessary funds from military installations in their States. For the
sake of the brave men and women of our Armed Forces, the Senate must
vote to terminate.
Of course, the constitutional questions loom largest. The President
failed to convince Congress, the American people, and, perhaps most
glaringly, Mexico to pay for his border wall. Now he is attempting to
use emergency powers to subvert the will of Congress. If allowed to
stand, this emergency declaration would be a defacement of our
constitutional order and one of the largest power grabs for the
executive branch in the more than 200 years this Nation has been in
existence.
My colleagues must contemplate the possibility that if President
Trump were to succeed with his phony emergency declaration, future
Presidents would have a precedent to claim emergencies whenever
Congress failed to endorse their policies. In effect, Congress would no
longer be a coequal branch of government. It would change the balance
of power rather dramatically in ways the Founding Fathers would never
have contemplated. In fact, it would horrify many of the Founding
Fathers, who were so worried about an overweening Executive in the
personage of King George.
I know many of my Republican friends are afraid to cross the
President. We know he can be vindictive. I know that several support
the idea of building a wall but want to oppose the emergency
declaration. I would say to my colleagues respectfully: You have been
able to express your support for a border wall numerous times in the
past Congress and in this one. Another amendment vote will
accomplishment nothing new; it will only poison Congress's ability to
pass this resolution.
This is not about policy at our southern border; this is about one
thing and one thing alone--Presidential overreach.
Later this week, the Senate ought to vote a clean resolution to
terminate the emergency. The bottom line is very simple: If we were
upholding the Constitution, it would be 100 to nothing against the
emergency. If there were no politics, no fear, no worry about crossing
a President, the vote would be 100 to nothing. If people read the
Federalist Papers and the Constitution and what the Founding Fathers
intended, the vote would be 100 to nothing. I hope it is as close to
that as is possible.
