and that wraps up our coverage of this hearingith health d human services secretary alex azar. if you missed any of this live event, we will show you his pr ofis agency again olicies and tonight at 10:00 p.m. eastern on our companion network c-span. president trump is expected to sign a veterans healthcare bill l today. that's scheduled for 12:15 p.m. eastern in the rose garden and we will take you there live when it gets under way. later, white house economic adviser larry kudlow will preview the upcoming g-7 summit. that's supposed to start at 1:00 and we will have live coverage for you here on c-span 3 as well. in the meantime, here is a portion from this morning's washington journal.

>> this is representative paul gosar, republican of arina, he sethe fourth district,o a member of the freedom caucus, good morning? good morning. >> inside the freedom caucus itself there is a debate going on wh i comes to legal immigration. could you give us the characterization of that debate. >> yeah, we are trying to come up with a solution that looks at what the american people wanted, they wanted border security, with he promised border security. they want to have the conversation about legal imion, why is it taking so long for people to come into this country the right way, and thennty ander bord enforcement as well as interior enforcement. that's what they want to see. they want to also see a conversation in regards to the daca recipients, but i don't think it's exactly what everybody else thinks that should be. i don't think there is a pathway to citizenship that most people look at, this he want to be share, but they want to be fair across the board with everybody. not victimizing one peole over

another. thatin tto helpt debate.to find we've got great people, raul labrador an immiationttne has been very forward with some great ideas th are forward thinking that actually incorporates a lot of that -- the thought process that maybe there is a way to mitigate this not jus on the daca recipients but also other people that may be here accordingly. but then also looking atsof the quotas as far as visa lottery programs, chain migration. we have to have some changes. >> when it comes to those dak ra recipients what threshold can you accept when it comes to some type of pathway and that shared amongst the freedom caucus as a whole or is there a debate about that threshold? >> there is a debate. we don't want to at least in my standpoint and a few of us others don't want a special process just for daca recipients. if we are going to look at children across the board that

may be the victims across this board where we give them an opportunity to be part of the legal immigration process with maybe more of a value of -- that valuation, then i think that there's something there that people can buy into, saying, listen, we are not subject debating one group over another, not victizing one group over another and enhancing legal immigration. >> your personal views how do they square with the house freedom caucus leader mark meadows? how much is he willing to give in and does he share your views? >> well, none of us have same views. we just don't. and that's -- but that's the beauty of our group is that we have that conversation. what's missing in congress is the debate. is having the share of those ideas. listening to your point of view, taking an extrapolating it with my view and seeing if there is

some way that we can come up with a solution that's amenable to both of us, that follows a process of equalon o a the law. i think that's beay of our group. mark has worked very hard to try to get to a solution that mitigates some of the groups that looked at the discharge petition as well as some of the hardliners in our group and i'm one of them. so i think he has done a very good job. >> our guest will be with us until 8:00, you can talk to him and ask him questions 202-748-1000 for republicans, 20-738- 20-738-1001. explain that to o viewers about some rublicans signing on to that. >> so the discharge petition is a means in which you can force a legislation to come to the floor without the consent of leadership or through the

regular cmiprocess. kedso it'on the floor. once they get that 218 what ends up happening is depending upon when it comes available, it's brought to you floor and it's v. now, in this case, it's kind of a queen of the hill where t number of bills inside there, kind of li what the senate did with the king of the hill. see if they can get one that has the most votes or that passes. that can go away if one of the pieces within that construction bill sitting on the floor is brought forward. the one we're talking about is a good bill. if that were to come up before that time, the discharge petition is null and void. they can start the clock all over again with a discharge petition. but that's something we have talked about. we have been promised that sense last year from a cr aspect that ldwe woet a vote on the goodlatte bill that has visa

lottery, chain migration, e-verify, border security, starting to look at renewal for daca recipients. so that's what we're looking at that's what the discharge petition will do. >> what do you think about republican who republicans who started this process, bringing it to the floor this way, and republicans who sign on to it? >> well, all of us want to have atebate on immigration. it's long overdue, pedro. i don't think that the discharge petition is quite the way to do that. because you cede your jurisdiction, you actually give it to pelosi that day. that's not the way we ought to be doing things. i agreeith h that a conversation needs to be had. that's a problem with our leadership. we need to go through the proper process. good process builds good policy builds good politics. that's key to eve process here. we should have made leadership

toe the mark and say bring it through the committees, let's have that conversation, move it, move it, move it. trust is a series of promises kept. if you're not keeping your promises, there's no trust within the electorate body here in congress with leadership. >> the fact that we're even at the stage of a discharge position, is that a failure of speaker ryan? p it is. nted. i've been that one person that thinks this -- we're allowing an emulation of the failings of the previous speaker. the export/import bank was a discharge petition. look at the budget process with speaker boehner and now with speaker ryan. the process is wrong. personalities aside, you know, they're good people. but leadep comes at a price. you have to follow the rules, and you got to make sure that you're not u susurping that process. once we get that good process, we're going to have some policy that i think the american people

can buy off on. immigration is so important. this is the fabric of this country. we can't do this behind closed doors. this has to be done publicly with the american public. piece by piece by piece and explain it, allow them to chime in. >> our first call comes from ohio. this is gary. independent line, you're on with the representative. >> caller: hello, and how are you doing today? >> beautiful day. i can't complain. >> caller: i hope so. i've got a few questions i've been trying to get asked, and so far nob has iteity or cencyr character to answer them within a reasonable amount of time. what is the cost of illegal aliens to united states citizens, just a dollar figure? and what's the cost of legal immigration to the dollar figure? and when are you people up there

going to start taking care of the american citizens? we got people on the streets, homeless. we have people out of work. we're paying people not to work, and nobody's got the guts to do anything about it. you say you're for the law, but yet you t rigroundan you're against the law. >>kay, caller. you put a list out there. we'll let our guest respond. >> well, the cost for illegal immigration is over $100 billion in a yearly application. so legal immigration, i don't know how you define that. because i think the rewards are over and above. we're coming to that aspect to the caller when you at our job markets -- we have more jobs now available that are actually so one of these ways that we're going to have to look at this is if we need, let's say, a million people to come in? i would much rather go to the legal immigrations than the

people that are here illegally. now, in regards to border wall, i've been one of those stalwart people who's brought new solutions to the table. for example, in mexico and arizona, mexico's high ground, we're low ground. when they get water, we get flooded. so there's a perfect opportunity to share a border facility with a water infrastructure aspect called the lower santa cruz where mexico would pay their fair share, 50%, the united states 50%, and you'd actually have something that both sides want and need in regards to that. it also takes care of waste that is now pouring into the united states in regards to poor septic systems. so there's a whole opportunity re we've put fwa that is being creative in regards to border facility. and you're right. our principal instructions are to take care of the citizens of this coun absolutely.

>> from virginia, also on our independe line, jim,go ahea >> niji >ll: s, sir. thank you for takg my cal i'd like to start with when c-span has lines of immigration and open up one to the illegals to call in. i'm sorry, i'm a blue-collar guy. i've listened to c-span a lot. i work for a living. i wish you'd open up a line for americans that have to compete against these people and owners that own companies that are put under stress because of people hiring illegal aliens. i moved across this country twice. i'm a veteran. my wife's a veteran. my son's a combat veteran. i'm in construction. i compete against people from ethiopia and grenada and central and south america in my job. unemployment in this country should be zero as far as i'm concerned. i go to job sites, nobody speaks

sh. i can communicate with one guy to get something across. it's a little disheartening. i hold a hard line on this iega. on the daca kids, i'm sorry. i don't care if it takes them 50 years. they do not get full citizenship. if they do, it might take them 50 years. >> got you, caller. got you, got you. >> i feel the same way. you came into this country illegally, even if it wasn't up to you. that's the big crux of this conversation piece. when you go back and a wh rona reagan was promised, there was an amnesty, but there was no wall. there was no border security. we keep seeing the same facade over and over and over again where we're allowing pele to come in here. we can't deter them as refugees, political asylum. we've got to start closing these loopholes in regards to enhancing legal immigration. that's where we need to put people into that position.

not victimize one group over not. that's what we constantly do here. so this is a perfectime to get this right. we ought to have the respect to t was somethinat our forefathers thought was so important in the communication application. and then also, we have to be as a people looking at how to fill those jobs, getting people off elfare andenjoying the opportunity of bettering their their family's lives. from that standpoint, i empathize with you. we ought to be looking at tionrcement and embracing legal that's exactly what we ought t be doing. and we ought to be taking care of our citizens, which is our constitutional duty. >> your colleague in congress on the house, representative jeff denham, wrote a piece saying america has never punished children for the aions of their parent, and we shouldn'tt.

these children and young adults know no other country as home. they've paid their fees, some of them more than once, and passed background checks. they're part of our work force, graduates of our high schools, enrolled in our universities. it goes on from there, but what do you think about that argument? >> once again, i applaud jeff for his comments, but how do you take in the people who came over here fromian de shouldn't we start looking at this in an applicable light? we enhance and support people for legally coming here, not the illegal application. i find it kind of offensive, not kind of, really offensive that in the first action that you want to come to this country is you violate the law. what made this country great was the equal application of the law, that no one was above it. oh, i forgot. we got hillary clinton sitting out there that bypasses all those types of processes. t we got to get back to it. everybody has to be held to that same accountability. now, i don't want to victimize

children. not at all. but these aren't children anymore. so where was the stalwartness of them to come forward? i think everyone would like to try to help them. citizenship is the big stretch. the second part is, family unification is that we're going to allow parents to come back in, the original lawmakers. that's the problem here. and you can't have one without the other. that's the conversation that jeff is missing. can we zo somethido somethinth wa to just something with daca recipients. what about those children that are here from india and placs tly country they know from a legal means? we're going to put daca recipients in front of them? i think not. i think that's the dichotomy we're finding ourselves in with the american people. they love legal immigration, but we're victimizing legal immigration on behalf of people me he illegally.

>> congress has taken many attempts at a broad immigration reform before. but narrow approach to daca may be a better approach because it's narrow. >> immigration is a complex piece of legislation that encumbers so many different pieces. you have to share each of these pieces. you have to take them one at a time. you can't just put a comprehensive bill forward because everybody knows in america when you put comprehensive behind anything, there's crap -- it's a crap sandwich. do it right. dan webster, my god friend from florida as a speaker, understood this very, very well. take it in pieces. fw give it the light of day. let it have the open debate. bring that policy forward. i'm not going to get everything i want. jeff's not going to get everything he wants. because you havehat conversation, you build a process and a policy that encumbers that. people can go, you know what, i had my say.

i see their point of view. i see how this is all interrelated. and does it put america first? bi>>et'so to republican line. san aio, texas. tina, hello. >> caller: hi. good morning. my comment is i just wanted to know what the workers in the white house will do about the problem we have here in texas, the overpopulation in schools, in jobs, their refusal to speak english. we're just overpopulated. it's very hard for legal americans to get jobs here. and i feel that's very unfair to americans. that's my comment. >> once again, we ought to be looking at our laws are

sovereign to those individuals that are here in this country legally. we ought to be looking at citizens first. how do we empower and embrace and support the citizens of this country. and an igrsshat rewas peole if they're doing it right. that is key. one of your big problems is very similar to what arizona we have. a lot offluxes are coming from people from california. that refuge in california now is higher taxes, the cost of doi busilifornia is sending businesses and people streaming into ariza andxas. so tha's also part of that problem as well. this has to be a unified conversation on a solution. you don't do itdischarge petitions. that actually makes it worse. because what you're going to do is you're going to take one group of people and put them in front of another.

without the due process of a good conversation, a deliberate ve hrd feelings.u're going to immigration is the biggest key we should be doing this the right way. >> from antelope, california, larry, democrats line, hi. >> eryeah, good morning. yes, my main thought about the daca people is they need to be returned to their countries of bassy or consulate nearby legal entrance into the united states. about immigration in general, i would like to see a moratorium soe c w absorb the huge number of immigrants, legal and illegal,at we've had pour into the country over the last 50 years.

thiin