A joint resolution relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 15, 2019.

Madam President, last week, I announced my intention to vote in favor of H.J. Res. 46. This is a resolution expressing disapproval of the President's February 15 proclamation of a national emergency. At that same time, I joined with my colleague, the Senator from New Mexico, along with the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, and the Senator from New Hampshire, Mrs. Shaheen, in the introduction of the Senate companion, S.J. Res. 10.

I want to take just a few moments this afternoon and speak to my rationale not only for my statements but for my support for terminating the national emergency. It is, certainly, not based on disagreement over the issue of border security on our southern border. I recognize full well, along with, I believe, all of our colleagues here, the situation on the border and the humanitarian issues that face us. The issue that faces us with the level of those coming across our borders is not a sustainable situation, and, certainly, the influx of drugs that we are seeing in this community must be addressed.

Rather, my concern is, really, about the institution of the Congress and the constitutional balance of powers that, I think, are just fundamental to our democracy. In my view, it really comes down to article I of the Constitution. Article I, section 7, clause 8 reads: ``No

Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of Appropriation.''

This provision and the necessary and proper clause of article I, section 8, clause 18 and the taxing and spending clauses--article VIII, clause 1--are just generally regarded as the basis for the notion that the power to spend resides in the Congress. We say it around here--that the power of the purse rests with the Congress.

Of all of these three clauses that I have just articulated, the admonition that no money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriation is probably the clearest expression of the Framers' view that the executive has no power to spend money in a manner that is inconsistent with the intentions of the Congress.

Justice Story, in his 1883 Commentaries on the Constitution, characterized that clause as an important means of self-protection for the legislative department.

He went on to write:

The [legislature] has, and must have, a controlling

influence over the executive power, since it holds at its

command all of the resources by which the executive could

make himself formidable. It possesses the power of the purse

of the nation and the property of the people.

Again, he just very clearly articulates where these lanes of authority--these lanes of jurisdiction--reside.

This past weekend, on Sunday, a local newspaper, the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, published an editorial. In that editorial, it was argued that our colleagues here in the Senate should vote for the resolution of disapproval. The editorial is entitled: ``A dangerous course: Congress shouldn't cede power to president in border funding dispute.''

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the Record.

Madam President, in support of the argument outlined in that headline, the News-Miner's editorial board wrote the following:

Encroachment by one branch on another and the consolidating

of power in one branch worried some of the Founders as they

crafted our system of independent yet interlocking government

branches. The Federalist Papers . . . contain references to

that concern.

The editorial board goes on to refer to Federalist No. 51, which reads:

The great security against a gradual concentration of the

several powers in the same department, consists in giving to

those who administer each department the necessary

constitutional means and personal motives to resist

encroachments of others. . . . Ambition must be made to

counteract ambition.

When you translate that into just plain old English, it basically means Congress is a coequal branch of government, and, as such, Congress should stand up for itself. That really is the reason--the root--of why I have announced my support for this resolution of disapproval. I think it is fair to say that we all have disagreements around here about all sorts of things that are part of the appropriations process, and, certainly, the issue of border funding or just border security is no exception.

Even if the fiscal year 2019 appropriations process had run smoothly, which it certainly did not, think about how we got to where we are right now. The President submitted his budget last year. He requested money for barriers on the border and other aspects of border security. The request went through the appropriations process. I serve on that subcommittee. In the Senate subcommittee, we advanced out of the committee the President's request. After 3 months of continuing resolutions, we ended up in a stalemate with the other body last year, calendar year 2018. In January, control of the other body changed. The stalemate continued until the lengthy negotiations concluded, which allowed both bodies to pass and for the President to agree to sign an appropriations package just several weeks ago in February.

Again, that appropriations package was, I think it is probably fair to say, the result of a great deal of back-and-forth between the House, the Senate, and the White House, but it was clearly something that did help to advance the priorities that the President had outlined with regard to the southern border.

I am quoting from a White House fact sheet here, which reads: ``Secured a number of significant legislative victories that further the President's effort to secure the Southern Border and protect our country.'' Chief among those victories was ``the bill provides $1.375 billion for approximately 55 miles of border barrier in highly dangerous and drug smuggling areas in the Rio Grande Valley, where it is desperately needed.''

So we are where we were on February 15 when the administration recognized that significant gains had been made, but I think we all know that the President believes very, very strongly that there is more that should be done, that must be done, and that will be done to address that.

Clearly, there was a disagreement between the Congress and the President about how much could be spent on border security in 2019. I think, in fairness, sticking up for Congress's power of the purse doesn't necessarily mean that it comes at the expense of border security. I believe very strongly we can

address the President's concerns--the very, very real and legitimate concerns that need to be addressed--but that we don't have to do it at the expense of ceding that authority, of ceding that power of the purse, of ceding that article I power that we have here.

There are ways that the President can advance his issues, and he has done so. He, certainly, has the prerogative to ask for supplemental appropriations. He has identified additional funding that is outside of the national emergency designation, or declaration, if you will.

He has identified additional funding--close to $3 billion--from other statutory authorities. These are the authorities under 10 U.S.C. 284(b), which is the counterdrug account, counterdrug funds. That will require a level of reprogramming through the appropriating committees, but that can be done outside of the national emergency. The other source of funding is the Treasury Forfeiture Fund through the Secretary of the Treasury under 31 U.S.C. 9705. So I think it is clear that there are avenues to enhance the funding opportunities to address the situation at the border.

The concern that many of us have raised is the designation in this third account--the designation of a national emergency--that would tap into funds that have already been designated for military construction projects, important construction projects that have been designated around the country. We certainly have many in my State of Alaska. We haven't seen the list that would perhaps outline with greater articulation where the Secretary of Defense might think it would be appropriate to delay some of these projects. But, again, I would just remind--these are projects that have perhaps already been delayed because of the Budget Control Act that has been in place for several years, so I think further delay for many of these projects would cause most concern.

So I come to the National Emergencies Act. I think there is a recognition that when this was adopted, was put into law, it was initially intended to rein in the President's ability to declare emergencies. But at the same time it authorized the President to declare national emergencies, it didn't ever clearly define the extent of that power. So that is an issue that I think we are dealing with right now. Implicit in this grant is the trust that the power will be used sparingly. I think that if you look back over the history, the 59 previous times these powers have been utilized, you can say they have been used sparingly. But also explicit is the authority for the Congress to terminate an emergency if the Congress believes it was imprudently declared, and that is basically where we are today.

Because Congress did not explicitly constrain the President's power to declare an emergency, many of the constitutional scholars--those who are trying to game this out--believe the President will ultimately prevail in the litigation that we are entirely certain will be seen in the courts.

The question for us to consider in this body is not whether the President could have declared an emergency but whether he should have and, again, the question relating to the redirection of military construction funds from our bases around the country to the southern border. These are the questions we are currently debating. But in the final analysis, I look at the issue we have in front of us, and this is really a very challenging place for us as a Congress, to be debating the constitutional powers of the Congress against a legislative agenda--a strong legislative agenda and an important one that the President has. But I have come to be quite concerned about where we are when it comes to precedent and the precedent that we may see unleashed. In many ways, I view this as an expansion of Executive powers by legislative acquiescence.

If we fail to weigh in, if we fail to acknowledge that this designation has gone beyond that which has previously been considered, if we go around, effectively, the will of Congress, where will it take us next? I think we need to think about that because it is so easy to get focused on where we are in the here and now and the situation we are dealing with today, but when we are pushing out those lanes of congressional authority, I think we need to be thinking clearly about what that may mean for future administrations and for future Congresses.

As the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, my focus is very often on the energy sector, on the energy space, and so I have asked, if we were in a situation with a new President, what could be invoked if a new President should decide to exercise his or her emergency authorities as they relate to energy? It is entirely possible that a future President could declare a national emergency related to global climate change, speaking to a humanitarian crisis and what it might mean for national security. In fact, one of our colleagues from Massachusetts has already said as much--that a national emergency could be declared as relates to global climate change.

You have to ask the question. What would stop a future President from declaring an emergency and then directing the military to spend billions of dollars on renewable projects or refugee assistance? What is to stop a future President from targeting the Nation's oil and gas supply by cutting off exports and shutting down production on the Outer Continental Shelf?

I think we would all say: Well, we don't need to worry about that happening with our current President; he is not going to do any of those things. But the authorities technically would exist for all of them, and so it is concerning. It is concerning to me that a future President could use that to drive their agenda--again, without the consent of the Congress.

So I repeat--I am concerned that, as a Congress, as a legislative body, we would stand back and we would acquiesce in the use of a national emergency to resolve a disagreement between the executive and the legislative branches over the appropriate level of funding for a situation that likely exceeds what can be spent in our current fiscal year.

I know there will be continued discussion not only here in the Senate, in the Congress, but certainly around the country about these matters. I know some of my colleagues are interested in revisiting the scope of the National Emergencies Act, and that is clearly worth considering. But I firmly believe that one can be strongly for border security and at the same time question whether the administration has overreached in using the National Emergencies Act in the way that it has, and I find myself in that camp. That is why it is with great resolve that I support the adoption of the resolutions of disapproval.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Thank you for the recognition, Madam President.

Today I rise to call on this body to defend the Constitution, to protect the separation of powers, and to safeguard Congress's role as a coequal branch of government.

Today I am introducing a bipartisan resolution with my Senate colleagues to terminate the President's declaration of a national emergency to build his border wall.

My partners in this effort include Senator Collins, who is with me today. She will be here momentarily. Also partners are Senator Murkowski and Senator Shaheen.

I just want to say to Senator Collins that I commend her on her principled stance and on standing up for the Constitution.

The vote we will take on this resolution is historic. This is no longer about the President's wall. This is not about party. This is not about protecting the very heart of our American system. This is about protecting the very heart of our American system of governance.

Congress--and only Congress--holds the power of the purse. Article I, section 9 of the Constitution clearly states: ``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.'' The Constitution is absolutely clear.

Congress's power to make spending decisions is very clear. There is no ambiguity. Deciding how to spend public funds is among our most fundamental powers and responsibilities under the Constitution. The Founders gave this power to the legislative body, not the executive, to ensure there is a broad support for how public funds are spent.

Consequential and far-reaching decisions about spending taxpayer money are not left to one person, not even the President.

This body has rejected the President's request to give him $5.7 billion for his wall along the southern border with Mexico. On February 14, not 2 weeks ago, we passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019 by a vote of 83 to 16. That compromise bill did not include the $5.7 billion the President wanted to build his wall.

Whether you believe Congress should fund the President's wall is not at issue. This is a question about the strength of the rule of law in this country and about the separation of powers, which forms the foundation of our American government.

The President's declaration of a national emergency is an end-run around Congress's power to appropriate--plain and simple. To quote Senator Collins, the President is ``usurping congressional authority.''

We are the representatives of the people. The people do not want to spend $5.7 billion on the President's wall, and we must protect their will.

Let's be clear. This emergency declaration has serious implications for States all across the country. To build this wall, the White House will raid $3.6 billion from the Department of Defense's military construction budget and $2.5 billion from that Department's drug interdiction program, but the White House apparently failed to realize there are only about $80 million in the drug interdiction account. So we should be prepared for a raid on other accounts or taking even more from military construction funding.

These are military construction funds that Congress already has appropriated for specific projects necessary to support the national security priorities of the United States. I am privileged to serve on the Appropriations Committee. I understand the hard and careful work that goes into these funding decisions.

From my home State of New Mexico, Congress allocated some $85 million to construct a formal training unit at Holloman Air Force Base in the south-central part of New Mexico for unmanned aerial vehicles. This investment in technology tracks terrorists

and protects our national security. We allocated $40 million to the White Sands Missile Range to build an information systems facility badly needed for next-generation research and development activities at the range. Both of these projects were vetted over several years and deemed important to our national security.

New Mexico is not alone. Many States' military bases and regional economies will be impacted. Colorado, for example, is at risk of losing almost $100 million for construction projects at Fort Carson near Colorado Springs. Ohio risks $61 million for the first installment for building at the National Air and Space Intelligence Center at Wright- Patterson Air Force Base.

Military construction projects totaling $210 million are at risk in Florida, $520 million in Texas, $81 million in Utah, and the list goes on and on. Projects in every corner of the country will be impacted.

According to the 1976 Senate report from the National Emergencies Act, the President's emergency power may ``be utilized only when actual emergencies exist.'' As a border Senator, I am here to tell you that there is no actual national security emergency at our southern border necessitating a massive wall along the southern border, as this body has already determined. This is a matter where the President and Congress have disagreed and the President is trying to overrule Congress by fiat.

A bipartisan group of 58 former national security officials are sounding the alarm. They write: ``Under no plausible assessment of the evidence is there a national emergency today that entitles the president to tap into funds appropriated for other purposes to build a wall at the southern border.''

The evidence speaks for itself. The number of border apprehensions has decreased dramatically. Since the early 2000s, southern border apprehensions have dropped 81 percent. The number of apprehensions at the end of fiscal year 2017 was the lowest it has been since 1971--a 46-year low. We have the lowest number of undocumented immigrants in our country that we have had in over a decade.

The Pew Research Center estimated recently that the total number of undocumented immigrants residing in the United States is far less than since 2004. That is a 14-year low. And more people emigrate to Mexico from the United States than immigrate from Mexico to here. That is right. We have a negative net migration rate with Mexico.

I am one of the four States that border Mexico--one of the four States that will be the most directly affected by a wall. I know for an absolute fact that there is no national security emergency along my State's border with Mexico. It is quite the opposite.

New Mexico's border communities are thriving. International commerce is thriving. Our multicultural communities are thriving. Crime rates are low.

A wall like the President wants would be disastrous for a State like New Mexico. It will seize away private property and carve up family ranches, farms, and homesteads. It will harm the beautiful but fragile environment there on the border.

Again, whether you support the President's wall is not at issue on this vote. As Senator Tillis put it in an op-ed in the Washington Post, ``I support President Trump's vision on border security. But I would vote against the emergency.''

Another Senate Republican Senator recently said, ``Congress has been ceding far too much power to the executive branch for decades. We should use this moment as an opportunity to start taking power back.''

Over 20 former Republican Senators and Representatives were compelled to pen a letter opposing the emergency declaration. They state: ``It has always been a Republican fundamental principle that no matter how strong our policy preferences, no matter how deep our loyalties to presidents and party leaders, in order to remain a constitutional republic we must act within the borders of the Constitution.''

The time to act is now. Litigation has been filed, but Congress should resolve the issue of our own constitutional authority and not wait for the courts.

Let me repeat. The vote we will take will be historic. It is imperative that all of us--Republican and Democrat--protect and defend our Constitution and that we protect and defend the checks and balances that unequivocally place the power of the purse with Congress and that we affirm our powers--powers that are separate from the President's.

Our oath is to uphold the Constitution, and the Constitution is clear. The Constitution does not empower the President to raid money by decree just because Congress has already said no.

I will vote to terminate the President's declaration of the national emergency to build his wall, and I will urge everyone in this Chamber to protect our constitutional prerogative and to do so as well.

Would the Senator yield?

I just want to say, because we have both been here for a bit talking on the floor about this, I want to thank Senator Collins for standing up for principle. I want to thank her for standing up for our Constitution. It is a real honor to join her in this resolution of disapproval.

I also, as she just did, thank the two other Senators who are joining us, Senator Murkowski and Senator Shaheen. I thank the Senator very much.

Thank you for the recognition, Madam President.

Today I rise to call on this body to defend the Constitution, to protect the separation of powers, and to safeguard Congress's role as a coequal branch of government.

Today I am introducing a bipartisan resolution with my Senate colleagues to terminate the President's declaration of a national emergency to build his border wall.

My partners in this effort include Senator Collins, who is with me today. She will be here momentarily. Also partners are Senator Murkowski and Senator Shaheen.

I just want to say to Senator Collins that I commend her on her principled stance and on standing up for the Constitution.

The vote we will take on this resolution is historic. This is no longer about the President's wall. This is not about party. This is not about protecting the very heart of our American system. This is about protecting the very heart of our American system of governance.

Congress--and only Congress--holds the power of the purse. Article I, section 9 of the Constitution clearly states: ``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.'' The Constitution is absolutely clear.

Congress's power to make spending decisions is very clear. There is no ambiguity. Deciding how to spend public funds is among our most fundamental powers and responsibilities under the Constitution. The Founders gave this power to the legislative body, not the executive, to ensure there is a broad support for how public funds are spent.

Consequential and far-reaching decisions about spending taxpayer money are not left to one person, not even the President.

This body has rejected the President's request to give him $5.7 billion for his wall along the southern border with Mexico. On February 14, not 2 weeks ago, we passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019 by a vote of 83 to 16. That compromise bill did not include the $5.7 billion the President wanted to build his wall.

Whether you believe Congress should fund the President's wall is not at issue. This is a question about the strength of the rule of law in this country and about the separation of powers, which forms the foundation of our American government.

The President's declaration of a national emergency is an end-run around Congress's power to appropriate--plain and simple. To quote Senator Collins, the President is ``usurping congressional authority.''

We are the representatives of the people. The people do not want to spend $5.7 billion on the President's wall, and we must protect their will.

Let's be clear. This emergency declaration has serious implications for States all across the country. To build this wall, the White House will raid $3.6 billion from the Department of Defense's military construction budget and $2.5 billion from that Department's drug interdiction program, but the White House apparently failed to realize there are only about $80 million in the drug interdiction account. So we should be prepared for a raid on other accounts or taking even more from military construction funding.

These are military construction funds that Congress already has appropriated for specific projects necessary to support the national security priorities of the United States. I am privileged to serve on the Appropriations Committee. I understand the hard and careful work that goes into these funding decisions.

From my home State of New Mexico, Congress allocated some $85 million to construct a formal training unit at Holloman Air Force Base in the south-central part of New Mexico for unmanned aerial vehicles. This investment in technology tracks terrorists

and protects our national security. We allocated $40 million to the White Sands Missile Range to build an information systems facility badly needed for next-generation research and development activities at the range. Both of these projects were vetted over several years and deemed important to our national security.

New Mexico is not alone. Many States' military bases and regional economies will be impacted. Colorado, for example, is at risk of losing almost $100 million for construction projects at Fort Carson near Colorado Springs. Ohio risks $61 million for the first installment for building at the National Air and Space Intelligence Center at Wright- Patterson Air Force Base.

Military construction projects totaling $210 million are at risk in Florida, $520 million in Texas, $81 million in Utah, and the list goes on and on. Projects in every corner of the country will be impacted.

According to the 1976 Senate report from the National Emergencies Act, the President's emergency power may ``be utilized only when actual emergencies exist.'' As a border Senator, I am here to tell you that there is no actual national security emergency at our southern border necessitating a massive wall along the southern border, as this body has already determined. This is a matter where the President and Congress have disagreed and the President is trying to overrule Congress by fiat.

A bipartisan group of 58 former national security officials are sounding the alarm. They write: ``Under no plausible assessment of the evidence is there a national emergency today that entitles the president to tap into funds appropriated for other purposes to build a wall at the southern border.''

The evidence speaks for itself. The number of border apprehensions has decreased dramatically. Since the early 2000s, southern border apprehensions have dropped 81 percent. The number of apprehensions at the end of fiscal year 2017 was the lowest it has been since 1971--a 46-year low. We have the lowest number of undocumented immigrants in our country that we have had in over a decade.

The Pew Research Center estimated recently that the total number of undocumented immigrants residing in the United States is far less than since 2004. That is a 14-year low. And more people emigrate to Mexico from the United States than immigrate from Mexico to here. That is right. We have a negative net migration rate with Mexico.

I am one of the four States that border Mexico--one of the four States that will be the most directly affected by a wall. I know for an absolute fact that there is no national security emergency along my State's border with Mexico. It is quite the opposite.

New Mexico's border communities are thriving. International commerce is thriving. Our multicultural communities are thriving. Crime rates are low.

A wall like the President wants would be disastrous for a State like New Mexico. It will seize away private property and carve up family ranches, farms, and homesteads. It will harm the beautiful but fragile environment there on the border.

Again, whether you support the President's wall is not at issue on this vote. As Senator Tillis put it in an op-ed in the Washington Post, ``I support President Trump's vision on border security. But I would vote against the emergency.''

Another Senate Republican Senator recently said, ``Congress has been ceding far too much power to the executive branch for decades. We should use this moment as an opportunity to start taking power back.''

Over 20 former Republican Senators and Representatives were compelled to pen a letter opposing the emergency declaration. They state: ``It has always been a Republican fundamental principle that no matter how strong our policy preferences, no matter how deep our loyalties to presidents and party leaders, in order to remain a constitutional republic we must act within the borders of the Constitution.''

The time to act is now. Litigation has been filed, but Congress should resolve the issue of our own constitutional authority and not wait for the courts.

Let me repeat. The vote we will take will be historic. It is imperative that all of us--Republican and Democrat--protect and defend our Constitution and that we protect and defend the checks and balances that unequivocally place the power of the purse with Congress and that we affirm our powers--powers that are separate from the President's.

Our oath is to uphold the Constitution, and the Constitution is clear. The Constitution does not empower the President to raid money by decree just because Congress has already said no.

I will vote to terminate the President's declaration of the national emergency to build his wall, and I will urge everyone in this Chamber to protect our constitutional prerogative and to do so as well.

Would the Senator yield?

I just want to say, because we have both been here for a bit talking on the floor about this, I want to thank Senator Collins for standing up for principle. I want to thank her for standing up for our Constitution. It is a real honor to join her in this resolution of disapproval.

I also, as she just did, thank the two other Senators who are joining us, Senator Murkowski and Senator Shaheen. I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. President, before the Presidents Day recess, I announced that I would introduce legislation if the tax extenders weren't included in the legislation that we passed at that time that would keep government open.

Today I am following through on that promise with a bill that I am introducing with Finance Committee ranking member Senator Wyden of Oregon.

It is fitting that I am taking this step in the same month as Groundhog Day, as the subject of my remarks is something that Congress has had to deal with too many times already.

Next to me is a depiction from the movie ``Groundhog Day,'' which is about a man named Phil who must relive the same day over and over until he gets everything right. While we still need to break the cycle of repetitive short-term extensions, the right thing to do right now is to extend these already-expired provisions for 2018 and 2019.

As I have said before, the tax extenders are a collection of temporary tax

incentives that have required extension on a very regular basis in order to keep them available to the taxpayers. Currently, there are 26 provisions. At one time there were as many as 50-some. We have done away with some of them and made some of those laws permanent, but these 26 provisions expired at the end of 2017. They need to be extended, as well as three others that expired at the end of last year.

Today we are in the middle of filing season for 2018 tax returns, and taxpayers affected by these expired provisions need a resolution so that they can file. I want to stress that I want to find a long-term resolution so that we don't have to have temporary tax policy, but it is critical we make it clear to the taxpayers that these provisions are available for the 2018 filing season and extending them for this year will give us room to take a needed long-term view of this temporary tax policy.

Many of the tax extenders are intended to be incentives, and to be successful, then, these incentives need to be in effect before decisions can be made. That is why we should provide extensions for at least 2 years, to maximize that incentive effect. But it is also important that we extend these provisions for 2018, even though the year has obviously already ended. We have developed a very bad policy and a very bad habit of extending these tax provisions year after year, and people and businesses have come to expect that the extension will happen.

As a result, decisions were made by various businesses in 2018 based upon the expectation of extension, and that is a reasonable expectation because we have done it over decades. In other words, people did what we wanted them to do in their business decisions when these provisions were created. We should not retroactively punish these businesspeople for Congress's inaction.

Today, a diverse group of organizations, including the National Biodiesel Board, the American Trucking Associations, and the National Corn Growers Association, among others, sent a letter to congressional leaders requesting that the expired provisions be extended through 2019 as quickly as possible. I want to quote a few sentences from that letter:

Providing taxpayers with a predictable planning outlook as

it pertains to tax rules is conducive to increased private

sector investment and economic activity. Accordingly, we

respectfully ask that you act to retroactively extend these

expired tax provisions through 2019 on the first appropriate

legislative vehicle.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the complete letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, another very important point I want to make has to do with the question about whether an extender package should be offset or not. Around here, the word ``offset'' means if you have tax provisions that might lose revenue, then do you have other revenue coming in to take its place? The House has decided that is what you should do--pay as you go, or PAYGO, as they might call it. It is a rule of the House.

I have a long record of promoting budget responsibility, and I am as concerned about the deficit and debt as anyone. However, we also have bipartisan precedent for treating the extension of temporary tax policy, like these extenders, just as we treat the extension of annual spending policy. In neither case do we need offset for such extensions. In other words, it is all right to spend more money or continue to spend the same amount of money after a program has expired, and you don't have to offset it when you have tax law that has been on the books for a couple of decades, and it is sunset. Why should you have to sunset that? There are a few people around here who think it is all right to spend money without offsets, but it is wrong to do tax policy unless you have offsets.

There are a few specific items in this legislation that I want to take time to mention. Significant work has already been done to provide long-term solutions on two extenders--the short line railroad tax credit and the biodiesel tax credit.

The bill I am introducing extends those credits at their current levels for 2018 and 2019. I want my colleagues to

know that I still remain committed to enacting the compromises that several of our colleagues and I worked with the stakeholders to achieve.

The bill also includes an extension of a proposal adopted last Congress that would extend the 7.5-percent floor for itemized deductions of medical expenses. Without this provision, the floor on deductions will be 10 percent for 2019. This means that without this provision, individuals with chronic illnesses and high medical expenses would have to pay more for healthcare before that excess can be deducted in the expenses on their 2019 tax returns.

This proposal is a very important priority for one of our best colleagues, Senator Collins. She deserves a lot of credit for getting what has turned into a bipartisan proposal to help many Americans facing catastrophic medical expenses.

Finally, the legislation includes provisions to assist Americans who have been affected by natural disasters in 2018. This package includes proposals that we have adopted in prior years to help Americans recover from natural disasters across our country. For example, the package would allow increased access to retirement funds and relax restrictions around charitable giving. I am sure everyone here would like to help people affected by these natural disasters as soon as we are able to.

I don't want my comments today to imply that each tax extender should be permanently extended, but the right thing to do now is to provide extensions for at least 2018 and 2019. In the long term, Congress needs to decide if these provisions should be allowed to expire or if they should be phased out or if they should be made permanent as current tax policy or modified in some way beyond expiring, phasing out, or being made permanent.

Those decisions need to be made after we resolve the short-term crisis caused by the current lapse. These provisions have support of Members on both sides of the aisle. For people who think that things around here get done only with Republicans fighting Democrats or vice versa, these provisions have wide bipartisan support.

There is a solid foundation for a long-term package consisting of many of these provisions in one form or another. We need to get past today so that we can chart the course for a reliable future for the tax extenders and give business some certainty.

Just as Phil wants to stop living the same day over and over again, I think all of us want to break the cycle of short-term extensions of, in many cases, very popular tax policy. The legislation I introduce today with the ranking member, Senator Wyden of Oregon, is a critical first step toward helping taxpayers complete their 2018 returns and helping us begin work on a long-term solution to temporary tax policy.

I have asked our majority leader to rule XIV this bill onto the calendar, and I urge the House to send us a tax bill to address the extenders without further delay.

Just this morning, I had discussions with Iowa Congressmen of both political parties about this issue to contact the leadership of the House and the leadership of the Ways and Means Committee on the importance of moving legislation since the Constitution doesn't allow the Senate to move tax legislation in the first place.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the resolution that I am joining Senator Udall in introducing. It would reverse the President's ill-advised decision to declare a national emergency and commandeer funding provided for other purposes by Congress and instead redirect it to construct a wall on our southern border.

I thank Senator Udall for his leadership and also recognize the support we have received from our cosponsors, Senator Murkowski and Senator Shaheen.

Let me be clear. The question before us is not whether to support or oppose the wall. It is not whether to support or oppose President Trump. Rather, it is this: Do we want the executive branch now or in the future to hold a power that the Founders deliberately entrusted to Congress?

It has been said that Congress's most precious power is the power of the purse set out in plain language in article I, section 9 of our Constitution. It reads as follows: ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by law.''

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 72, made clear the Founders' view that only the legislative branch commands this power, not the judiciary and not the executive. James Madison, in Federalist 58, called the power of the purse ``the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the [ . . . ] representatives of the people.''

Congress's power was jealously guarded in the early days of our Republic. No less an authority on our constitutional framework than Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in his famous ``Commentaries,'' explained that ``[i]f it were otherwise, the executive would possess an unbounded power over the public purse of the nation, and might apply all its monied resources at his pleasure.''

Throughout our history, the courts have consistently held that ``only Congress is empowered by the Constitution to adopt laws directing monies to be spent from the U.S. treasury.''

I strongly support protecting the institutional prerogatives of the U.S. Senate and the system of checks and balances that is central to the structure of our government.

I support funding for better border security, including physical barriers where they make sense. I understand the President is disappointed that the funding he requested did not pass, but the failure of Congress to pass funding in the amount the President prefers cannot become an excuse for the President to usurp the powers of the legislative branch.

This is not the first time I have made this argument against Executive overreach. In 2015, I authored the Immigration Rule of Law Act, legislation that would have provided a statutory basis for the Dreamer population, while rolling back President Obama's 2014 Executive orders expanding that program.

As I explained at the time, even though I supported comprehensive immigration reform and was disappointed that it had not passed, I rejected the notion that its failure could serve as the justification for President Obama to implement by Executive fiat that which Congress had refused to pass, regardless of the wisdom of Congress's decision.

I would now like to turn to a discussion of the National Emergencies Act. This act was passed in 1976 to standardize the process by which the President can invoke national emergency powers and Congress can terminate the declaration through a joint resolution such as the one we are introducing today.

The act is procedural in nature. It lays out the process the President must follow to declare a national emergency but does not provide the President with any additional powers. Instead, it requires the President to specify where, in existing law, he has been granted the authority for the powers he intends to exercise.

By itself, the National Emergencies Act does not give the President the power to repurpose billions of dollars to build a wall. The President must look elsewhere for that authority.

In his declaration, the President cites the authority provided by title 10, section 2808 of the U.S. Code, which relates to ``Construction authority in the event of a declaration of war or national emergency.'' But that authorization applies only to ``military construction projects'' that are ``necessary to support [the] use of the armed forces.'' I do not believe this provision can be fairly read to bootstrap the presence of troops along the southern border into the authority to build a wall as a military construction project.

The question isn't whether the President can act in an emergency but whether he can do so in a manner that would undermine the congressional power of the purse.

Here, I think we need a better understanding of what should qualify as an emergency. One place we could turn is to a five-part test originally developed by the Office of Management and Budget in 1991, under former President George Herbert Walker Bush, to determine whether requested funding merited an ``emergency spending'' designation under our budget rules.

Under that test, a spending request was designated as an ``emergency'' only if all five of the following conditions were met:

First, expenditures had to be necessary; second, the need had to be sudden, coming into being quickly, not building up over time; third, the need had to be urgent; fourth, the need had to be unforeseen; and fifth, the need could not be permanent.

I raise this test only by way of analogy, but it is fair to say that whether or not you agree with the President that more should be done to secure the southern border--and I do agree with the President's goal-- his decision to fund a border wall through a national emergency declaration would not pass this five-part test.

The President's declaration also has practical implications for the military construction appropriations process, as my colleague has pointed out.

Last year, in testimony before the Appropriations Committee, the Department of Defense said that the President's budget request for military construction funding was crucial to support our national defense, including construction projects to improve military readiness and increase the lethality of the force. This includes missile defense, improved facilities in Europe to deter Russian aggression, and infrastructure to operationalize the F-35 stealth fighter.

This also included several important efforts at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Maine that are vital to the Navy conducting timely maintenance and refueling of our Nation's submarines. Shifting funding away from these vital projects is shortsighted and could have very real national security implications.

We must defend Congress's institutional powers, as the Founders hoped we would, even when doing so is inconvenient or goes against the outcome we might prefer.

The gridlock we have experienced on difficult issues like border security and immigration reform is not simply a failure to get our work done but a reflection of the fact that we have yet to reach a consensus.

The President's emergency declaration is ill-advised precisely because it attempts to shortcut the process of checks and balances by usurping Congress's authority. This resolution blocks that overreach, and I hope, regardless of our colleague's position on the construction of the border wall, that we will join together to assert Congress's constitutional authority in the appropriations process.

I urge our colleagues to support this important resolution.

I would be happy to.

Mr. President, I would thank the Senator for his gracious comments. As always, it has been a great pleasure to work with him, and I know he cares deeply about the constitutional principle that brings us to the floor today. Let us defend the Constitution.