whether he does or whether he forward and we will do that. doesn't. he said it. it will address daca in a that was a temporary stop. permanent way, not a temporary i don't think we want that. we want a permanent solution to short-term thing. we are going to address the this and everybody in this room feels that way very strongly. >> what happened, mr. president border enforcement and security is that i think the senate and the wall. we are going to address passed a comprehensive immigration bill as you know. mr. mccall's bill and interior we did not consider it in the house so we didn't reach the enforcement and not everything that the administration had on issues. on border security, mr. call its list. reported out a unanimous we are going to address a chain migration and end the visa lottery program. sanctuary cities and case law. security solution which we then we think it is a good bill that included in the bill that we will both address the two things filed on comprehensive reform. our speaker told us after you >> i think that after we do daca made your decision. which is we have to address the and we should be able to be problem we have with the daca successful and look in terms of kids being in limbo as dick your permanent solution a& we durbin described. i agree with that. we have to make sure it doesn't happen again. >> the democrats can have a lot will do it in steps. of things. most people agree with that. you will talk to us about it. even you say let's do this and this was something that was long

we go phase two. overdue. i would say this is what we kevin, what would you like to say? >> i want to thank you for want. this has been going on for bringing everybody together. you have the senate and the years. i just -- at a concern point, i house and both parties. i like the exchange of inside. will lock the doors and won't everybody has a point here. let anybody in. michael, do you have something to say about the bill? the one thing i don't want is >> i have been in congress for what we saw in the past. former bills were passed years seven terms and i think this is ago and never got finished. a bipartisan issue. the immigration bills passed and daca is a bipartisan issue. were right back at a table. we have an opportunity to get let's make a commitment to each this done for the american people. when it comes to chain migration one and most importantly to the and the lottery system, we saw american people. when we come to an agreement we two recent terror attacks in new are not back at this problem. york that were the result of this failed immigration policy. that's why we have to do daca, we like to see that fixed for but if we don't do something the american people along with with the security and the chain bob talked about the sanctuary migration, we are fooling each states. you and i talked about this other that we solve the problem. extensively. we think our bill and our house you know how difficult this would be a get starting ground solution is. if are this negotiation and i we are here at the table want to comment you for bringing

together. i will be the first to tell you, everybody together. what we don't want to see happen we will have to give a little. i will be the first one. let's solve the problem and not is for the conditions for daca tell the american public at the to occur again. we want to get security done so end that it is solved when it's not. >> i think a good starting point we don't have a lot of this. >> we are in so many points of could be bob good lat and i agreement and we will come out very well. understand you are ready to david, do you have something to submit a bill. say? >> my position is three times in the last 11 year, well intentioned people, some of whom are this this room attempted to do what we are starting to try it could be a good way of to do today and we failed. starting and i think starting in the difference is they are the house and starting in the house might be good. you are ready to go. ending up in an effort that became too comprehensive. i would like to add the words today my encouragement is to do merit into any bill submitted. we should have merit-based what dick has been trying to do immigration like they have in australia. and talks about repeatedly. to limit the scope and i like we had people coming in that the idea that both sides have have a great track record as pressure to solve the daca issue, but the bigger issue is opposed to what we are doing now not just the daca issue, but what can we do to start the path to be honest with you. to the steps that solve this merit-based should be added to

any bill even if it has to do problem. for several reasons. with daca that will be added. social and political issues and economic issues that have to be it would be popular and i can tell you the american public very much wants that. addressed. where are you with the bill? combining the balance between various solutions on daca, >> tomorrow the chairman and dreamers if they get in the conversation as well as border congresswoman sally and labrador, we are the chairman of security and chain migration. the two committees and the they are in line for balance of subcommittees are going to a good deal that can be done. introduce a bill that addresses i agree with dick. the daca concerns. i don't think it's going to take let me thank you, mr. president. long to get it done. >> i think you are right. i was an immigration lawyer it can be done very quickly. will anyone have anything to say before i was elected. i want to thank you for prior to the press leaving? campaigning on securing the >> i just have one comment. border and the interior of our country, but also on addressing daca in a way that makes sense. senator durbin mentioned that lives are hanging in the balance. the lives that are hanging in don't do it and put our best fo the balance are our military that need the equipment and the funding to keep us save and we should not play politics on this issue to stop the military from getting the funding we need. we have the right people in the room for this. the deadline is march 5th. let's work together on this, but

those who need us is our military and let's not play politics on that. let's give them what they need. >> a lot of people agree with that. i can't say more than ever before. we had wars and a lot of other areas and times, but our military has been depleted and we are building it up quickly and negotiating better deals and with the purveyors and with the manufacturers and the equipment makers much better than before. i look at boats that started off at 1$1.5 billion and they are u to $18 bill crion and it's stil not finished. we are very much agreeing with that. >> i want to follow occupy that. no democrats that don't want to make sure that the military is funded properly and over the

last four years, we had an agreement between mr. ryan and senator murray that we understand that our military is critically important and we also understand that our domestic issues whether it's education or whether it's health care or the environment or transportation and infrastructure. they are important as well. both the defense and nondefense sides of the budget are hurt when you have a cr. they cannot plan. if they don't have money to do so. after the last six months particularly when we did the september when we gave 90 days is to reach agreement on what the caps are going to be. the murray-ryan agreements were a parody and we believe that's important. we can get to where we should get and want to get there, but we ought to have an agreement

based upon what the last two -- >> we have to take politics out of the military. we need the military. we won't be here if we don't have the right military. we need the military stronger than ever before and we are ready to do it, but we have to take politics out of the military. one thing that we can get along with on a bipartisan basis and maybe i'm struggling with a lot of people on the republican side, but we have great support from the republicans is inf infrastructu infrastructure. we can do a great bill and a lot of support from both sides and i would like to get it done as quickly as possible. >> i too want to thank you for getting us together. you made the point last week and republicans were meeting with you. why are we continuing to have these meetings among ourselves. what we need to do is to meet as we are today as you insisted on a bipartisan basis. part of my job is to count votes in the senate. as you know we hosted this

leadership at camp david this weekend and believe both the speaker and the majority leader connell made crystal clear they would not proceed with theill on the floor of the senate or t support. unless you would sign them. that's i think the picture that we need to be looking through, the lens we need to look through. not only what can we agree with, but what will you sign into law. we all want to get to a solution and realize the clock is ticking. that frames the issue as well as i can. >> very well said. one of the reasons i'm here so importantly is exactly that. you wouldn't have a president coming to this meeting and you would have democrats and republicans and nothing would get done. our system lends itself to not getting things done. i hear so much about earmarks

and how there was a great friendliness when you had earmarks. of course they had other problems, but maybe all of you should start thinking about going back to a form of earmarks. [ laughter ] no? well, you should do it. and i'm there with you. this system really lends itself to not getting along. it lends itself to hostility and anger and they hate the republicans and the democrats and in the old days, can you say what you want about certain presidents and others where they went out to dinner at night and all got along and passed bills. that was an earmark system and we should think about it and put better controls because it got out of hand. maybe that brings people together. our system the way it is set up will never bring people together. we will get this done. daca. i hope we are going to get

infrastructure done. i think you should look at it and i see lindsey nodding. a lot of them are saying if you want to get along and get it rolling again, you have to look at a different form. this is obviously oust control. the levels of hatred and i'm not talking about trump. you go back throughout the eight years of obama and before that. the animosity and the hatred between republicans and democrats. i used to go out in washington and see democrats having dinner with republicans. you don't see that anymore with all due respect. you don't see that. when was the last time you took a republican out to dinner? you should go out and have dinner tonight. you don't see it. very importantly totally different from this meeting because we will get daca done. i hope we will get daca done and try very hard. maybe you should start bringing

back a concept of earmarks that will bring you together. you will do it honestly and get rid of the problem that is the other system had. it brought everyone together and this country has to be brought together. thank you. lindsey? >> at 6:40, i'm going to go to menendez's office and he's taking me to dinner. >> sounds like fun. >> here didn't know that, but he's buying. >> you can get bipartisan agreement. >> i think it's a very important thing. our system is designed that everyone should hate each other. the country is doing very well in many respects. that means jobs. i don't look at the stock market. i look at the 401(k)s.

police come up to me and say thank you. you are making me look like a financial genius, literally. meaning about them. their wives never thought that was possible. the country is doing well in so many ways and there is such divisiveness and this system is a very bad system in terms of getting together. i will leave it up to you. i believe you can do something to bring it together. >> and other than going to dinner with bob, i have been doing this for 10 years. i don't think i see a better chance of getting it done than i do right now because of you. i had my head out a bunch and i'm still standing. lindsey graham and lindsey gomez and i'm still standing. the people of south carolina want a result. how can i get elected? i have been for a pathway to citizenship for 11 million people. i have no animosity.

i don't want bad hombres. i want to make sure we can succeed in the 25th century. i just don't want to do this every 20 years. we made the decision, mr. president, not to do it comprehensively. that's smart, but a hard decision. we passed three comprehensive bills with over 65 votes and they go to the house and die. i'm not being disparaging. this is politics if you are a republican house member turning on the radio. to my democratic friends, thanks for coming. the resist movement hate this is guy. they don't want him to be successful. on fox news, i can hear the drumbeat. right wing radio are going to beat the crap out of us. i don't know if the republican and democratic party can define love, but what we can do is do what the american people want to do. 62% of trump voters support a

pathway to citizenship if you have strong borders. you have created an opportunity here, mr. president. you need to close the deal. >> thank you. it's very interesting and i have people who are very far right and very far left. they are very unhappy about what we are doing. i really don't believe they have to be. this sells itself. when you talk about comprehensive immigration reform which is where i would like to get to eventually, if we do the right bill here, we are not very far away. we have done most of it. you want to know the truth, if we do this properly, daca, you are not so far away from comprehensive immigration reform. if you want to take it that for example step. i will take the heat. i will take all the heat you want to give me and take the heat off the democrats and the republicans. my whole life has been heat.

i like heat in a certain way. i will. you are somewhat more traditional politicians than me. 2.5 years ago i was not thinking in terms of politics. many of you have been doing it all of your lives. i will take all the heat. you are not that far away from comprehensive immigration reform. if you want to go the final step, should you do it. if you want to study earmarks so we all get together and do something, i think you should study it. >> about the reality of the situation and take off from what cornyn and graham have said about the necessity of you working with us and you are doing that by having this and other meetings, but we always talked about the necessity of getting 60 goals. that's pretty darn tough. if we would write a bill that you don't like and you veto it, we are talking about a 67-vote

threshold. two thirds in the senate. that's the reality of negotiating in good faith and getting something you can sign. the second reality is the march 5th date that's coming up. if we don't do some good faith negotiation and make progress and get a bill on the floor of the united states senate, our leader will have to bring up the house bill or the bill that some of us have introduced in the united states senate and we are going to have to vote on it. those people that don't want to vote to legalize daca kids are going to have to explain why they have not wanted to protect the vulnerable people. they are talking about everything except doing something for the daca kids. i would vote for a path to citizenship which is not very easy for me, but i would do it just as an effort. there are certain things we have that we are going do. >> that has to be brought up.

i believe that will be brought up as part of what we are talking about. an incentive for people to do a good job. that whole path is incentive for people and they are not all kids. they are not really kids. you have 39 or 40 years old in some cases. it would be incentive to do a good job. >> legalizing people that didn't break the law because their parent who is broke the law brought them here. we ought to talk about the people who at no fault of their own get the job done and not worry about a lot of other things and that means we have to make sure we tell the american people when we take this step that we are doing something that all the people agree to. >> mr. president, let me just say i think dick and i agree with what chuck grassley just said. >> it's hard to believe. which was the last time that happened? >> we need to take care of the

daca kids and we agree on that. 86% of the american public agrees with that. with all due respect mike and lindsey, there are some things that you are proposing that will be very controversial and will be an impediment to agreement. >> but you will negotiate. you will sit down and say we can't agree. we will give you half of that. you will negotiate. >> mr. president, comprehensive means comprehensive. >> we are not talking about that. >> we are. >> if you want to filter, you can. you are not that far away. >> many of the things mentioned ought to be a part of comprehensive immigration. >> if you want to take it a step further. you may complicate it and you may delay daca somewhat. >> i don't want to do that. you said at the out set we these to phase this. the first phase is when we have a lead line looming and a lot of lives hanging. we can agree on fundamental and

important things on border security on the future of diversity visas. comprehensive though, i worked on it for six months with michael bennett and bob menendez and schumer and mccain and jeff flake. it took us six months to put it together. we don't have six months for daca. >> we are not talking about that. >> you mentioned a number of factors that will be controversial as was mentioned. >> you are going to negotiate. maybe we will agree and maybe we won't. it's possible we are not going to agree with you. there should be no reason for us not to get this done. i will say when this group comes back hopefully with an agreement, this group and others comes back with an agreement, i'm signing it. i will be signing it. i'm not saying i want this or i want that. i have a lot of confidence of the people in this room that you will come up with something very

good. would you like to say something? >> i would. as you know, we tried for comprehensive immigration reform in the senate. it was on the floor and there were a number of amendments and it got a number of attention in the judiciary committee and the house didn't take it up. i think there needs to be a willingness on both sides and i think and i don't know how you would feel about this, but i like to ask the question. what about a clean daca bill now with a commitment that we go into a comprehensive immigration reform procedure like we did back when kennedy was here. it was really a major, major effort. it was a great disappointment that it went nowhere. >> i have no problem -- i think that's basically what dick said. we will come up with daca. we will do daca and start on the phase two which would be comprehensive. i would like that.

i think a lot of people would like to see that. but i think we have to do daca first. >> mr. president, you need to be clear. what senator feinstein is talking about, we don't want to be back here two years later. you have to have security as the secretary would tell you. >> that's what she is saying. >> no, i think she is saying something different. you are saying daca without security. are you talking about security as well? >> i think if we have meaningful comprehensive immigration reform, that's really where the security goes. if we can get the daca bill because march is coming and people are losing their status every day. >> let's be honest. security was voted on just a few years ago. no disrespect, there is people in the room on the other side who voted for it. if i felt senator clinton voted for it.

i don't think that's comprehensive. i think that's dealing with daca at the same time. that's what the president is making. it's like three pillars. daca, border security and chain migration. it's just three items and then everything else is comprehensive is moved to the side. i believe -- >> and the lottery. if you can. and merit-based. who is going to argue with merit-based. who can argue with merit-based. >> do you really think that there can be agreement on all of that? to get daca passed in time? i wanted to ask mr. mccarthy a question. do you really think there can be agreement on these three difficult subjects you raise in time to get daca passed and effective? >> yes because you have heard from leader mcconnell and speaker ryan who said they will

put the bill on to the floor if the president agrees to it. us getting to the room, i haven't seen us be this close and having this discussion in quite a few years with the last four years. i think we can make this happen. we all know it and have done it before. you and i spent a long time and did one of the most difficult things and i believe we can get there and keep working each day on this. >> i think what we are all saying is we can do daca and start comprehensive reform the following afternoon. we will take an hour off and start. i do believe that. once we get daca done and it's done properly with security and everything else, if it's done properly, we have taken a big chunk of comprehensive out of the negotiations. i don't think it's going to be that complicated. >> you have to be very clear. we will be right back here in five years or 30 years or

whatever. the chain migration is the fundamental flaw in the united states. if any conversation about daca is being held without that security, i believe border secure as well, but it's not going to go into the senate f. we decide one side against the other, that's not going to happen. >> chain migration has taken a big. people have seen what's happening. for instance the man on the west side highway that killed the people and so badly wounded. it's incredible when they talk about wounded they don't say arch arms or legs are off. they say eight people, but they don't talk about the people with no legs and arms. i really believe when you talk about the subject that we are all mentioning, they had how many people came in? 22 to 24 people came in through

him. he's a guy who ran over many people. eight died. 10 to 12 are really badly injured. i really think that a lot of people are going to agree with us now on that subject. i don't see it. >> 70% of americans want immigration policy with the nuclear family and the workers. >> chain migration has taken a big hit in the last year with what's happened. you look at the killers whether you like it or not. we are looking at the killers and see 18 people came in. 22 people came in. 30 people came in. with this one person that just killed a lot of people. i don't believe there are a lot of democrats that will be supporting chain migration anymore. >> should we have the homeland security secretary? >> with border security, i want to make sure we are all linking. the reason that border security is so important to have as part of this discussion is that it doesn't solve the problem if we can apprehend people, but we

can't remove them. we need the wall system which is some physical structure as the president described, personal technology, but we have to close the legal loopholes. the effect of that is this incredible pull up from central america that continues to exacerbate the problem. border security has to be part of this or we will be here again in three, four, five years and unfortunately sooner. the other point i would make is the president asked the men and women are dhs, what do you need to do your job. they entrusted to you the security of our country. what is it that you need? the list that we have provided is what we need to do our mission that you asked us to do. it's not lesson, it's not more than, but we we 92ed to close the loopholes. i would just encourage much more eloquently than i can describe the reasons why we are all committed to helping the daca population and to truly solve the problem, it's got to be with

border security. >> jeff? >> let me just echo here. those of us who said comprehensive reform, that was seven months of every night negotiating staff on weekends. a lot of things we are talking about on border security and the interior things have trade offs. we made those during that process. i don't see how we get there before march 5th. >> that's why we are making a phase two. we do a phase one which is daca and security and phase two which is comprehensive immigration. we should go right to it. i really do. we do and then the other, but we go right to it. yes? >> i think it's important to thank you for your flexibility and your leadership. what all of us ought to do is have the same willingness to add a little bit of flexibility to get this issue done.

obviously i want to do a lot more than daca, but the urgent thing now for obvious reasons are these young men and women who we have to deal with first and foremost. there are two issues which we keep hearing and everybody agrees to. that is dealing with these individuals in a permanent solution and border security. i don't see why we shouldn't be able to do that and i hope that then leads us to a lot of lack of trust. if we can get real border security and deal with these individuals, we can get that done. then i think my gosh, it all opens up to do a lot more things in the future for the americans. >> i want to emphasize it is so important when you talk about border security, if you apprehend somebody at the border and cannot send them back outside the united states even though they are present in the

united states, you have not solved this problem. they are released into the interior of the country and the problem persists and that sends a message back. >> we will negotiate that and a lot of people agree on both sides. >> i agree on the sense that if we focus on daca and border security, issues of chain migration should be looked at in the second phase, but i said this with all due respect to the democrats and republicans and from the border. i get a kick out of people who go down and spend a few hours and they think they know the border better than some of us there. we lived there all of our lives. let me explain this. for example, if you look at the latest dea and worried about drugs, look at the latest dea report. more drugs come through the ports of entry than in between ports. we are not even talking about

ports of entry. i'm just saying. let's finish this. some of us have been working on it longer than others. number one, if you look at the 11 or 12 million undocumented, 40% of them came from visa overstays. you can put the most beautiful wall out there, it's not going to stop them. they will come by plane, boat, or vehicle itself. so the other thing that we are going to look at, the wall itself, mr. president, you talk to your border patrol chief or the former border patrol chiefs, i asked them how much time does a wall buy you? they say a couple minutes or a few seconds. these are the border patrol chiefs. >> not mine. mine said the wall works. the wall works. >> they said without the wall we cannot have border security. ask israel. look what happened with them. without the wall you can't have

it. >> homeland a proep reations and the chiefs have all said that. the other thing is if you look at where the walls are at right now, this is where the activity is where the walls are at right now. >> we have massive miles of area where people are pouring through. one of the good things because of our rhetoric or the perceived attitudes, fewer people are trying to come through. that's a great thing. therefore our numbers have been fantastic maybe for all the right reasons. >> let me finish my thought. i want to ask you that we are playing -- you saw the game last night. a good game last night. we are playing defense on the one-yard line. we spent over $18 billion a year on the border. if we think about playing defense on the 20 yard line, if you look at what mexico has

done, they stop thousands of people on the southern border with guatemala. we ought to be looking. >> we stopped them. you know why? mexico told me. the president told me. everybody tells me. not as many people are coming through their southern border because they don't think they can get through our southern border. that's what happened. we did mexico a tremendous favor. >> the appropriations help on the southern border. >> every other nation gets money, but ours. we are always looking for money, but give it to other nations. we have to stop. >> instead of playing defense on the one-yard line, this is your material. we know where the stash houses are at. we know where the hotels are at and where they cross the river. why play defense on the one-yard line. >> we are going after them like never before. >> you focus on daca and we can work on the other things

separately. sensible border security. listen to the folks that are from the border. >> you have to hear one voice. you have to come up with a solution. if you do, i will sign it. we have a lot of smart people in this room. really smart people with big hearts and they want to get it done. i can think of one or two i don't particularly like, but that's okay. i think everybody. everybody wants it. everybody wants a solution. you want it, henry. i think we have a great group of people to sit down and get this done. in fact with when the media leaves which should be pretty soon, but i will tell you, i liked opening it up because they see that we are very much on a similar page. not the same page. henry, i think we can get something done. why don't we ask the media to leave. we appreciate you being here.

>> thank you. >> thank you. >> we need the wall. it's wonderful. i would love not to build the wall, but we need the wall. i will tell you this. the ice officers and the border patrol agents, i had them recently. they said if you don't have the wall in certain areas that aren't protected by nature, if you don't have the wall, you can't have security. it doesn't work. part of the problem is walls and fences that we currently have are in bad shape. they are broken. we have to get them fixed or rebuilt. you speak to the agents and i spoke to all of them. i lived with them. they endorsed me for president which they have never done before. they both endorsed trump and they never did that before. i have a great relationship with them. they say sir, without the wall,

security doesn't work. we are all wasting time. that doesn't mean 2,000 miles of wall. we don't need that because of nature. mountains and rivers and other things. we need that and if you don't have it, you can never have security and never stop that portion of drugs that comes through that area. yes, it comes through planes and lots of other ways, but a lot of it comes through the southern border. you can never fix the situation without additional wall and we have to fix the existing wall. >> there wouldn't be a clean daca bill without it? >> the daca bill is where we take care of the 800,000 people. they are not young people. they can be 40 years old or 41 years old, but they are also 16 years old. to me a clean bill is a bill of daca. we take care of them and also take care of security. that's very important.

i think the democrats want security, too. we started off with saying we want security also. everybody wants security. and then we can go to comprehensive later on and maybe that is a longer subject. a bigger subject. i think we can get that done too at a later date. >> mr. president, i'm the senator from highway highway and only immigrants serving in the u.s. senate, i would like to get to immigration reform, but what i'm hearing around the table right now is a commitment to resolving the daca situation because there is a sense of urgency. now, you have put it out there that you want $18 billion for a wall or else there will be no daca. that still your position? >> i can build it for less. i must tell you i'm looking at the prices. somebody said $42 billion. this is like the aircraft carrier. it started at a billion and a

half. we can do it for less. we can do a great wall, but you need the wall. i'm now getting involved. i like to build under budget. i like to go under budget ahead of schedule. there is no reason for seven years. i heard the other day, please don't do that to me. seven years for a wall. we can build the wall in one year and we can build it for much less money than what they are talking about. any excess funds, we will have a lot of funds. it's under budget and ahead of schedule. there is no reason to mention years again, please. i heard that and i said i wanted to come out with a major news conference yesterday. they can go up quickly and effectively and we can fix a lot of the areas right now that are satisfactory if we renovate the walls. >> can you tell us how many miles of wall whether it's 15 million or -- >> we are doing a study right now. large areas you have a mountain

or a river or a violent river and you don't need it. >> not much has actually changed in terms of your positions. >> i think it's changed. my positions are going to be what the people in this room come up with. i am very much reliant on the people in this room. i know most of the people on both sides have a lot of respect for the people on both sides and what i approve is going to be very much reliant on what the people in this room come to me with. i have great confidence. if they come to me with things i'm not in love with, i'm going to do it because i respect them. thank you all very much. thank you. i will veto. it will be a lot of fun. i know her very well. i did one of her last shows. she had donald trump last week and she had donald trump and my family. i like oprah. i don't think she is going to

run. i don't think she's going to run. i know her very well. it's phase two. comprehensive will be phase two. i really agree. we get the one thing done and go into comprehensive the following day. it will happen. >> wait one second. thank you all very much. i hope we gave you enough material. this should cover you for about two weeks. >> truly extraordinary 45 minutes or so. maybe 50 minutes the president allowing tv cameras in that extraordinary meeting. a bipartisan meeting with republican and democratic members of the house and the senate discussing the critical issue right now. whether to allow the 800,000 or so dreamers as they are called to stay in the united states.

the president sending conflicting signals whether he wants them to stay or wants boerdser security as part of the deal. it's unclear whether or not a wall, building a wall along the u.s.-mexico border would be part of the initial arrangement or save it for comprehensive reform which the president said he wants down the road. i'm wolf blitzer in washington. we want to welcome our viewers from around the world. let's go to jim acosta. you listened closely and i have to give the president a lot of credit for allowing the cameras in there for this remarkable meeting. i covered the white house and you have for many years. i don't remember when a white house has allowed cameras in such an unusual meeting. >> it doesn't happen very much and this was an extraordinary exchange and you heard the president hammered with questions from democrats and

republicans. lindsey graham saying at one point you need to get this deal done, mr. president. in this deal, details matter. as you were laying out, there were key questions. during that spray with reporters in the room, he wants to do this in a two-step process. extend that protection for the dreamers, the 700,000 or so young immigrants who are in this country who brought here through no fault of their own. they came with their parents and many speak english and have been going to public school for many, many years. some are in college and working in the united states and only speak english and so on. the president wants to extend protection for them and wants a second step and that is comprehensive immigration reform. this will come down to basically this point. whether or not that daca protection bill will include border security and lawmakers

and said yes, some kind of border security will be include this n that proposal. just how far that goes is going to determine whether it rises or falls. is the wall in the daca protection bill? it sounds like at this point and we want to emphasize at this point because things can change, it does not sound like a wall is part of a daca protection bill at this point. the president can come out in the next hour and say the wall has to be a part of this bill. when we talked to the lawmakers, the president really believes at this stage in terms of the daca protection package that it includes border security measures and they would deal with the wall at a later date. as you know, we have seen the president dance all-around on this issue. he said we will build a wall and

mexico will pay for it. now we won't even talk about it. u.s. taxpayers pay for it and there is a funding deadline coming up in about a week and a half. that is also complicated as well. at this point the president is willing to take daca protection without a wall and democrats say they want to take that deal. >> that's a good point you are making. let's bring in the panel. we will start with you and didn't get a firm answer from the president whether the first phase allowing the dreamers to remain in the united states, the first piece of legislation would include generic border security and not necessarily a wall. >> can we take a step back first of all and remark upon what we just watched? this was not just cameras in the courtroom. this was cameras in the jury room. i have covered washington for a very long time. i have not seen anything like this. i think the president deserves credit for this because what we

got to watch was people actually and i turn to dana at one point and said is this real? you said yeah, i think this is real. we are not used to watching this. this was lindsey graham saying to the president in no uncertain terms, you need to close the deal. the president saying a pathway to citizenship was an incentive saying he will take the heat on whatever congress gives to him. the right wing as john was pointing out while we were listening to him is starting to attack the president on this and this is a president who i think is pointedly behaving not as michael wolff will have him not portrayed in his book, but sitting around the table and is in charge. the details have yet to be worked out obviously and congressman mccarthy tried to lay it out for the president. you do daca and then you do border security and then you do

chain migration. i think this was kind of stunning. i had not seen anything like this. >> there is a lot to discuss with regard to the substance. there a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of real discussions in this room, but it definitely bears underscoring. we all covered a lot of photo opes for the sake of bringing the cameras in to send an image around the world. that's not what this was. we are as skeptical as they come. that's fair to say. this really was a negotiation. we really got to be the fly on the wall listening to the way they talk. i'm really not convinced that it would have been any different had the cameras not been in there. i was just communicating with two republicans in that meeting who said they had no idea that the cameras were going to stay in there as long as they did. the president said we will just do a typical thing. i will make a remark and you

can, too. so on and so forth. i'm sure i will get hit for this and i don't care. the bottom line is this is a year ago, this is the presidency that many people thought donald trump was capable of. we don't know if this is a results-driven debate, but just the notion of him being in command. him wanting the cameras in there and wanting the cameras to see him sitting at a table with republicans and democrats and playing the role of a deal maker. this is what people who had high hopes for the trump presidency thought it would be. meeting after meeting like this. >> he has to do that now. he can't jam things through with republicans. he is also embattled at this moment. he needs to come out there. there is questions about his mental fitness. he needs to come out looking strong like the commander in chief. >> he needs the democrats and

that is one way to do it. >> we covered the white house a long time. this was unusual. >> we covered the white house and i stayed on in the george w. bush days. you have democrats and republicans sitting around a table having conversations they haven't had in a sustained way in years. they do it when they get up to the deadline on the spending issues. patty goes into the room and do an urgent thing at the last minute, but if this is the beginning, the president responding to the criticism and the michael wolffpresident. a president putting the pressure points on both parties rk, tell the republicans i'm open to reform, that was quicksand. the guy who ran on build the wall, mexico will pay for it, i'm going to drain the swamp, and bring back earmarks.

those are the pet projects. >> very right wing conservatives say is amnesty, and that's a word that is poison to them. >> so flexible nonideological engaged president saying let's cut deals. can we get there? everybody had their points. everybody wants to solve doca, yet democrats say let's solve the d.r.e.a.m.ers then deal with everything else. >> then we heard that from the president. >> then he puts pushed back by his own staff and from the republicans in that room. >> kevin mccarthy. >> and jim acosta is right the president didn't always specifically link it to the wall. about when he says security, he means wall. he said himself doesn't have to be 2,000 here, it can be a barrier or cameras. but when the president says he wants money for security he means walls. >> he did say we'll do it in steps, let's get daca resolved

then we'll get on to the reform, which was passed in the senate, never came up for the vote. >> now the political realities kick in. i've seen the feeds, trump base, ann culture already tweeting this did more damage than anything in the mike wolff book. because they want nothing more than the wall in the trump base. wall is priority number one. they want the wall. and tried to tiptoe away from it before and got ham teared on the right. and no steve bannon in the white house to check him on this. >> but no matter what happens, he's going to argue that he got the wall. because what does the wall mean? it means whatever he makes it out to mean. meaning it could add a little bit to whatever exists because there is a good amount of fencing there. it could be virtual or border security sochlt security. so i think the wall is a little bit of a rorschach test for him and his base.

the big problem for his base is amnesty. because they consider even for kids who came here through no fault of their own, the daca kids, they don't care. they say this is amnesty. and that is the key. that is why you heard john cornyn and lindsey graham saying you have to be the one to close this deal. he is the only person getting the republicans on the ballot in 2018 political cover with the republican base because of the way he campaigned and how much support he has, still has, with the base. and he's got some goodwill. >> what the president wanted to show today, honestly this was his reality show today, and everybody decided they were going to pl going to play and be a part of it. as long as cameras were there they would tell them what they were thinking. and what we heard from the president multiple times i'll be signing it. whatever you br i to me, i have a lot of confidence of the people in the room. >> but he has to build it. >> exactly. but i'll be signing it.

i'll be signing it. i'll be signing it. and we don't know what that it is, but we know now this is a president who has been burned testifyicly by the michael wolff book. a president who knows, and john points out, what his approval ratings are, and he wants a win. he wants one win. by the way by the following afternoon i'll get another win. >> this is something he cares about, tex taxes, health care, that's important. but this is tough immigration, one of the things he wanted. >> he wants bipartisan cooperation, democrats and republicans working together. then on a few occasions during the meeting he said we have to bring back earmarks. so explain what the president is driving at, why that would lead to bipartisan cooperation since earmarks were removed, there has been a deterioration? >> when i'm done shannon gets to

make the connection to it. earmarks, if you are watching at home, it's washington speak, sorry america, but the pet projects, i need your vote, wolff, i'll give you a grant so i can get your vote for this bill that you don't want to vote for. that's the way they used to do it. greec greased the project by giving out money. some find it corrupt. but remarkable for president who ran on don't vote for hillary clinton, i'll vote against them, they are part of the swamp. they can't be trusted with your money. saying we need to bring back earmarks back because you don't trust each other, let's bring money into the process. >> we need your vote so power plant in your district you get it? >> if you are a trump democrat, or republican, or i'm not sure what you have, but you have

voted to him, that's going to be pretty jarring. >> truly extraordinarily moment indeed. but other breaking news unfolding even as we speak. major development from the u.s. senate involving the russia investigation. manu raju is standing by. manu, update our viewers on this breaking news. >> reporter: yeah, very significant and surprising development. the top democrat in the senate judiciary committee surprising releasing 325 page transcript of glen simpson co-founder of the opposition research firm, fusion gps behind the controversial dossier about trump and russia contact something that the white house has furiously attacked for months. well, for the first time we are getting a sense of what glen simpson, the founder of that firm, said behind closed doors during a ten hour testimony because of feinstein decision to release this document. now what simpson says, according

to this document, was that christopher steele former british agent who was hired to investigate these connections between trump and russia really he went to the fbi in july 2016, out of concern of what he was findsing. he was so concerned, according to glen simpson, that there could be a presidential candidate, president trump, candidate trump, who was being blackmailed by the russians. so he went and he informed the fbi about exactly what he was finding. now, in addition to that, wolf, he also discussed how there was internal trump campaign source who speaking to the fbi and the fbi thought that christopher steele information in the dossier was credible because this internal trump campaign source was saying something similar. he reveals that this campaign source had met with a fbi attache in rome that summer as well. still going through the document, wolf, but rather

remarkable development here first time we are seeing exactly how christopher steele put together this dossier, why he was hired to investigate. we do know that the funding behind this has been under criticism because the democrats put money behind fusion gps in the general election and fusion gps then hired steele to investigate trump's background. but conservatives had given money to gps at that time before christopher steele was hired. but in this testimony, wolf, glen simpson says steele was investigating just a basic question about what exactly trump was doing with russia. he said fusion gps had no role what is ever in determining what was said in this dossier, but steele's own concern about prospects of a presidential candidate being potentially blackmailed is the reason why he went to the fbi and briefed them about exactly what he was finding wolf. >> and just getting started reading the nearly 400 pages of

that transcript of that testimony. manu, stand by i want to get quick reaction from california congressman eric swalwell, democrat on the house intelligence committee. what's your reaction? i don't know if you've gone through those nearly 400 pages, congressman. >> i have. and i sat through the interview that we had with glen simpson in our committee, wolf. so gratitude to senator feinstein for doing this, let the american people see. illustrates the real credibility of christopher steele and the deep concern people had that the russians had something on the president backed up by evidence, a mountain of evidence that they had collected during their investigation. >> so where does it go from here? >> well, we hope that the american people can see the transcripts of all the witnesses that we've interviewed and that we actually will have subpoena power to start looking and testing the stories that the trump family and campaign team have told us. right now we have no way to test and corroborate what they are saying or repudiate it because the republicans won't issue subpenas to get phone records, banking records.

that what we truly need if we are going to tell the american people exactly what happened. >> what was the biggest revelation? >> there was a member of the trump team that had gone to the fbi with concerns themselves about russian interference. but i think the biggest revelation considered what was alleged in the dossier is the credibility of the witness. christopher steele and his impeccable credentials and being accurate in the past that's why they used him to collect the dossier this time. >> congressman, we'll continue this conversation. thanks for joining us. >> my pleasure. >> nearly 400 pages of testimony. we'll continue our special coverage of what we just saw truly extraordinarily meeting at the white house, they allowed the cameras in. brooke baldwin continues our coverage. this is cnn breaking news. all right. wolf, thank you so much. hi there, i'm brooke baldwin. thank you for being with me for what is shaping out to it be

quite a busy tuesday. president opened bipartisan meeting to cameras for white a while and it was