filibustering the bill not even bringing it up for debate? >> i support a fully-funded department of homeland security free of any amendments to defund executive actions. that's what i support plain and simple. and that's what i've been urging this congress to do. and i am urging the four or so working days they have this week to figure out a way to break the impasse so that we get a fully-funded budget for homeland security. yes, ma'am. >> [inaudible] you have expressed your concern about the threats to the mall of america in minnesota. what other concerns do you have in terms of security at this point -- [inaudible] >> well, i spoke about the situation with the al-shabaab video yesterday on the news shows, and we have issued to local law enforcement a bulletin about that earlier today. i think i don't know that i have

much more at this point to add to that. yes, sir. >> which is the current status of the -- [inaudible] >> what? sorry? >> what is the current status of the air force of the administration to implement the executive orders and provide political asylum to children coming -- [inaudible] >> well, when it comes to applications for asylum applications for refugee status that continues. as you know, there is a lawsuit in texas right now. the judge in texas issued an injunction on our deferred action for parents, our new deferred action for parents and on the expanded daca program. that was issued late last week. we are with the d. of justice appealing -- the department of justice appealing that decision and filing a request for a stay

of that ip junction and i -- injunction, and i believe those actions will take place today if they have not already been filed in the court. okay. >> secretary, in light of the shabaab threat, other threats being made recently against the home lambed, you know, the timing -- homeland, you know the timing what effect does that have on your ability to counteract those threats? >> well, look anytime -- we've tried to hay -- to lay out here with specificity just some of the few concrete examples consequences of letting our funding lapse or continuing us on a cr. and so overall disruption to the department is definitely there and it's definitely real. as i said a moment ago if our headquarters staff is cut back to a skeleton that inhibits our ability to stay on top of a lot of the existing situations and

challenges to homeland security right now. and so what i keep saying is that it is in these interesting times in particular most unfortunate that there's the possibility of a shutdown of the department of homeland security. that is not good for the homeland security of this nation, it is not good for muck safety, and it is not in the public's best interest. so again, i urge the congress before the end of this week to pass an appropriations bill for the entire fiscal year 2015 for the department free and clear of amendments to defund or executive -- our executive actions. the original house bill that was offered on the floor of the house several weeks ago was a good bill. it funded all of our almost all of our key homeland security initiatives and would enable us to go forward with border security, aviation security, our counterterrorism mission our maritime security mission of the

coast guard and so forth. we need that bill. without the amendments to defund our executive actions. again, if congress wants to have a debate about immigration -- and i welcome that debate, we've been asking for that debate for years. but don't tie that debate to the funding of the men and women standing behind me who have multiple missions on behalf of homeland security. okay. thanks a lot, everybody. >> the senate's expected to work today on homeland security spending bill. they're expected to e are assume debate -- resume debate around 4:30 eastern time. current funding expires on friday and that would block executive actions on immigration that would allow some undocumented immigrants to stay in the u.s. and work legally. white house says the president will veto the bill, and today the senate will try more a fourth time to move to full debate on the bill with a vote at 5:30. 60 votes needed. president obama commented on the bill and congressional action.

>> keep on urging congress to move past some of the habits of manufactured crises and self-inflicted wounds that have so often bogged us down over the last five years. we've got one example of that right now. unless congress acts, one week from now more than 100,000 dhs employees, border patrol, port inspectors, tsa agents will show up to work without getting paid. they all work in your states. these are folks who if they don't get a paycheck, are not going to be able to spend that money in your states. it will have a impact on your economy, and it will have a direct impact on america's national security because their hard work helps to keep us today. keep us safe. as governors you know that we

can't afford to play politics with our national security. >> the senate gaveling back in at i 4:30 eastern to work on the homeland security bill with. of here's an in-depth look from today's "washington journal." what we will see tonight is an effort by mcconnell to showcase what they believe is the democratic obstruction on this issue. they will pass the fourth procedural vote in the senate that democrats will b t >> guest: funned up until september, but it would also block the president's executive action on immigration both his 204 move as well as his 201

move. democrats say they want a clean bill, so after that point mcconnell has a choice. he can either try to pass that clean bill, or even if he tries to do that the chances of that going to the house are very slim. that's not going to pass the house. or he could try to pass a short-term measure that would keep the department open for maybe a i few week with, a few months. rtment open for a few weeks maybe a few months. there is no guarantee that that would pass. that would extend the issue of another few minutes. -- another few months. host: at this point, we would ask of congress is speaking to the white house. i guess the question is, it are mitch mcconnell and john boehner speaking? guest: they are talking. it has been a curious thing watching the new congress given that boehner and mcconnell have since they both became leaders of their respective caucuses.

but right now they're dealing with different internal politics on this issue which makes it very difficult. the math challenges are both different in the house and in the senate. in the senate they need 60 to advance any legislation to overcome a democratic filibuster. that means they need to have some sort of bipartisan support. in the house they can pass anything with a simple majority of republicans, and conservatives don't want the republican leadership to bend at all on this immigration issue. so they each are dealing with their own respective politics their own challenges within their caucuses, they're talking about what they can do, but they're not entirely clear how they can get out of this. >> host: we invite your questions and comments for our guest from pretty toe senior congressional -- politico, senior congressional republican. for republicans democrat, independents we're talking about dhs which has the immigration language but also lots of other issues out there as congress comes back from a

weeklong presidents day recess. one of them, mr. raju is keystone. where are we with that issue? >> guest: it looks like congress is going to send the keystone bill to the president probably this week. this was, of course, something that was passed right at beginning of the new congress. the republicans wanted to show a different direction that they were taking this country and the president and the democrats have resisted going forward with this keystone pipeline project. that bill has cleared, but the house and senate republicans held back on sending it formally to the white house while they were out of town last week on a week-long presidents day recess. when they send it over to the president, he's going to veto it. it's going to be only the third veto of his presidency, then it'll come back to congress for an override. they do not have the votes to override it and sort of the beginning of this confrontational period in the -- >> host: so that's pretty much it on keystone? once that veto happens will

they actually try to override? >> i think they'll try to override it; they won't have the votes in the house and it'll sort of die from there. the question's going to be, it's going to be in the president's hand. he has not formally rejected building the pipeline. he has said that the reason why they're vetoing it is they believe that this decision should be made by the administration not by congress. and there's still ongoing reviews, these reviews have been going on for six years, and they believe they need to finalize some of the review process. there remains an outside chance the administration could decide to green light this pipeline project on its own administratively but most people don't think that's going to happen. >> host: lots of other issues out this like the attorney general nomination the authorization for use of military force more on dhs. let's get a call in first from conway missouri, you are up first. go ahead. >> caller: hey, thank you. thank you very much for c-span. has this been an audit or could

we have an independent audit of homeland security? thank you very much. >> host: why would you want that delano? >> caller: well, there's a lot of legs out here that i'm familiar with that we don't know what they're doing, and they don't know what they're doing. >> host: okay. let's hear from our guest. >> guest: you know, i didn't catch the top -- >> host: independent audit will there ever be an independent audit of this agency? >> guest: of the -- >> host: dhs. uh-huh. >> guest: you know, there are the inherent qualities, inherent things that are built into the dhs like the inspector general. of course, every federal agency has one of these inspector generals that does look at the problems that are happening internally at various respective agencies. clearly, they have things that have been done. the inspector generals have launched investigations about different problems and programs that were happening at the agency as well as the government accountability office, of course, the investive arm of

congress -- investigative arm of congress continually looks into things happening at the agency not to mention the oversight committees in congress. there are those aspects of oversight that do happen at the homeland security department. the question is, of course, is it enough? that's a constant thing that congress and these inspector generals deal with on a regular basis. >> host: let's hear from pat from south carolina longs south carolina. hey, pat. pat, you still there? >> caller: yes, good morning. >> host: we gotcha now, go ahead. >> caller: i have a question. if the congress -- if the house passes a bill and the senate passes a bill and then it goes to the president and he vetoes it is he not the one shutting the government down, not congress? thank you. >> guest: you know it's a fair question and that's something the republicans are going to argue. they're saying that this is on the democrats. they actually have proactively tried to fund the government, and that's what some folks believe, and the republican

side, that they will not incur a political backlash not as steep as the 2013 funding fight that led to the government-wide shutdown because they believe they're trying to proactively push legislation and democrats are blocking it. it's not even going to get to the president's desk because democrats in the senate are filibustering this, preventing debate from even happening, and that's one of the reasons why that the republicans keep bringing this up for a vote in the senate so they can pass the blame onto democrats if there's an impasse and hope that the political fallout falls on them. however, polls show right now that republicans would incur probably a majority of the blame for this if this were to happen. we'll see if that actually plays out, but certainly that's something that a lot of republicans are nest about. >> host: and remind us, just so we're clear, the house and senate bills currently are the same bills? >> guest: no, there's one bill right now that is the house bill, the $39 billion bill that also has the immigration riders.

the question will be whether the senate strips any of those immigration riders out but they can't even get onto the bill right now because democrats are preventing debates from even happening on the floor. >> host: back to politico's piece on in this morning, they write pushing for a continuing resolution for dhsing would bring howls from the right postpone the immigration showdown for only a couple of weeks or months and would most likely fail in the house. speak more about the conservatives and how mr. mcconnell, mr. boehner on their respective sides might get them to ultimately approve something that doesn't include immigration? how will it happen? >> guest: you know one of the ways it could potentially happen is if leadership decides to try to convince the right wing and the rank and file that the better way to fight this is through the courts. remember, we saw this texas district judge last week rule that the president moved unlawfully by taking these 2014 executive actions. now that the administration is

trying to stay this texas judge's decision, it's going to go to the appellate level. potentially, the republicans could have a chance of winning this in the courts so maybe they could say, hey, you know what? we don't have the votes in congress, let's try to fight this in the courts where we have a better chance of reining the president in. the problem is those judicial proceedings are going to take months maybe years. so i don't know how effective of an argument that's going to be in the short term. a lot of those conservatives say that we are now in power, we promised the american people we're going to fight him on immigration on what they view is an unconstitutional act so they want to act right now instead of punting down the line. so that court argument may not work so well. >> host: steve via twitter writes: what's the historical precedent of a political party playing what he's calling politics with a department? what is the recent history?

>> guest: you know, it hasn't really been used so much for some of these fiscal standoffs in recent years. those have been sort of government-wide issues that have been, you know, that have been -- anytime there's an appropriations bill any party tries to put a rider in to rein in the president. this is very common practice on capitol hill. it could be the homeland security department, it could be the environmental protect agency. that is common. but what is less common is one specific agency like this going down to the end of the -- going down to the brink and this being used to push political agenda for one party to another. you don't see that as often, this happening on one specific agency. one thing that i do, it does remind me of is back when the democrats took control of congress after the 2006 elections. they tried to tie president bush's hands on the war

supplemental funding package by putting in troop withdrawal language at the time. that went to the president's desk he vetoed it, democrats put a clean bill forward and it eventually passed, and president bush got what he wanted. we'll see the that happens here. >> host: ernie bullhead city, arizona. go ahead, ernie. >> guest: a question for mr. raju, i was wondering exactly how many days did the house of representatives actually work in 2014. >> host: why do you ask? >> caller: well, i'm trying to figure out what we're paying these people for that are not doing anything for this country as far as i'm concerned. i don't believe anybody's doing their job up there. i don't think that congress is doing their job, i don't think the house of representatives is doing thinker theirs. >> host: thanks for calling, and as a pile-on, a tweet here from peg who writes: the only people who should go without a paycheck is congress. [laughter] they're risking the safety of

americans -- >> caller: yeah. congress is not a very popular institution as your caller can attest to. you know, i don't have the number of days that they worked right in front of me. that's something they can find out, certainly online. however, in an election year congress does not work very often. typically in an election year what happens is that they're out campaigning. they take long recesses. they don't work mondays they don't work fridays. this is the house and the senate. both the democratic and republican control. happens all -- it's a bipartisan tradition. particularly on an election year. you do see more work in a nonelection year, but you also see legislative stalemates like we're seeing right now. >> host: phil now in fort mccoy, florida. democrat. hi phil. >> caller: yes. >> host: yes, sir. >> caller: my biggest question is we have to, as americans we have to wait 18 years before we vote. why don't they have to wait 18 years before they vote when they become americans?

>> host: any response? >> guest: no, i'm not quite sure what the caller is referring to. i don't know if he's referring to the immigration system when people come into the country -- >> host: sounds like he is. >> guest: i think he is. i think that, you know, when someone becomes a citizen they're afforded the right under the constitution to vote. >> host: our guest has written for "the hill" newspaper, has written for "congressional quarterly," now with politico all of them covering the hill and politics and legislation. he has a byline this morning about the war authorization. the headline says "president obama's war push faces rift with left." first of all explain what it is remind us what it is the president sented up to the hill, what it means and what might happen to it. >> guest: sure. the president a couple weeks ago proposed use of force resolution against isis. this is a three-year proposal that would essentially limit use of force against isis and

associated forces groups that are associated with isis. as part of that proposal the president rescinds his 2001 -- sorry, 2002 iraq war authorization. they'd keep in place the 2001 war authorization that was enacted after the 9/11 attacks. that is -- that 2001 authorization is what the president has used to justify the ongoing military campaign against isis. in addition to this, this proposal says there'll be no enduring ground forces troops sort of an effort to try to limit troops that are going into conflict with isis. the challenge for the president right now is that he faces skepticism on the left and the right over this proposal. folks on right the republicans who control congress believe this is much too restrictive.

it needs the president -- the commander in chief needs much greater war authority they say in order to effectively take out a very dangerous enemy like isis right now. so right now what the president proposed will not pass muster with moat republicans in congress. -- most republicans in congress. but the problem is on the left a lot of folks on the left are not happy with this either. it gives him too much authority. particularly because it keeps in place this 2001 war authorization. they say that in this administration, the last administration has abused that authorization, and they believe it should be repealedment so the president really -- repealed. so the president really is going to have a choice as this makes its way through congress. does he take on his own party and side with the republicans who control congress or does he stick to his guns and try to push what he believes is something that splits the difference between the two sides and makes pretty much nobody happy? that's a big question going forward and something we're going to see here in the coming weeks. is there a chance that nothing

will happen? >> guest: there's certainly a chance of that. i mean, it would be really stunning to see that happen particularly in the aftermath of all these beheadings and the things that isis is doing overseas but it's certainly possible. and i think that's one of the reasons why the administration believes that its action right now under the 2001 war authorization is legal and the reason why they're making that argument. and the reason why they're keeping that authority in, because if this fails, they believe they can still move forward with the campaign. but it would look really, really bad for the president both internationally and domestically if he was unable to get congress behind his military campaign. >> host: let's go back to our calls but remind folks that the senate vote on cloture -- this is a vote to advance the bill to get to the motion to proceed formally to the bill -- is at 5:30 eastern time. 4:30 is when they come back in for debate on this item, so you can watch the vote and the

preceding debate on c-span2 today starting at 4:30. uncle johnny by the way, writes i have yahoo! twitter -- via twitter -- writes that democrats weren't even allowed to debate on the dhs bill. that's partisan politics. steve calling from new jersey. hey, steve. >> caller: hi, how you doing? >> host: good. >> caller: thank you again for c-span. i was just wondering if they were to add the e-verify clause onto that bill and allow various levels of government to enforce that law, that would take the enforcement away from the, allow all the different levels of government to enforce it. and if e-verify were to be enforced perhaps they would, it would stop immigration from

happening as a way to counter allowing a lot of people to stay in this country. >> guest: yeah, you know e-verify is not part of the homeland security funding bill but it was part of the larger comprehensive immigration overhaul that died in the last congress. it's a key aspect that a lot of republicans got behind as a way to say an effort for employers to crack down on undocumented immigrants, people who are working in this country illegally. but that -- the only way that that gets enacted is if it gets enacted as part of a larger overhaul. it certainly would not be done in this funding bill, and those chances are very, very grim given the backlash that that had among the right. >> host: interesting process question here from sandy beach. mr. raju, aren't senate dems obligated by the rules to suspend their filibustering? if not, why not?

[laughter] >> guest: i think separation of powers is probably one way of looking at it. the senate sets its own rules under the constitution, and one of its rules is it allows members to object, any single member can force a 60-vote threshold on virtually anything, and democrats are doing that to begin debate on the homeland security bill, and that's a precedent that republicans and democrats have used a lot to -- a lot over the years. mitch mcconnell when he was minority leader routinely filibustered the motion to proceed. it's something that democrats are going to routinely cogoing forward as well, particularly on bills they don't like. so they are not at all obligated by it. the only way that they could change their mind is in the court of public opinion if democrats feel the heat to change their position particularly folks from red states who are filibustering this bill, who have expressed concern over the executive action. maybe that they could side with republicans to move forward.

but right now there's no indication they're going to do that. >> host: we have tom on the line from warren ohio, republican caller. good morning tom. >> caller: hello. >> host: hi. >> caller: thank you for c-span. i would like to ask the guest, the republicans could not shut down the department of homeland security, only with a congressional action. why does he not explain that? 80% of homeland security will keep coming to work no matter what. thank you for c-span. >> host: thanks. >> guest: you know, that's an argument that some republicans have certainly been advancing in recent days. i talked to ron johnson who's the chairman of the homeland security committee mt. senate who also -- in the senate who also is in a tough re-election race in 2016 in wisconsin and he said that, look, 87% of employees for the homeland security department will still report to to work even if there is no deal passed this thursday. and 13% will not be able to show up. so essentially, the department will be still working. it's not going to be a shutdown.

but there are also a lot of caveats to that. 13% amounts to, i believe 30,000 employees. as well as the ones who aren't showing up will certainly not receive their paychecks, they possibly will get back pay if congress were to approve that. to those 13% could be a lot of support staff so that would leave the current staff sort of strained. certainly, that's an issue that tsa will still continue to operate, customs and border security will still be able to operate. but i'm not sure if either side wants to go that far because their concerned about fallout particularly if something bad were to happen to this country during that time where the agency may not be working at full steam. >> host: we say good morning to ryan who is calling from las cruces, new mexico, democratic

caller. good morning to you. >> caller: good morning, thank you for c-span. i just have some questions for the reporter and also some comments. basically, i want to ask is it essential right now in the year that we're in between isis and the terrorist groups, is it mandatory that we have the homeland security department, homeland security? i know i believe it was created and my history might be off, created after 9/11 i think george w. bush had congress create it for the specific purpose of combating terror iism but before -- terrorism. but is it essential that we have a dhs department actually running? and also regarding the executive orders, does it behoove congress to pass a constitutional amendment to define what a president can do as far as the executive order? because there's a lot of wishy washy talk regarding that the president can use an executive order, but what's the limit? it's not defined in our constitution. is that something congress should look at? and if so, what do you think the stipulations should be? >> host: thanks, ryan.

some interesting comments. >> guest: in terms of the constitutional amendment, that's not something republicans have really been talking about. certainly, if they were to propose that, the chances of it getting enacted will be very difficult, you need two-thirds majority in the congress as well as the states to get that change to the constitution. and, but i certainly think there has been a concern starting with even democrats when george bush was president and increasingly with republicans with obama as president that the president has been talking liberties on executive action and going around congress and what they view is an unconstitutional manner. i'm not sure if there's going to be anything that they can really do legislatively to rein him in. and then on the homeland security department front certainly that was created by president bush after 9/11 and it was viewed as a way to centralize all of the different security agencies within the

federal government as well as to respond in a more centralized manner to concerns over national security. i think it is essential right now given the way that the government is structured that that agency sort of needs of exist because there was just a massive, massive reorganization within the government after 9/11 and right now that remains an important agentty. >> and and goofling back in here in the senate momentarily, expected to resume debate on the homeland security bill including provisions to block president obama's executive actions on immigration. september 30, 2015, and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: in just a few minutes, democrats will have another opportunity to end the weeks-long filibuster of homeland security. it will be the first opportunity our friends on the other side have to show where they stand after a federal judge

preliminarily enjoi