Termination of National Emergency Declared By the President on February 2019

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this issue is not about a wall. It is about the Constitution. It is about this institution. It is about the balance that we say is equal between the Article I institution and the Article II institution.

That is important to remember. That is why this argument is so very important.

It is not about just a single policy. It is about the kind of government that our Founding Fathers instituted, which has been the envy of the world and the example to many.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Congressman Castro of Texas, and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus for introducing this resolution.

I was at the border in California and in New Mexico just a few days ago. I was at the border in El Paso with my distinguished colleague, the former executive, called judge, of that area. She will speak shortly. Ms. Escobar will say there is no war at the border and there is no crisis at the border. She will explain that better than I can. She lives there.

At the border, I saw a lot of heartbreak and challenge, but I did not see a national emergency that would justify the President ignoring the Constitution and trying to make funding decisions without congressional approval. That is the issue.

For my colleagues to say this is a partisan issue, let me call your attention to the statements of approximately 20 Members of the United States Senate.

The President admitted on February 15 that this is not a true emergency when he said: ``I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do it much faster.''

Not that he needed to do it much faster, but he would just rather do it much faster. Of course, if the Mexicans were paying for it, perhaps he could have.

Congress has a chance to answer the President and make it clear that he cannot make an end run around the Constitution and claim powers reserved for the taxpayers' representatives.

Mr. Speaker, the Congress of the United States needs to have a spine and not lay at the feet of the President of the United States and say, ``Whatever you want, sir.'' That is not what the people elected us to do. We are their representatives, not the President's representative, whether it is President Obama, President Trump, President Clinton, President Bush, or President Reagan, all of whom I have served with-- two Bushes.

Our Founding Fathers had enough of King George, so they adopted a Constitution that said: We are not going to have a King George. We are not going to have an authoritarian regime. We are not going to have the executive setting policy. They said the Congress sets policy.

By the way, 300 of us in this body voted for the funding levels for border security. It didn't squeak by, by some partisan advantage--300 of us, which is to say well over 66 percent.

Now, Congress has a chance to answer the President and make it clear. He demanded that the American taxpayers give him billions for the wall that Democrats and Republicans alike say is expensive and ineffective.

Again, this is not about the wall. This is about our Constitution, our institution, and our self-respect.

He has chosen to ignore the will of the American people, as expressed by their representatives. He has opted to set aside the wisdom of our Founders for the expedience of getting his own way.

Constitutional law professor Roger Sloane of Boston University noted, last week: ``To my knowledge, no President has ever tried to use national emergency funding to appropriate funds Congress refused to appropriate.''

Overwhelming Senate vote; overwhelming vote in this body.

He went on to say: ``Politically, it would mean the President would be seeking . . . to override a bipartisan judgment of Congress.''

Have we no self-respect? Have we no sense of the balance between the executive and the legislative branches of government?

We are the Article I branch, the policymakers, the people who raise money and spend money, not the President--any President, Republican or Democrat. And a lot of Republican colleagues, including Senator McConnell, said: Mr. President, don't do this.

Right up until the time Senator McConnell said: I will support you, Mr. President.

First, he was against this, and now he is for it.

The respected Harvard Law School constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe said of the President, on Thursday: ``He is simply trying to do what emperors and kings do, not what a President of the United States should do.''

In The Washington Post this weekend, columnist Max Boot noted why we are now at a pivotal moment for Members of the President's party in the Congress, who are being asked to choose between loyalty to the President and fidelity to the Constitution.

I am sorry the Chamber is not filled. I thought of asking for a quorum call. I didn't.

Fidelity to the President or fidelity to the Constitution, that is the choice we make today. That is why this is a pivotal moment. We choose between the Constitution and its principles, which have made our country the world's envied democracy for almost two and a half centuries.

Boot continued with this: ``Trump's action is an affront to all that Republicans stand for.''

The premise is you continue to stand for this institution and our Constitution.

``They claim to be pro-military, but Trump's action would take money away from the defense budget. They claim to be pro-property rights, but Trump's action would result in the taking of private property along the border. And they claim to be constitutional conservatives, but Trump's action is an obvious violation of Article I of the Constitution: `No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.' ''

I used to have people coming up here and taking out the Constitution and saying: Have you read this document? Do you know what it says?

Let me repeat it: ``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.''

Now, I have heard the scare rhetoric, and I suggest to my colleagues, with all due respect, that kind of rhetoric has preceded every despot's takeover of power in the world. There was a crisis. They had to declare military law. They had to suspend the constitution and suspend the laws.

That is how despots take power. We stand at the gate to ensure that doesn't happen. But we will say more with our votes.

If we vote yes, we will say that Congress is still the voice of the American people. We will say that we are still faithful to the oath we took to protect the Constitution and laws of our land. And we will say that America, as our Founders promised, has no sovereign but we, the people--``we,'' not me, not I. We, the people.

We must not allow the President to set a dangerous precedent stripping Congress of its power of the purse. This is the first time. You can say there are a lot of other emergencies. That is correct. But this is unique. We must not allow him to set the precedent whereby any chief executive, Republican or Democrat, can declare an emergency any time he or she doesn't agree with Congress' funding.

This is not a partisan resolution. It is supported and encouraged by former and current Republican Members who recognize how dangerous it would be for the Congress not to act. A group of 23 former Republican Members of Congress, including former Senators Olympia Snowe, Dick Lugar, Chuck Hagel, and John Danforth have sent a letter to currently serving Republican Members yesterday. In it they wrote this: ``It has always been a Republican fundamental principle that no matter how strong our policy preferences, no matter how deep our loyalties to Presidents or party leaders, in order to remain a constitutional Republic, we must act within the borders of the Constitution.''

Today, a conservative Senator from North Carolina, a Republican conservative Senator from North Carolina, said this: ``I have grave concerns when our institution looks the other way at the expense of weakening Congress' power.''

Senators Murkowski and Collins have already said they would support this resolution.

So let us act and do so in one powerful voice--not as Democrats, not as Republicans, as Americans; as representatives; as people who have put their faith in us to make a judgment to protect their country, their Constitution; as Americans who believe in our Constitution and the wisdom of our Founders who gave Congress alone the authority to appropriate funds and gave the representatives of the people and the States a powerful check on the executive.

I ask all my Republican colleagues: How would you vote if Barack Obama were President of the United States today? Think of that. Because if you cannot answer ``I would vote the same way,'' then you are not being true to your country, to our Constitution, and to your oath.

If any Member cares at all about the equal status of the Article I branch of the Constitution, he or she should vote for this resolution. Vote for conscience and Constitution, not party and politics.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source