, from utah, as being part of the effort. they give for being here today. i will turn it back to the chairman. quite thank you. questions? >> mark warner has proposed -- [indiscernible] utah has been a leader -- [indiscernible] it is very controversial.

>> it is so controversial it is not anything i am proposing. i think we need to have the opportunity to grow the economy. i am a believer the private sector has tremendous muscle. sometimes government gets in that way of free markets. our free enterprise system and has been remarkable in its history. never in the history of the world that has we have ever had something that provided better services. sometimes government gets in the way, so the efforts are to streamline government which means to impart the private sector. venture capital and where we get that from, whether from americans or it comes from outside sources around the country, that is taking place now. whether we need a bank is

something i have not thought about. i am happy to make a decision on that but i am prepared to do that today. >> it sounds like an ambitious agenda. --[indiscernible] are going to run for president? >> more on his side than mine. i think we are very focused, and i think three much all the governments recognize when we work together we can function in a nonpartisan way, take on the more difficult issues come oftentimes more divisive issues and make more progress. there are races going on whether governors run for reelection presidential primaries coming around, and it is a distraction.

i don't think it is a big distraction. i think that most governors that are interested in taking that step, i have been trying to nominate governor herbert for quite some time without much success, i'm disappointed to say. but i think that most governors are able to keep their focus and still begin looking at things from a national perspective without losing focus. >> let me say, too, again, there's always elections going on. so people can make things partisan for their own agenda, for political gain. i have had people ask me how was it, you were able to get elected to be the vice chairman of the national governors association and then the chairman during this significant election year. and the answer is simple. i am the only governor that is not running for president. [laughter] so i'm available. again, we are going to be honest

brokers for the nga. we understand that people can actually separate their political agenda if they are going to take advantage of running for president, but yet understand the need to together as states. so i think the bipartisan effort that we have here. there are a lot of things we have in common. this organization, more than most, is bipartisan. i think we have an opportunity for these elections to get some good things done. >> thank you. and congratulations on your reelection. in his decision on the president's executive order on immigration, the judge pointed out several increases in the cost to the states -- medicare welfare, education -- that would come about.

and i want to ask, number one, do you think if the president's orders were implemented it would be a bigger cost to the states? and, two, is how the states do with that order going to be on any agenda today? john: well, it is already being discussed. it is not on the specific agenda, but it is something that the governors are aware of. again, one of the points that governor herbert made -- states are the laboratories of democracies. each state is handling this in a different way. a number of states, they are already accepting. other states are not. each state is navigating i think independently.

gary: that is to come and i expect there are different demographics and analysis of -- with respect to each state. one thing i think we share a common, though, and most all the governors is that we would call upon the congress to infect do something on immigration. we have had this debate. it is very emotional. sometimes it becomes so emotional that rational thought gets that out the window. but it is time for the congress to act and do something. there are probably five or six different steps that can be debated, but it's just get step one done. if that is secure the border let's secure the border. and then move on to other steps that we need to. doing nothing doesn't seem to be working. and yet that is sometimes what congress is best at, doing nothing. and we need to end up giving them encouragement saying, hey we want to and expect you as governors to take some initiative and get some things done and resolve the immigration issue. >> [inaudible] you mentioned back in january

that perhaps legalizing marijuana over in your state recreationally may not have been a good idea. as far as this conference is concerned, how are you going to talk about this issue going forward and how it may go forward in other states? and what will you tell your fellow governors as far as legalization is concerned? john: sure. what i said when the voters voted on it was that there was risk. most of the voters saw that. something that wasn't working and really was, in many cases, a set of laws that weren't being obeyed at any level. again, i oppose legalizing recreational marijuana. almost every elected official in colorado did. but our voters passed it. so we did our best to implement a robust set of regulations, through appropriate taxation eliminate the black market. our biggest fear was that if

adults legalized it, kids would think it was ok. every brain scientist that we talked to says that there a high probability that the intense thc in marijuana today, and teenagers, if they smoke or ingest this high-thc marijuana there is a high probability that they will reduce their long-term memory. >> [inaudible] john: we are doing everything we can in the state of colorado to make sure we are limiting the black market. marijuana is sold legally. we are monitoring it along the way. we have not changed any laws for people growing it illegally, we are going to throw the book at them. our effors are making sure there is no marijuana being exported to other states. historically, there has always been drug traffic. part of our goal in regulating this is to make sure that diminishes.

drug dealers don't care who they sell marijuana to. if we can, through appropriate taxation, eliminate the black market to get the drug dealers out of it, it is going to be a lot harder to get it into the hands of kids. >> on your point about inovation and states being sort of laboratories, governor nixon from missouri next week is going to be leading a delegation to cuba. the first governor in a long time. he is getting a lot of criticism from people in your party from his home state, including senator blunt, saying there should be no normalization with relations in cuba. as long as it is the casters and power, and the cubans that have a very good record of paying their bills anyway. where do you come down on this? is this a place we you think states will see a lot of opportunity? gary: again, i think there are arguments on both side of the system.

but it is a concern because of their human rights violations and the lack of openness. and how they have treated their own people. you don't want to reward bad behavior. as a parent, you know, i have had that experience of saying sometimes you need a spanking. and rewarding bad behavior is sometimes gets you more bad behavior. so i understand the concerns and the criticisms. it is beyond my pay grade, as far as what the country should be doing. that is something the congress and the president should be debating and discussing. i would not criticize governor i would not criticize governor nixon if he thinks it is appropriate for missouri to engage. that is his decision and call. i don't see us in utah during that anytime soon.

again, i appreciate the leadership of governor hickenlooper, which is an opportunity where we are bringing all the premieres from canada, which is our largest trading partner that we have in america, all the governors of the united states together with the governors of mexico. again, that north american alliance has potential for future opportunities economically, and the potential to mexico is one that we ought not to overlook. that is where i'm going to concentrate my efforts and what i think where we can can do some really good things. >> how concerned are you about congress not funding the department of homeland security at the end of this week? and will it -- or has it already -- had any impact on your individual states? john: well, certainly it will have an impact on our states. i'm not going to criticize one party or the other, but government has to work especially homeland security. i think there is not a governor here who doesn't want them to figure this out. the grants -- just a continuing resolution of some real question about whether the grants that

they make will continue. we are talking about people's paychecks, people's lives. as a governor, i think it is very frustrating when we see this kind of partisan politics. instead of sitting down and figuring out what the right compromises and recognizing that not either side is going to get everything they want, but that is kind of the way our system works, there is this kind of you know, both sides pushing each other to this brinksmanship. it is going to affect our states. it is going to affect every state in the country. again, i'm not blaming one party or the other, but they need to figure it out. gary: what he said. [laughter] >> [inaudible] can you talk about what are some of the challenges some might be facing, just beginning that new role? governor john: sure. we do an orientation. governor herbert and i do both

participate. but the two weekends after the election, we get all the new governors that are not even sworn in and we get experienced governors and the newbies and spend a couple days together. there is an agenda, a curriculum that starts with, ok, here is how to be prepared if you have a disaster. that's the first thing. know those systems and how they work because that is the one place where you're not going to have any sympathy, right? if you have the misfortune to have a natural disaster on your second week of the job, your citizens are going to expect you to get things done. it goes right on the list. how do you work with federal government around the complex issues of health care? we try to give the new governors a context. i think the new governors, and i don't have the list with me, but

it is an interesting group of new governors. a lot of entrepreneurs a lot of independent thinkers, and i think entrepreneurs and kind of high-level managers from both parties, and i think they will have a real impact, not just on the nga, but on the country. they are already talking a much less partisan ways and really looking at, you know, let's put aside the partisan stuff and figure out how the states can really find solutions, which is what nga really stands for. governor gary: let me just say too, i was involved with and it reminded me of my neighbor who lives up the street. i talk about the guy who lives up the canyon. his name is robert redford. he made a movie called "the candidate." at the very end of that movie, he finally gets elected. he sits down in his hotel room and says, now what?

well, the nga is designed to help new governors. with the now what. for many people, it is really their first elected office others it is not, but the now what we do is really what the nga is about. to help us learn, understand issues, fill in the gaps we may have. so that when we move forward, we can do the right thing on behalf of our constituency. it doesn't mean that every state has the same challenges. there are 50 different states of their that have their own uniqueness and the challenges they face. the nga is designed to help with the uniqueness of our states. when i went through new governor organization, it helped me prepare uniquely so in utah and the intermountain west. again, i applaud the efforts of our staff. our nga staff that helps us as governors navigate some of the

challenges, and the opportunities we have as veterans -- we are part of the faculty now, john and i -- to share what we have learned for those who are coming in with new opportunities. that continuity we have as an organization really benefits all the states and really the country. >> [inaudible] people are focused on what they're going to accomplish. nonetheless, what can you tell us a little bit about what is going on behind the scenes? is anyone try to take up for dinner? [laughter] how is that going? governor gary: no, i haven't had a bite today. i think the opportunity we have, we have governors-only meetings. i know for you in the press,

that is probably is disappointing to you because you are not invited to come in. but we have an opportunity to let our hair down and have frank and open discussions in a respectful way. we don't always agree. you can probably appreciate that. that is not just republican versus democrat, that is sometimes within the republican party or the democrat party. the energy development issue that we have in america today, for example, is a good example of where we have differences. not necessarily along party lines, but just in regional areas like kentucky or west virginia big into coal. pennsylvania, utah, in a lot of coal. wyoming, the largest exporter of btu's. coming together and saying, what is the common sense way forward for energy production in our state? as we see with the price of oil, the barrel is down to, what, $51 a barrel? the changing dynamics out there. these opportunities for us to learn from each other are

significantly important. and i would say this it is not just the veterans teaching the rookies. sometimes it is the rookies teaching the veterans. saying, this is what i have learned in my campaign and what is happening in my state. and that benefits me in my state. so it is a great system. the nga amplifies that for opportunity for us to learn from each other. >> [inaudible] is there any sense that this congress or this administration is any worse in listening to the states and trying to get a compromise on the things that matter to you most? governor hickenlooper: well, i

think there is a normal dynamic. there is a tension between governors and congress. it is just natural. it is always there. i am not sure this congress is going to relate to last congress. but certainly we are at a point where the bitter partisanship in congress has restrained the ability to really get things done and solve his problems like immigration or, you know, have a national energy policy. again, i don't think it is useful to compare whether it is worse than it has ever been. but it is not good. you go back to the, you know the level of bitterness that comes out of campaigns with all the negativity and the attack ads. you do see it occasionally, but you rarely see an attack ad in the private sector, right? you don't see coca-cola doing a attack at against pepsi, right? coke would attack pepsi, pepsi

would attack coke, you'd depress the entire product category. to a certain extent, our system is depressing the category of democracy. young people turning off the news and are not reading the newspaper. i going in depth to policy issues. that is creating a situation in washington that is very problematic. again, some of that bitterness in the states, as well, but it is nowhere as near as intense. i think are able, after the elections, to be able to move past the bitterness and sit down at the table and figure out what is the appropriate compromise. i think governors are committed to trying to help congress and sit down and have discussions. in some cases, i have talked to legislators in colorado about how can i, you know, by sitting down with a different interest group, help get a congressional representative, you know, into the end zone on a particular

issue and make sure that they feel there is enough backing for them in the state to take sometimes what is a difficult position. i think if that happens on a more frequent basis in all the states, maybe we can move past this kind of gridlock. but it has been tough. governor herbert: i have reason to be optimistic and hopeful that as we move forward, we can get past some of the partisan wrangling. partisan itself is not necessarily bad thing. it is not getting anything done and not being willing to compromise that sometimes gets in the way. but i'm optimistic that we move forward and there is new opportunities, a new beginning. we have new leadership, new opportunity. i will also say this. one, governors get along well because we don't have to play the kind of king-of-the-hill game they play here in

washington. we can have meetings, we can talk about issues, we do what we can, then we go back to our own hills. that is a little different dynamic than what we find here in washington dc where they play king of the hill here. just a different dynamic. we need to to understand that and respect it. the thing that is the biggest concern for me is washington dc and the congress and the executive branch doesn't trust the states. there is a lack of trust. we need to knock down that barrier. they don't think we will do the right thing. they take the money, they bring it through washington, give it back to us with strings and, you know, regulation and parameters, because they don't think we will spend it right. here is a program they don't have in the states. we have to create one because we don't think there are doing it right in the state. it really, to me, boils down to a lack of trust. so i think our job as governors and certainly as leadership of

the national governors association is to make sure we do everything we can to break down that barrier of non-trust. you can trust us. we are pretty smart people in the states. where doing some good things. in fact, in many ways, much better than a collective work that comes out of washington d.c., which, probably in most of our views they're trying to do too much. we might fall down, skin our needs, but we will pick ourselves back up again and find solutions. and we will end from each other. it is a wonderful system. we need to bring back some of the trust from the federal government to the states. and that is part of the job. if we can do that, i'm very optimistic about what the future will bring. >> what you think of the -- [indiscernible] governor hickenlooper: go ahead. governor herbert: he is kind of

a shoot-from-the-hip, tell-it- like-you-see-it kind of guy. and i think he speaks for mayor giuliani, himself, and not for many others on this particular issue. i know there is frustration that comes, whether it is efficient with the executive branch or congress. and sometimes people use words are probably ill-advised in the overall context. that being said, i think he was a great mayor. governor hickenlooper: what he said. [laughter] i want to thank you all for coming. appreciate, as governor herbert said, we are both optimists by nature, incurable optimists. i think every governor every mayor, it comes with the territory. it is like being under -- when you go out and starting from scratch.

takeover something that is already going full speed, but there is that sense of optimism that provides a context for so much of what we do. we appreciate the media always giving us the benefit of the doubt and always showing that same optimism. we are grateful for your time and your attention. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> the national governors association had its meeting in washington over the weekend. they are wrapping up at the white house right now. we expect them to speak at 12:30. the u.s. senate is set to consider a vote on moving forward with the homeland security spending.

funds will run out on friday unless congress acts. democrats have blocked the bill. senate democratic leader returns today after recovering from an exercising accident during the holidays, making it tougher negotiating moving that bill ford. the senate will resume at 4:30 eastern. the house returns tomorrow at 2:00 eastern. possibly a revised homeland security spending bill later in the week. we will have live coverage on the house on c-span and you can see the senate on c-span2. last year the economy created more than 3 million new jobs the best year since the 1990's. this morning there was a discussion about whether the white house reflects current

trends. we will leave this when the governors come out of the white house, in five minutes. host: now with the guest about lots of money issues out there. first question, how is the u.s. economy doing headed into the spring of 2015? caller:guest: much better. over the past year the economy has created 3 million jobs each as as good a year as we have had -- since the height of the technology. in the last three months the economy has created over one million jobs and the jobs have increasingly brought pay. more recently, the job growth is high-tech, professional services across the board. still a lot of low-paid but high-paying, middle paying jobs

as well. we are not quite there yet, too many unemployed and underemployed but we are moving in the right direction. host: a quick look at the economic report of the president. he highlighted 2014 as the fastest job growth since the 1990's. will this keep going? guest: yes, i think so. all the trend lines look very good. some of the best indicators in the labor market is the number of opening positions. the number of job openings is over 5 million. that is as high as it has been since the bureau of labor statistics were keeping the data back. if you have live job openings that suggests that businesses are out looking for workers and that means they will continue to hire and job growth should

remain strong. lots of things could go wrong but the risks feel less risky than they have in a long time. i think the economy is on the right track. host: we are talking economy and money matters with mark zandi of moody's analytics. he joins us from new york city this morning and we welcome your questions and comments. phone numbers on the bottom of the screen. democrats, independents and republicans. we look forward to you weighing in. there are parts of that are doing particularly well right now and who is left behind? guest: one of the hallmarks of the current recovery is that it is across the country. we are seeing solid growth from the east coast to the west coast and everything in between.

given the collapse in oil prices. across the country, the job prospects look as good as it has in 10 years. host: at the democratic winter meeting, the president said the success of the economy may not he an accident. want to take a look at what the president had to say about the economy and get your reaction. [video clip] >> but the facts are before us. the economy kept growing.

stock market has more than doubled, restoring the 401k's of millions of people. our deficits are down by 2/3. [applause] i always find it curious that when a democrat is president deficits go down, republicans are president, and then deficits are going up, and yet they try to take on the mantle of fiscal probity. [applause] our auto industry is firing on all cylinders. none of this is an accident. it is not an accident that america is creating jobs at any time faster than the last time a democrat was president. it is not an accident that manufacturers are creating aj obs at a greater rate than the

last time a democrat was president. it is no accident that the deficits are falling faster than they have in 60 years. host: when there is job growth, who or what is responsible mostly? guest: well, there is lots of reasons for a strong economy. obviously, it goes to the dynamism of american is mrs.. at -- businesses. american businesses have done a great job in becoming competitive globally and if they survived the great recession they are doing very well. it goes to the strength of our economy when we made mistakes and we have problems and we have recessions but our economy adjusts very rapidly, and we are off and running again quickly after that. i think fundamentally it is the string of our economic system.

it is a very dynamic strong system. having said that, i think policy, monetary policy with the federal reserve board and fiscal policy with what the administration and congress have done have contribute. what you call must get a response to the recession, the great recession, in terms of lowering interest rates providing liquidity, fiscal stimulus, ever so support the housing and auto markets there was good and bad in all that but in general it was good, and it distinguishes our economy and our response to recession to other parts of the world, like japan, for example, and the economy has played a role. fundamentally, it is american businesses and companies they are competitive, strong, and you can see it in their hiring and investment. host: first call, jim from new york.

jim is a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would like to ask when the sequester kicked in and the federal reserve brought the interest rates almost down to 0% for lending money to all the banks, would it have also been a good idea to suspend the interest rate on the national debt at the same time and had that ron alongside with the sequester -- had that run alongside the sequester? would that have put us in better shape than we are now with the debt? could that have been done by take the order? host: thank you for the question. guest: no, i do not think that would have been good policy. there is a lot of global investors that have bought our

treasury bonds. it is us as well. many of us own treasury bonds through our mutual funds and pensions and insurance companies that invest on our behalf. and we have a lot of global investors that have purchased our bonds. so we suspend interest payments on those bonds, we are going to be hurting those investors and ourselves, and they will not stand still. they will say we will have to be paying a much higher rate in the future because there is a risk that you will do this again and i need to get my interest payment. at the end of the day it would cost us a lot of money. it effectively would default on the national debt. that is not a good idea. we want to ensure everyone that if we have a debt we are going to pay it and we are going to pay it on time. because of that, we pay the lowest interest rates in the world, and that is to our enormous benefits long run.

that would not have been good policy. host: more on wages. everybody picked up and noticed the headlines like this recently wal-mart lifting pay as market gets tighter. at least $10 an hour by next year. why would wal-mart do this? are other similar companies doing this, and what does it mean? guest: it is a good sign. the catalyst for the decision, and i do not know this for sure just my speculation, is that we saw minimum wage laws rise in many states and localities at the start of the year. so walmart wanted to make sure that the salaries of its employees across the board were consistent with these higher minimum wages. they would not have done this if the job market was not strong enough that it made

sense for them to raise the minimum wage. we are creating so many jobs and unemployment and underemployment are declining rapidly, that is causing the labor market to tighten, and workers are g aining leverage. as a result, walmart and other companies, wal-mart being the most recent and most obvious example, but other companies are starting to riase wages. if you look at the overall statistics they do not indicate the significant pickup and wage growth yet. there are companies doing this, but there are not enough doing it that we are seeing wages in the aggregate statistics start to rise more quickly, but we are pretty close. the unemployment rate will continue to decline rapidly and in the not-too-distant future the labor market will be tight and the wage growth will accelerate.

that will be a positive thing not only for workers, but for the broader economy. walmart is in a sense the canary. it is signaling we are getting to the point where wage growth will start to accelerate. host: let's hear from stand in connecticut, independent caller. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a perfect solution to the student debt problem they got there. in the first place, the students cannot afford to go should not go in nation not expect their neighbor to have to pay for them. the trouble with kids nowadays they think it is all one big hearty and 70 else should pay for them. it is not right. that is all i got to say. host: what is the impact of a very large student loans bill to let, what is happening with that issue? guest: it is a problem. to give you a sense of the magnitude, there is $1.2 trillion in student loan debt

outstanding. that is roughly double than in the past 10 years. kids did the right thing in the recession. they could not find a job after getting out of high school or college because the job market was so bad and they went back to school or stayed in school longer, exactly what parents and policymakers would tell them to do, to take this opportunity razor educational skill level because in the long run you will benefit from that. unfortunately, they had to take on a lot of student loan debt to finance that, and it is a big part in for them. it is having a broader impact, and it will have more so as this age group reach the age where they normally buy homes and start families and do all the things that the parents did. this is an issue, and it is not a problem -- and it is a problem, and we do not have a

very good solution for it. one point, i do think that we need to really rethink student lending altogether, that in many cases, what is happening is that universities are cindy raising tuition to capture the greater student loan. that kids are not finding college anymore affordable, but loaded up with a lot of debts. i think if we can direct some of the subsidies to provide greater educational services, expanding the supply of educational services through community colleges, that would be a much more effective way of helping educate our population and get these kids on a more sustainable financial path. i am -- and a better path for the economy, because the millennials are our future, and we need to make sure they are in a good financial

situation. host: there is a poll cited today, support for the plan to raise taxes on the wealthy. this is an associated press poll. what the ec see happening if anything this year with tax policy, and what might the impact be on the economy? guest: i do not see any change on the tax policy front. there is a lot of discussion. you mentioned that proposal about raising the income taxes on wealthy high-income individuals, and use that money to reduce taxes for lower and loderower-middle-income households. u.s. companies pay very high tax rates, at least compared to many

other countries and companies that are their competitors. we need to address this, in the corporate tax code, but given the politics of this, i think the odds of getting something through congress signed by the president this year and next year are low. they are well below even. i do not think that is likely. i think that is probably something that the next president will have to tackle. caller: first of all, i got a comment. the comment is that allowing money in tax dollars sent out of this country people who are not from this country, some of those people here are legally. that money that is sent back over to their countries. that is why our economy, that our country has been hurting

because they send all the money back to their country, and we got millions of those people here. the second the i want to say is this is a question, ok. how do you do a background check on these people from other countries, and because we have something where you are protecting yourself and an altercation, you get the best of the person, but you have a bad record because you have a misdemeanor battery and a lot of people will not hire you because these people come over -- come out of the military and they shoot up government buildings and kill people so they make all of us americans look bad. host: thanks. it there anything there that caught your attention? guest: let me point out that the u.s. economy is part of a large

global economy. there are negatives to that and positives to that. but on net, the u.s. economy has benefited enormously from our global links, through trade, foreign immigration, through foreign investment, and we invest overseas and overseas companies invest in the united states, and there is -- and those global linkages have been that official to us. it has lifted our standard of living. the other thing i will point out, and he also said, the closer we are tied economically the global economic links are stronger, but more likely that our political -- geopolitical problems will be solvable. it will be much easier for us to come to terms with regard to foreign policy, and i think that

is key. case in point, take china. there's a lot of concern about our relationship with china and the fairness of that, and i think that is appropriate. we need to become visit of having a fair relationship with china, but at the end of the day, the stronger that relationship, the deeper that relationship, the greater the economic ties between our two countries, the more likely that we are going to be acting in each other's interests and we will benefit from that. yes, there problems, but global linkages are a significant positive for our economy. host: we will take a call from david from california. republican caller. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call and thank you, c-span. host: go ahead. caller: my question good morning. thank you is, what would be your opinion on rand paul's initialstive to audit

the federal reserve? i am a first generation irish-american and in orange county, a liberal state. i understand this conversation is so profound, and i thank you for your time. guest: thank you david. that is a great question, and i appreciate that. let me say two things. first, i think it is important recognize the federal reserve board is already the subject of audits. and so i do not think there is anything untoward happening at the federal reserve that we would not know about pretty quickly because of the oversight the federal reserve already receives through different gao and other government organizations. the audit process in place is working effectively. the second thing i would say is the worry i would have about an effort like the one that covers

men pa -- congressman paul is putting forward is it may hamstring the ability of the board to respond aggressively in all times, but particularly in times of crises. we can see how important that was in the great recession. there was nothing more important in the the recession and getting our economy moving again and the very aggressive actions taken by the federal reserve. we can debate the merits of those actions, and there is good and bad in all of it. even the federal reserve members acknowledge that the things they do have positives and negatives. the things they have done have been and or missing positive and the only reason they could do that is because they had latitude. it is important, the third point, what is so key about the success of our system is that the federal reserve board is completely independent.

it makes decisions that are independent of the political process, and because of that they can make the right decisions and do it quickly and that ultimately is of enormous benefit to us. anything that looks like or actually limits the ability of the federal reserve board to do its job and respond outside of those political fetters would be a mistake. so i would leave very nervous about legislation similar to the kind of legislation that congressman hall has put forward. host: 20 minutes left in our segment. mr. zandi, i wanted to ask a couple questions about energy, conditions out there in the country, but i should ask about the weather. there has been such terrible weather this would. does that collectively have an impact on the economy? guest: it can. it has to be pretty bad weather, something outside the norm for a long time. remember last year? it was a disaster in many parts

of the country. the polar for tax rate that was really bad weather for a long time, december of 2013, january february 2014, and that hurt the economy. you may recall the gdb, the value of things we produce, declined in 2014 because of the weather. this year we have had our bouts of bad weather, and some parts of had gove gotten hammered. broadly speaking, the weather has been pretty typical. that should have no meaningful impact on the economy's performance or how we think about the economy. host: what has been the impact of the lower gasoline prices, and where do you see those heading in the months ahead? guest: this should be a huge plus for consumers and the economy. to give you a sense of the magnitude, last year in 2014 the typical american paid $3.50 for

a gallon of regular unleaded. that varies across the country depending on a lot of things. this year, my view is it will probably see a gasoline prices averaging about $2.60 for the entire years. -- entire year. that is about difference. every penny lowering gas prices saves american consumers $1.2 billion over a year. if you do the arithmetic, if you buy into my forecast for gasoline prices, that means consumers will save $120 billion on their gasoline bills this year compared to last. that is a lot of money. that is a thousand dollars a year for the typical american household. some of that will get saved, used to repay debt, but a big chunk of that emily will be spent on other things, and that should help consumer spending and create more jobs and one reason i am optimistic that 2015

and 2016 should be very good years because of those lower gasoline prices. host: we are reading about the president possibly embracing natural gas exports,. plug that in the process -- the prospects of experts. guest: a good idea. we have a surfeit of natural gas across the country. it looks like the excess supply will be a around for a long, long time because there is a lot of shale -- gas users, and we have the technology to extract that at low cost. so i think it makes sense to allow for export of natural gas and oil, as well because that will help ring down global oral prices -- global oil prices, and it will help our economy. that would be a positive policy step to take.

it would take a long time to fruition, because to build the facilities necessary to ship the natural gas overseas take a long time to build and a lot of resources. but ultimately, i think that would be a positive develop. host: let's get back to calls lee from waldorf, maryland. caller: how are you doing? i will try to make this has spread we have the fascist right on one side in this country and the communist left on the upside, and americans voting 50-50 on eaters -- -- on either -- >> good afternoon. we got anybody here , governor walker, a couple coming down the hill. we just finished an hour and a half a very productive and candid conversation with questions and answers with the president and the vice president. as always, we came as a group of

governors over the country respectful, trying to find solutions. we are all in each of our situations problem solvers. in many cases the problems we seek and find and create our bipartisan and that is certainly the way we approached the president. we discussed trade from a variety of points of view. we discussed the export-import bank. transportation funding, finding a long-term solution to the highway trust fund. elementary and secondary education. reauthorization. we talked about the use of public lands. we talked about the affordable care act and what the consequences of the supreme court decision would be affecting that. we talked about the export of crude oil and natural gas. we also had a robust conversation around the department of homeland security

and looking at immigration. in each of these cases, i did the president was direct, candid. he did not try to mince words. in some cases that it was answers he gave before. sometimes he said, an interesting question, let's think about it and look at it in a new way. i thought the exchange was very constructive, and certainly for the president over the course of this last couple days, he has spent several hours, including last night, with the governors and that openness and willingness to have an engaging conversation with us is very much appreciated. governor herbert my vice-chair? >> thank you. on behalf of the national governors association, we thank the president and the vice president for his hospitality for his willingness to show the respect to the governors that i

think is appropriate and willing to engage in a dialogue and talk about the issues that face us. the goals we have really are the same. we sometimes differ on process as far as how to achieve those goals, but that is part of the dialogue we had here today. as we talked about a number of different issues, the common theme for most of us as governors is the states have a role to play is what we refer to as the laboratories of democracy. we like to see the state have more autonomy, the ability to do the creative work that comes with solving some of the problems and allow us in fact to find solutions that are unique to our own respective states. as we couple that together, it helps develop better policy. the aspect of this dialogue in this discussion and bringing us together as republicans and democrats governors as the vice president said to us today the governors and the states are the

best hope for america to get some things done and get good policy. i agree with that. i think most of my colleagues agree with that also. it has been a great opportunity for us talk about a lot of different issues and see what the states' role should be. it is a matter of us engaging with the congress. they have a role to play, and we need to work with both sides there to make sure we can collectively influence for the good of the american citizens policy in america. this starts an opportunity for us. a new year, new congress, new opportunities, and the national governors association stands ready and willing to play our part. >> the president was chipper the vigorous, and used his sense of humor. questions? there will be no questions. [laughter] >> [indiscernible]

>> i want to ask about rudy giuliani. you reported the meat of his critic of president obama. he has come out with an op-ed explaining his comments, walking back a little bit saying he maybe should've taken a different phraseology. he did not mean he should question the president -- do you think he has lost any credibility through this exchange? >> i think the mayor should of use different words to express what he wanted to say. i did not want to throw him under the bus. the president loves america he loves our country. there is no doubt about that. i think the substance, the point that the mayor was time to make is important. there are many of us concerned about the president's unwillingness to call out radical islamic terrorism and the threat we face as a country.

i wrote an op-ed today saying the president has to cause find that has this all fight himself as commander in chief because he will not take this up to defeat this threat. for example, in his request for authorization, use of force to the congress, two things i would like to see congress change. i would like him to take up the band of ground troops. i would like to take out the three-year timeline. i think the real timeline should be we are done when we have hunted down and killed these terrorists. you have the administration, people in the state department saying we cannot kill our way to victory. you have a spokesperson saying we need jobs programs and better governance. this is a war against radical islamic terrorism. the central point was it would be better for the president not to want to -- [indiscernible] or point out those kinds of

things rather than actually identifying the threat we face. i think americans speak -- i think the mayor spoke for himself. i would not have used those words. i think the president loves his country. any of us are concerned about the president taking on radical islamic terrorism. >> he said there was a robust discussion -- you said there was a robust discussion about immigration. was there any opposition from the governors about the immigration executive orders or any signs or concerns about how that was going to be handled? >> the dhs issue from a variety of issues, but many governors want to make sure that that funding continues. all governors want to figure out solutions as quickly as possible. the president made a robust defense of his executive effort around immigration. his point was it essentially that the number of people coming

into this country illegally is at the lowest level since 1970. at note time in our history have we spend more money on border security. there are 11 millionillegally. we are not going to do port all of them. they are dressing the most serious issues and that is what his point was. their executive efforts are to say, all right, it is ridiculous if we deported all of these people, it would have a material effect and a negative sense on our economy for a variety of reasons, it would be unthinkable. as there are limited by resources, they are deporting the people they feel are the highest priorities, the 300,000 to 400,000 people year. why have those other people live in terror and not be able to have a drivers license, not be able in an accident, feeling the have to flee as a witness to make sure the guilty parties are

brought to justice -- all of this consequences, he is trying to address by executive order. he was not backing away in a sense of what he sees as a failed system -- again from the beginning, he has maintained he wants a comprehensive solution to immigration reform, and he was to work with commerce to do that. i think all of us governors want to sit conference of solution. we may disagree about details, but everyone recognizes the time has come that immigration needs to be solved now. >> can i amplify on that a little bit on behalf of the association? there is not any governor here that does not want to have the department of homeland security funded. we all have responsibilities of homeland security within our states. we understand the imports of the shared responsibly that comes with homeland security. we also want to have immigration reform done. it has been an issue that is

emotional. it is complex. we keep kicking the can down the road. we're calling upon congress and the president to work together to resolve those issues. it is high time. there might be four or five steps on comprehensive immigration reform. let's start with one we can agree with and get it done and build on the number two. let's have them work together the exec at a branch and the congress, and getting her gratian reform and fund homeland security. >> [indiscernible] would you like to see a temporary solution while it is being worked out in the courts? >> i would like to have a temporary permit solution. we have been debating it for a number of years. >> until the courts settle -- >> whether it exceeds the

executive capability -- i hope we don't freeze ourselves in action. if that takes some kind of continuing resolution to get it done -- let's look for permit solution. let's not look for a limited solution. >> [indiscernible] ask the president to stop the filibuster so the senators could actually decide? >> the governors did not pick one or the other. the governor said, hey, we are fed up. every single state is dependent upon: security resources. the continuing resolution doesn't address the grant. if someone has a natural disaster, how do they use the traditional federal resources to start resiliency and rebuild? we didn't get into who is right or wrong. one of the things the governors are relatively good at maybe we have not perfected the process yet, but looking at the bigger picture and say, let's look

first, what our goal is and try to work our way down to get their. >> a governor did aspect question. -- a governor did ask a question. >> what was the answer from the president? >> the president did not agree. he said he would veto the bill if it got to him with a language that is currently written. >> are any polls suggesting it is a popular move to defund the doj -- dohs? >> i think he is looking at how -- he does not view it as a misty. he is trying to find a way to deport people that are the highest authority to leave this country and make sure there is a system of solutions that recognizes a lot of these folks are living in the shadows. i would urge people -- the utah compact is online. the colorado compact. basic goals. i am not in any way endorsing one part or not another part of

the president's executive efforts, executive order but the bottom line is, the notion to try to make our community safer, the notion we're going to try to keep close families together, you know, that we're going to recognize the economic vitality that we're trying to expand our economies, that is all part of what he is trying to accomplish. >> you are nodding your head about the filibuster. democrats are saying to why not fully fund dhs now that the [indiscernible] going to delay actions. i wonder what your advices for republicans on the hill? should they continue despite only partially fund dhs? >> there was a question or suggestion to the president that he might consider asking the senate democrats to go ahead and vote on the bill for dhs and give it enough or down vote and then of course we have a stay

with the court, and until that issue of immigration later. that is what i was nodding my head about. there was a discussion about that. i will mention one other thing i was encouraged about, i asked the president about signing the keystone pipeline bill. i told him i would be happy to stand by him as he signed that. which he told me he wasn't going to do, that he was going to veto that. i asked if you would consider allowing the united states to export crude oil or lg gas. he said he was open to that. there were some areas we could find to work together, and that is one of the reasons why we meet here at the national governors association. >> thank you very much. >> good job, john. >> a number of the nation's governors coming to speak with reporters, appearing upbeat and hopeful following the meeting this afternoon with president obama.

some describing some of the conversation as robust recounting some of the dialogue with the details, and some of the topics they discussed this afternoon. one of those items is homeland security funding. the senate returns from their presidents' day break this afternoon to talk about homeland security and funding for the department in's on friday at midnight without senate intervention. this tweet from the hill today keeping a countdown on the dhs funding clock. in all reading of president george washington's farewell address today. the senate will continue debate on the house passed only security spending bill which includes provisions to block the president's executive order on immigration. here are some of the remarks from the president from his meeting earlier today with the governors. >> keep on urging congress to move past some of the habits of manufactured crises itself uplifted wins that have so often walked us down over the last five years.

we are one example of that right now. unless congress acts, one week from now, more than 100,000 dhs employees the border patrol, port inspectors, tsa agents will show up to work without getting paid. they all work in your states. these are folks come if they don't have a paycheck, are not going to be able to spend that money in your states. it will have a direct impact on your economy and a direct impact on america's national security because their hard work else to keep us safe. as governors, you know we can't afford to play politics with our national security. >> again, the senate gavels in at 3:00 p.m. eastern. at 4:30, debate on the house passed home insecurity spending bill. that includes provisions to block the president's executive order on immigration. at 5:30, they will vote for fourth time to limit debate to proceed to the bill.

you can watch live coverage of the senate on our companion network c-span2. the houses back tomorrow. they're expected to debate a bill that expands the 520 nine college savings program and a bill to reform the no child the education law. they can take up home insecurity spending before current funding expires on friday, february 27 at midnight. see the house live on c-span. a discussion now on expiring home insecurity funding from this moorings "washington journal." host: at the table now, senior congressional reporter. thank you for joining us. let's pick up on this dhs issue. what are the options at this point for the gop leadership to avoid shutdown? guest: everything is a bad option right now for both mitch mcconnell and john boehner, no matter what they do they will spark outrage from the right or the left or it could just can't this issue -- punt this issue for another couple of months.

we will see an effort by mitch mcconnell to showcase what they believe is the democratic obstruction on this issue. they will force a fourth procedural vote in the senate the democrats will block over this house passed bill that would keep the department funded up until september but also block the president's executive action on immigration both his 2014 moves as well as his 2012 moves. democrats say they want a clean bill. at that point, mitch mcconnell has a choice. he can the past that bill or he can try -- even if he tries to do that, the chances of that going to the house are very slim. that is not going to pass the house. or you could try to pass a short-term measure that would keep the government -- the department open for maybe a few weeks, maybe a few months, but there's no guarantee that could pass. that will only punt the issue for another few months. it is not an clutter -- entirely clear what he will do or risk a shutdown which could be damaging for the gop.

>> usually we would ask if congress is speaking to the white house. the real question, as mr. boehner speaking to mr. mcconnell about how to proceed? guest: they continually talk. it is been a curious thing watching the beginning of the new congress, given that boehner and mcconnell have courtney did well and have a good working relationship. but right now, they're dealing with different internal politics on this issue, it which makes it very difficult. challenges are both different in the house and senate. remember in the senate, there are 54 republican senators but they need 60 to advance the legislation to overcome a democratic filibuster. that means they need to have some sort of bipartisan support in the house with a can pass anything with a simple majority of republicans and conservatives don't want through public and leadership to bend at all on this immigration issue. they each were dealing with her

own respective politics -- their own respective à la ticks, challenges, talking about what they can do but not entirely clear how they can get out of this. host: we invite your comments and questions for our guest. the phone line is on the bottom of the screen. we're talking about dhs and also lots of other issues out there is, comes back from a weeklong presidents' day recess. one of them is keystone. where are we with that issue? guest: it looks like congress will send the keystone bill to the president probably this week. this was something that was passed right at the beginning of the new congress. republicans wanted to show a different direction that they were taking this country and the president and the democrats have resisted going forward with this keystone pipeline project. that bill has cleared. the senate republicans held back on sending it formally to the white house while they were out

of town on a weeklong presidents' day recess. when they sit it over to the president, he is going to veto it. it will only be the fourth veto of his presidency. then it will come back to congress for an override vote. they do not have the votes to override it. host: that is pretty much it on keystone was the veto happens? will they try to override? guest: i think that will try to override it. they won't have the votes in house in it will sort of die from there. the question will be, it is going to be in the president's hand. he is not formally rejected building the pipeline. he has said the reason why they're vetoing it, they believe this decision should be made eye the administration, not by congress. there are still ongoing reviews which have been going on for six years. they believe if they finalize the review process, so remains

an outside chance the administration could decide to greenlight this pipeline project on its own minister at of late but most people don't think that is going to happen. host: lots of other issues out there like the attorney general, nation, the use of military force, more on dhs. let's get a call in from missouri. go ahead. caller: thank you very much for c-span. hazard been an audit or could we have an independent audit of homeland security? host: why would you want that? caller: there are a lot of legs out here that i am familiar with that we don't know what they're doing and they don't know what they're doing. host: let's hear from our guest. guest: i didn't catch the top of that. host: will there ever be an independent audit of this agency? guest: there are the inherent qualities, things that are built into dhs like the inspector general. every federal agency has one of

these inspector general's that does look at problems that are happening internally at various suspected agencies. clearly, things have been done. there are investigations about different problems and programs that are happening at the agency. as well as the governor account ability office, of course, the investigative and commerce continually looking into things that are happening at the agency, not to mention the oversight committees in congress. there are those aspects of oversight that to happen at the homeland security department. the question is, is it enough? that is a constant theme in congress and these inspector general's deal with regularly. host: pat, south carolina. are you still there? caller: yes, good morning. i have a question. if the house passes the bill and

the senate passes the bill, and then it goes to the president and he vetoes it, is he not the one shutting the government down, not congress? thank you. guest: that is a fair question. republicans are going to argue. they're going to say this is on the democrats. they actually have proactively tried to fund the government, and that is why some folks believe on the republican side that they will not incur political backlash, at least not as steep as the 2013 funding fight that left the government -wide shut down. they believe their try to proactively push legislation and democrats are blocking it. it is not even going to get to the president's desk because democrats in the senate filibustering this, preventing a debate from even happening, and that is one of the reasons why the republicans keep bringing this up for a vote in the senate so they can pass the blame onto democrats if there is an impasse and hope the political fallout falls on them.

however, republicans would incur probably a majority of the blame for this if this were to happen. we will see if that plays out. certainly, that is something that a lot of republicans are nervous about. host: just so we're care, the house and senate bills currently are the same bills or are there differences. guest: one bill right now that is the house bill, the $39 billion bill that has these immigration writers. the question will be whether they strip any of those out to even get onto the bill right now because democrats are preventing the debate from even happening. host: back to the conservatives this money, writing that pushing through short-term continuing resolution for dhs would bring howls from the right, post on immigration so down from a couple of weeks and would most likely fail in the house. speak or about the conservatives and how mr. mcconnell, mr. boehner on the respective sides might get them to ultimately approve something that doesn't

include immigration. how will it happen? guest: one of the ways it could potentially happen is if the leadership decides to convince the right wing and the rank-and-file that the better way to fight this is through the courts. remember, we saw this texas district judge last week ruled that the president moved unlawfully by taking these 2014 executive action. now the administration is trying to stay that -- that texas judges decision. it will go to the appellate level. potentially, a republicans could have a chance of winning this in the court. maybe they could say, you know what? we don't have the votes in congress, so let's try to fight is in the courts were we have a better chance of running the president in. the problem is, there's judicial proceedings are going to take months, maybe years. i don't know how effective of an argument that is going to be in the short term but a lot of this conservatives say we are now in

power, we promise the him and people we're going to fight him on immigration on what they view is an unconstitutional act, so they want to act right now instead of hunting down the line. -- punting down the line. host: steve on twitter rights -- first of all, it is not a department that is been around for too long. what is the recent history? guest: it hasn't been used so much for as these fiscal standoffs, at least in recent years. government-wide issues. they have been -- anytime there is an appropriations bill, any party tries to put a ryder into rain in the president. this is a common fact on capitol hill. it could be the terminal protection agency. that is common. what is less common is one specific agency like this going

down to the brink and this being used to push political agenda from one party to another. you don't see that as often as is happening on one specific agency. one thing that does remind me of is back when the democrats took control of congress after the 2006 election, they tried to tie president bush's hands on more supplemental -- more supplemental funding package by putting in true patrolling which they want to the president's desk. he vetoed it. it eventually passed president bush got what he wanted. we will see if that happens here. host: let's go to ernie, independent. go ahead. caller: i have a question. i was wondering exactly how many days did house of representatives actually work in 2014? host: why do you ask?

caller: i'm trying to figure out what we're paying these people for that are not doing anything for this country, as far as i am concerned. i don't believe anybody is doing their job up there. i don't think congress is doing their job. i don't think the house of representatives is doing there's. host: thank you for calling. on a tweet -- guest: congress is not a very popular institution as your collar can attest to. i don't have the number of days they worked right in front of me. that is something that they can find out online. however, in election year, congress does not work very often. typically, what happens, they are out campaigning. they take long recesses. they don't work mondays or fridays. the house and senate, both the democratic and republican control. the bipartisan tradition.

you do see more work in a nonelection year, the also see legislative stalemates what we're seeing right now. host: phil, florida, democrat. caller: yes. my biggest question is, as americans, we have to wait 18 years before we vote. why don't they have to wait 18 years before they vote when they become americans? host: any response? guest: i'm not quite sure what the caller's referring to. i don't know if he's referring to the immigration system. host: i think with some of the comes a citizen therefore to the right in the constitution to vote. our guest has written for "the hill" and now with "politico." he has a byline this morning along with burgess everett about

the were authorization resolution. the headline -- first of all explain what it is , what it means, and what might happen. guest: the president proposed the use of force resolution against isis. this is a three-year proposal that would essentially limit the use of force against isis and associated forces. the groups associated with isis. part of the proposal, the president resends his 2002 were authorization. it was enacted after the 9/11 attack. that 2001 authorization is what the president has used to justify the ongoing military campaign against isis. in addition to this proposal said it would be no enduring

ground forces, troops, in an effort to limit troops that are going into conflict with isis. the challenge for the president right now is that he faces skepticism on the left and the right over this proposal. folks on the right, through public its control congress, believe this is much too restrictive. it's -- the president needs greater war authority they say in order to effectively take out a very dangerous enemy like isis right now. what the president or post right now will not pass. the problem is, on the left, a lot of folks on the left are not happy with this, either. they think it gives too much authority. it keeps imposed this 2001, were authorization. they say this administration the last administration, has abused that authorization and they believe it should be repealed.

the president will have a choice as it makes its way through congress. does he take on his own party and side with republicans who control congress, or does he stick to his guns and try to push what he believes is something that splits the difference between the two sides and makes pretty much nobody happy? that is a big question going forward, and something we will see in the coming weeks. host: is there a chance that nothing will happen? guest: their silly a chance of that. it would be stunning to see that happen, particularly, in the aftermath of all of these beheadings and things isis is doing overseas. but it is only possible. that is one of the reasons why the administration believes its action right now under the 2001 war authorization is legal and the reason why they're making that -- whether keeping that authority in, because if this fails, they believe they can still move forward with the campaign. but it would look really, really

bad for the president internationally and mystically if he was unable to get congress behind the military campaign. host: let's go back to our calls but remind people this is a vote to advance the bill, 5:30 eastern time, four: 30's with a come back in for debate on this item. you can watch the vote in the preceding debate on c-span2 today. on an earlier tweet -- steve from new jersey calling in. caller: how are you doing? i was just wondering if they were to add the e-verify clause onto that bill and allow various

levels of government to enforce that law, that would take the enforcement away from the president [indiscernible] and if the e-verify were to be enforced perhaps it would stop immigration from happening as a way to counter allowing a lot of people to stay in the country. guest: e-verify is not part of the homeland security funding bill that it was part of the larger conference of immigration overhaul that died in the last congress -- comprehensive immigration overhaul that died in the last congress. republicans got behind in a way to say for employers to crack down on undocumented immigrants people working in this country illegally. the only way that gets enacted

pacific it's enacted as part of a larger overhaul. it was certainly not be done in the funding bill and that larger overhaul, the chances are very very grim given the backlash that had amongst the right. host: interesting process question here from sandy beach. guest: i think separation of powers is probably one way of looking at it. the senate sets its own rules under the constitution. one of its rules is that it allows members to object -- any single member can force a 60 vote threshold on virtually anything and democrats are doing that to begin debate on homeland security bill. something that republicans and democrats have used a lot over the years and mitch mcconnell he was minority leader, routinely filibustered the motion to

proceed, sucking that democrats are going to routinely do going forward as well, particularly, on bills they don't like. they are not at all obligated by it. the only way they could change their mind is in the court of public opinion if democrats feel the heat to change the position particularly, folks from red states who are filibustering the bill will express concern over the executive action maybe they could side with republicans to move forward. right now, there's two indication they're going to do that. host: tom on the line from ohio. good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. i would like to ask the guest republicans could not shutdown the department of homeland security only with congressional action. why does he not explain that? 80% of the homeland security would keep coming to work the matter what. thank you for c-span. guest: that is an argument some republicans have been advancing in recent days. i spoke to ron johnson who is the chairman of the homeland security committee in the senate

who also is an a tough reelection race in 2016 of wisconsin. and he said, look, 87% of employees from the homeland security department will still report to work if there is no deal passed this thursday. the department will still be working. there will not be a shutdown. 30% turns out to 30,000 employees, as well as the ones who are not showing up, will not receive their paychecks. possibly will get back pay if congress were to approve that. those 13% -- and that is a lot of support staff, but that is an issue that tsa will continue to

operate, customs order security -- border security will continue to operate, but i am not sure either side wants to go that far because they are concerned a fallot particular -- fallout reticular leak of something bad were to happen during that time. host: good morning to ryan, the credit color. caller: thank you. i have a quick question for the reporter and comments. i want to ask is it a central in the year we are in, is it mandatory that we have this department of homeland security? it was created after 9/11. george w. bush had the congress create it. before that, all the agencies were under doj. is it essential we have a dhs

department running? does it who've conga -- does it but who've congress to pass a constitutional amendment about what to do about the border? what is the limit? is that something that congress should look at, and if so, what do you think? host: interesting comments. guest: in terms of the constitutional amendment, that is something that republicans have really been talking about. certainly, if they were to propose that, chances of getting and acted would be -- enabcted would be difficult, needing 2/3 of the states to get that changed the constitution, but that is a concern, starting even with democrats with george bush as president and increasingly with obama as president that the

president has been taking liberties on executive action and going around congress and what they view is an unconstitutional manner. i'm not sure there's going to be anything they can really do legislatively to rein him in. on homeland security department front, that was created by president bush after 9/11, and it was viewed as a way to centralize all of the different security agencies within the federal government, as well as to respond in a more centralized manner to concerns over national security. i think it is eccentric right now given the way the government is structured that that agency sort of needs to exist because there was a massive reorganization within the government after 9/11, and right now that remains an important agency for homeland security. host: let's bring up loretto lynch. what is going to happen this

week? they are meeting to take a vote, but how is the nomination doing? guest: good question and a lot of it is wrapped up in the immigration battle. most democrats and republicans say she is a good nominee. if immigration were not a part of the equation, she would you do. she, as the attorney general the top law enforcement official, she has sided with the president on the executive action entered her confirmation hearing he said she believes the legal framework way out moving forward was constitutional, and she has no reason to doubt that. that is something that has provokesd concern from conservatives who want to -- it looks like right now she

probably has the votes particularly in the committee which meets to take up her nomination. the question is when mitch mcconnell schedules a vote on the floor and how many republicans ultimately vote for her. there will need to be seven republicans to break -- i am sorry -- five for poppins will need to join with the democrats. she probably has those votes but the problem for mcconnell is if he gives democrats what he wants on the dhs bill and schedules the loretto lynch vote and conservatives do not like that we will see how he deals with this in the coming weeks. host: back to your calls. hi norm. caller: hi. i want to comment a little bit. the homeland security is a really necessary one, when we

have 12 million to 25 million illegals. if we did not fund it, who would know the difference when you have got so many people that have made it into this country illegal, encouraged by president obama and the others, both parties. they want the illegals here for the economic benefits to the big-money people. so if we defined homeland security, who is going to know when there are walking across by the thousands, across the border daily -- how is that going to stop any terrorist if they can make it to mexico, they can make it to the united states? guest: border security is a huge concern. you hear republicans talk about this a lot more, saying that the border is not secure, and we

need to spend more money and emphasis and more effort and on personal and other matters to ensure that folks do not come across the border. here the white house and the democrats advance the argument that the border is more secure than it ever has been right now. there are still illegal crossings and apprehensions continue to maintain a steady pace as well as other security efforts that have been undertaken that the country has not done in the past. so the question will be if the department is not funded, what kind of impact does that have on the border? i do not think we entirely know at this point exactly the impact that that may have, but certainly one side, at least you will hear jeh johnson say that all security measures will be held in security,

reticular leak at the border, if congress does not approve the funding package. host: back to the potential shot utdown. please ask if any government in the past 10 years has not been paid during these shutdowns? guest: i think they had been paid, because the the only shutdown in the past 10 years, 2013, and then as result of this fight over obamacare the 16-day government shutdown. congress quickly advance a package to get back pay to frontload employees and those who were deemed essential that had to show up to work. those folks all were eventually paid. the last shutdown that happened was 199730 the clinton era, the fight between new to gingrich -- two newt gingrich and clinton. i believe employees are seen that pay as well, and if the home and security shut down,

those folks will eventually get paid. host: linda is calling from stanley, new york, republican caller. caller: good morning. how are you people today? host: good. how are you? caller: i am good. i was watching the senate last week, and it was brought out that the department of homeland security has ordered law enforcement not to raid companies that employ illegal workers. if i were member right in 2006, 2007, i cannot remember which obama blocked george bush's immigration bill. what is that? and another thing he is going to let thousands of syrian refugees come? that seems kind of strange to me. thank you. guest: a few different points. on the obama -- i believe the caller is referring to the 2007 immigration bill that was a

comprehensive effort that president bush pushed through and try to get anenacted. the president came under this is an in 20008 when he backed a provision that gutted a key aspect of the immigration overhaul, and that was something that supporters of the bill viewed as a poison pill. but the president, when he was a senator, did oath to advance the immigration bill. i do not believe he was on the side of those trying to ultimately trying to kill it, but change it that could have killed the bill. and that is going to be -- an interesting question for the president going forward, how does he deal with immigration and how much the immigration part of his legacy -- clearly

the executive actions are something the president is going to fiercely defend until the end of his term, in that he promised to do something as soon as he came into office. he did not move a conference a bill in the first term. the second term, they tried and they failed. now they are moving on things administratively and doing everything he can to protect that using the veto and fighting in the courts. host: clarksville, ohio welcome, karen. caller: hi. i wanted to make a comment. nobody ever reports on the temporary services that bring in a illegal aliens, especially to the hospitality and hotel business. there's this 1 --ecu from coast to coast, and when a hotel will call up and ask that when they need the service of a housekeeper, used to we would hire housekeepers that would be

people from high school and college and summer help. now they bring in these ecu and they bring them in. they are not responsible for this person because they are not hiring. they just have them as a temp service. i know some of these ecu people. they will work in overtime. a do not pay them him him wage. they rip them off terribly. i have not seen one reporter "the new york times," politico, it has reported on 10 services that do this. they are directly related to the coyotes that bring these people across the border. host: thanks. something you can speak to? guest: i do not read every single article that comes in every angle location, -- every single publication, but there been quite a lot of coverage.

i think the caller speaks to the challenges that -- and the president has an democrats have on the immigration issue. he is a -- it is a very emotional issue. the hand of action that was taken would defer deportations for about 5 million undocumented immigrants. i believe -- when you look at public polling, that exact policy itself does have support generally speaking although the country is very divided of the issue. i believe there is a plurality of americans who support what the president did. they do not approve of the way he did it, by moving administratively, and that is one of the reasons why you are seeing republicans advance the argument they are. host: let's go back to the foreign-policy issue,, manu raju . senator mccain made a lot of

news with this quotation. he was talking about ukraine. here is a look. ♪ >> this is a shameful chapter. i am ashamed of my country, i president, and myself that i have not done more to help these people. it is really, really hard breaking -- heartbreaking. >> what do you think we can be done now? >> we should give them weapons with which to defend themselves. there are russian tanks in eastern ukraine that they do not have a weapon to fight against that some of the best russian forces are there. they will continue this aggression for as long as they can get away with it, and it is not just the military side, but economically they are on the verge of collapse as well. vladimir putin wants ukraine not to be part of europe, and he is succeeding in doing so. he has put enormous, pressure on the baltics not to mention

moldova, and continued on occasion -- occupation of georgia as well. this is really a dark chapter in the history of our alliance. >> i will say this, senator, i've known you a long time, interviewed you many times. i never heard you say i am ashamed of my country, which you just said. >> and i am ashamed of myself. guest: strong words. mccain has been really on a crusade on this issue particularly trying to get the administration and allies to help arm ukraine. he believes the united states has not done enough on that and has let russia run rampant across ukraine and as you heard, clearly from his remarks over the weekend, he has offered legislation with a group of other lawmakers in order to force the administration to arm ukraine with legal weapons.

that is unlikely to move forward, given the administration's resistance. the administration knows the pressure it is feeling on this, and will have to decide how to proceed. if it proceeds it will be done administratively. you will not see a successful push in congress on this. host: time for a couple more calls. james from washington. caller: appreciate it. i appreciate what the president is trying to do with getting the immigrants signed up. the other thing is social security. [indiscernible] i was reading in my paper saturday canada -- shipped by railroad. our republican senators will not

even allow an amendment on the hill because we do not have enough time in -- congress. [indiscernible] i do not know what to say. host: thanks for calling. guest: i could hardly hear the caller. he was breaking up. it is important to remember exactly what the president did in executive actions. the 2012 action was for people who were brought to this country at a young age illegally people who were living in the country for five continuous years up until the 2012 excessive action, and -- executive action, and folks who were in high school or were in military service or were trying to get a college degree, not convicted of a crime, that

was the effort moving forward. the 2014 action expanded the folks who could apply under that deferred action program. in addition, it was aimed at helping those parents of children who were legal citizens illegally in this country. those may be in this country unlawfully also. it was an expansion. this was what the texas judge blocked last week. host: thanks for waking up early with us. caller: yes. i would like to make a comment about immigration that is happening now. i do not think it is right to let those people come in without going through the line. i came from a foreign country and i waited. my family waited 10 years before they were able to come. the system is really in a big , big--

you know, and we should go back to the old system where people is going through the law by law. this immigration law is being wasted. nobody is being patient. nobody is respecting the law of this country. host: that me asking. the immigration issue is tied to the funding of the department of homeland security, and if they do not solve this matter, dhs will run out of money this friday night. should the two issues be tied in this legislation? caller: you know, i do not know about talking money. all the time it is because of money. all the illegal people that come here it is about money. you know, we have poor people here, too, but we ha -- that we have to support. if we do not give them the money, i do not know what is going to happen. if we don't enforce the law

on the border, we will open the door and we are really into chaos. guest: yeah, the immigration bill that stalled in the last congress, the supporters of that would say that the folks were here illegally, the 11 million had to go to the back of the line in order to get on a pathway to citizenship. if i recall correctly, it was a 13-year window in which folks would have to apply, pay back taxes, pay a fine, etc., and eventually they would have to wait in line with the rest of the folks who are also trying to get here through the legal proper channels. clearly, what the president has done in executive action did not do that. it was 2-d for deportations that it was to defer -- it was to

defer deportations of those who were here illegally. that is the argument going forward, and right now we are in a stalemate. host: republican, go ahead, please. caller: yes. i used to be a democrat, but i am a republican. host: when did you change and why? caller: i changed about 10 years ago. host: how come? caller: the things that we believed in started changing from party to party. mainly, i just wanted to say that i would like to know a dollar amount on what it costs us to keep illegals here every day, and i want to say we cannot take care of our veterans. how are we going to take care of all these illegals? i think until we get them sorted out who we want them to stay,

we need to deport them. host: final thought on this? guest: it just shows you -- mcconnell and boehner knew this was going to be a really red-hot issue. end of leicester, they were the president not to go forward, and the president said that he was going to go forward. now that the president did after november this has created such an emotional response, particularly among republicans that it is a very difficult college for boneehner and mcconnell to get out of. the reason we are seeing the situation where we are now, that it is not easy for republicans to turn around and cave on this and give the democrats what they want but the predation on the

hill as they will have to give the democrats what they want in order to keep the department funded. host: our guest has been manu raju senior congressional reporter for politico. >> the senate returns today to talk about homeland security. funding for the department ends on friday. this tweet from the hill today keeping a countdown on the dhs funding clock. president obama talked about issue today during his beating with the nation's governors this morning. here's what he had to say. >> i keep on urging congress to move on past the habit of self-inflicted wounds that have bogged us down the last five years. we have one example of that right now. unless congress act's, more than 100,000 ea just employees, border patrol, inspectors, tsa

agents, will show up to work without getting paid. they all work in your states. these are folks if they do not have a paycheck will not be able to spend that money in your states. they will have a -- it will have a direct impact on your economy can and it will have a direct impact on america's national security, because their hard work helps keys us -- keep us safe. we cannot play politics with our national security. >> dissent is back to the at 3:00 eastern. they will begin with their annual reading of george washington's farewell address. at 5:30, the senate will vote for a fourth time to limit debate to proceed with the bill. 60 ayes are needed. the house is back tomorrow.

this week they are expected to debate a bill to fund a college savings program. they could also take up the homeland security bill before funding expires on friday. see the house life here on c-span. geomet security j -- homeland security jeh johnson is expected to brief reporters. we will have that live in a couple of moments. i now, a discussion on homeland security funding from this morning pot "washington journal." mason from reuters. what is the president's posture on this bill? is it likely to change? guest: i think it will not change. his posture is he believes the congress should fund dhs. he believes he was within

executive authority to issue the orders announced last year. that would shield up to 5 million immigrants or undocumented immigrants from deportation. right now, he is in your in curious to see where congress will go. it's not going to change his position on what they should do. host: we expect action today as the president last in appeals court to issue a stay on this amnesty injunction. guest: for the last week, a judge in texas issued an injunction, a temporary stop to the order that the president issued, it puts on hold his plan to grant this shield of deportation for up to 5 million immigrants. what the white house said is the

department of justice will seek a stay on that injunction. that would allow the department of homeland security to continue preparing its program to allow these immigrants to stay. basically, they are trying to have the court set aside its injunction and let the preparation to continue while the process goes on the court system. host: the president is traveling to miami on wednesday for an immigration town hall. what is the message going to be? guest: the message will be an opportunity for obama to talk about >> we will now leave this to go to homeland security department chairman manu raju-- jeh johnson. >> good afternoon.

i am pleased to be joined by the deputy secretary, the undersecretary suzanne spaulding, craig few gave them assistant secretary for immigration customs enforcement the director of the secret service, director of uscis, the acting administrator of tsa. i am also honored to stand here today with the men and women of the department of homeland security, many of whom you see behind me. these are the men and women who reflect a much larger workforce that is responsible.

the people you see behind me are responsible for port security, airtime security, cyber security protection of critical infrastructure in this country protection of our national leaders, and response to disasters. none of this is free. we need a partnership with congress to support our efforts. currently, the department of homeland security is being funded by a continuing resolution. that continuing resolution expires in just 4 1/2 days. the clock is ticking and as i stand here, there's nothing from congress to find us beyond that point. the american public needs to understand the consequences of permitting a shutdown of the department of homeland security. here are just a few.

first, we will be forced to require some 75% to 80% of our men and women to come to work without pay. there are serious consequences for the working men and women of our department standing behind me if they are required to come to work and try to make ends meet without a paycheck, for themselves and their families. this includes the men and women of the united states coast guard. second, we must in the event of a shutdown furlough approximately 30,000 of our employees, including our headquarter's staffs. what does that mean? what are the consequences? an example. every day i press the staff at my headquarters to stay one step up ahead of groups such as