legislation in the house and then a discussion on u.s. filibuster rules and the so- called nuclear option. senators are scheduled to meet monday to discuss the changes to the senate rules. >> joining us from capitol hill is the chair of the house judiciary committee republican of virginia. thanks for being with us. >> glad to be with you. here is alan gomez of "u.s.a. today" the immigration beat and steve covers capitol hill for the washington times. we begin with immigration and ask you in your caucus is there significant republican support to deal with both border security and issue of illegals in this country right now? >> there are they major areas needed for immigration reform. one is dealing with border security enforcement and enforcement in the interior of the country. a second is reforming our legal immigration system so we can

create a healthier economy and create more american jobs by keeping people here who are educated in our great universities. we don't want them to go back home in the science, technology and engineering fields and work for companies that compete with us. we want them to stay here and grow our economy. and it is also important that we address the issue of what is the appropriate legal status for the 11 million or more people who are not here lawfully today. i think it is something that republicans are looking at very closely. we had a very important conference meeting this week and the result of that, i think, encouraged me to believe that we can continue to move forward in a step-by-step approach we are taking to address all three major areas including the appropriate legal status. congressman eric cantor and i

announced we are working on legislation that will deal with the issue of children who are brought here by their parents unlawfully and yet have grown up here, sometimes from a very early age, educated here and now are ready to go out and face life on their own and don't have any documentation. we think that is an important area to address and there are many republicans who want to do that. the next step would be to figure out for the larger group. they don't all have to be treated with the same status. somebody who entered the country illegally 10 days ago may not be deserving of the same consideration as somebody who entered the country 20 years ago. people who came here and have been attempting to legalize their status may opinion different status than those who entered illegally simply by coming across the border. they all need to be addressed but we have to think of it not as one large group of 11 million people but a lot of individuals who fit in different categories.

>> we will turn to alan gomez. >> mr. chairman, you have been very clear that those young undocumented immigrants, those brought here when children need toed treated differently. this week after the meeting many colleagues said the same thing, they came through no fault of their own and they would see a different route toward citizenship or be treat the differently. i want to make sure i understand where you stand for the rest of them. you said several times that you don't want a special pathway to citizenship for those folks who are here illegally. but if all the other conditions are met, they pass a criminal background check, adequate border security and they do not jump ahead in line of anybody else, if they have to go to the back and wait for everybody else who applied legally, do you see a possibility for them being able to eventually apply for u.s. citizen? >> the objection to the senate bill, the number one objection

is they give -- they have a long pathway to citizenship but they give a legal status about of they do all of the things that we have in our house bills and they have some of them in their senate bills such as securing the border, better interior enforce. involving state and local law enforcement, having an e-verify system that is mandatory and works. having an entry-exit visa system so we know if people have left. we heard from members about that. with regard to the legal status, i think that i and other members are open-minded to the idea that they should have a way to come out of the shadows, to be able to work, to have their own businesses, to pay their taxes, to travel back and forth to their home country and elsewhere. but, having a special pathway to citizenship like the senate bill

has where people who have immigrated lawfully to the country for generations and sometimes wait in line for 10 years or more based upon employment based petitions, family based petitions, refugee status, to create a new category for people who came in illegally doesn't sit well with a great many americans and that we are concerned about. if we can find that middle ground where we are going to see the enforcement take place first and we will see the legal immigration reform this is necessary not just for high skilled areas but areas like agriculture where there is a shortage of u.s. workers, then find that appropriate legal status, we are all about looking for it. we are doing a step-by-step approach in the house. not only does that allow us to look at each aspect of immigration reform carefully. the senate had one hearing on

the gang of eight before it was brought to the senate. this is a bill that i hear differing numbers on the pages but at least 1,200 pages long. to hold one hearing on that i think is going to lead a lot of people to conclude some of the same unintended consequences that have emanated from the obama care legislation will beset that legislation. holding hearings, marking up individual bills, five different bills now between the judiciary committee and homeland security committee assures us of getting, we think, better results. then taking each next step. the next step is to hold a hearing later there month on the issue of children who are brought here in early age by their parents and that is our next step. we understand, we recognize there is more to be addressed

and our goal is to address all of these three main areas, enforcement, legal immigration reform and the issue of the legal status of people who are not lawfully here. that is what we are committed to. >> to follow up, you mentioned the idea folks who came when they were adults there should be an avenue for them to live here lawfully and work here but you kept referring to legal status. this is a question that you know very well that draws up quite a bit of unrest when it comes to folks pushing for this. one representative talked about the idea of a long-term visa for those people so they can be here, work here but would have to continue going home to their home country for some period of time. that would main they could be here for a while but you are saying you have to go home for a

little bit and do that repeatedly. is that a process, something that is workable given that some of these folks have been here 20, 30, 40 years? >> we have encouraged the members of the judiciary committee and others and mr. issa he is the author of the skills visa act that we have passed through the judiciary committee already. he has ideas and we welcomed him to develop those ideas. but for people who have come to the country unlawfully, finding a legal status for them is something that is a worthwhile thing to look at but having a special pathway to citizenship is something that a great many republicans including i have concerns about. we are working on that issue and we don't have anything clear in terms of what mr. issa described or what i just described to you or something that could come from another member. we are encouraging openness and

ideas. none. bills thus far are written in stone and there are bills yet to be written and we are encouraging members to put their best foot forward and do that but we are not making any decisions about the best way to handle that legal status at this point except to say that it shouldn't be done before we are assured that we will not make the mistake of 1986 and have another wave of illegal immigration that occurred following that, and to say that it should not include a special pathway to citizenship that has not been available to people who have worked very hard to obey the law and follow the legal process. that do not mean that somebody who gets a legal status -- and depending how we could do this -- one way would be to give them legal status and say you are lawfully here. you are not a citizen but you have a lawful status and if you

have one of the ways others who visited on a temporary basis sometimes staying for many years finds to make that into a permanent status by marrying a united states citizen, having an employer petition for them for a job skill that is needed in the united states, having another relative petition for them, all of knows are ways they can eventually find themselves permanent residents and ultimately citizens. but none of knows would be special ways that have been made available only to people who have come here illegally because that is the senate's approach. we don't agree with this approach. >> we will turn to steven now. >> you talked about the special pathway to citizenship and there is a division between senate republicans and house republicans on this issue. even 14 senate republicans voted for the bill and of the others who didn't most of them still

say we believe there will eventually be a pathway to citizenship and not only inevitable but most of them say that is actually a good idea. they are haggling over the triggers and criteria to get there. that is by far not a unanimous view in the house among house republicans. what are you seeing that is different? is it a different political sense that you have for your constituency? what is driving you in a different direction than the senate republicans? >> i have talked to a great many of the senators on the republican side some of whom voted for the legislation but 70% of the senators on the republican side voted against the bill. i think you would find a higher percentage of house republicans voting against that senate bill. but we are all looking for ways to not say we want to kill the immigration process, kill the senate bill, which is what happened in 2007. what we are saying is we want to

do it a better way. we are listening to senators about the differing ideas they have. i will tell you that in my private conversations with them many of them as they hear with we are doing in the house like our approach better and they are encouraging us to continue this step-by-step careful analysis and building consensus as we go forward approach. i think that is what we will continue to do. part of that process is making sure we get the policy right but part of it is also of course making sure that for republicans in the house we get the politics right as well. members of the house are up for re-election every two years and they have to go back home and justify themselves to their constituents in many instances more immediately than senators some of whom are up in the next cycle but most not up for additional years. so, it will be a different process in the house and it will

be a process of building confidence in legislation that solves these problems and doesn't istas of 1986, doesn't ignore the opportunity for legal immigration reform to grow our economy and create american jobs and doesn't say it is a problem just at the border but it is a problem when 35% to 40% entered lawfully but overstayed their visas. some effectively permanently overstaying the visas. the 11 million, four million or more entered lawfully and are now here illegally so the border fix doesn't fix that. a lot of senators on the republican side recognize that and like the careful analysis and further look at these things that are taking place in the house and we are going to continue down that path. >> i want to ask you about

president obama. two different questions about his role. first is, he's apparently played a fairly big role, not necessarily public but a fairly big role in the senate bill negotiations. what sort of help or hindrance can he be as the house tackles its bill? is this the thing where your advice is to stay out of the negotiations or he can play a role in helping you sort out some of the stuff? second, we have seen with his deferred action for childhood arrival policy says they won't be deported. we have seen he is willing to act unilaterally. in some ways it seems he has a lot of cards in this like if you don't pass a bill this year, immigration advocates expect him to issue a more blanket policy for the vast majority of the 11 million folks here illegally

now. doesn't he essentially have that final card to create what would be a de facto amnesty if you don't come up with a solution? >> to the first question, we in the house and people around the country know where the president stands on immigration reform. we found it very disturbing as the negotiations were going on in private behind closed doors in the senate he had his staff people in the room as part of the negotiations. but we also recognize that the executive branch can play a useful role in providing technical advice. and we have met with the president's lead advisors on this issue from time to time during the last six months to let them know what we are doing to hear from them concerns they have. we have welcomed them to offer their input in the process. but we think that if the president tries to drive this issue either by threatening to

do what you just described or by trying to jam something down the throats of the american people and their representatives in the house that they do not want, that will have a negative impact on the process and will not allow us to get to where we need to in terms of trying to solve the problem of our broken immigration system. for example, when we talk about senator marco rubio somebody i admire greatly i don't agree with his bill and there are things he would like to change but i agree when he says we have de facto amnesty and we have a lack of enforcement of our laws today and we are missing a great opportunity to grow our economy by having legal immigration programs that work to help create economic growth. with regard to the president's actions for the children who were brought here illegally by their parents that he is doing

this deferred prosecution, that kind of discretion was clearly written into the law to handle on case-by-case basis. when he starts using it for hundreds of thousands of people all he is doing is building tremendous mistrust. you saw that in a bill passed a few weeks ago in the house all but six republicans voted to cut off the funding to allow that to be done. why? because that is the prerogative of the congress, not the president. while we can find and look for common ground about what to do with those people, those children who are brought here, when he tries to say that the executive has the authority to do things that are clearly set forth as the prerogative of the congress he is inviting both problems for his administration and he's inviting disaster for the effort to bring about immigration reform. it is important that the president make clear his position on the issues, but if he tries to muscle this process

and disrupt the natural order of checks and balances and division of power between three branches of the federal government he is stepping into an area that will not serve him well or the making of public policy well. and it is not just in this area. he came about of the congress for his state of the union address last year and sort of alluded to it again this year. last year he was clear, he had a laundry list of things he wanted the congress to do and he said if you don't do it i will. that is not democracy. that is not representative government. and that is not where any president of the united states should be and i would very clearly warn him if he follows that avenue or threatens that approach in this process with regard to immigration reform he has a great risk of blowing the whole thing up. >> let me follow one a specific

one on deferred action. the senate national labor relations board situation in the senate senator mcconnell led republicans to join a lawsuit protesting the president's appointments on that issue. have you considered suing to try to stop deferred action? i know there is a lawsuit in texas federal court. have you considered getting legally involved to take that status to halt that policy? >> we are watching closely that court case in texas. it is a very interesting case. the labor union that represents the 5,000 -- by the way, we talk about the enforcement at our borders. the senate bill now throws 40,000 people at that. and $46 billion. that leads a lot of to us think that is not the right solution nor would it ever actually happen so it didn't build confidence in the house that that was added to the senate bill at the end. be that as it may, the fact that we have 5,000 immigration and

customs enforcement agents for the interior of this country of more than three million square miles and 300 million people and we know once you enter the country illegally or overstay the visa, those millions are in every part of the country, to have the president actually prohibit them from enforcing the law caused them to bring a lawsuit in federal court saying that was a violation of the constitution and of the laws of the land. we are waiting to see how that litigation goes forward. but we are always obviously watching other areas and there have been lawsuits brought in other areas beyond the nlrb case. also the chesapeake bay executive order is in federal court because a number of organizations from the american farm bureau to the national association of home builders and others have challenged that as saying he exceeded executive

branch authority. we needs to always be exercising the opportunity to take action in court. right now we are watching what is going on in that case in texas. we will continue to monitor and look at all of our options moving forward. >> a follow-up on this, we heard from former president bush who called for benevolent action with respect to illegals. you have been in congress more than two decades and in the chair dealing with immigration, is this the most challenging situation you have dealt with? >> when you are chairman and at the center of a lot of decisions regarding the issue it is an important responsibility. so, it is a major, major challenge. but i have been involved with the impeachment of a president of the united states, impeachment of federal judges, very complicated issues, the aftermath of 9/11 and economic calamity if you will in 2008 and

beyond. quite frankly, i think the biggest issue facing our country is we are continuing to run trillion dollar deficits year after year and while it will dip a little bit there year because of a big tax increase which i didn't support and sequestration which i did -- -two-thirds of mandatory spending, food stamps tripling in 10 years, if we don't get control of what has gone from one-third to two-thirds of our budget is the greatest challenge. i'm not at the center of those other than to say the judiciary committee has control over amendments it the constitution and i have felt a long time that

we should have a constitutional amendment limiting the ability of the federal government to borrow money requiring the government to balance its budget except in times of national emergency. that is the most important issue in my opinion facing our government. immigration reform is a major challenge before the judiciary committee and i'm excited about the opportunity to work on this. when the democrats were in the majority in the committee and in the house and in the senate and had president obama for his first two years, they did nothing about immigration reform. i'm pleased that we are working on it and pleased that we are working on it in the house an senate. we don't like the way the senate has done it and we will do it differently. >> i want to go back to border security. you mentioned the senate border security plan. 46 billion dollars, double the size of the patrol to 40,000 agents. that was a republican brokered

deal over in the senate. that was their way of pacifying republicans to vote for that. in your chamber very different approach thus far. the chairman of homeland security department is pushing a bill to require the department of homeland security to go first figure out what is going on at the border, measure it, figure out ways to measure what is going on and devise a plan. your committee is looking at a bill to empower state and local police officers to help enforce fed immigration law. i'm wondering if the focus of so many republicans is making sure the border is locked down. what objections do you have to that senate bill that seemed to pacify many in the senate and why the more slower and deliberate approach in the house when so many say it is such an immediate concern?

>> we did immigration reform in 1986 and we are still living with the mistakes of that nearly 30 years ago. we definitely need to solve the problem. but we need to get it right. that should be our timetable. making sure we get it right. we didn't get it right last time. the senate didn't get it right in 2007 when the effort collapsed when the public became aware of the things in the senate bill. our main concern with the senate bill is with regard to the border they make an effort, we don't think it is the right effort but they say we are going to do that after we grant legal status to 11 million people unlawfully present. that is not and i will legitimate objective but there are hundreds of millions that

would love to come to the united states and if we don't have the border secure and don't have the interior enforcement an e-verify to make sure we don't have another wave of illegal immigration we will repeat the mistakes of 1986. we don't want to do that and we think the senate has. that is why we are taking a different approaching careful proceeding deliberately. we have been working on this thoroughly throughout the entire six months and we think we have produced great legislation and it could be made better. but we are taking it step by step and i think that is the way the american people would like legislation of all kinds to be addressed to put as much time as members of the house have put into marking up and studying each of the bills we have moved thus far and we've got more to do. >> bob goodlatte is the chair of the how judiciary committee.

thank you for being with us on "news makers program." we continue with steven dinan. what are the chances the house will pass comprehensive immigration reform this year? >> i guess it depends on what your definition of comprehensive is. if that means a bill that has a broad pathway to citizenship for the vast majority of 11 million which is what the advocacy groups have defined, i think the chances are very slim the house passes that. if you are talking about a bill or a, either a single bill or group of bills that includes some sort of legal status for, as the congressman said for the youth and possibly legal status for the rest of the 11 million and deals with the other two planks, enforcement and the legal immigration system, i think it is possible. maybe 50-50 that -- for whatever

that is worth -- that the house gets that done. the bigger question is whether the house and senate can come to an agreement if that does happen and there i would say the chances are a very slim part. >> the debate between the house and senate with the republicans? >> that is -- i think he is right when he says the difficulty will be when the house -- whatever the house passes, when they get with the senate, what that negotiation will be like. we were speaking with republicans this week and their concern is even if they pass two or three bills, something for the young kids, something on border security, e-verify and send it to conference with the senate, they are paranoid about what will come back from that. when you put all of those things together i think 50-50 is very generous. but looking at the reality that you have senator schumer and

those who pushed it in the senate saying any bill that doesn't have that broader pathway to citizenship for the vast majority of undocumented immigrants is a nonstarter on their side and on the house side you have them saying ok, keep it for the young kids but everything else is this nebulous legal status that says they haven't filed a bill yet, we have heard them theorize. when you start at such polar opposite on such a core issue, it makes it difficult. >> i mentioned president bush because he failed with immigration reform in 2006 and 2007. if that happens under president obama again what impact does that have for the rest of his second term? >> i don't know that immigration is the make or break. i think we are seek some slide in his legislative heft. president bush's second was playing defense on the war on terror against efforts from congress. i think a lot of president

obama's second term will be defending the first term priority of health care. immigration he would love to get it done but there is a lot on his plate with just defending health care. i don't know how far he will go. you mentioned president bush. one thing we could well be looking at is the situation in 2006 is worth remembering. in 2006 the senate passed a brought bill. the house passed and enforcement only bill and they didn't bother to go to conference because they were so different. >> gentlemen, thank you both for being with us on c-span. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]>> last week, former president george bush spoke in dallas area in his