That part of the bill is irrelevant. They need to pass a law that would strip away POTUS power to declare an emergency and re-allocate funds in the process. They likely won’t pass such a law and no POTUS would willingly agree to sign such a law; nor would Congress really want to for fear of things like Katrina. Sometimes the Executive needs to act fast.
There are several dozen POTUS ‘emergencies’ still ongoing some going back to the Clinton era. The legal territory has long been settled. Congress can’t claw it back, SCOTUS has affirmed it, and most challenges you can think of either have no standing or are not legally ‘ripe’ eg. they have to exhaust all other administrative options before bringing a suit. Which is ironic because these are some of the same laws that the government put in place to protect themselves from being sued by citizens.
IMO, inconsistent language is seldom irrelevant in the interpretation of an entire writing, even if ultimately not given any weight.
They need to pass a law that would strip away POTUS power to declare an emergency..
On the face of it, my inclination is to agree inasmuch as the Dem party is swerving to the left. Prior to the statute affording such authority, the view was the Constitution implied such authority and the Congress could impeach and remove a president that misused the authority.
Of course, in any event we might not have the votes to remove an overreaching progressive president. However, in light of clear statutory removal of the authority a significant abuse could serve as a call to arms (if anyone is listening).
Have a nice weekend.