good reason to stop the bill. even if it delays needed funding to people in his home state of texas. congressman roy, welcome back to primetime. good to have you here to make the case. let me ask you, over the memorial day weekend what did you tell your constituents that need this money? thanks for having me on and thanks for focussing on this important issue. speaker pelosi adjourned for ten days and everybody was out of town and i m heading to the airport to come home to texas and what i hear was that the speaker was inclined to bring forward a bill that would spend $19 billion unpaid-for, without any head nod to the disaster we ve got going on at our southern border and she was going to do so by unanimous consent. that means she wasn t going to have a vote and i don t know about you but the american people were working last friday but the house of representatives wasn t in washington. she was going to have a bill go by consent and i believe if you re going to spend $19 billion of
georgia and puerto rico, texas, and how important it is. but you know what? the speaker has had five months to get this right. these are disasters that have been going on or occurred 18 months ago. we should do our job in the house, vote on it and have an actual debate. the people are tired of business as usual in washington. you unpacked three basic reasons. let s go through them one by one. one you said not a debate. she was doing this by unanimous consent. the nod is that there isn t going to be consensus on this. now, looking at the legislative history here, this is not new, this bill. you agreed on a set of monies and a set of principles. it went over to the senate. they were supposedly going to like it. the president didn t like the puerto rico money and then the stuff that you did like, the president got past the puerto rico part and the senate sent it back to you so in essence this
months to get this right. these are disasters that occurred 18 months ago. we should do our job in the house, vote on it and have an actual debate. people are tired of business as usual in washington. you unpacked three basic reasons. let s go through them one by one. one you said not a debate. she was doing this by unanimous skoent. the nod is that there isn t going to be consensus on this. now, looking at the legislative history here, this is not new, this bill. you agreed on a set of monies and a set of principles. it went over to the senate. they were supposedly going to like it. the president didn t like the puerto rico money and then the stuff that you did like, the president got past the puerto rico part and the senate sent it back to you so in essence this is what you already said yes to. why say no now? well, first of all, you ll know and i think you have looked at the record, 150 odd republicans voiced objection. it was a large number of
important issue. speaker pelosi adjourned for ten days and everybody was out of town and i m heading to the airport to come home to texas and what i hear was that the speaker was inclined to bring forward a bill that would spend $19 billion unpaid for and then she was going to do so by unanimous consent. that means she wasn t going to have a vote and i don t know about you but the american people were working last friday but the house of representatives wasn t in washington. she was going to have a bill go by consent and i believe if you re going to spend $19 billion of taxpayer money, we should vote on it. the people s house have a responsibility to do our job. i got you. i left the airport and went back and stood there and i showed up on friday and i objected. i have a lot of understanding of how much this means to people in florida and georgia and puerto rico, texas and how important it is, but the speaker had five
place here. one way or another, if the president wants this investigation to come to an end, it s only going to come to an end when the president testifies to the special prosecutor. that s the reality, and he can change lawyer every other day, but that reality remains the same. quick question on emmet flood, the new lawyer coming into the white house to work with the president on all of this. he did serve during the bill clinton impeachment process. he was a relatively junior lawyer at that time. did you know him? what ycan you tell us about him? i was not familiar with him, largely because i wasn t in washington at the time. but i do know through others that emmet flood is a skilled lawyer and somebody who is well respected in legal circles. so, you know, it will be interesting to see how this new