prevent this national emergency from being implemented. well, certainly, the attorney general in california and i think 12 other attorney generals are going to file a lawsuit. they should. i i ve talked to xavier becerra about the underlying issues here. he ll go forward. we have to fight back here. this is a fundamental constitutional crisis at hand. the congress undertook a thorough, more than 12 months, of whether we should or should not build a border wall. they came. the house and the senate, democrats and republicans together, came to a conclusion that no massive border wall, $1.375 billion for repairing and expanding some border fences, that s what the congress decided and the president signed that law. now the president is going around congress, he s usurping the power of congress, using a national emergency declaration,
did the statements from the rose garden on friday hurt yourself case? the detractors would argue the president said he didn t have to go this route and he will lose a few legal cases but ultimately win at the u.s. supreme court. did that hurt your standing before a judge? we know the realities of judicial activism as you ve seen so many time with the ninth circuit. the president didn t want to have to choose this route. he wanted to see if congress would negotiate a better deal. they, of course, fell short with pushing forward $1.375 billion toward the physical barrier. that is better than the zero or less than $1 speaker pell pelosi was willing to offer. additional funds the border patrol need. we can immediately start building these physical barriers along the southern border in these most vulnerable
as it winhines through the process. they believe taking in the action is in of itself supported boo by the law. even though those believing in an over reach will argue. the number of adversaries who are filing suit does not change the dynamic of how courts will decide even though there is a real crowd lining up now against this with knowledgeable people who are looking at the same set of facts and viewing it differently, javier from california, for example, the white house is saying they believe the log that goes back 40 years give the president the latitude and the interpretation they are using in this moment where they derived sources of funding that includes what the congress did actually pass, the $1.375 billion for a wall barrier and money confiscated through drug addiction so it is going back to u.s. treasury.
prominent democrat who ran in texas and lost, your former colleague beto o rourke, said about the wall. he said basically that he believes that the wall should be taken down in his hometown of el paso, texas. what do you think? i don t think we should be removing physical barriers. congress appropriated $1.375 billion this go around. $1.3 billion before. there are physical barriers that impede pedestrian movement. we focused on funding those barriers that resemble the designs currently deployed. so that s what we ought to do. no nation in the world that doesn t protect its borders. i reject the idea that we should take down walls. is that going to hurt him? i don t know. i don t know if it is or not. i totally agree with you. as democrats have been saying, some portions need physical barriers. some need technological barriers. so you d not take down
areas. the president wanted 5.7 billion. you still voted yes for it. yes, i did, because you know what it was a down payment moving forward. just about a month a go what does nancy pelosi say? criminals would be let out in sotity and they would abolish ice. they received more money then they have in the past. we have the ability to keep the number of beds we had before. they voted for $1.375 billion. and 55 miles of new wall. if i m weighting that compared to a continuing resolution that wouldn t get any of course this is moving in the right direction. is it as far as i want it to go, no. the combination of this bill in reaction with what the president is doing we need to protect the southern end of the border.