>> a look at some of our live coverage today. dicking at noon eastern, cheney, live on c-span2. areressman this week, we also covering several hearings today. coming up at 5:00 p.m. eastern today, a house rules committee roadseet to talk about and transportation projects. atight on c-span2 starting 7:30, the house veterans affairs committee will meet and hold a series of meetings. this one focusing on the

processing of veterans benefits claims. you will join in and share your .houghts on twitter we mentioned the house and senate are in session today. we spoke earlier today for more on the week ahead in congress. host: joining us now to discuss the crisis on the border is ian swanson, a correspondent for "national journal." thanks for being with us this morning. guest: it's good to be here. how are you? host: i'm good. thank you. i was wondering if you could

talk to us a little bit about the president he's budget request to deal with the immigration issue. guest: the president is essentially doing what he should be doing when you start to see a surge that we have seen over the -- host: joining us on the phone now to give us a little bit more context on what's going on on capitol hill this week is ian swanson, a news editor at "the hill" newspaper. we've been talking about the republican lawsuit against president barack obama. walk us through that a little bit and what action we could see soon, even this week. guest: sure. what we'll see, we believe, on wednesday is that the house rules committee will vote on whether to move forward with the lawsuit. we fully expect that to happen. the rules committee is dominated by republicans. that will bring the lawsuit to the floor. i'm not sure we'll get a vote on the floor this week on the lawsuit that could happen, but certainly within the last three weeks the congress will be in before the august recess, we're going to see the house vote on whether to go forward with the lawsuit. again, we fully expect them to vote to move forward with the lawsuit because the house has a majority of republicans. host: and are republicans united on this lawsuit? are there any dissenters who say maybe this isn't the right way to go? guest: i think there are a couple of things going on. you have a division among republicans over whether the

president should be impeached. there are some republicans that want to go that far. many more who don't, who think that would be something that isn't worth doing at all because it would go nowhere. they think that it could also bounce back and hurt them politically. so some people see this lawsuit as a way to sort of contain that fire for impeachment that could maybe backfire and hurt republicans ahead of the mid-term elections. there's also a lot of just general anger at the president among the republican party, republicans in the house in particular. and this is a way of sort of answering that anger with some kind of an action that will say, hey, we're trying to do something about this. host: another topic that has been in the news and on the minds of congress is this idea of an emergency supplementary funding to address the border crisis. will people on both sides of the aisle talking about that. what are we likely to see there? guest: that's the other huge story of july that we'll be covering. the question is whether congress can get that supplemental to the president's desk before they all leave town for the august recess. i think there's a lot of motivation for both sides to get something done before they leave, but there's really significant differences between democrats and republicans over how that package should look. the big thing is whether you're going to change the law so that it's harder for people who are coming into the country from central american countries to get these automatic asylum hearings. there's a law that they changed in 2008 that's really leading to

a lot of people crossing the border right now. and democrats and republicans disagree on how much you should change that law to try to prevent more people from trying to come into the united states. host: what about the highway trust fund deal? a lot of outrage from governors at the national governors association meet who are very worried congress won't reach a deal. do you see one in sight? guest: yes. in fact, at the end last week it looked like the house and senate were becoming really close on a deal that will provide some $10 billion to stop a shortfall in the highway trust fund. it's possible that they'll be able to move on legislation as soon as this week to get that done. out of all the things we're talking about, i think that's the vehicle that seems the most likely to get done right now before the august recess.

host: one last question for you, ian swanson. we have heard that senate democrats are moving forward to come up with some kind of legislation to address the supreme court's recent ruling on what's been known as the hobby lobby case. what can you tell us about that? guest: senate democrats are expected to move forward with legislation this week. it's going to get a vote, but this is a little bit like a lawsuit vote that we are talking about earlier against premeditate. premeditate in that -- against president obama in that it's likely to not pass the senate. if republicans in the senate are able to prevent them from getting the vote necessary to proceed. so i guess i should say it's a little different from the lawsuit in that the lawsuit is at least likely to get through the house but not the senate. this is something on the hobby lobby case they'll be able to vote on in the senate, will motivate the democratic base, but it will not get through the house and will not even get through the senate. host: ian swanson, thanks for sharing your thoughts with us this morning. guest: thanks for having me. >> debate and votes on one of the 12 federal spending votes.

this one for payments for the district of columbia. a current amendment to that though would prohibit the district from using local funds to enforce a recently passed law to criminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. live right the house here on c-span and the senate on on companion network c-span2. south.re 50 miles the wallace's of iowa consists of three generations of wallace's. fondlyriarch was known as uncle henry and he was the former of wallace's magazine. agriculturery of under woodrow wilson and henry's

son was worn on this farm in 1888 and he went on to become editor of wallace's former magazine. he was then asked by franklin roosevelt to serve as u.s. agriculture, which he did for eight years until 1941. then he was roosevelt's vice president until 1945, and u.s. secretary of agriculture. he is known for the agricultural adjustment act, the first time that farmers were asked not to produce. at first, people could not believe the things he was proposing regarding that. up, theyprices went started to listen to him. people still refer to him today as the genius secretary of agriculture. saturday at noon eastern, on c-span2's book tv, and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american

history tv on c-span three. >> the chair of the house foreign affairs committee along with three other house lawmakers sent a letter to president obama last week requesting the administration consult congress on any further negotiations with iran. congressman ed royce discussed .he issue this is about an hour. >> thank you for coming, everybody. our guest is representative ed royce. this is his first visit. we are grateful to him for coming. he is a native californian and a graduate of california state university school of business administration. his interest in politics is long-standing. he headed you for reagan in the 1976 challenge to the then president gerald ford. >> [indiscernible] >> after a brief career in the

private sector, in 1982 our guest was elected to the california state senate, authoring a law that made it a felony to stalk someone. he has been a member of the house foreign affairs committee since coming to congress and was named the chair in the member 2012. now on to the ever popular process portion of our program. we are on the record here. no live blogging or tweeting and no filing of any kind while the breakfast is underway to give us time to listen to what our guest says. no embargo when the session ends.

we will e-mail several pictures of the session to all reporters here as soon as the breakfast ends. if you would like to ask a question, do the traditional thing and send me a nonthreatening signal, and i will happily call on one and all. i offer our guest the opportunity to make opening remarks, and then we will move to questions around the table. thank you for coming. >> let me begin by saying i was a fan of reagan's, and one of the things i noticed about his conduct on the hill was the way that he and tip o'neill conducted themselves. it was a way in which i think created an atmosphere in which things could he accomplished on the hill. one of my objectives on my committee, the foreign affairs committee, has been to try to create a similar type of dialogue. and with eliot engel, my ranking

member, what we have tried to do is get members involved with foreign affairs, to create an open dialogue, to create a balanced way in which they not only participate, but we had these delegations which are engaged, which we take overseas, whether to ukraine recently or the middle east or to asia, and try to reach a consensus to do our job in a way that provides a united front in terms of the u.s. in these parts of the world. and i would say so far we have been largely successful in that endeavor on the committee. i will give you a few examples of areas that we have been involved in, and then i know what you want to ask questions, but if i could give you some broad issues come about how the united states could be more effective overseas, and one of those has been with our communications. one of the early impacts that

affected me was an exchange program years ago when i was in west germany and east germany. in east germany at that time, i sell what radio free europe, radio liberty, was able to do in order to instruct a generation of young germans in political pluralism, in tolerance, and all these ideals that helped shape and eastern europe in very different attitudes and the bombastic propaganda that was coming over from west germany. instead, by using east german reporters and by having a vision of how we would introduce and balance information, we were

able really during the reagan administration, this country was able to reshape the thinking there. what eliot engel and i are trying to do with our overhaul of the broadcasting board of governors and our system of reinvigorating radio free europe, radio liberty, and via, is to get back to that effective type of medication. we have talked to our former secretary of state and others who have testified about this, secretary clinton and others, and they say the current system is practically defunct. you have passed legislation over to the senate, we are working on this right now, and we believe it could have a very big impact -- it could create a very real change to the way in which we can effectively offset propaganda in russia or lack of information in the middle east, and provide access for people to have more ideas about political

pluralism and tolerance in china. on another subject, we have spent a great deal of time on the committee following the situation in iran. remember, for many of these members of the foreign affairs committee, they have a lot of experience over the years with deception on the part of the government in iran. in one of our concerns was to find pressure points where we might be able to get the iranians to the table. we did that with legislation on sanctions that passed the session. we passed legislation authored by me and co-sponsored by eliot engel, which really gives the ayatollah a choice, a choice between compromise on the nuclear program or economic collapse. we were able to pass that bill out of committee with bipartisan support, unanimously, and passed it off of the floor with 400 votes to 20. administration oppose the legislation, but it was our opinion on the committee, those

of a with experience on foreign affairs, that this type of pressure was necessary in order to be taken seriously in order for the u.s. position to be taken seriously. the administration has helped legislation up in the senate, but we are close to 2/3. and as of the situation continues to drag on, and of course, this week some of you will be following our secretary of state and wendy sherman's further negotiations in vienna, with the iranians on this, but it is a good reminder in terms of the nature of this regime as we now see that these m-302's, these very long-range rockets, which iran transferred to hamas, were launched. it was a reminder that whatever negotiations we have ongoing

with iran, there is this history of deception that was shared with us by the international agencies which conduct oversight with respect to the attempts to get iran to comply with the u.n. security council resolutions and with international norms of behavior. so these are some of the issues we are working on. a third issue would be try to open our markets overseas to u.s. exports. we are in competition with china with two very different models.

the united states is trying to sell the ideal of opening to trade to our exports overseas with high standards for intellectual property, high standards with respect to these issues like indigenous innovation and so forth, trying to set a standard that does not allow political pull, but instead allows the rule of law to comply. we are in competition with china, so political influence is determining at the end of the day what products can enter the country. what we are trying to do with ttip, with the trade initiative and southeast asia and along the pacific rim is to pull countries together with these high standards. we are attending to do the same thing simultaneously with europe. if we succeed in this, and we will have a world system of high standards -- a high standard agreement, and we will have one that can put an enormous

pressure on those countries which seek not to comply with international law. and one of the things we are doing is trying to convince the administration to the more supportive of their own initiatives here. the administration often announces an initiative, but then does not do anything to support its implementation, and in south asia and east asia that is important. with that said, why don't we open it up your questions. >> i will give you a long-winded question to give you a chance to take a bite of you wish to. let me throw out the ceremonial softball to begin, and that is about what you see as the biggest foreign-policy threat to the u.s.

when you were selected as chairman, you spoke of the greatest threats facing u.s. and our allies is iran. is that still your view, sir, or are there other issues that have eclipsed that in terms of being the most important threat to the u.s.? >> we were on track to take some steps to offset the danger from iran. one of those was the interceptor program that we had worked with the czech republic and poland that if they developed an icbm, and there were worries in europe

about what europe did to protect itself, and that program would have protected europe. it also would have protected the united states. with the decision by the president of the united states to pull that system, to not go forward with that system, in order to reset the relationship with russia, in order to meet putin's demands that we not move forward with that system, intended to defend against an iranian launch, we basically left ourselves open. so it is very important that we either succeed in these negotiations with iran and committed not to go forward with its nuclear weapons program, or that we go forward, if we fail to do that, with the initiative that i and eliot engel has authored, which would leave the ayatollah no choice but to compromise away his nuclear weapons program. our concern is his comment not long ago that the icbm program is a responsibility of the military come and they need to mass-produce icbm's. and obviously, what he is saying, because he is the chief decision-maker, what messages he is sending to his military about ramping up icbm production and refusing to make that part of the agreement leaves those who

are worried about security with greatest concerns about the long-term intentions. he continues to say we are the great satan in the world, which would help if he calibrated this rhetoric a little bit. not the little satan, the great satan, and giving these attitudes that keep coming out of the ayatollah, yeah, we have security concerns there. >> one more and then we will go to patricia and john. let me ask you about the refugee crisis on the border. we had rick perry here a little while ago, and he contended that

during that session what was happening on the southern border was a failure of diplomacy by the united states in working with honduras, el salvador, and guatemala, a failure by the obama administration. is that a contention you agree with? you have a policy prescription of what obama should be doing about the crisis on the border? >> i suspect what the governor is referring to is the inability of mexico to block the guatemalan border, and that is an area where we could work with the government in mexico in order to help them develop -- and in order to pressure them, friendly, because that is the other part of that equation --

pressure them to seal that border with guatemala, and also the fact that in guatemala and in honduras and el salvador, you have a circumstance where the political leadership there in the government is aiding and abetting this messaging, probably because it partly results in remittances to the extent that these 16-, 17-year-old young people, when the children get to the united states, the expectation is they will find themselves in the work force and that remittances will go back to those countries, and that is an advantage. lastly, it is a pressure valve probably, also, in these governments, and these are largely dysfunctional governments to the extent that the united states weighs in with pressure on these regimes and pushes for policies which are

responsible, and also policies that do not encourage the citizens to make this very dangerous trek all the way up through mexico to the u.s. but there is other steps obviously that the administration should be taking, can be taking. one is the messaging in central america that immigration fraud, those who commit immigration fraud, will be returned. these cases that we speak to our cases of fraud. when you are talking about the original intent to the provisions in the code to protect those who are trafficked for sexual abuse in the united states, the argument that that is going to blanketly cover all central american children who come over the border, that is not true, and the president needs to explain that to audiences in central america,

very forcefully, that they are not covered under that provision, and they will be returned. i think that type of messaging will go a long way to change the situation, which is compounding arithmetically. and that is an essential part of the solution. >> patricia? >> thank you. i would like to ask about iran, the july 20 deadline coming up, and i wanted to get your view of a possible extension [indiscernible] how long of an extension you are comfortable with [indiscernible] and i have a question about -- [indiscernible] i was not sure about the verbiage about the financial system --[indiscernible] some broader nuclear sanctions -- [indiscernible] >> we have 342 signatures on the house on the letter.

again, it conveys the magnitude of the concerns of members of congress, members of congress need to be included in these discussions, and as you know, we went a year without congress being informed. our concern is also on what the iranians claim they will not negotiate on. one that i spoke to earlier was the icbm program, and when you hear the ayatollah call for a massive increase and say that it is every military man's responsibility to be involved in this huge stockpiling of

long-range icbm's, it calls into question -- why is that not part of the agreement? why are we not speaking to the issue of their insistence that they continue to be allowed to work on and ever more rapid development of supersonic centrifuges? why were they want centrifuges that spin ever more rapidly, or if the iranian content is undetected nuclear breakout, then that tells us something about their state of mind. even more so, the fact that they insist on taking this off the table, the fact also that their work on miniaturization of a nuclear warhead. a site, one where the iaea, the international organization that monitors, wants access to that site during these negotiations. we have seen them take several steps, we have seen them remove dirt from the site where they did their nuclear testing. then we see them bring in new earth in good measure after they

knocked down the buildings. we have seen them asphalt the whole area, but they are still too reticent to allow the iaea to come in to check. the checks would follow the other agreements that they had had. if they aren't in the process of violating agreements, how willing are they -- remember reagan's old adage, trust but verify -- how willing are they going to be? we know the zeal for a deal.

we have seen that before with respect to the north korean situation. and having gone down that road before, we want to make sure that this agreement is verifiable. and so, yes, we are weighed in, and to your question about how long they will draw this out, my suspicion is that they are going to try to play for time, because as they do, they continue to enrich more and more. another observation would be their demand at the end of the day is that the inspection sees after a period of time, say, 10 years, and after that they are treated like any other power on the world stage. with that point, they could go forward without any oversight, without any real ability for us

to be able to slow their rush to weaponization. these are all questions that we are concerned about in congress, and this is the very reason why we passed our legislation into the senate. our suspicion was that if the senate could have taken that up, we would have had the necessary leverage to get the agreement needed, because we would have had the pressure with the additional sanctions that would force an agreement that was verifiable. >> would you agree to an extension? >> would we agree to an extension? agreed, the whole problem is they are playing for time. we would have hearings on that. i would consult with eliot engel and the other members of the committee on this subject. we would have to see the details of what we are talking about. but i suspect what i'm going to hear from the members of the committee is this is the very reason why we felt the administration, rather than just stop our legislation in the senate, should have allowed it to go into effect because then the incentive would be not for

the iranians to have an extension, but want to get a deal sooner than later, because of the cost on their economy. >> we will go next to john. >> thank you. mr. chairman, you have spoken about streamlining and overhauling the communications network, broadcasting. my question is twofold. [indiscernible] second, the bush administration placed a high priority on overhauling the communications network, broadcasting. my question is twofold. [indiscernible] second, the bush administration placed a high priority on democracy building to the rest of the world, beginning with the president bush's second inaugural address and encouraging country to have a democratic system and have

successive free elections. and you have seen some success in the area. has the obama administration abandoned the cause of democracy building? >> let's talk with the first question. right now the bbg is run by part-time or directors, and often cannot even find a quorum to do business. the concept in this legislation -- part of the concept is to take radio free europe, radio free asia, and combine that into one institution, but to put it under a ceo. and to add to that, an advisory panel that would operate something like the ned, where input could be given on these ideals that i spoke to earlier. what is lacking in many of these societies is the foundation in an understanding of what we take for granted in the system of ours -- freedom of speech, you know? the ability of people to feel

secure that they can put out this idea of political pluralism, tolerance as a virtue. these were things that were communicated during the cold war into eastern europe very effectively. how do we know the difference between what would happen to societies that did not hear this message, because we have yugoslavia as an example. the decision was made in the pluralism, tolerance as a virtue. these were things that were united states never to broadcasting yugoslavia, and i are member a young croatian journalist, younger than anyone here at this table, who said to me, all we had to listen to was the hate radio coming from the serbs, the hate radio coming from the croats, the hate radio coming from some of the bosnian

stations, and he said if we could have ever heard what was broadcast in czechoslovakia -- in czechoslovakia, a partition occurred, first they got their independence, and they partitioned the country without the loss of one life, and he said i listened to vaclav havel talk about what he learned in these broadcast. i never learned that. all i learned was hate. so at a time when russia is really ramping up -- for those of you that are listening to the conspiratorial series that come out these days, at a time when china is also really spinning information, wouldn't it be good if people were grounded in what we know worked and did what created tolerance? to go to john's point, before we get to elections as part of democracy, there's is a deeper foundation there in human rights. and i would start with that. i would start with this idea of tolerance, the idea of religious tolerance, the ideal of allowing everybody freedom of speech, and in these other more basic concepts.

i would gradually go toward democratic governance. i think if we do that, there is a thirst for it. i listen to the broadcasts we do in china, and i listen -- because now we do it in a different dialects. i passed legislation some years ago to do this. and you can see that they are just starting to grapple with some of these best, some of the foundation of what is really needed to create among the public a desire for more space, for more in the way of rights. and i think, john, if we could do that, it would the administration to be supportive of that in that way, our legislation will probably pass. we are getting a tremendous amount of support. i think we could probably get it through the senate. it would be good that the administration pay attention to it, and i have gotten a lot bipartisan support from those in the past who have been involved in this process of trying to communicate into the societies. i think it is inordinately important. but i think elections is just one note, as a spanish philosopher said, in this whole song of democracy, and it requires a much deeper understanding and it is an evolutionary process for a lot of societies. >> howard? >> congressman, speaking about

the prospects for an iranian nuclear deal, you have mentioned a couple of times they need to get [indiscernible] how do you define that? what is a successful deal? could that include new levels of enrichment? and also, you mentioned that iran may have up to 10 years -- [indiscernible] >> no, that is part of the deal. this is our concern. going beyond the question of enrichment at a level -- we are open on this question of the deal. remember that one of the preconditions in this interim

agreement, what iran is saying, we will do this for a while, but 10 years out or whatever the time, and that has not been agreed to yet, at that point in time the deal is off. at that point in time we are no longer subject -- at that point in time we are treated like the netherlands, germany, or any other country. and given the current behavior of the regime -- remember, we are dealing with a regime in which the executions -- for those of us that are concerned about this concept that the way in which a state treats its own citizens might tell us something about how it might treat others -- we are dealing with a rouhani government in which the number of public executions have increased. for the religious minorities,

this is a huge problem because the leadership -- and those who are taught teaching these other religions or involved in political action -- are being taken out and executed. and so the failure of the government currently in iran to adjust its behavior in terms of how it treats its minority populations gives us pause in terms of how much seriousness they are putting into these negotiations, especially when the ayatollah keeps enunciating and rattling the sabers on this issue of mass production of icbm's and so forth. in this environment, yes, we want to see an agreement that we feel is verifiable and not something just being done in this zeal for a deal in order to say we are done with that problem, now we can move on. so i said i am open to the details of the negotiations.

we are open-minded. but i am laying out for you our concerns and the totality of this will all be considered as this agreement comes back. >> bottom line-- >> i am trying to work with my committee and with the administration in a way in which we are open in this negotiation, but at the end of the day, this has to be a serious negotiation that prevents undetectable nuclear breakout by the iranian regime. >> michael? >> i wanted to hear what you could say about the supreme leader, and whether you feel

that you understand him completely. his rhetoric is bellicose, and he provokes that chants of "death to america." [indiscernible] members of congress do not talk to him. and he has shown flashes of pragmatism during his tenure. he has allowed his country to modernize in some ways. do you feel that you understand what is in his head, and do you think we are in essence kind of a form of total conflict with him, or do you think he is someone over the long term we could trust? >> i had a conversation with a high-ranking official in china, a premier in china, on this

subject, and as he said, we understand why you think that the end of the day, why america felt beijing -- why america felt moscow would be a rational -- would be an irrational actor with respect to the nuclear programs, why you felt beijing would be an irrational actor. we understand why you feel that iran might not be a rational actor. this is the question that goes to. this is a different kind of government, a different type of thought process. do i feel i understand the ayatollah? no, we do not understand him, but this is why this old adage trust but verify -- we have to have a verifiable agreement and we are dealing with someone who has used the type of rhetoric that he has used towards the united states, and not just towards the united states. remember, this is a regime that has called for limiting israel from the map. my father reminds me, when somebody talks about eliminating 6 million jews, we do not have an excuse having gone to the

history of what happened in the 1930's and 1940's of ignoring that individual. and somebody says along the lines of what was put into "mein kampf," about eliminating a race of people, or in this context, eliminating israel, and in his mind israel is the little satan, we are the big satan. he has been very vocal about his animus toward other religions, and especially towards a society that believes in freedom of religion like our own. and so in this context, it is wise to be able to guarantee the security of the west in these negotiations with iran. >> [indiscernible] your thoughts on the revelations of spying in germany -- are you worried about the [indiscernible] the u.s. posture is hurting relations with the country?

i would like your thoughts -- >> i met yesterday with a delegation from germany on this subject, and as you can see, with the decision to remove the station chief in germany, you can see how seriously this situation is taken in germany. by the government. one thing i would say is that it would be wise for the german elected representatives to inquire about the activities of their own intelligence services overseas with respect to the issue, in terms of perspective. >> [indiscernible] >> i think i put it effectively.

>> [indiscernible] >> yes. >> president putin is currently on a tour of latin america. what effect on u.s. policy and the sign of -- he has gone before, but -- >> sure. i think with respect to president vladimir putin, i think that putin is very focused on the past. i had a chance to meet with him

when he was vice chairman -- vice mayor of st. petersburg in the early 1990's, here in washington, d.c. and i think that he has a certain attitude about the united states that comes out of his feelings about the dissolution of the soviet union. and one of the realities is i do not think that attitude is going to change much. it has been held for a long time. one of the questions is, what can we do to introduce other russians to information that is

reliable so that the conspiratorial theories that are put out in russian society today and among russian-speaking populations in eastern europe, in the former soviet union where this is particularly present, is broadcast? this is an individual who over the last few years has now consolidated all information under his control. with respect to maybe one or two newspapers left in moscow, virtually the entire country is governed by a communications system, radio and television, controlled by vladimir putin and his allies. and so can we recognizing that there probably will not be

surprises here -- he will go to cuba and work with those countries that he views as has been confrontational with the united states, but what can we do to reach the next generation of russians so that they understand that the challenges that russia will face in the future, especially with respect to this radical jihad -- i have two friends of mine who served in the duma, from dagestan, and i got to know them on trips back and forth. and in talking with them, their focus is on the future, and what do they do about the virtual caliphate that is radicalizing young people -- they are muslim -- and in their state, this information that is coming in on the internet, their access to the internet, as well as imams that are coming in and radicalizing youth, they see this as an area where russia and united states should be coordinating a response to confront this problem and recognizing the true threats long-term to our societies. i think that that is where a lot of our efforts should go, is speaking to duma members and

others in russian society said that as this problem is and fight in southern russia -- and you can see what is happening in dagestan on almost a monthly basis now with serious attacks, and it is the local muslim community that bears the brunt of this, how could we work with russia on some of these very real challenges going forward? >> i wanted to shift to a different part of the world, and speak to you about east asia. you have been very outspoken on the -- issue, mr. chairman, and it is sort of something that continues to dog relations between south korea and japan, and it is also an issue to the u.s. i wanted to get your thoughts on what kind of actions should each side take in order to improve relations generally and -- [indiscernible]

>> early on before some of these latest statements came out of tokyo, i conveyed to the secretary of state and others in the administration the importance of getting ahead of this, because it was clear that within his political party abe was moving in a direction of intense nationalism that sort of was reaching back and trying to rewrite the history of what happened during the occupation of manchuria, during the korean occupation, during the second

world war, and this would probably further ignite apprehension in korea, china, and around the region, and that we had a lot of common ground with abe in terms of things we could work on, but that he needs to back away from this road on not just the -- issue, but also on some of these statements that his political party is making about japanese conduct overall and the japanese imperial army during the war. i think it is very unfortunate that he has gone down this road. i have spoken to him about it. i have spoken to his cabinet members about it. and i have spoken to members of the japanese diet in order to privately convince them that raising these issues is interest in terms of japanese interests and frankly creates a tremendous amount of instability in the region. and our goal clearly is to make the region more stable. that will mean more economic growth.

united states has enormous interest. look at where the economic growth is happening in the next decade, this is the region, and this is very unsettling, and it is a flashpoint that we have to handle. >> a quick time check. we have 15 minutes left, and lots of people who want to ask questions. we will and at 10:00 in order to keep our deal with the chairman. >> thank you. on syria [indiscernible] enough time [indiscernible] and that also on afghanistan, are you worried that the longer the election drags on it will be less likely that we might [indiscernible] >> first, on this issue of syria i give eliot engel of new york credit. three years ago i remember how

eliot was explaining there were no foreign fighters, there was no isis in the interior. you have the free syrian army, representative of not just of diverse religious and ethnic groups, but it is attempting to hold the country together. so it in and support this. we had the french ambassador are doing the same thing.

meeting after meeting, we conveyed this. i personally spoke to the president about this once, but on up throughout the administration, we have pushed for about three years' time to get support to the free syrian army. so now we are three years later, and we are talking about doing this, and in the meantime isis, the foreign fighters came in, they established this beachhead, and nothing was done to dislodge it. assad himself did not attack isis until recently. he could be pounding them with the help of hezbollah and help from forces in iran. and at the same time they would have to contend with their bitter opposition. frankly, we should taken the advice and supported that free syrian army early on. in terms of afghanistan and the elections, another area where we need to go in, force, when they were pushing out the international observers in the

second round, the united states should have been much more forceful. we should force an audit of the election. we should get the international community in there. we should not allow karzai to wave us off, because at the end of the day he is not interested in anything except for longing this. we need a quick resolution in the election of the duly elected president to replace karzai in afghanistan. and then we can get the agreement. >> back to iran, kerry is going to vienna, but lavrov is not. there is an indication that there is a rift growing between united states and russia within the talks. do you know anything about that? >> no, i don't. about that rift, i do not. >> the people in moscow who are saying that the united states are dragging its feet in the talks, that they are the ones

were stalling. >> i can imagine they can believe anything in moscow, because it is a conspiratorial mindset right now in terms of the way they view the united states. i do not know that to be the case at all. >> congressman, thank you so much for covering so much ground here. can i just drag you back. a few minutes ago it, it sounds like you've veered into saying that you had a private conversation with xi jinping, the premier of china -- >> i said the premier. >> and you were speaking quietly

for a second. he was telling you that -- >> no, i was just explaining the view from china that they can believe why we can understand that iran is not a national actor in the sense that moscow and in a sense that beijing and in the sense that washington, d.c., are rational actors. i have laid out our concerns, and he acknowledged that he could understand those concerns, and that is what he was expressing. >> thank you for doing this. i want to take you back to germany. tensions over surveillance had been brewing for a year. you think the administration could have been more to defuse this, and what can you tell us about their efforts? >> i do not know how much the administration could have done to defuse it. i know what we are trying to do with our discussions. >> do you feel the germans are being overly sensitive?

>> obviously, as i stated earlier, for the germans to cast aspersions about this subject, i think elected representatives in germany should inquire about what the practices of their intelligence services are. i think it might put an inward perspective. >> the germans have been asking for some sort of --[indiscernible] to show some respect to the german people and the same respect -- >> no, i understand, but i do not know the details of those negotiations between the white house and the chancellor. so i cannot speak -- >> can you speak to what you think they should do? >> um -- you know, i think, given the circumstances, the administration is attempting, i think, at this time to deal with

the german government, and i am hopeful that they are successful. >> thank you. >> thank you. another thing you said, i never have been able to wrap my head about the idea that the senate had to pass the menendez sanctions before we could approve the deal? >> if they passed it, they overcame harry reid's support. you have had 2/3 in the senate. more than 2/3 in the house. where do we remember sanctions like this in the past? ronald reagan proposing sanctions for south africa. they were successful. what we have? similar numbers in the house and senate. and what happened because of the

2/3 majority, we got sanctions on south africa. what were the consequences of that? not only the end of apartheid, but they gave back the nuclear weapon to the international community. they handed it over and said we cannot survive under the types of economic sanctions, and those were the types of sanctions in this legislation, the sanctions which the former secretary of treasury helped develop as a blueprint that we would need for north korea, if we ever imposed it, what we would need on iran in order to give them the choice but to compromise. >> doesn't that's just that the iranians do not know that congress is blocked to pass sanctions, even though the house has passed the sanctions, 60 co-sponsors have signed on. the administration is saying we cannot do it now, it might blow up the deal, but we will also oppose sanctions if the deal does go through.

>> wait a minute, wait a minute. you are assuming everybody is as sophisticated as those around this table in the way that the political process works in terms of the house and the senate. all they see is where is the political will in the united states? if it passes and if it is veto proof, it is then law. that is law and is something they have to pay attention to. if it does not, then that is something they do not do with. we talked a little bit about the distance that the ayatollah has. is the ayatollah himself who is making the decision on this. he is the fellow who picked the half-dozen candidates who said they could run. rouhani was one of them. how much does he understand? there are either those types of crippling sanctions or the there are not. because of the opposition of the administration, that legislation did not go to the senate because we were just shy of the

2/3 we needed. >> you were critical of giving abu khatallah legal rights, and now he has had an appearance before a judge. what are you thinking about the trial? >> i was not critical of giving him legal rights. i was critical of was giving him the full legal rights that every american citizen has. an enemy combatant i would argue does not have those full legal rights, including miranda rights. and in my view, mr. khatallah, having been in full view and then a half-dozen interviews with major news networks, including some at this table, having done that in libya, some from his resort or his home, his

seaside home, being in foreign view for so many months, it would have been much more practical to take him into custody, they have him go to the guantanamo, do the thorough investigative process, which may have given us the leads to more of those involved in his terrorist network in libya. and so i think we missed that opportunity. second, i think transferring him to trial to washington d.c. -- ideally you would transfer him to guantanamo bay. the secondary choice would be the southern district of new york where we would have the expertise to do with this. to have a relatively new prosecutor to this type of case and having it done in washington, d.c., i think is to lose opportunity to get information that could help us stop additional terrorist activity, because in the past we were able, when we took people

into custody, and we interrogated them, we were able to get actual intelligence that better protected the security of the united states and our allies. >> do you think the administration's actions regarding the president of iraq are sufficient? >> have our actions been sufficient? no. our actions in our dealings with the government in iraq have not been sufficient, and it was very necessary in the past for the united states to lean very heavily on the government, especially on maliki. if you were to point to one thing that has unraveled our ability of iraq as a cohesive state to resist isis, it is the decisions made by mr. maliki. and obviously, he has so

ostracized the sunni and kurdish community, but on top of that his decision to go to the military -- he just put his son -- for those of you who saw that -- his son is now in charge of the military in iraq. he has gone to the officer corps and removed competent officers and instead put in his friends. any of those friends have no takes brains whatsoever. the troops have no confidence in the officer corps as a consequence of the decision to sack the senior officers. you have an individual here who must step down, who must go, and you saw al-sistani, you saw the shia religious leader explained the necessity of him to stepping down, that is absolutely true. he has got to go, and then

cohesively, the iranian state can -- then iran is a viable institution if you are inclusive with the different ethnic groups in the country. and religious groups in the country, it is very unfortunate that more pressure was not fun have throughout the process, and he has eroded the position of the iraqi state as result. >> two minutes left. a quick one? >> the situation in israel, especially with the july 20 deadline coming up with the negotiations with iran. is the situation in israel going to affect the iranian negotiations, or will it change what the catalyst is? >> i do not know if it changes our calculus, but there's one aspect of what is happening, and i saw this myself. i was in israel during the second lebanon war, and i was in haifa when these rockets were

coming in. the question was, who was the enabler? who allowed hezbollah at that point in time to have the wherewithal to blanket that city? i was in a hospital, 600 victims in there. the answer was it was iran, and it was syria. so in this circumstance, who is the enabler for hamas? where did they it does rockets? the answer, iran. the fact that iran would transfer the longer-range rockets that could hit tel aviv and jerusalem and that they are firing them off, and the fact that they have gotten such a massive inventory, which is much how iran has put into this, that does raise the issue of how iran is a proliferator, right? so that is the other aspect of what we worry about a little bit when we are trying to negotiate with iran. how do you stop this penchant for proliferation, which they do

with rockets and missiles and other types of ordnance? >> that is a nice end. thank you for doing it. >> thank you. thank you for the opportunity. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> waiting on the huffington post today, this was secretary of state john kerry. he is a middle east and the headline is he and top diplomat are to hold talks days before the deadline. those talks in a bid to advance faltering nuclear negotiations.

the talks come one day after kerry and several foreign ministers failed to reach a breakthrough on an rainman -- enrichment, in exchange for sections on iran. the story goes on to say that suggestseputy minister any extension would be relatively short. there's not much willingness by either side to go a full six months. he spoke sunday of huge and deep differences. still to come, live, at noon, dick cheney and his wife lynne and daughter, liz, will talk with politico's chief white house correspondent. i will be live on c-span 2. also, several congressional hearings. at 5:00, the house rules committee will be meeting on funding for road bridge and mass transit projects. ella we live at c-span3. 7:30, the house

veterans affairs committee will hold a series of meetings looking at the health care system. this looks at the processing of benefits claims. you can join in and share your thoughts on facebook and twitter, using #cspanchat. >> we are at the henry a. wallace center, 50 miles south and west of des moines. this is the birthplace of henry a. wallace. they consist of three generations of wallace's. the patriarch was known as uncle henry. wallace's founder of farmer magazine. wallace was secretary of agriculture under woodrow wilson. and his son was born on this farm in 1888.

he went on to become editor of the farmer magazine. susan asked by franklin roosevelt to become secretary of agriculture, which he did for eight years. in 1941 to 1945, he was roosevelt's vice president. as secretary of agriculture, he is known for the agricultural adjust men act, which was the first time that farmers were asked not to produce. at first, people could not believe the things he was proposing regarding that. then, as prices went up, he started to listen. people still refer to him today as the genius secretary of agriculture. >> explore the history and there are life of des moines, iowa. saturday at noon on c-span2's book tv. and on american history tv on c-span3.

is x news reporter chad johnson on the capital this evening. any news on that, we'll bring that to you. the border issue is a topic of discussion on "washington journal." a reporter is looking at the issue. host: shawn johnson, thank you for being with us. i wonder if you could talk to us about the president cost budget request. the president is essentially doing what he should be doing when you start to see a surge. there are kids coming across the border. we have had some of 40,000 kids in the last six months or so

coming from guatemala, el salvador, and honduras. laws, they seem to be unaccompanied minors. they are not with anybody who can take care of them. they are all entitled to an immigration hearing. we do not have the resources to deal with that kind of numbers. 2012, it was only about 20,000. before that it was 10,000. we have seen it as collating of this. particularly over the last -- january-october, it has been really high. congress is dealing with this that half would go to the health and human services department to handle the kids. essentially to find shelters for them and health care. and to place them with a family member or some sort of guardian

here in the united states. many of them actually do have parents in the united states. so they are reunited with their families. there is also border security. you want to beef up the number of people who can stop these kids from coming across the border. you also want to add immigration judges and investigators to try to crack down on some of the trafficking -- traffickers -- the trafficking networks. that's the word i was looking for, that are coming across. there's a lot in that supplemental request. there are some people in congress who think that he's asking for too much. it's gotten embroiled in politics relatively quickly. it makes sense that he would be asking for this kind of money to deal with, essentially, an unexpected surge in minors coming across the border. >> you wrote an article for "national journal." the headline is obama's plan to deal with unaccompanied minors is aggravating immigration advocates. tell us about that response. guest: let's be clear. what that article is talking about is the statement from the homeland security secretary, jeh

johnson that he would like to see a 2008 human trafficking law changed such that the minors who are coming from central america are not necessarily entitled to an immigration hearing. so the immigration advocates are not actually upset about obama's supplemental request. to an immigration hearing. advocates aretion not actually upset about obama's supplemental request. wholeheartedlyre in support of it. but they are concerned about changing this trafficking law trafficking law, it passed in 2008, overwhelmingly. unanimous consent, both house and senate. and it was signed into law by premeditate. eh -- byte as a president bush as a way to protect children who find anmselves in a country in undocumented status. advocates are concerned about well,ministration saying, maybe they don't need a hearing. maybe we don't need to give them a hearing.

maybe we can send them back to their home countries like we do with mexico. situation.cate the immigration advocates would actually prefer to see the human law boosted in the sense that they would like to see kids who come across the have anrom mexico also immigration hearing. host: some footage of nancy pelosi discussing the supplemental request as well as the changes to the 2008 law. we want to listen to her comments. i'll get your take when we come back. >> i really do think all of this has to be done on a case-by-case basis. if somebody has a the-founded -- a refugee, purpose of the legislation that you're talking about altering was to address the trafficking issue. know, that law was passed practically unanimously in the house and the senate, signed by w. bush, one of the last bills he signed as the united states, a bill about values to stop the

king.ic so quite frankly if they wanted woulde it uniform, i rather they treat the mexican kids the way they treat the non-contiguous country kids. really what's important is to the supplemental. what price we have to pay to do that, we'll see in the course of debate. but i would hope that they would made that change. i don't think -- it's not a deal breaker. host: your thoughts? guest: well, i want to back up a little bit in case some of your viewers are a little confused about what happened with this law. i was confused until about a week ago. mexicanon why we treat children differently than we treat the people from the rest of the world in this particular law is that back in 2008 when the law passed, most of the kids coming across the border were from mexico.

a small number came from other countries, but for the most part they were coming from mexico. the idea was, at the time, we tod it o come up with a way work with the mexican government such that they can take care of the children. so what happens to mexican they come across border is they are apprehended and taken care of. toy are interviewed determine whether they are victims of trafficking and whether they face any kind of mexico.t home in if it's clear that they've just been brought across the border people who they paid or something like that and that there's not anything -- like their's threatening particular lives, then they are offered the ability to return to countries on a voluntary basis. now, there's some question about how that actually happens. it's done by the border patrol. and the border patrol, they are not child welfare specialists. but a lot of the kids do actually -- they opt for .oluntary removal they're also told that they won't be prosecuted for crossing illegally,untry won't be deported, no harm, no foul. and then they are returned into

the mexican child welfare authorities. so they are not just dropped off stop somewhere or something like that. this was determined in the law. it was something that they put a especially for in mexico -- there's also -- canada also counts in this one but crosses the border in canada. so essentially work with the mexican governments. those sameve agreements with any of the other countries in central america. i think there's some effort to try to work with those countries. we at this point if it wanted to -- the law doesn't even allow for this country to offer this option of voluntary removal to the people from are mexico.of that's the explanation of how this happened. confusing.le why are mexican kids treated differently than other kids? and you heardtes, this from the minority leader, nancy pelosi, say this never

should have been the case in the place. all minors who come across the needr are vulnerable and an immigration hearing. they need to be taken seriously and they need to have somebody on theirdvocate behalf. and the border patrol just simply isn't equipped to do that. what we're dealing with. the only question is, do change a direction where everybody gets treated the same and that requires a lot of money resources or do you treat all of the central theican children the way mexican children are treated? to -- nancyting pelosi says it's not a deal breaker, would prefer not to do if that's the price we have to pay for extra money at the border, we'll take it. host: fawn johnson, a correspondent for "national journal," asked to join us -- join owto join our conversatio-

, florida,er paulette on the democrats' line. turn down your tv. you're on "washington journal" johnson. caller: hello. good morning. i'm commenting about the border. from jamaica. 1998, we had the same situation in our country with there.fleeing and coming our country is a christian nation. we do, we wasn't standing go home, children. we take them in and take care of the until, you know, government decide what they do with them. america is shooting them self in the foot.

world is watching. even jamaica calling, what's object, grandma? what's going on over there? those people don't have any compassion? you know? i don't understand. head aroundrap my what i see. guest: that's what i think a lot of people feel. certainly we all have compassion for these children. partnk the most important about what this caller just was telling us is that it is true watching hole world is watching. if what we tell them is if you your children, we will reunit them with their familie families -- all indications are that you can stay. there are very few -- i think only been something like 1,800 deportations over the last year. talking almost 60,000 people. these are unaccompanied minors

the border. it's a difficult situation. this is the problem that a lot of members of congress are talking about. if you're going to create the usression that if you send your children, we will accept them, people will send their children here. host: david is on the line for republicans from new jersey. comments.couple of i'll be very quick. please don't cut me off. johnson isl, ms. everything that is wrong with journalism. independented to be and looked at this hard-nosed and be a reporter. liberalshe's another that wants us to take in the world. facts.st a couple of we are out of money. we are broke. are $17 trillion going o on $18 trillion in debt. you talk about compassion. all the kids, american kids, being killed in weekend?very we need to take care of our own people.

not having journalists that are reporting not advocating? concerned,exico is why are we not coming down on kids spen letting spend 1,000-plus miles in their territory to drop themselves on america's doorstep and then talk compassion, we let in more legal immigrants than all the worldcountries in the combined. guest: that's not true, sir. i'm sorry. i don't mean to interrupt you but that is not true. let in nearly enough legal immigrants which is the reason why people are crossing illegally. now, i give you credit for the understanding that this is an issue, but i have to stop you when it comes to facts. that's not true. please?may i finish, guest: sure. go ahead. caller: what i wanted to say is, why are we not coming down on mexico for letting people come over 1,000 miles on their territory and then drop

the problem on america's doorstep? this is insane. we need to control our borders. no nation can exist without sovereignty. guest: well, as we can see, this is a very tough and emotional for people. i think this is the situation himself president finds in. how do deal with this situation? absolutely true that the mexican authorities could probably do more, especially to border their southern because their southern border is where all of these kids are coming over. and it's absolutely true that we could work with them a little bit better to control their own situations. but keep in mind that we're countrywith our own here. right now we have -- if you look in a couple of different ways, first of all, we've got thousands of children who are sitting in detention that are makeshift right now. that shouldn't be happening. they onlyto law really need to be in those places for 72 hours. a lot of them are there for a

lot longer. got to deal with that first. it's kind of like if you have a blown-out you have a tires what do fix first? you fix the problem at the border. deal with these kids and get them through. that's the money the president is requesting. it's also to boost up border security. it's what the caller said they wanted. working very is hard to try to figure out how to handle that situation. but as you can see, almost that you can do will make everybody happy. host: congressman republican chairman of the house committee news. fox let's listen. >> i think we have to act soon. at hand that demands a call for action. it's a very tragic human crisis the border, none like i've ever seen before. so i think we need that before august recess. >> what do you think the chances are? action?'re going to get >> i think very good if we can have a targeted appropriations

bill -- much would be willing to vote for? >> that's up to the appropriators. but i think it's going to be, limited to the end of this fiscal year rather than appropriation. 4% of the president's supplemental budget deals with border security. we think more should be allocated towards that. ofin, my bill that came out my committee deals with that in an accountable way with a two-year timeline to get operation control of the border, which is what most people want. most americans want security first. >> are you prepared to vote for money to accommodate these children who have already crossed? >> i think we have to deal with this in a humane compassionate way but i'm not in favor of building large warehouses in the united states to warehouse these kids. we need to have deterrents. i think if we're going to build facilities, perhaps we should thek about doing that in countries of origin in central america where they can better children.these >> that won't be cheap, will it? deterrence.'s about

it's about security. it's about dealing with these children in a humane, to return themay safely to home. host: fawn johnson, walk us through the comments. guest: i think this is probably measured republican response that you're going to find to this issue. when this supplemental request was on last week, i capitol hill and i heard much worse things about it. republicans literally rolling their eyes at me. it was just -- they couldn't of money.e amount they had thought it was going to be $2 billion. it turned out to be almost twice that. trust the president at all. so when we listen to mike mccaul, it's important to notice thinking about this in probably the most rationale republicans can. he wants to deal with the children at the border. in saying is correct that -- does it make sense to build these large, permanent facilities to try and house these children? the reason why the president has asked for that is that it's

to haveto do that than temporary housing. this is something the hhs secretary was telling week.riators last but at the same time, anything that you do that looks like it's just going to mean that more people are going to think that they should come. and there's already enough misinformation being floated around in central america. there are people who thought that june was a deadline, that they had to get here by june and they could stay here no questions asked. mesa,next caller, jan in arizona, a republican and from a border state. caller: yes. border state. i have seen it get worse and worse and worse. ms. johnson. you were talking about the president's worked hard on all of these issues. bit.sn't helped us a i want to say something. i listened to "morning joe" this came on.efore you they were talking to a .ommentator he was on univision. after -- he made

a statement. he goes, i don't know what republicans want. this president has deported more anybody.an but you guys don't tell the facts. more because he's the first president in this country that if they're stopped at the border, he calls it deported. we haven't got any help. i wish these kids would be sent to the hamptons. let's send them to cape cod. go spend the president's family atith his martha's vineyard. send them to new york, all of these different northeast countries and you would see things that change overnight. we have been stuck with it. we pay for about 8,000, 10,000 babies. will the federal government doesn't give us back a dime in arizona. we put them in school, pay for their babies, to have more babies, more babies, more babies. can't leavey america because these are american babies. how could these mothers, if this american mother she would be thrown in jail sending her kid across the country.

sick.es me we keep blaming the people of america. blame these mothers. them.sick of we have no tears for these people. guest: the caller is right about the deportation stuff. it is true that part of the reason why the deportations have increased dramatically under president obama is that they are cross the people who border illegally in different way than they did at the beginning of the obama administration. i actually was walked through exactly how they do that one of the biggest processing facilities that they have. so she's right about that. also right about the fact that there are many people -- i borderhe people on the states, god bless all of you, really do have the right to complain about how much th the president has been able to do. has been, and we all know this, that the president wants immigration immigrations a big reform that would allow some form of legalization for people

here and meety certain qualifications. but he's being blocked by congress.s in the thing that advocates are upset about is that he is not own. enough on his i think that's also something that republicans are concerned about. they don't necessarily trust the homeland security is doing everything it can to stop people from coming across the border. said, they need a lot more money if they're going to be able to do that. and that is something at the nots of congress and necessarily the president. i think the frustration goes all around. the border states really do have a legitimate complaint here. host: talk a little bit more about the trafficking victims protection act. about how --ed unaccompanied minors across the border. i'm curious if you're able to tell us how much of that has to do with that law or is there some other kind of force? guest: this is a tough question that is hard to answer. really know why all of these kids started coming

across -- we can trace the fact increased dramatically over the last couple of years. so dramatic over the last -- since the beginning of this fiscal year and in october patrol actually had to rejigger its estimates. back and sayto go whatever we told you is going to happen. actually that's not going to happen. pretty dramatic. why? well, i think there's a couple of reasons. that there is a ridiculous amount of violence in these three countries, theicularly honduras, murder capital of the world. there are parents here in the onted states and here undocumented status who want to bring those kids here as quickly as possible, especially the the girls, as soon as they start to become teenagers targets for all kinds of violence that we don't really want to talk about. so they need to get them out of happens.ry before that so that's one reason. i think it's a legitimate reason understand.need to this is a pseudo war zone that we're talking about here.

is true that it there is an impression inside -- the country, from it in these communities that people who come here can stay. out.ars there are people who cross the live hereegally and in undocumented status. then they bring their children up. are refugee situations. they can go to refugee get help, getto healthcare. and they're all set up just for purpose. the more that they state -- their immigration hearings take years. there's no reason to think if you bring your kid up here, that here.on't be able to stay there's probably a good chance that they can. there's that impression. i think this is the uncomfortable truth that the administration is having to deal with. what you do. how do try and say that you're going to take care of kids and way, you is a, by the really can't stay here when, in fact, that's exactly what's

happening. host: new york, robert on the independents. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i think the american people are very frustrated with the fact that the politicians, especially the president, have been lying for years telling us that the border is secure when it's not. virtually secure any border. it's not going to work. the united states has been pumping money into these south american countries and mexico for years trying to help the people down there. they all have corrupt governments. we have no oversight over the money that's going down there. these politicians that are down and the police forces and the military are ripping the money off. high on theliving hog. and then we're supposed to feel sorry for these people that are countries.se the aclu lawyer that was on c-span on saturday was advocating for this $3.8 billion that the president asked for.

acluondering why the lawyer never sued the federal government on behalf of the american people 20 years ago when there was money allocated in a law passed for them to nevera fence which was built and never finished so that these people that are coming that little river down there and walking off and themselves over can't get in. if there's a fence there, they in.t be able to get they leave that border open. that's the excuse that they use. to use ourey want us tax money to take care of these kids. many americann so people myself on food stamps in we'reire life and supposed to worry about people from other country that are coming here. it's ridiculous. .here's no jobs here we're slowly trying to get out of this recession. ask us to now take in millions and millions more countries andher open our hearts is just not fair to us.

guest: what can you say to that? . think that's absolutely right the issue about the border, let's talk about that for a second. caller is right. there was a bill passed to create a border fence years ago has never been fund. but i will also say i have been to the border and have seen the there.hat they have up you can actually see the hand prints of people who can climb it. this.t know how they do there's no way that i can imagine myself doing it. amazing what kind of resources these people who are desperate will come up with. the issue that we're trying to understand. the border itself in a way it's porous. are parts of it where there are no fences, but also the groundensors in that as soon as somebody steps on it, they'll send people out there. they've got air patrol that is going over all the grounds people.for it's pretty impressive. now, not every sector of the

is like that for sure, but it's a harder issue than fence.ilding a as much as the people who would like to see that happen have a want tote reason to build it, there are still people who will come across. host: our guest is fawn johnson, correspondent at "national journal." let's take a question from e-mail now. guest: good question. he's right. actually, it's interesting. only difference between asylum refugee,ee is that a their case is considered inside country. asylum is considered outside the .ountry i think the best way to explain that is that we don't have the processes set up in the central american countries probably like should. asylum cases are generally meant .or ground warfare

you know, the kinds of strife that would happen when an entire being tried tois be wiped out. this is not the case as in america. it's one gang versus another. i don't know how you accommodate. that. would make some sense for the various -- for john ofry to try to set up some these in the home country to see if there's a way to deal with some of these kids. that a lot them would not qualify. cases are based on a credible fear of threat to you as a person not just that you're place.in a dangerous so i think if you feel like your good 50 at the -- 50/50 at the ambassador, you might -- at the embassy, you might want to try it. they say no, you probably still try to make the trip. jay on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. how are you? host: good morning. coming i appreciate you on and giving a different side of the story and a little more

what's going on. it's hard to understand railingly. it's such a large -- understand.hard to caller: one thing i wanted to understand. billemocrats -- there's a in the house that it passed a while back with president bush trafficking the sex issue. modified so that they can't use the turnaround addressed but yet the democrats are fighting tooth and nail to try to change that can be returned. i just want to know what the motivation is of the democratic to keep these children in the united states other than humanitarian because it's just as humanitarian to send them back and take care of them back try tos it is to establish something here. the way it is right now, where they're living in warehouses which is disgusting. the last thing i want to say is you kind of showed your hand in one comment that you were about a lady and the dangers of their children. and you said we need to bring

them here. and you were referring to young girls. we don't need to bring them here. onneed to fix what's going so that they don't have to come here. you let your hand show in that comment. you. guest: just to be clear with you, i think that i was to what some of the advocates are saying, ones like thehe aclu or some of these women's advocates that they have. theyyeah, that's what think. they think we need to bring them here and keep them safe. person's opinion or one group's opinion. there's others like yourself who think that perhaps they should stay. that's just one point to be made clear. thing tohe other remember is that there are democrats who are fighting the thisof changing trafficking law, but there are others like nancy pelosi, the leader of the democrats in the house, that says if it we have to change the law, it's not a deal breaker. personally know some immigration advocates who are

idea ofpset about the changing that trafficking law. one democrat who actually it, dianne feinstein of california, gave a really moving thech last week in appropriations committee just talking about the reason why it passed. one of the things she described minors, young people, 13, 14 years old in chains, you know, crying before immigration judge, not understanding what's going on. she said, when i saw that, saw personally, she said i just couldn't let that happen. so there's a lot of emotions on both sides going through this. i think it may be one of the that theicult things president has to deal with in his presidency. tough. really host: illinois, teresa on the .ine for democrats caller: good morning. question.ve a i have what i think might be a solution to the situation. very sad at, i'm the anger of my fellow american

issue.s around this what i'm thinking of is the in syria and what is happening with jordan and turkey countries who are taking in the refugees, the children and the adults. turning them away and saying go back to that danger zone? what i'd like to propose is that citizens,istian possibly, would christ turn away peril?ldren who are in would he be so money conscious? i don't think so. therefore, my solution is i've called my senator and a couple inother representatives their office, senator durbin here in illinois, i've opened up home. i'm a senior citizen. i'm a youthful senior citizen on security. i have a home. i have a bedroom. those children here and whoever is accompanying

offer a respite and a haven for them in the meantime. my solution to my fellow american citizens. ms. fawn, i'm really sad, that people are angry with you. my goodness. you're just there talking about facts. thank you so much. guest: thank you for that. that's verythink generous offer of you. i know that there are other people in the country who feel exactly as you do, that they a prominentally, democrat, martin o'malley, the governor of maryland, said over the weekend that he thought the children should be allowed to stay. he broke with the president on that. so there are a number of people feel that way. it's just a question of -- this is the fundamental question that deal withy has had to since the beginning, since people started coming here. how many can we bring in? many can we accommodate? what do we owe them? and what do we owe ourselves?

no easy answer to that question. but i think what is nice to see is that there are people who are to figure out how to accommodate them. there will need to be some way though.it, you can't invite the entire country's children into this just don'tause we have the resources to help them. host: related comment from twitter. the thing -- i, think the most dramatic change of 2008 trafficking law was that they actually -- that's what they did. analyze whether or not a child was in danger and then they would put them in foster care. to require the health and human services department when they are dealing ath a child to actually find relative or some sort of guardian inside the country. it turns out almost 3/4 of the have come across in an unaccompanied status are

reunited with some form of member. and almost half of them are parents.with their i think this was -- people really were very excited about this because they thought it more sense than trying to put abandoned children in foster care. care, sure.er but if they have a mom here who is work and who can take them, why not put them with their mother? host: absolutely. phoenix, arizona. border stateine, resident. caller: how are you doing? ofe you heard any reports people that get deported being shot as they get off the plane homethey're in their country? guest: i have not heard anything about that. but keep in mind when they are eturned, they are returned with with -- i'm speaking not just of minors but of people who are theirlly planed back to home cubt rise. -- countries. they are taken with the people the department of homeland security and are -- if they are children, they are released into of some sort of other official. so it's kind hard to have that

happen. certainly, what happens to them don't know.we but at least initially when the andoff happens, it happens in safe environment. host: stevens point, wisconsin. republicans.ne for caller: how do you do? i say a very simple solution. they're illegal. no matter how long they're here. hey need to be deported, period period. as for the lady who just called about being christian and fine lady but a we have american children appalacia. the she can open her home to the american children? all back and they won't keep coming. .f we hold our borders we keep them away. period. let them take care of themselves. you. guest: and that was something yoursenator jeff lake, senator from arizona, had said last week. nothing that's will deter families from sending anir kids up north than

entire plane load of children coming right back after you spent thousands of dollars to spend them up here. what a number of republicans are calling for. they've been calling for it for years, let's be clear, even before this border search happened with minors. they've been saying we really on the be harsher deportations, particularly for people who are caught so that we the impression that you can't come and stay. but the reality is that it's impossible to do that with all the people who are here. they really do met into the landscape. landscape.o the as much as the enforcers would like to ferret them out, it's very difficult to do. mean we shouldn't try. it just means it's very complicated and requires monday sometimes --that money and resource that sometimes need to go to other places. host: north carolina, steve on line.mocrats caller: good morning. i would like to make a comment situation.whole the fact is, war on drugs which

a total drain and has of these people in south america zillions of theses to take over countries and run them like they want to run. and that's why these kids are coming. if you want to stop this, stop the war on drugs. off.hose people's money it will stop the whole deal. thanks. guest: actually, it is drug wars flee.re causing people to it is also the drug smugglers, border in along the arizona that are causing people to cross the border. cartels that the border security people are time.g with all the i've heard a number of people mention the drug car when they talked about this. i think there was one congressman that i was talking to last week who said something you know, ifes of, we could stop americans from using the drugs, that would help

cartels. and i thought, wow, that's about as easy as, you know, finding everybody who's here without papers and deporting them. .oint well taken and the question is, does a drug as,amount to the same thing say a war between two different ethnic groups that are warring in africa? i don't know. that that's a question that congressmen and the with.ent are grappling host: another question from twitter. guest: you ask them. the people who are dealing with them, particularly the ones from the hell and human services department -- health and human services department, they can speak spanish well enough that talk to the children. you don't really know. a lot of it deals with interviews. are.pends on how old they the thing that i find interesting is that there's a of peopled network here in the united states with their home countries.

much theyng how communicate back and forth. everybody has cell phones these days. like -- your mother has paid for you come across the border. you probably have your cell phone number. i think that that's how we learn about these things. all you have to do to find out whether or not somebody is illegal is just ask them if they have papers. and if they don't, i think we to that answer question. host: new haven, connecticut. republicans.or -- on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. morning on the fox business channel on the "don who show" he had a guest asked a question that i had never heard asked before. relevant. is very he said -- what about the children in africa? in nigeria? what about the children in israel? what they are going on with today? somalia.ren in it is not our business as to how managed.ngs are

as a former guest said, it is the advocates, with the pro noun we, the advocates want to bring the children here to take care they get a make sure better life. well, why don't you organize you advocatesl of who are really operating from the motive of racism and ethnic bigotry, why don't you organize thoselves go to countries, and help those children become better citizens their countries? and theigotry, basism, policy -- racism, and the policy of the obama administration. been goingities have on in these other countries for years. years. why now? why do we ever a surge? the president promised to close fix the border. and now he sits there after he administration organized this en masse of children?

to "don imus show" about maybe an hour ago. diedl, on his show, asked the question. guest: in countries in africa have asylum, we do policies and refugee policies for those people. so as a country -- the caller disagree with this decision. but as a country we have decided to take in people who are real strife and violence in their home countries. the only problem is i don't anticipated 40,000 children in the course of nine months. in the central american countries. so that's a decision that we have made. the other thing that i would ofe just in the sense advocates is that one of the groups that has been doing a lot on this and that i've beebeen talking with that deals with these refugees a lot is a angelina jolieby and microsoft. aboutout the kids and trying to get them some legal rights because we realize they

a vulnerable population. they are different from people who cross the border who are adul >> dick cheney and his wife lynne and daughter, liz, will join mike allen for a wide-ranging conversation that comes up and about eight minutes at noon eastern. you will want to live on c-span2. the house is also gaveling in at noon. after brief speeches, they will return at 2:00 and then at 3:00 for legislative work readtoday, they are working on legislative bills and one of the federal spending bills. the focus is funding for the treasury, federal judiciary, and payments to the district of columbia. the current amendment to that bill would prohibit the district from using local funds to enforce a recently passed law that criminalizes small amounts

of marijuana. you can see the house at noon eastern here on c-span. the senate is also in today. they will be in 2:00. you can watch the senate on our companion network c-span2. as the house is just about the gavel in, look at some of the items on the congressional agenda this week re. . the phoneing us on now to give us a little bit more context on what's going on on is ian hill this week swanson, a news editor at "the newspaper. we've been talking about the republican lawsuit against president barack obama. through that a little bit and what action we could see soon, even this week. guest: sure. see, we believe, on wednesday is that the house rules committee will vote on forward with the lawsuit. we fully expect that to happen. the rules committee is dominated republicans. that will bring the lawsuit to the floor.

get a vote one'll the floor this week on the lawsuit that could happen, but certainly within the last three the congress will be in before the august recess, we're onng to see the house vote whether to go forward with the lawsuit. again, we fully expect them to to move forward with the lawsuit because the house has a .ajority of republicans host: and are republicans united lawsuit? are there any discenters who who sayissen te rs maybe this isn't the right way to go? guest: i think there are a on.le of things going you have a division among republicans over whether the president should be impeached. there are some republicans that to go that far. many more who don't, who think thatwould be something isn't worth doing at all because it would go nowhere. they think that it could also bounce back and hurt them politically. so some people see this lawsuit thatway to sort of contain fire for impeachment that could

maybe backfire and hurt republicans ahead of the mid-term elections. there's also a lot of just the presidentat among the republican party, republicans in the house in particular. and this is a way of sort of answering that anger with some kind of an action that will say, hey, we're trying to do something about this. host: another topic that has been in the news and on the congress is this idea of an emergency supplementary funding to address the border crisis. both sides of the aisle talking about that. there?e we likely to see guest: that's the other huge story of july that we'll be covering. whether congress can get that supplemental to the president's desk before they all the augustfor recess. i think there's a lot of to getion for both sides something done before they leave, but there's really significant differences between and republicans over how that package should look. the big thing is whether you're going to change the law so that it's harder for people who are

the country from central american countries to get these automatic asylum hearings. a law that they changed in 2008 that's really leading to a lot of people crossing the right now. and democrats and republicans disagree on how much you should tonge that law to try prevent more people from trying to come into the united states. about the highway trust fund deal? a lot of outrage from governors at the national governors meet who are very worried congress won't reach a deal. do you see one in sight? guest: yes. in fact, at the end last week it looked like the house and senate are becoming really close on deal that will provide som some $10 billion to stop a shortfall in the highway trust fund. it's possible that they'll be able to move on legislation as this week to get that done. out of all the things we're i think that's the vehicle that seems the most likely to get done right now recess.he august host: one last question for you, ian swanson.

we have heard that senate toocrats are moving forward come up with some kind of legislation to address the supreme court's recent ruling on what's been known as the hobby lobby case. what can you tell us about that? guest: senate democrats are withted to move forward legislation this week. it's going to get a vote, but like a a little bit lawsuit vote that we are talking about earlier against premeditate. that -- against president obama in that it's likely to not pass the senate. if republicans in the senate are able to prevent them from necessary toote proceed. so i guess i should say it's a little different from the lawsuit in that the lawsuit is at least likely to get through the house but not the senate. this is something on the hobby be able tothey'll vote on in the senate, will motivate the >> the houses in at noon eastern here on c-span. we have live coverage in just a couple of moments. senate governmental affairs

committee will hold a confirmation hearing for nominees of the u.s. postal service board of governors. packets underway at 3:00 eastern. we will have live coverage of that on our companion network, c-span3. a couple of other congressional hearings we're covering today. at 5:00, the house rules committee will meet to discuss rules on a debate for spending money for roads, bridges, and mass transit projects. that will be live on c-span3 also at 5:00 eastern. 7:30, the house veterans affairs committee will have a another series of meetings. this will focus on the processing of veterans benefit claims. you can join in and share your thoughts during the hearing, both on facebook and twitter, using the #cspanchat. again, the u.s. house is about to gaveling in just a couple of moments.

a suspension bill is on the table for the house. live coverage as they are about to gaveling here on c-span. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. department of homeland security interoperability communications ct from the speaker. -- the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., july 14, 2014. i hereby appoint the honorable doug lamalfa to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of