Floor Statements

Mr. President, I will be brief. The resolution does not say it has to be done immediately. The resolution certainly allows for the Attorney General to make sure that nothing is released that violates the law. All it says is that it ought to be released. It is hard to understand why the majority leader wouldn't be for that resolution.

None of his objections--none--are in the words of the report. In fact, the words of the report are very simple. It shows a sense of the Congress that it should be released--not when, not in violation of the law, not in a hurried matter, just to be released.

So I am sort of befuddled by at least the majority leader's reasoning in this regard because it is not in the words of this resolution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, again, this language was good enough for every Republican in the Senate, as well as every Democrat. The President himself says it should be released. It is hard to understand why the majority leader should stand alone in objections no one else found to be reasonable or sustainable and oppose this resolution. The report should be made public, and the Senate should resolve that it should be.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I thank my colleague and friend from Tennessee for deferring.

First, on Donald Stewart, I know Leader McConnell talked about him. Everyone is going to miss him here in the Senate. He was truly somebody whom everyone liked. He always had a great sense of humor and a big smile. He served his boss, Mitch McConnell, extremely well, but he never let that get in the way of being friendly and working with the other side. He is somebody we will all miss. I enjoyed my interactions with him a great deal. I think that is probably true of just about every Member here.

We wish Stew the best and thank him for serving this body so long and so well.

H.J. Res. 46

Today, Madam President, the Senate will vote on the resolution to terminate the President's declaration of a national emergency. This is not a normal vote. What we are doing here today--this is not a normal day. It is not your typical vote on an appropriations or authorization bill. It doesn't concern a nomination or an appointment. This will be a vote about the very nature of our Constitution, the separation of powers, and how this government functions henceforth.

The Framers gave Congress the power of the purse in article I of the Constitution. It is probably our greatest power. Now the President is claiming that power for himself under a guise of an emergency declaration to get around a Congress that repeatedly would not authorize his demand for a border wall.

The President has not justified the emergency declaration. You would think in a moment like this, when there is not a war, when there is not an immediate disease, or when there is not a disaster--that is when we had other declarations. They don't need an elaboration, but this one would. But the President hasn't done that. He simply said he ``didn't need to do this.'' That is amazing, folks, my colleagues. The President said he didn't need to do this, and yet he is declaring an emergency. It is a direct contradiction of his own words.

Everyone here knows the truth. Democrats and Republicans know the sad truth. The President did not declare an emergency because there is one; he declared an emergency because he lost in Congress and wants to get around it. He is obsessed with showing strength. He couldn't just abandon his pursuit of the border wall, so he had to trample on the Constitution to continue his fight. That is not how this democracy is supposed to function. That is not how this democracy has functioned. I have never seen it, where, out of anger and out of a desire to win the fight regardless of the consequences, a President would do this.

The President has not laid out where he plans to divert funds from, though we know it is going to be from our military--from the men and women serving us and from the things they need.

Senators who vote against this resolution this afternoon may be voting to gut funding for a military installation in their State or for a cut to military pay and military pensions. How could they do that?

Most importantly, President Trump has shown zero understanding of what his emergency portends for the separation of powers in our democracy. The President seems to regard the government, not just the Justice Department, as his own personal tool to do whatever he wants, whether it is in the private sector or the public sector. We have never had a President like this.

We have had lots of Presidents with lots of foibles, but none of them seem to equate their own ego with the entire functioning of the government of the United States, except this one.

We can't succumb to that. It is our job here, in Congress, to limit executive overreach, to defend our core powers, to prevent a President--any President--from ignoring the will of Congress every time it fails to align with the will of the President. That is what the balance of powers is. That is what checks and balances is. That is what every one of us learned in second grade civics class.

All that teaching in the second grade civics class seems to be lost on so many of my Republican colleagues in blind obeisance to this President, no matter what the consequences.

This is not an issue of the wall. It goes way beyond that. We have had our fights and disputes on the wall for several years here. However you feel about our policy on the southern border and however you feel about the President, Senators should vote yes on the resolution to terminate the emergency declaration.

This resolution is about more than this President. It is about the Presidency now and on into the future.

It should not be difficult for any of my Republican colleagues to take this vote. Conservative principles would demand it, and some of the true conservatives, like Mr. Lee, yesterday, understood that logic. Conservatives have always feared an agglomeration of power in any branch of government, but particularly in the executive branch. The conservative movement has been designed to reduce the powers of the Federal Government. That is why they are for lowering taxes so much.

All of a sudden, again, because President Trump simply wants it, they say: Let's abandon those principles and vote to change, fundamentally, the way the balance of power works--shame.

If conservatism today is to mean anything, self-branded conservatives should vote to terminate the resolution. Deep-seated principles like that shouldn't take a back seat to the politics of the moment. They should not be abandoned just because the President shares the same party.

Now, let me speak from the heart to my Republican colleagues. I know that President Trump is extremely popular among Republicans for many reasons. I know he commands the vast majority of the Republican Party, and I know that the President never shies away from threatening, bullying, or publicly castigating members of his own party if they refuse to do what he wants.

So, I realize this. It is a much more difficult vote for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to take than for those of us who are Democrats. I would say to them, and I would say to every Republican: There are times when loyalty to America, to our Constitution, to our principles, and to what has made this country great should lead Members to rise above and rise to the occasion.

I hope and I pray that this moment is one of those times when Members choose country over party and when Members rise above politics for the sake of fidelity to our constitutional principles and to this great United States of America.

In conclusion, on this issue, this is not an everyday moment. This is not just about going along with this President or that one. This is a red-letter day in the history of how the U.S. Government functions. The judgment of our Founding Fathers and the judgment of history weighs upon this vote.

Tariffs

Madam President, the trade negotiations with China are moving forward, and I continue to have concerns that President Trump will accept a weak deal for the sake of a headline. Apparently, I am not alone. President Trump's former top economic adviser, Gary Cohn, told a podcast that the President is ``desperate'' to reach a trade deal. He also expressed deep skepticism that the administration would be able to stop the Chinese from stealing intellectual property and hold the Chinese accountable.

I hope Gary Cohn is wrong. The President, to his credit, was not desperate for a deal in North Korea and stood up to Kim Jong Un and looked strong for that. I hope he realizes that, as he negotiates with someone with even more consequences at stake for the long run of America--President Xi--and with a country that can do far more harm to our country, ultimately, in the long run.

Ambassador Lighthizer has said that there are still major issues left to be resolved. If that is the case, President Trump should not be pressing for a quick solution. The Chinese are more desperate for a solution than we are, although, obviously, some harm has been created to bring the Chinese to the table with tariffs.

The Chinese are desperate, and it is like they are ahead in the seventh inning, and then you say: I quit the ball game; I lose.

Don't do that, Mr. President. The tariffs you have imposed, at some political cost, have brought China to the table and given us the first opportunity in decades--in decades--to make the Chinese reform so they don't take total advantage of American workers and know-how. Soybean purchases and promises to import more American goods are not sufficient if we don't win concrete concessions on major issues.

If President Trump caves to China for the sake of soybean purchases, he would be trading America's future, literally, for a hill of beans. We want to help the soybean farmers. We want to help everybody else, but not at the expense of the future viability of jobs and wealth in America.

My message to President Trump is the same one I mentioned to him and I gave to him before he met with Kim Jong Un: Don't back down.

The President should be proud that he stood up to North Korea and walked away. He will be proud if he does the same with China, unless President Xi makes enduring, verifiable reforms of China's economic and trade policies, because the odds are high that if the President walks away from a weak deal, he will be able to get a much better deal down the road.

I yield the floor.

We have 1 minute remaining, I think. I ask unanimous consent to speak in leader time.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Today, the Senate will vote on the resolution to terminate the President's declaration of a national emergency.

Let me begin with a quotation.

Revelations of how power has been abused by high government

officials must give rise to concern about the potential

exercise, unchecked by the Congress or the American people,

of this extraordinary power. The National Emergencies Act

would end this threat and ensure that the powers now in the

hands of the Executive will be utilized only in a time of

genuine emergency and then only under safeguards providing

for congressional review.

Let me repeat that. ``[T]he powers now in the hands of the Executive will be utilized only in a time of genuine emergency.'' That is from the special committee report on the National Emergencies Act, which was passed decades ago.

The bottom line is very simple. We all know the other arguments--that this is not an emergency. The President himself said so. He said he didn't have to do this if he didn't want to. In previous emergencies, it was either apparent, like 9/11, or it was a disease or some other immediate disaster, and there was a long explanation as to why. We have gotten no explanation as to why this is an emergency.

The second reason, of course, is the money that might be taken away from the military--our brave men and women in uniform not getting the dollars they need--for this wall.

The third, of course, is that the President couldn't get his way through Congress even when we had 2 years of Republican leadership in the House, Senate, and White House, couldn't get his way this time, and is now simply going around Congress to declare an emergency.

But those reasons pale for the most important reason. This is a momentous day. The balance of power that the Founding Fathers put in place, so exquisitely designed, has served this Nation extremely well for over two centuries. That balance of power was in large part motivated by the fear of an overreaching Executive. The patriots had just fought King George. They knew what it was like to have an Executive who would go too far, and they put in precautions to make sure that didn't happen.

Today, we are being asked, in a way that we haven't been asked in decades, maybe even longer, to change that balance of power. And make no mistake about it--it will set an awful precedent for the future, no matter who is President. It will change it. If a President can invoke an emergency because he didn't get his way or she didn't get her way, without real cause, without a real emergency, woe is our Republic in many ways--the ways the Founding Fathers feared.

I know this is a very difficult vote for my friends on the other side of the

aisle--much more difficult than ours. We all know that the President is extremely popular in the Republican Party for maybe a few good reasons--I would say mostly bad, but he is. We know that he has been vindictive, contemptuous, calling out people who oppose him. So it is not an easy vote. I take my hat off to those Members on the other side of the aisle who have let principle rise above party, who understand what the Constitution requires this afternoon and have agreed to vote against this emergency.

I would plead with those others who haven't made up their minds to look at this moment in history. This is not an immediate moment. You can be for the wall or against the wall, you can think that what we are doing at the southern border is inadequate, but that issue pales before the issue before us; that is, how far an Executive can reach when Congress does not want to do what that Executive wants.

This is a crucial moment. This is a moment historians will look back on. This could be a moment that changes the fundamental balance of power in our government. So I would ask my colleagues--I would really plead with my colleagues. I understand the politics are difficult--much harder for you than for me--but our Nation, our Constitution, the beauty of this government demands that we rise to the occasion this afternoon. Please join us in rejecting this emergency and keeping our government with the same balance of power that has served us so well for two centuries.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, this morning, something rather amazing and wonderful happened in the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives this morning passed a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the full report by Special

Counsel Robert Mueller should be made available to the public and to Congress. The vote was 420 to 0. Not a single Member of the House, Democratic or Republican, voted no.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the record of the vote, including all 190 Republicans who voted yes, be printed in the Record.

Now, why did every Republican vote for this? That is because there is no good reason that the special counsel's report should not be made public. The American people are overwhelmingly for making the report public. They have a right to see it. No one should stand in the way of that. In fact, in the House, no one did. The only reason to not make this report public would be to cover up what is in it. What a shame that would be.

The Senate should pass this resolution with the same unanimity that the House did. The special counsel has been investigating one of the greatest affronts to our democracy--the deliberate interference by a foreign power in our elections. The American people have an undeniable right to see the results of that investigation for themselves, and so this resolution should pass.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 24, expressing the sense of Congress that the report of Special Counsel Robert Mueller be made available to the public and to Congress, which is at the desk; further, that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed in my good friend from South Carolina. This amendment appears to be a pretext for blocking this very simple, noncontroversial resolution. Four hundred-twenty Members of the House voted for it. Congressman Jim Jordan, a friend of the President's, voted for it. Congressman Devin Nunes, a friend of the President's, voted for it.

This resolution should pass the Senate in the blink of an eye. I have absolutely no idea why a Member of this body would object to this basic level of transparency, whatever their concern on other issues.

My friend from South Carolina says the report ought to be made public. Let's not stand in the way for other issues. He is chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He can deal with that separately but not block this resolution.

So let the American people know that the Republican majority in the Senate--at least for now--is blocking a resolution that the Mueller report should be made public. I hope my friend from South Carolina and all of my Republican colleagues take time over the recess to thinks about this. We are going to be back here asking for consent again when the Senate is back in session, and my Republican colleagues ought to think long and hard before they block this resolution again.

I object.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, tomorrow, the Senate will vote on a resolution to terminate the President's emergency declaration--a declaration that undermines our separation of powers in order to fund the President's wall with American taxpayer dollars, despite Candidate Trump's repeated promises that Mexico would pay for it.

The resolution could not be any simpler. All it says is this, one single sentence: ``Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, pursuant to section 202 of the National Emergencies Act . . . the national emergency declared by the finding of the President on February 15, 2019, in Proclamation 9844 . . . is hereby terminated.''

That is it in the entirety. There are no political games here. There is no ``gotcha.'' There is no discussion as to whether we need a wall, whether there is a crisis on the southern border. It simply says that this is not an emergency.

The vote tomorrow boils down to something very simple for our Republican friends: Do you believe in the Constitution and conservative principles? There are all of these self-proclaimed conservatives. Well, the No. 1 tenet of conservatism is that no one, particularly an Executive, a President, should have too much power. That has been what conservatives have stood for through the centuries, and all of a sudden, because Donald Trump says he wants to declare an emergency, are people going to succumb?

The Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves. They would be rolling in their graves for any President, let alone this one who we know overreaches in terms of power and who we know has no understanding of the exquisite and delicate balance that James Madison, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and so many others created in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Do our Republican friends stand for conservative principles? Do they stand for any principles at all, or do they just take a loyalty pledge to President Trump and meekly do whatever he wants? It is that simple.

There are a lot of issues on which we disagree. There are lots of times our Republican friends bow to President Trump, but there ought to be an exception. And if there ever were an exception, it should be this.

Many of my Republican colleagues rightly stood up and told the President not to take this action. Leader McConnell himself said it was a bad idea, a bad precedent, contravenes the power of the purse, a dangerous step, an erosion of congressional authority. And they, our Republican friends, were right. The President himself said he ``didn't need to do this.'' That is not an emergency.

Are we going to say that anytime a President can't get his or her way with Congress, they can declare an emergency and Congress will meekly shrug its shoulders and walk by and bow in obeisance to any President, Democratic or Republican? What a disgrace.

This is one of the true tests of our Republican colleagues--one of the true tests--because it has always been the Democratic Party that has been for a stronger Executive. Dwight Eisenhower was worried about too much power going to the President, and so was Ronald Reagan. Where are our Republican friends now? Has Donald Trump turned this Republican Party and its conservative principles so inside out that we can't even get four votes to declare that this isn't an emergency, that we can't get 20 votes to say to the President that we will override this, because this is far more important than any view on the wall or the southern border, which we all know has been going on for a long time. While the President thinks it is an emergency, Congress clearly didn't. Even when Republicans controlled the House and Senate, they did nothing about the wall.

I have talked to a lot of my Republican colleagues. They know what this is all about. Everyone here knows the truth. The President did not declare an emergency because there is one; he declared an emergency because he lost in Congress and wanted to go around it. He has no principles in terms of congressional balance of power. We know that. We all know that. So to bow in obeisance to him when we all know what he is doing is so wrong--a low moment for this Senate and its Republican friends.

When it comes to the Constitution, you ought to stand up to fear and do the right thing no matter who is in the White House. My Republican friends know the right thing to do. They should not be afraid to do it.

Last I checked, we all took the same oath of office. What did it say? ``Uphold the Constitution.''

There are different views on the Constitution, but I haven't heard one constitutional scholar--left, right, or center--say that this upholding the President on this emergency is the right thing to do in terms of the Constitution. I hope my Republican friends will join us.

Now, it seems, from what I read in the press reports this morning, that some Senators are in search of a fig leaf. They want to salve their consciences. They know this is the wrong thing to do.

They came up with this idea that will change the emergency declaration for future moments. Reports indicate that a group of Republican Senators are pushing legislation that would ignore the President's power grab but limit future emergency declarations--what bunk, what a fig leaf. That will not pass.

To my friend, the Senator from Utah, who I know does have constitutional qualms, he is squirming. His legislation will not pass.

Let me just read you what Leader Pelosi said a few minutes ago. This is from her statement:

Republican Senators are proposing new legislation to allow

the President to violate the Constitution just this once in

order to give themselves cover. The House will not take up

this legislation to give President Trump a pass.

Do you hear me, my colleagues--my Republican colleagues? This will not pass. This is not a salve. It is a very transparent fig leaf. If you believe the President is doing the wrong thing, if you believe there shouldn't be an emergency, you don't say: Well, in the Congress we will introduce future legislation to change it, and, then, when the President declares another emergency, we will do new legislation to allow that too.

Come on. This fig leaf is so easily seen through, so easily blown aside that it leaves the constitutional pretensions of my Republican colleagues naked. The fig leaf is gone. Don't even think that it will have anything to do with what we are doing.

I hope my colleagues will stand strong. What the Republicans want to say with this fig leaf is, to paraphrase St. Augustine, ``Grant me the courage to stand up to President Trump, but not yet.''

Next time and next time and next time they will say the same thing.

Let's do the right thing. Let's tell the President that he cannot use his overreaching power to declare an emergency when he couldn't get Congress to

do what he wanted, and let's not make a joke of this by saying that there is some legislation that will not pass in the future that gives me the OK to vote for this, to vote against this resolution. That fig leaf makes a mockery of the whole Constitution and the whole process.

President Trump put out his budget yesterday. It says ``promises kept.'' That is one of the biggest lies I have ever seen because if you look at the booklet, it is promises broken.

The President said he would never cut Medicare and Medicaid. He slashes them. It is an $845 billion cut to Medicare and $1.5 trillion cut to Medicaid.

The President says he believes in a strong infrastructure bill. Promises kept? This bill cuts transportation by over 20 percent.

The President said that education is the civil rights of this generation. Promises kept? The President cuts education dramatically.

On issue after issue after issue, the President's budget shows the real President Trump and how far away he is from the promises he makes to the working people of America. Many of them are catching on, many more will, and this budget will be a way to show who the President is.

Even worse--not ``even worse,'' but compounding the injury--there are huge giveaways to the wealthy, more tax breaks for the wealthiest of Americans. At a time when income distribution is getting more and more skewed to the top, when so much of the wealth of America and even the income of America goes to the top few, to have a budget that hurts the middle class, that hurts those trying to struggle to get to the middle class and makes it even easier for the wealthy to garner even more money--how out of touch is this budget?

I repeat my challenge. Leader McConnell, this is your President. You seem to go along with him. Put this budget on the floor. Let's see if even a single Republican will vote for it. I would like to ask every one of my 53 Republican colleagues: How many of you will say, ``I support this budget''? I bet not one--not one.

This budget is a slap on the face to every American who has worked hard every day, paid his or her taxes, expects Medicare in retirement, expects some way to afford healthcare for retirement.

President Trump's budget is inhumane. We Democrats will fight it and fight these heartless cuts at every single turn.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

By the end of this week, the Senate must vote on the resolution to terminate the President's declaration of a national emergency.

There are three very clear reasons to vote to terminate. First, there is no factual basis of an emergency at the border. The President made that clear when he said he didn't need to do this. If we allow Presidents to declare emergencies for such nonemergency-type situations because they want to do it, we are headed down a very bad road.

Second, the emergency would cannibalize funds intended for our brave men and women in uniform in order to pay for the wall, including military construction, and maybe even military pay and pensions.

The bottom line is, we hear from the other side how we have to make sure we give our soldiers what they need. We completely agree, but all of a sudden, when there is this wall, we take it away from the soldiers; we take it away from military readiness. That is not a trade most Americans would make.

Third and most important is the danger to our Constitution. The emergency declaration is an injury to this great Constitution under which we live. It claims powers for the Presidency that were explicitly given to Congress. It distorts the separation of powers, and it sets a dangerous precedent for future Presidents.

The bottom line is, one of the things the Founding Fathers gave the most thought to was the balance of power and how to prevent an overpowerful and overleaning executive branch. That is why they gave Congress the power of the purse. Are we going to reverse 220 years of a balance of power because a President is demanding a wall that Congress couldn't get him, that Mexico couldn't pay for? It goes far beyond the wall, whether you are for or against it. It goes far beyond all these other issues. It goes to the very nature of our government, and it will set us on a path that historians will come back and look at as a very bad turning point for America.

Madam President, yesterday the Trump administration released its annual budget. These Trump budget requests have become so outlandish, so removed from reality, that even Republicans in Congress can't work with that budget and can't treat them seriously. They are essentially statements of principle from an administration that doesn't care about governing. What does it care about? What are its priorities? That is what they talked about because I bet they know not a single Republican would vote for the budget.

We looked at the budget and what it would mean for my home State of New York. The President's budget would cut millions of dollars from the Department of Justice programs that hire police officers, provide their equipment, and combat the opioid epidemic. The budget would cut millions from New York's educational programs that would help schools throughout our State, including those schools on military bases. It would hurt afterschool programs and STEM initiatives teaching our young people about science and math. The cuts to NIH would devastate New York's hospitals, particularly rural hospitals, and would cut back on our great medical research. We are all living longer and healthier, in part, because of the medical research done by NIH. Hardly anyone wants to cut that. The President did.

The cuts to Medicaid would affect 6.5 million New Yorkers who rely on it. I think that story can be repeated for just about every State. New York is a very diverse State, with large urban, rural, and suburban populations, and every one of them is hurt across the board from safety and security to education and healthcare, to infrastructure and economic development. The Trump budget would be a gut punch to New York's middle class. The same is true for the Nation.

Setting aside, for the moment, the humanity of these cuts, this budget reveals the depth of President Trump's hypocrisy on several of his signature issues. Donald Trump campaigned for President promising not to cut Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security. In 2015, he tweeted:

I was the first & only potential GOP candidate to state

there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare &

Medicaid. Huckabee copied me.

Let's look at President Trump's budget. It cuts Medicare by $845 billion, cuts Medicaid by $1.5 trillion. I understand the challenges of the office sometimes prevent Presidents from achieving precisely what they campaigned on, but this is literally the opposite of what Donald Trump said in his campaign. No one is forcing his hand. He is proposing this.

Candidate Trump? No cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. President Trump? Cut those promises by more than $2 trillion.

This budget says: ``Promises kept.'' Balderdash--balderdash--when it comes to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Promises kept? Donald Trump said he wouldn't cut Medicare or Medicaid. The budget slashes them brutally. How can they dare say ``promises kept'' on probably the most significant domestic-side programs we have when they slash them?

You don't even need a long memory to find out the hypocrisy of the President in this budget. Only a few months ago, the President spoke to the American Farm Bureau, promising a bright future for American farmers. Yet his administration proposed cutting the Department of Agriculture in the midst of implementing a new farm bill by 15 percent.

In his first address to a joint session of Congress, President Trump called education the ``civil rights of our time.'' Yesterday, he proposed cutting the Department of Education by 12 percent. Promises kept? Balderdash.

One of the few bipartisan moments during the President's most recent State of the Union was when he pledged to ``defeat AIDS in America and beyond.'' The President's budget, however, cuts the program that seeks to eliminate AIDS around the globe by 22 percent. Promises kept? Balderdash.

Of course, the President famously promised Mexico would pay for the border wall. His budget asks the American taxpayers to shell out $8.6 billion for the wall. Promises kept? Balderdash.

On the cover of the President's budget are emblazoned the words ``Promises Kept.'' He must really believe no one will read beyond the cover page because this budget document is a list of broken promises by President Trump, one after the other. What he says to the public and what he puts out in his budget are in two different worlds. Promises kept? He said he wouldn't cut Medicare or Medicaid. He cuts them. Promises kept? He said he would bolster our farmers. He cuts the farm bill 15 percent. Promises kept? Mexico will pay for the wall--not in this budget. The American taxpayers pay for it.

It is just pathetic that in this world in which we live, a President can be so hypocritical and contradictory by saying one thing and then having his budget do the exact opposite.

I have a challenge to my friend Leader McConnell, another challenge, because he seems to duck about every issue we have. Put President Trump's budget on the floor of the Senate. You are putting the Green New Deal on the floor of the Senate. Put this budget on the floor of the Senate. Let's see if a single Republican votes for it.

Madam President, this morning, the President tweeted a quote from a guest on ``FOX & Friends'' who called climate change fake science. Here is the quote: ``There is no climate crisis, there's weather and climate all around the world, and in fact, carbon dioxide is the main building block of life.''

There is weather and climate all around the world. Really, the President endorsed that quote. Just about every scientist who has studied it knows climate change is the greatest challenge facing our planet. Anyone who lives with these dramatic changes in weather, whether it is through California wildfires, whether it is through floods in the Middle West and Upstate New York, whether it is Miami streets flooding near the coast over and over again, everyone knows things are changing dramatically. It is not just the normal cycle I lived through the first 50 years of my life. We all know it is happening, and what does the President do? Not only does he deny it--it is worse--he acts on it in the wrong direction.

He has rolled back commonsense environmental protections, opened up more Federal lands for oil and gas, and announced the United States would leave the Paris accord. In the budget, President Trump proposes to cut more than one-third of EPA's funding and cuts other programs that combat climate change. Communities across the country are staring climate change in the face. Ask any farmer. They will tell you their growing seasons have changed. They will tell you about record droughts. They will tell you in the Mountain West about rebuilding from devastating wildfires and homeowners along the coasts picking up the pieces after hurricanes and storms have ripped through their States. It is just shameful. It is embarrassing the President continues to deny science and peddles these lies--absolutely shameful. I hope my Republican colleagues will stand up to the President and call out this nonsense. So far they haven't been willing to contradict the President's lies about climate change. That needs to change.

We challenge our Republican friends to join the resolution by Senator Carper, myself, and others. It says three simple things: One, climate change is real. Do you believe that, all of my Republican friends? Can you answer yes or no? Two, it is caused by human activity. And, three, we need to do something to stop it, to stop the dramatic change in global warming.

Why are our Republican friends so silent on this? That is perhaps the major issue of our day. When history looks back, it is not going to look kindly on them. What are they afraid of--the oil industry? What are they afraid of--the facts? What are they afraid of--rightwing orthodoxy, often funded by the Koch brothers, who don't want to admit to climate change? It is a shame. It is a shame.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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.

Mr. President, earlier today, the Trump administration released its annual request. In recent years, these budget requests have become statements of principles and priorities rather than working documents. Purely as a statement of principle, the latest budget proposal from the Trump administration is not only extremely disturbing, but it is totally against what the President talks about when he talks to his supporters.

The budget request we received today would be a gut punch to the middle class and a handout to powerful special interests and the wealthiest few. It would dismantle America's healthcare system as we know it, and it would dramatically widen the gap in income and wealth between our Nation's richest citizens and the rest.

Now listen to this: The President talks about how he wants to get better healthcare for Americans. Certainly our Republican colleagues do. By cutting healthcare coverage and increasing healthcare costs for millions of Americans, this budget belies those promises. President Trump's budget would repeal the entire Affordable Care Act, taking away insurance from 32 million Americans and eliminating protections for Americans with preexisting conditions. How many Republicans are for that?

How about this: $1.5 trillion in cuts to Medicaid, $845 billion in cuts to Medicare, $506 billion in cuts to tax credits that help lower income Americans afford insurance. Not only is this cruel, it is hypocritical. It is against everything our Republican friends talk about. It is against what the President says. He is going to preserve Medicare and Medicaid, and then he slashes them. It still befuddles me how he can get away with this even in these times.

Second, the budget slashes domestic programs, including investments in infrastructure, housing, education, and the environment--a third of the EPA budget and one-fifth of the Department of Transportation budget.

My Republican friends, when your commissioners and Governors come to you and say they need more highway funds, are you going to support a budget that cuts them by 20 percent?

On top of all this, it gives more tax breaks to the wealthiest few. It would permanently extend the Trump tax cuts, costing $1.9 trillion over 10 years. Seventy percent of the benefits go to the top one-fifth of America. The staggering costs of these tax cuts are the reason for all the proposed cuts to healthcare and infrastructure. The Trump budget proposes the blind theft of the middle class to line America's deepest pockets.

It is really a disgraceful budget. My guess is that Mr. Mulvaney at OMB put it together. He was one of the five most rightwing people in the Congress. He wanted to slash everything. The President just green- stamped it so he can tip his hat to those on the very far right.

The vast majority of the President's supporters--they are a dwindling number; they are now less than a third of America--don't support this. They don't support this at all. How many people who count themselves as supporters of President Trump support cutting Medicare by close to $1 trillion? How many of those who consider themselves supporters of Trump support cutting Medicaid by $1.5 trillion? How many of the President's closest supporters think we should eliminate protections for preexisting conditions when people have them? How many of the President's supporters want to cut infrastructure by one-fifth or cut the clean water and clean air budget by one-third? Hardly any. This budget is just sort of an ``Alice in Wonderland'' document.

Of course, it wouldn't be a Trump budget if it didn't include the fantasy of another $8.6 billion in funding for the border wall. The fiction that Mexico would pay for the wall has long been debunked, although that is what the President ran on, but it is still amazing that the Trump administration proposes year after year that the American taxpayer pay billions of dollars for a border wall that President Trump said would be completely free.

It is difficult to overstate the callousness of President Trump's budget. The cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and numerous middle-class programs are devastating but maybe not surprising. This budget will be on the backs of the Republicans. They support President Trump.

The Republican Party's systematic efforts to rip away Americans' healthcare, its continued embrace of the tax cuts for the rich, its refusal to accept science, facts, and the urgent need to address climate change have made cruel and unthinkable budget proposals like this one par for the course with our fellow Republicans. It is sad; it is a shame; and it basically is total hypocrisy because not one single Republican would campaign on these proposals.

Mr. President, this week the Senate will vote on three controversial nominees, including two circuit court judges: Paul Matey for the Third Circuit and Neomi Rao for the DC Circuit, the second most powerful court in the country.

Mr. Matey's nomination, in keeping with Leader McConnell just ripping apart whatever bipartisanship we have left, has advanced without a blue slip from either home State Senator, Mr. Booker or Mr. Menendez. In case it wasn't clear how little Republicans care about this once- vaunted tradition, Mr. Matey has skipped even the courtesy of meeting with Senator Menendez.

Mr. Matey has never made an oral argument before a Federal Court of Appeals--never. He barely has any litigation experience either. He has spent most of his career as a political aide to Governor Christie. Yet he is nominated for a lifetime appointment to a circuit court of appeals, not even a district court, where his qualifications would still be questionable, but to a circuit court.

Ms. Neomi Rao, despite her experience, might even be worse. As the Trump administration's regulatory czar, she has been in charge of rolling back consumer protections, environmental protections, and healthcare protections. So as a nominee for the DC Circuit, which hears cases on Federal regulation, Ms. Rao is hopelessly compromised. Yet she refused to commit to recusing herself from regulatory matters on which she has worked when pressed by Senator Feinstein during the Judiciary hearing.

That is to say nothing of Ms. Rao's alarming views. In past writings, Ms. Rao has expressed skepticism about climate change, called sexual and racial oppression ``myths,'' and argued that independent Federal Agencies are unconstitutional. Perhaps worst of all, she has implied that sexual assault victims are to blame for the despicable crimes committed against them.

Honestly, where do my Republican colleagues find these people? The majority party always nominates judges that have a particular bent, but the Trump administration's nominees, by and large, are not mainstream conservatives; they are rightwing ideologues, many of whom lack the experience, candor, and moderation that we would expect in a public servant, let alone a lifetime judge. For a few of these judges, the sole qualification is not their judicial experience, not their knowledge or erudition, but they are active members of the Federalist Society.

I know this is what my friend the majority leader cares about: a hard-right bench. He doesn't care about their qualifications; he doesn't care about moderation; he doesn't care about representing middle-class people when he nominates these judges. He is running a conveyor belt of political partisans, many with extremely thin legal resumes, onto the courts. He gets a talking point for his base, but the quality of these nominees degrades the Federal bench and cheapens the cause of justice in America.

I will vote no on both Mr. Matey and Ms. Rao, and I strongly urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.