republicans have conceded the fight over regulating the internet. approving regulated the internet like a public utility prohibiting companies from creating fast and slow lanes. meanwhile, capitol hill -- senate republicans announced yesterday they will separate homeland security funding from the battle over president obama posses a can of action on immigration or it is unclear whether house republicans are on board with the two-vote solution. we want to take your temperature on the latest this morning.

republicans, 202-748-0008001. send us a tweet, or go to facebook.com/c-span. you can also send an e-mail. we will get your thoughts in a minute, but we want to show you what the majority leader mitch mcconnell, had to say yesterday when he went to the cameras after meeting with his conference behind closed doors and talked about this strategy. >> as all of you know, i put on the calendar last night what we called the collins bill, which would, if enacted prevent the president's executive actions from last november from going into effect. procedurally the vote on that will occur friday. it will be cloture on the motion to proceed with that bill.

in the meantime, i have indicated to the democratic leader that i would be happy to have his cooperation to advance a consideration of a clean dhhs bill, which would carry us through until september 30. host: lauren fox is joining us on the phone. where did this all come from? how did this come about. guest: mitch mcconnell has been

in a bind the last few weeks. reporters have been asking him, what is the next step? democrats have blocked the house bill. so on monday, they began by detaining -- i think that started to get the ball moving here. so i think what mitch mcconnell is doing is trying to get democrats what they need to get onto this bill and to ensure that we do not shut down dhhs by friday. -- dhs by friday. he wants to prove republicans can govern, especially with him at the helm. host: how did seven democrats -- how did senate democrats respond? guest: across capitol hill, john boehner is in a separate situation, like we said a

million times before. he has to do with the right flank of his conference. this has been a group that has stood against them before. already there are groups saying they might vote against the rule, which had been a basic point in party loyalty, that that is something that republicans vote on together and then they get onto the bill. they want to make sure that john boehner cannot just pass a clean dhs bill because it feels like the president should not have -- they believe the president really overstepped his bounds here. host: have we heard anything from the speaker of the house since this plan was announced? guest: this morning house speaker john boehner will be meeting with his members behind closed doors, so that is a must -watch meeting as members will file out of that around 10:00. i am sure reporters will be there and ready to ask questions. host: so senate majority leader

mitch mcconnell needs 60 votes for this strategy. does he have -- democrats say they are waiting for some sort of indication from house republicansguest: we have to remember that i think democrats are willing to move on with this. they did to hear from house speaker john first. i think there might be some consent. you have to remember mitch mcconnell has to be doing --

are willing to let democrats move on to this bill. host: what did you hear from them yesterday echo guest:? guest: senator jeff sessions talked about the strategy they have been working on that democrats have not been accepting, and i think that is what jeff sessions is thinking right now, and of course we will check back in with him today. overnight he might have changed his mind. host: we will wait to see how it plays out today. this is the latest strategy on the book. if this does not work out, what in the end could happen before this friday deadline? guest: i think another option on the table is the continuing resolution -- of course, j johnson heads the -- the

resolution does not satisfy the needs of the department. it leaves them hanging, not knowing, where the money is going to go. so i think that is open to a very last-minute bind, but everyone is sort of brooding for the administration for this fully funded department of homeland security through september. host: lauren fox, thank you for your time. let's get our viewers involved. from chantilly virginia, an independent caller. good morning to you. caller: thank you for taking my call. it is very confusing, to be honest with you. i have a question this morning. i am an immigrant in this great country, originally from somalia. looking into how we are dealing

with congress today -- the congressional members in the u.s. -- when the president took this action on immigration, it is a broken system, and the republicans do not have any other options on the table but how we are doing in this country if they are put in harms way in shutting down the government. so we have to think very dramatically to change our dealings with congress. my final thought is that yes

these people who came into this country, they are hard-working, whatever country they are coming from. so let's fix that and give them something and fingerprint them, and whenever someone commits a crime we have to send them back home. but these people are here and they have children here, and it is a very competition system. let's stop calling them aliens. we are a nation of immigrants. river came to hundred years ago or whoever arrives today, we love this country. host: let's hear from rick, a republican in indiana. what do you made of of -- what do you make of this latest move from your leader, mitch mcconnell? caller: i think it is a bad idea. he is taking away any incentive for them to repeal -- i guess

you cannot repeal an executive order, but it takes away any incentive to go ahead with the finding of homeland security. i think it is a bad idea and they need to stick to their guns, but apparently they are not going to. host: you think they are caving. he said this is a solution for both sides. caller: it really isn't. host: why do you think that? caller: the only teeth that they have with what they are working with is to say, we are going to notify homeland security if you do away with this executive order. if they fund homeland security obama gets whatever he wants. does that make sense? host: from alabama, a republican. what do you think? caller: i think mitch mcconnell is absolutely right. the democrats are acting like children. they are supposed to be leaving our children. they slipped this funding for 5

million illegals into the homeland security budget. if passing homeland security is so important and dangerous not to do so, then take the bill out , democrats, and work with mcconnell with the promise that after this is all said and done and the budget is passed and everything goes on, that this will be taken up at a separate time for these illegals that are here now. this has nothing to do with funding homeland security if they were that worried that it is not going to get funding, they would say, ok, it is a power grab. they would say ok, we are going to take this part out. that is the only part holding everything up, that funding for illegal immigration. the only way they can get it done is to slip it in. and you work for us in america. take it out, fun homeland security, stop the scare tactics about what is going to happen,

and take it up separately. host: the leader for the democrats in the senate -- minority leader harry reid yesterday saying he wants assurances from the speaker of the house, john boehner, that he can pass a clean dhs funding bill through the chamber before their caucus. the democrats will go ahead and allow a vote on this. what do you make of that? caller: by clean, you mean they will strip the immigration bill out of it? host: exactly. caller: that would be great. strip it out of it and get on with the business of america. host: house republicans should do the same as mcconnell? caller: this is what is holding it up. this is what they are talking about. they do not want to stick the citizens of america was something we really do not understand what it will bring to us by funding 5 million

illegals, what it will give them. host: you posed that immigration decision by president? caller: i oppose the executive action. they are not having enough debate on this. this will impact america for a long time. we let a million people come into america a year. host: what do you say to a previous caller who says tying the two together is the only leverage republicans have? once you separate them, even if senate democrats allow a vote to go through later in the week, the president can veto it. caller: if i heard you correctly, if we do not allow if they strip it from the bill

-- host: right, they will strip it from the bill. caller: you mean he wants a clean funding bill? host: right, he does not want them to include the language. caller: why don't the democrats take it out? host: let's listen to the senate democrats from yesterday. [video clip] >> we need a real resolution not a stopgap measure. the majority leader has a bill that does nothing to fund homeland security. we need a real resolution, not more showboat and windowdressing. we are more than happy to have an immigration debate on the senate floor. this is the bottom line, with

terrorists threatening to attack america, we must fund homeland security and fund it now. host: they will not agree to the to vote solution here and must we get assurances from the speaker of the house that he will allow a clean homeland security funding bill. there will be more to come on this. we want to get your thoughts on the leadership deciding to separate dhs funding from immigration. democrats seek a clean funding bill and president obama prepared to inject himself into the debate with a town hall style forum planned for wednesday, in miami, which

has a heavily latino population. john, new york. host:what are your thoughts? caller: i don't understand why republicans are going crazy over this. there is a bill in the senate that the house could take up and pass immigration. then they will not have a problem about that. they will not do it. host: bill, good morning. you are on the air. caller: you would think after all of these years, homeland

security be protecting the people. they cannot protect the people from bankers, from all of these foreclosures. they know that fracking is destroying the water. they go ahead with it. host: on the homeland security front, homeland security secretary jeh johnson and others will attend a news conference to warn of problems that occur if the agency is forced to begin furloughs. in an interview they were warned of more row problems in the agency and think a set -- a shutdown would adversely affect nations security. in a breakdown who could be

furloughed during the shutdown. they do so by agency. customs than border protection -- customs and border connection 12 percent. you can go through the list here and take a look, the percentage of those being furloughed. 94% of federal law enforcement training centers. 90% of the office of the secretary and executive management. 90% of science and technology. that would be if homeland security would be partially shutdown. chris, democratic caller. caller: i do not understand how

republicans every bill they will pass is not a clean bill. i would like to know how they are going to march out 11 million people out of this country. this is insane. when i listen to the lady from alabama, she has everything screwed up. this is the republican's fall. i am so proud of our president that he is holding up and going to show them what is the right thing to do for people. i came legally. i talked to my people in germany, my family and friends they say we are all insane over here. republicans with president obama, calling him names. host: what do you want democrats

to do? you heard from the leader yesterday, saying he wants assurances before they will agree to this. the democrats have been saying they want a clean homeland security funding bill. mitch mcconnell saying i am giving you what you want, so should they vote for it? caller: a clean bill is fine, but boehner has no control over his house. they will give us a bad name all over the world. they need to pass a clean bill. host: the plan is that the majority leader says they will vote first on homeland security funding. it will not contain the policy writers.

a separate bill, proposed by susan collins would gut the 2014 executive actions on immigration but not repeal the protections for young, undocumented immigrants. republican leadership hoped the plan would generate enough political support to avert a partial shutdown. a vocal opponent of what the president has done on immigration. he came to the senate floor after this strategy was announced. [video clip] >> they acted properly, funding homeland security.

so basic. how my colleagues have the gall to come to the floor and have a press conference and blame republicans for homeland security is beyond me. i do not blame -- i do not believe the american people are buying it. the president well blame us even if it is not our fault. we might as well cave in and give him what he wants. what he wants is something he cannot be given. what he wants is congress to capitulate and the road its powers and responsibilities. he wants congress to violate its duty to fund something illegal and contrary to congress'

wishes. host: jeff sessions, subcommittee chair on the judiciary committee that oversees immigration. wall street journal reports he voiced his concerns to leadership behind closed doors at their meeting yesterday. we will hear more about this plan. in the meantime, we are taking your temperature on this. look at how democrats responded on twitter. harry reid tweeting we stand united, pass a clean dhs funding bill so we do not shut down our security. senator boxer, how does that make sense to furlough 30,000 dhs workers in force 100,000 plus to work without pay. and finally, i am glad senator mcconnell finally realizes

funding for dhs is not a debate that should he had with other politically charged issues. representative gwen graham tweets facing threats from isi l to safety at our borders is unacceptable for congress. holding funding for dh hostage is not the answer. we will show you what republicans are saying. let's go to chicago. chaplin? caller: as i am watching this, i heard the lady speaking from germany. i have spoken to several people. i watch this. especially hispanics which i deal with and help. 300 of them do not like this

immigration bill. as far as with the president is doing and what senator reid is doing also. i have dealt with government funds in my past and used to control them. any bill that needs to be passed needs to have a stipulation about where it can go. immigration is part of dhs. i agree with someone else who said take the part about immigration out. no funding. have them itemized where the funding is going to go and re-strict it to where the funding cannot be moved. i would like to know how did the people at dhs provide a zoo and animals for the immigrants and

also by clothing for the kids and the moms that came. host: flint, michigan, go ahead. caller: without common sense, you have no sense at all. we need to secure the border. we have to construct infrastructure along the borders of texas, mexico california it does not make sense leaving this to the court. what do you want to do? go to war with these folks? host: if there is a partial shutdown of homeland security who do you blame? caller: the president's job is

to secure it. host: john, your thoughts? caller: most americans, mr. obama has done more to create an america of confusion, more so than i have ever seen in history. this great nation, we built on laws. what he has done his break more laws than the nation -- then nixon ever did. host: you are opposed on what he did to executive action? do you agree with this strategy

to separate homeland funding from immigration? that is the caller: that is the problem. the american people do not understand what is going on. host: here is ted cruz tweeting out this. why are they blocking dhs funding to protect it for him? he tweeted that out on monday. we will wait to see what he has to say about this plan. representative walter jones tweeting i urge the house gop leadership to hold firm against the unconstitutional amnesty. also, from the republicans steve king had several tweets. senators argue funding dhs but

vote a separate bill to defund executive amnesty. have you ever heard of obama veto? in other words if you separate the two, president obama will veto the blocking of his executive action. for the dim of wit it is obama who threatens to shut down dhs unless constitution funds his lawless violations of constitution. the senate should pass a dhs bill that blocks president obama's lawless amnesty. senators thune -- we are ready and willing to vote on democrat amendments. that is from republicans.

other news as we continue this conversation with you about the senate plans to separate the funding for homeland security. let me begin with the third veto from this this president of his tenure. president obama the killing the keystone pipeline, front page of the papers this morning. a congressional override is unlikely, but mitch mcconnell is saying a vote tuesday, next week, will take place to override the president' toe. -- the president' toe. -- the president's veto. they are urging the president to vote for, to pass, to approve the keystone xl pipeline. we told you about this at the beginning. "new york times" front page that the gop concedes the fight

to obama on internet rules or the fcc is going to likely vote thursday to regulate the internet like a public utility prohibiting companies from creating fast and slow lanes. there will likely be court battles over this as well. the opinion section of "the wall street journal," they say tom wheeler, the fcc boss, plans to use power over municipal broadband. also, the "miami herald," feds decide they won't be charging chelan martin's shooter -- trey von martin's shooter, george zimmerman. and "the american sniper pi killer gets life term." also "the guardian," prime minister deploys troops to ukraine.

chicago tribunechicago tribune this morning, the race is on. the chief of staff for the white house forced into an april runoff after a strong showing by his opponent. that will take place in about six weeks. that is some headlines for you. we are going to keep getting your thoughts here on the plan to separate home in funding from immigration. democratic caller. your. caller: good morning. this is about confusion. i do not know if it is select it.

it was approved by an appropriations committee. it only has to do with how the money is used that was are appropriated. i do not agree with the republicans. they are doing a wonderful job. that is the reason why these things keep going on. >> what are your thoughts on this? caller: i think the last caller has it wrong. it is obama that has caused all of division and confusion. any republicans that are against

this two-part solution are just saying the president will be till it. -- veto it.it falls in the president's laugh. a want to start playing this blame game it will be obama's fault that homeland security -- (202) 737-0001host: they are not think he would veto a homeland security funding bill pure that is separate. he would approve that. it is the separate vote to block the 2014 executive action. he within veto it. republicans would not get what they want. >> wow. i compliment myself on being able to understand this. i do understand it now.

i think they will understand what happen last november. they will go a long to override the president. it will involve him to go ahead and overwrite the president on the pipeline and make him a lame-duck president. quitehost: there are nine that say they oppose the action on immigration. they should be voting with republicans to flop it. whagood morning. caller: as a republican i ain't mitch mcconnell is cagey. harry reid still runs the

senate. he moves strictly from majority control to just a filibuster control. match mcconnell does not control the senate unless he implements the harry reid role of putting the filibuster on hold for funding of government agencies. there's not going to be any movement to curtail obama's illegal actions by what mitch mcconnell is doing. (202) 737-0001host: want to show some from washington for you yesterday. the ba secretary thought i think for a false claim he made while he was being filmed by a cbs

crew during a count of homeless veterans. one that said he had served and special often a tunnel replied "i was in special forces as well." [video clip] >> when i was in los angeles and engage in a homeless man to veterans that is i asked him where he had served in the military. he responded that he had served russian forces. in an attempt to connect with that veteran, to make them feel comfortable, i incorrectly dated that i too had been special forces. that was wrong. i have no excuse. i have great respect for those who have served our nation and special forces. they and all veterans deserve a department of veterans affairs that provide the care and benefit that they have earned.

we at va a working hard to restore trust. i apologize to those that may have been offended. [end video vlip] host: we covered the entire conference. a few things on capital hill for you. we'll have courage of the house judiciary committee about the executive action on immigration. bob goodlatte will be leading that. also on the debate on new authority for the president to i fight isis. they will be hearing from general alan about the strategy there. secretary of state john kerry backed up on capitol hill after testifying for hours before two committees.

he will be before the house foreign affairs committee to talk about yesterday, the state budget. what is happening in the ukraine. we will have coverage of that on c-span3 at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. here is the political section of the washington times. they have decided is set rate homeland lending -- funding from immigration. one will fund the homeland security department through september. the next vote would be an attempt to block the president on executive actin. they called the about-face a mistake. they are obliged to you every

constitutional check in balance. that includes the power of the purse. henry and pennsylvania. what do you think? caller: good morning. i have been a democrat all my life. rarely would i do with anything mitch mcconnell has said. i have to say that mitch mcconnell does deserve credit for coming up with this solution to his the two things in deal with them independently. i think that is what a lot of people would like to he a little more of that going on in congress. i also thing on the democratic side if you have 9 democratic senators who to secrete what they were about, i do not understand why they are not voting that way when it comes filibuster. if the senate passed the dh bill

the way it was, send it up to him to have him veto it. he can defend why he is detailing that. i wish more of congress would do what they had believed in. to the house if they cannot come together, they want to be over there holdi fundingng of the american people should give credit to the leadership. >> hi. how are you? it is getting more and more ridiculous. to my african-american colleagues, this immigration has

affected us here in caliber warn you. i do not agree with what -- in california. identive group with the president is doing. i am no longer a democrat. host: no longer a democrat because of this issue? caller: many issues. this is one of the reasons why. i see what immigration has done your and tell of when you appear the laws are not being -- here in california. the loss of not being in force. -- the laws are not being enforced. we have laws that are not being in verse. host: ahead of next week's oral argument before the supreme court act, here is a headline. --

host: that is ruling against the subsidies saying that they were designed for exchanges that work is published by the state and only those exchanges. we will be talking about that before the supreme court takes that up on wednesday, march 4. let's go to rita.

good morning. caller: good morning. i bleflew to california this last summer. i was absolutely amazed. i cannot walk in that airport because it was totally filled which chinese people. i've never seen so many. then i took a cruise and nobody on that ship with american. host: is that problematic? caller: because they are going to walk off their ship. if i was them i would not either. host: could they not have been a tourist route? caller: no no no no. i cannot move in that airport.

it was pitiful. my faui saw bp will shopping at those ship. the crew got off at every step. host: you have national security concerns about this. caller: it should be funded. this should be debated. i believe people coming to this country legally. please. host: we're going to continue the conversation with two members of congress with henry cuellar on dhs funding and later mark meadows, republican of north carolina, we will get his respective as well. first janet yellen is making headlines this morning.

she testified on a. here is a little bit of testimony. [video clip] >> they are committed to price stability consistent with our mandate from the congress. as my description indicated, our economy has made important congress toward the maximum employment. in light of the cumulative progress toward maximum employment and the substantial improvement for labor market conditions, the stated objective of the recent asset purchase program, the fmoc concluded it at the end of october. the committee judges that a high degree of accommodation remains

appropriate and labor market conditions. accordingly, the excellent he has maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 - 1/25% and keep holdings of longer-term securities at the current elevated level to help maintain accommodative financial conditions. the fomc is providing forward guidance that offers information about our outlook and expectations for the future cap or the enteral -- federal funds rate. the committee judges that it can't be patient and beginning to raise the federal funds rate. this reflects thef fact that

inflation runs below this. the fomc's assessment that it can't be patient and beginning to normalize policy means that the city believes it will warrant an increase in the target range for at least the next couple of meetings. >> if you miss this he can watch it online at c-span. work. henry cuellar is our guest here and welcome back. guest: thank you so much. host: the senate republican leadership has decided they will hold two separate votes. later in the week they will have a separate vote on the executive

action on immigration. it do you democrat should support a clean home and land security bill? host:guest: without a doubt. we have been doing lending for hundreds of years. one of our basic responsibilities as a congress is to pass a budget. if we have a disagreement with a policy issue, that is a separate thing. i can give you 10 different policy issues that i disagree with. i am not going to say let's stop the funding of the federal government. host: should senate democrats the waiting for the speaker of the house to say whether or not he will do this strategy as well? should they go ahead and fund the home and security department? guest: i know what senator reid is doing.

he is waiting to see what john boehner is going to do. i believe they have a meeting this morning to discuss it. i cannot speak for senator reed. i am glad that this are now two separate issues. if we have a policy issue, put it to a separate vote. what is going to happen on the house? the debate in the house is not between democrats and republicans. it is the debate within the republican congress. more tea party folks. the debate is internal incident external. host: looking at the house it here is the "washington post" t his morning --

guest: i prefer not to have a continued rest solution. it is like having a back date. if you are going to pull it out pull it out. all we're going to do is postpone and think about it. what is the difference? you either have the provisions or you don't have the provisions. it is going to buy more time. let's go ahead. if we have to vote for a cr i will do it temporary. i do not think that is a wise or prudent thing to do. (202) 737-0001 do you think that is what the likely scenario is -- host: is that what you think the likely scenario is? guest: if they decide to do that they are in charge. i do not think it is wise. instead of having a shutdown, we

will look at a cr. you either have the provisions or you do not have the provisions. host: that means it will be funded for six week. not knowing what is to come after six weeks here at what is the impact of that on a state like texas in a district like yours with a border right there? guest: i reminded my republican majority that they always talk about the border, the border, the border. i live on the border. i drink the water. i live in that area. talking to the men and women that secure our border, just this weekend, they do not like this. they want to have some sort of certainty. giving them a short term that does not allow them to plan or decide what is going to happen, imagine if you are living on a check by check bases like a lot of the women putting their lives on their line.

-- like a lot of the men and women putting their lives on the line. he protecting our country. cyber threat, terrorism smuggling of people or drugs. those are the missions we have to make sure that homeland has the proper venting to do this. -- funding to do this. it is not very smart. host: how do you view president obama's action on immigration? remind our viewers of what he did. guest: first of all, i prefer to have a bipartisan immigration form passed by congress or that is my preference. the president decided to take the executive order. he pretty much gave a deferment for a couple of years on those individuals and visit being dipped 40 -- deported. the discretion is you prosecute now. do you deport somebody? that has

been decided by court long ago. they have been using this whether they have been using someone for many years. this is what the republicans are overseeing on. it is interesting when ronald reagan orbush 1 to some of the deferment. nobody said any ink. now we are seeing that obama is doing the same thing as a republican president and is now being attacked as being something unconstitutional. that brings me to the work down in brownsville. with respect to the judge and folks who said it is a victory for the constitution, if you look at the court's decision, he

did not even get into the constitutionality. all he did was look at a technicality. does the 1946 procedure act -- they are trying to save the president is an agency. the judge said no. it is a bad precedent. imagine if there is a republican president in the teacher democrats can go to the court can say you do not give notice and it will not the president executive order for months or years. host: the white house says that they will move forward with trying to get in emergencies day on what the texas judges rule. what will happen then? guest: it take time. they will ask the judge to lift his own state. they will look to the fifth circuit and then it will he

decided by the supreme or i think it go all the way of to the supreme court. that leads me to the issue of why we are all here. the majority of the republicans have a majority in the house and senate. they have to realize that even in the majority do not give 100% of what you want to. the founding fathers set of our system to compromise, to get together and work this out. if we cannot work it out between the house and the senate it is a system that is set up on a consensus type of basis. some wanted their way 100%. host: let's go to karen and pennsylvania. innkeeper hanging on the line. go ahead -- thank you for hanging on the line. go ahead. caller: i want to talk about the

constitutional portion of these decisions. i would like to get the feeling on whether or not there should be a constitutional amendment to prevent congress from doubling of any legislation. pass every ring individually. host: by tying these two issues together you think it is constitutionally not correct? caller: not yet. get together. demand a constitutional amendment that they do everything one at a time. host: got your point. guest: i understand the restoration that the caller has. i have frustration must help. if we cannot even get the funding task, imagine our

constitutional amendment. it would be a lot more appeared i understand your frustration. the system is set up to compromise and to workout consists is your desk consists of this. the system has to be where there is a give and take. (202) 737-0001host: it a vote on a separate bill passes blocking the executive action on immigration they will be combined in conference. they are going to make sure there are two different issues. there are two different bills

that cannot be combined. if there are two separate bills one go straight to the president. the other one does not pass. i want to thank the senate leader on this one. i think he did the right thing and he is being attacked from the far right. his job is to govern. he do things that are different. you have to take the left and the right. host: bill, independent caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. isn't it kind of a false haring on the whole dhs funding? there are lawsuits by a number of states. there is an injunction the judge

that says it should be held. host: do you think this is just the republicans letting this layout work rather than in congress? representative cuellar: again the court, even though i disagree with the court, give the republicans in escape from the box that they had themselves in. i think they should take it. i think mitch mcconnell is looking at that. the question is, you know, if the court gave them an escape, then let's go ahead and do what we have done since 2001. there are threats out there in the world, isis, and people that only talk about the borders. we have cyber threats, terrorism, drugs, people coming in, threats to our country.

we going to threaten the security of our country by not funding homeland security? it is just be on me that we would do this at this time at this moment to get the policy issue, a policy fight, and stop the funding. greta: dallas, texas. a republican color. the morning to you. caller: good morning. my name is elizabeth and i live in dallas, texas. a hispanic community. on television, they show these kids off to college. for the majority, that is not true. we have large gang violence here . we have problems in the schools. and my school, w h adamson high school, in the afternoon, there are lawyers going for despot and the other kids. i was telling the school, why don't you -- think about jiabao

rates in the schools? but no, they don't care about that. they care about how many illegals are there. and another thing i like to ask is about jesus. i have a lady who just moved in across the street from my house. she came with all her furniture and she is going to stay in this country. and she is going to pass her visa. greta: she is going to stay longer than her visa. cognizant. representative cuellar: thank you for calling for -- from our great state of texas. i love texas. there are different issues. worst of all, i hope you're not implying a crime is being -- is only committed by the undocumented persons we have. i think that is a -- not a very fair way of painting the hispanic community. number one. number two, keep in mind also

because you are talking about different issues, we have to find a fair system when it comes immigration reform. if you look at the last immigration reform that we had that was in 1986 by a president named ronald reagan, a republican working with a democratic congress. the other large prosecutorial decision or executive orders just like president obama, or again by ronald reagan and george bush one. therefore, we have to look at it as a way to have a fair immigration system to make sure that we provide people, the good people who want to come in, and get people out. that would tell you that out of the 11 million or 12 million undocumented persons we have in the united states, 40% of them came through here through a legal, permanent visa. she is right about that part about visas because people who say that we are to put the fence on the border don't realize -- a

separate solution to a 21st century problem -- but don't realize that 40% of them come in for a legal, permanent visa. that is where we should put the emphasis on because that is a lot of people. greta: arenas next in pennsylvania. you are on the air. go ahead. maria, good morning to you. you are on the air, maria. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. my call is in regards to -- i agree -- yes, yes, i'm sorry. thank you for taking my call. i just want to make a point. the undocumented immigrants mostly hispanics, that it is

very, very difficult for them to become legal. it takes years and a lot of money to become legal. i heard a lady from germany, and for the europeans with blue eyes and blonde hair, it is very easy to become legal. but not for hispanics. we look very different from them. greta: ok, congressman? representative cuellar: she is right in the sense that our immigration system needs to be a little bit more efficient, more effective because people that want to follow the legal process and get into the united states like my father who was born in mexico. he became a legal resident, then a naturalized citizen. that process took a long time. and there are a lot of people who are innocent to -- who are in a similar situation that have

to wait a long time. if we could get people to the process faster, with people who wanted to come and work and the making go back, i would venture to say that you would probably have less people trying to come across without papers because at least there be a temporary guest worker plan that allows them the -- just like the united states did in world war ii, what our men were to go fight in europe. there were not enough people to work in the agriculture field. so therefore they called mexico. mexico and united states set up a program, a work permit. they would come in, work, and then go back. so it has the -- has been done before. we just have to get to work. i do have to say this. if you don't mind me saying this, just one more thing. if you look at the history of the united dates when it comes immigration reform, there have

been motions. their emotions against germans irish, chinese, now it is hispanic. but i do want to remind folks that the first european language that was spoken in the united states was not english. it was spanish. it was when florida was established 43 years before the pilgrims came over here. the first city that got established was also spanish. in texas, where a lot of people say hispanics move out, keep in mind that texas was part of mexico before. what happened was that there were people who were coming across the river, not the southern part of the rio grande but the red river and there were people coming in and taking over property. they eventually fought against mexico. so they took over that property, but the first folks that were there in texas were hispanics. besides the native americans, of course.

greta: stick is next in kansas city. good morning to you. caller: good morning. it is not a question, it is a statement. the problem could have been solved last year after harry reid and the democratic-controlled senate would have took up at least one appropriations bill. they didn't do their jobs. and that is the problem. if they don't want it, they should refund every penny that was paid because they didn't do their job. greta: ok, let's get a response from the congressman. representative cuellar: the simple. the republicans not control the house and the senate and the have in past. i'm a democrat, but i would tell you that the blame falls on both democrat and republicans when it comes to working together. i want to see people getting together. i want to see people working this out. sometimes the right and the left just don't allow us more

moderate conservative democrats and republicans to get together. but again, you can't blame the democrats because who is in charge now? it is the republicans. they have the majority. let's see the republican majority govern now. it is easy to be in the majority. it is a lot harder to govern. greta: dug in illinois on our line for republicans. you're on the air with the congressman. caller: yes, hi, thank you for taking my call. i think an immigration side, i think the congressman is just being disingenuous about the effects of what is going on here around immigration. i do think that it is not an emotional issue. it is more a matter of homeland security, it is a matter of coming you know, in the past not just letting waves of people into our country without being checked. back in the teens and 20's, we had the mass immigration through the highland -- through ellis

island. they needed to prove they were going to contribute to the society. so it is not an emotional issue. we legalized over a million people a year in this country. it is not xenophobic. it just visa be controlled. greta: congressman. representative cuellar: and i will not take that personally, but just let me say this. it is an emotional issue. with all due respect to the gentleman because i have been dealing with this for a long time. when you see the facts of the reality, or the reality of immigration reform, a motion takes over. for example, there are folks who say we are not going to do immigration reform because the border is so violent and so dangerous. let me say this that if you look of the fbi statistics on border crime rate, it is lower than the national crime rate. murder, rape, assault. when you look at cities, for

example, my home town of laredo, texas. whatever the case might be. take laredo, last year we had three murders per 100,000. washington dc is almost 16 murders per 100,000. and it is more dangerous here than back there. republicans have said, we can do immigration reform until we control the borders and the violence parts. you know, those facts, that emotion just covers the perception. the perception overrides the reality of things. so we want to get things done, but it is emotional with all due respect. greta: and could you answer the callers -- caller's mercer -- concern. representative cuellar: of course i want to have an orderly , no caps on the border. but it is not the way people painted. i have brought republican members down there. the trail and -- the chairman of

homeland security. i said, michael come you tell me what the perception is that people see. they have this perception. i want to see smart border security. but i do want to see a wall or a fence. you know, it is a 14th century solution to a 21st century problem. look at the wall -- berlin wall, the great wall of china. you have to find smart ways to provide border security. but if you are to have in east germany, that is a different thing. i think we have to find a balance between security and legitimate -- every day there is $1.3 billion of trade between the u.s. and mexico. every day. there are 6 million american jobs right now because of the business that we have with mexico. so again let's see a little bit

more smarter in how we look at this relationship. and ok the border as a, you know, say that it is a dangerous place. greta: on a lighter note, some viewers might be's -- be surprised that a republican invited a democrat into his home. representative cuellar: michael is my best friend. he stayed with me. we are the best of friends. and again, he understands it. that is why he is a very -- he understands we have to take a moderate way of approaching. you have to see the border to understand it. greta: we will go to miller next. a democratic caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am glad that he gave some public history. but i feel that the issues around the elephant in the room

is racism. if you go back in history, you will see that when this lady was talking in terms of the chinese and the airport, that wasn't the case. i am a vietnam veteran. i remember and am old enough to know that when the arabs came over, there wasn't any horrible outcry about racism. they use the term america. just like president obama says, america is a nation of immigrants. but you have found people, they get emotionally talking about it, which is wrong. but the use those code words you are referring to, the europeans. greta: so, this issue of race.

representative cuellar: well, i will be very diplomatic. i understand very well what you're saying and i have heard some of those code words from folks before. like i said, i have seen it where people just don't understand the history. i can mention it while ago they think the first language is english and we have to speak english. it was ask a spanish. if you look at a lot of the state, colorado, texas, florida, you can see the influence of the spanish for many years. the first language was spanish not english. so again, it is -- this is what i am saying. it gets emotional. and i will leave it at that. for whatever reason, it does get emotional when you talk about immigration reform. if people thought health care with -- was emotional. wait until we get on immigration

reform. without four years ago when i was talking about this. read about -- greta: back to capitol hill. senator carr on twitter says this. why shouldn't mcconnell used the nuclear option? with 53 votes like harry reid did a year ago. representative cuellar: again if we give that up remember, majorities switch. what time it is democrat, what time it is republican. i think there were not like it if it were 51 democrats and they voted on something over the republicans. the reason there is 60 votes is a tradition that has been followed, and i think the senate is to keep that. i do want to speak for the senate, but there is a reason why you don't have a simple majority oppressing the minority. those are the words of the founding fathers. again, the system was set up to compromise.

even if you're in the majority you're not going to get 100%. you have to sit down with the other side. when there were 55 democrats on the senate side, they needed five republicans. so they had to sit down with the republicans. that has a way of moderating the process. and that is what we want. we want the extreme left or the extreme right to control our political system. it is a system that is set up for checks and balances. greta: i want to get your reaction to what your governor had to say on "face the nation." here is what he talked about on what congress should be focusing on. the larger issue of blood security. [video clip] >> the reason this problem to begin with is because the federal government has not stepped up to fulfill this duty secure the border. we also saw what happened on the texas board of less summer, but we need to understand. that problem is not going way. already this calendar year, we

have had more than 20,000 people from across the border, apprehended unauthorized. have an ongoing problem on the border that congress must step up and solve. greta: congressman and what do you think? representative cuellar: again, greg is a friend of mine. i was in the state legislature and he was there in the state government. we agree on many things, but we disagree on some issues with immigration. i think the money, the resources that we put in and border security is a lot of money. when you look at border security, we spent $18 billion a year. now, how we secure the border. we need to make sure we stop people from coming in and you heard me less summer, i was pretty vocal on the unaccompanied kids. but i want to see a way of securing the border. they want to put national guard. and with all due respect, the national guard -- they don't

have the power to enforce immigration law. they don't. they are more on the support sentiment. they don't carry guns. if they see somebody, they can't stop them. the can get on the radio. that is all that can do. so if we are going to use resources on the border, let's do it together and do it in the most efficient way. greta: that 20,000 number that the governor get, is that above status quo? has that than the usual, the typical migration number? representative cuellar: it is so small. in fact, if you look at last year -- even though you had a lot of unaccompanied kids -- it has been the smallest amount of people we have had coming across in 20 years. so it has gone down drastically. but we need to do more. and i will talk with her governors to do more. but again, how we address this. let's do it in the correct way. again, i would say this. if we had an immigration system that had a worker permit.

i think the temporary workers permit. this is what would happen in my opinion. people who wanted to come work in the united states for jobs in america that americans don't want to do, they could do that job. then border patrol will focus on the bad people that are trafficking in jugs or smuggling people. them it can focus on that. that is the smart way of doing this. instead of saying, we are going to seal the border like some folks are saying we should do it with a wall, etc.. greta: where talking with congressman henry cuellar. judy, you are next. conley spring, north carolina. hi, judy. caller: hi. when you are comparing the immigrants that came over in the past, and in most cases, they were sponsored and they were coming here to make a better

life for their families, what happened in recent years -- just this past year especially -- is the children that are being sent up. and these children, the government is paying people to take care of these children. in many cases, they are being counted as homeless because they are being placed and not staying with family. and that is causing the taxpayer a great a lot of money. and stifling our internal resources. and write down there in texas, there is a former oil town that has immigrants. the families haven't moved in there. we are paying for all that as taxpayers. greta: ok, judy, i want the congressman to jump in and address your concerns. representative cuellar: right.

the unaccompanied minors, a lot of them are going to be placed in the families are actually being paid for them. unless they can be placed, there will be some expenditures. keep in mind that if you don't keep a balance sheet, let's look at the $400 billion that undocumented persons are paying into social security. but they're probably not going to collect back. so of people are looking at a balance sheet, you cannot just say there is some cost here, but there are also a lot of benefits being provided. if you look at the hispanic community, the his -- the community is a fast-growing population. in fact, if you look at places like texas, when you look at small businesses. one of the fastest-growing sectors of small businesses are hispanic communities. when you look at the billions of dollars that they provide for our economy, that is still

looking at the balance sheet and that is a lot. now, and we have to given my net border security cost money? it does. we spent $18 billion a year on border security. i am on the appropriations board. that is a lot of money. so people can't complain that it costs a lot of money to provide port security. it the you have border security or you don't. the administration has been reporting about 400,000 people a year. more than anybody. i agree with the administration. if they're bad people, they should be deported. if they are killers or murderers or rapists, whatever, we do want them there. so all of that does cost money. keep in mind that if we had a smart immigration reform system, we probably would be spending different money. greta: eric is watching us in south carolina. a republican. good morning to you. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. representative cuellar, i

appreciate your service. and i just had a couple of questions. i want to know, why is it that president clinton passed and put into augments the nasa trade agreement? i live in a little bitty town in south carolina. a nice to live in another little town in north kelowna where there was a lot of plans. furniture plants. down here there are all these cotton plants. after the nafta trade agreement went through when president clinton was in office, all those little factories got farmed out to china in different countries. and they haven't come back since. and they put thousands and thousands of americans out of jobs immediately. greta: star, eric, i thought you were finished there. representative cuellar: just like president bush asked me and other members, democrats, to support trade with cafta, the

central american countries with peru, colombia, south korea. so president, if they believe that trade is good -- and again, it is difficult. and we have to find fair trade. but 95% of all the consumers that we have outside the united dates. so again, it wasn't only president clinton, but president bush also push for trade. out also look at the transpacific partnership. i believe in trade. fair trade. and we have to find that balance. talking about nafta, i hope you're not just looking at mexico because nafta includes canada also. our two trading partners are canada and mexico. every day there is $1.3 billion going between the u.s. and mexico. there are 6 million american jobs that are being created here in the u.s. because of trade with just mexico.

so again, it is one of those things that we have to look at the overall picture. greta: fort worth, texas. jane. a democratic caller. caller: good morning and thank you, representative cuellar, for your service. i would like to correct the record on immigration in america. west of the mississippi, pretty much every locale you can put your foot down, is named in the spanish language. i would like to hear about ellis island and how legal western europeans are, but you have to remember, they made their way across this continent. if they saw land, they very much brought out the guns and drove them off and sat on it. so don't give me this western europeans came in here legally. mice -- my ancestors are irish and scottish on one side, and slaves on the other side. i would like to say to the

person from sub commander complaining about the cost that the defense department contractors have fraudulent billing. they're taking care of these poor children who are fleeing murderers places in south america. thank you again for taking my call. representative cuellar: i'm not going to argue with a history teacher. i thank you for your service as an educator. but let me add one more thing. there is a story, and i ask is saw the letter. there is a letter from the border person, an officer. he was excellent military and he was complaining about families and across the river. and had taken over the land and were not following the rules. and he is asking the central government to go ahead and send them back. that letter was written around 1835. it was in spanish. it was by a mexican general.

that was complaining about five american families that had come into texas, or at that time, it was a part of mexico. and they were taking over the land, not following -- they were say, hey, this is what is happening. eventually from there, we know it happened. they rebelled against mexico, they took over texas and other parts of the south. so history, as a history student not as good as you are, but i have to say this. if you look at history, it is so important to understand that a lot of things that we say now are contrary to what was done in the past. and he made a lot of good points. i suddenly want to remind people that there is -- the $ came from the spaniards. there are some things that came from the spaniards. again, we have to respect history. we have to respect all people, and not just one sector. greta: let's get in one last phone call for you. in independent color. good morning.

caller: good morning. thank you. my question is, hypocrisy between the president vetoing the keystone pipeline based upon the legal process that wasn't met, and now we have immigration laws that are legally set -- whether they are good or bad is something to be discussed. my grandparents had to come into that process. there were not allowed into the country and to limit all the standards. so on the one hand, the president veto something based on a legal process not being met. and on the other hand, he overrides immigration law, which is a law. how do you equate those two? representative cuellar: first of all, i support the keystone pipeline. i think the president should not have vetoed that. but again, that is a different issue. on immigration, i do have to say the supreme court has already ruled on the prosecutorial.

presidents have done this for many years. if you look at the major immigration laws we have had in the past few years, they have been done by republican presidents. whether ronald reagan will be able to survive this new environments now, like he did it would be interesting. but again, i do agree at least on a policy issue i keystone. the pipe -- president should have signed it. greta: one last question for you. it is about giving the president new authority to fight isis. as drafted, would you support what the president wants? representative cuellar: i think we had -- we need to have a new authority. we need to give our men and women, our military leaders, the authority to do that. i think we need to make a couple of changes, but again, we cannot take all options away come off the table. one last things as we close, the next guest, mark meadows, he is a good friend of mine.

we disagree on this. i figure going to see that. but i do have to say one thing about folks like mark meadows and myself, we believe stability is very important and we do respect each other. he is somebody that i can work with. greta: thank you for the segway. tigress been cuellar, thank you for your time. representative cuellar: thank you very much. greta: and as the congressman said, we will hear from mark meadows. that is coming up next. later, john hudson will be here as part of our spotlight on magazines series. we'll talk about his recent piece on unrest in yemen. we will be right back.

>> here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span two" "booktv," allen ryskind talks about hollywood in the 1930's. and saturday at new, our live three-hour conversation with harvard law professor and author. and on "american history tv," saturday at 6 p.m. eastern, a discussion about the burning of columbia, south carolina. following the surrender of the city. and sunday afternoon at 2:00, an interview with former consultant to the nixon white house, daniel ellsberg. on the pentagon papers.

a classified study on vietnam, which he copied engaged to the "new york times" in 1971. let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us, e-mail us, or send us a tweet. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. this sunday on "q&a," the challenges of policing the city. >> it was clear to me that i still had an issue with public trust and people believing things that i think were said. regardless of the fact that ice -- i stand in front, that discussion complaints are down 53%. that officer involved shootings are dramatically down. people in community say, you

don't believe it. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues." . greta: we want to welcome congressman mark meadows. thank you for being here. representative meadows: it is great to be here. thanks, greta. greta: let's start with immigration. the leadership wants after separate votes. a clean vote for homeland to credit funding, early this week. followed up later in the week by a vote to block the president's executive action on immigration. do you like the strategy? representative meadows: obviously, it is not what the house passed and sent over to the senate. so really can't support that. i think all of us know that by separating the two, the chances of anything really happening

with the president's executive order really what happened. it would end up being a clean dhs funding bill. and so, for me, i think that as we look at coming up, cogs mccrea are was so gracious to give me -- congressman cuellar was so gracious to give me an introduction, we do see this a little bit differently. for me, it was all about in both that i took to uphold the constitution. and it is my belief that a number of the actions of the president was on's constitutional. although he has some discretion, obviously, with the executive order. but taking it this far is problematic, not only for me but most of the people that i represent. and there comes a point in time we have to respect the rule of law and you have to take a stand. greta: did you hear from your leadership yesterday at all about this plan from the senate republicans? representative meadows: there

are a lot of things going back-and-forth, so i think everybody was scrambling to say well, what exactly does that mean? and trying to understand a little bit better. this bigger has been very consistent, though, for a number of weeks actually, saying that the house is -- has acted. we have passed a bill that would fully fund dhs. and all it does it says, this particular action that the president took his unlawful. we believe that no funds should be used for the implementation of that particular action. and so it seems like a pretty simple issue on the face; however, there is the political side of this that comes into play. and it does get emotional. greta: the republican party will be meeting in the house behind closed doors are coming up this morning. representative meadows: in a few minutes, actually. greta: what you think that meeting will be like? representative meadows: i think

it will be a sincere honest dialogue back and forth. i think a lot of people believe from a national security standpoint, that we need to fund dhs i make sure that our homelands are safe. at the same time, there are in number of us who know that we took a solemn oath to uphold the constitution. it is not just about the constitution it is about fairness, really, when you look at it. i have a very large hispanic population in western north carolina. we are a huge agricultural community. so i am probably a little bit more moderate than some of the others, in terms of trying to find a solution to allow a number of the undocumented workers to come out from the shadows because they are a part of the community there. it at the same time, i hear from a number of them who say this is not the way about it. you know, a lot of them waiting in line to truly be citizens. now, all of a sudden, there is

this new path that comes around. so it is really about fairness business greta: so you're saying then that you want this bigger of the house, the republican leadership in the house to hold strong and not do with the senate has decided to do. representative meadows: i think you will have unbelievable support. i know there is a lot of -- greta: are you concerned that you will be blamed for shutting down funding to the department of homeland security at a time of heightened national security? representative meadows: certainly, the blame, part of that is for the american people to decide who is going to get blamed. but if the word about blame when we are talking about what is right, then we are making the wrong decision. you know, if i'm going in, i say well, i'm doing what is right and i'm going to get blamed for this. let's talk about national security a little bit because as we know, there's, again, gets to be about fairness. should we allow 5 million people to come here and get a free pass

and make our national security workers work without a paycheck? it is not that they won't show up. because they will show up. it is 6% of the people will continue to work in the department of homeland security. so then the president has a question. should i make these people continue to work without a paycheck so i came give 5 million people and pass? that is a hard argument to win. he may when that come and certainly that is what we have to deal with. greta: look at what your colleagues, representative peter king, had to say. republican from new york. very much experienced. has been an advocate for making sure the homeland is funded. he tweets out, if i have to vote against republican leadership on cutting dhs funding, i will. i'm not going to see another 9/11. he is concerned that by doing this, holding it up, that there could be another 9/11. representative meadows: certainly we do not want another 9/11.

and peter knows this. the workers and the department of homeland security will continue to work. it was shut down in 2013. they all continued to show up to work at that particular time. but if that is everyone's real concern that the senate democrats, then why do they make an amendment to the bill that comes over that just funds the part that actually deals with homeland security from a terrorist standpoint. if everybody is so concerned about that. greta: and real quick jeff -- excuse me, pete sessions, he was quoted in the "washington post" saying that what he would like to see is a temporary extension of homeland security funding for six weeks to then have the house and senate come together. would you vote for a short-term funding? representative meadows: you know, i would not. the american people are tired of us having crisis upon crisis

upon crisis. so i respect my good friend, pete. but what is going to change in six weeks ago when this is funded in december, they said, well, there is going to be really a good argument to february. now we are going to extended another six weeks to have another argument? i think we need to adjust it, take a stance, and let the blame be where it may. greta: let's get to add in winston, north, the. go ahead add -- ed. caller: good morning. i just wanted to respond to a couple of things he said twice. he said that he can't get a hundred percent of what you want. but republicans want to fund homeland security, and they want to stop the immigration overreach by the president. and the democrats want the other way. they went home led to 30 funded and -- well, on this particular issue, one side or the other has to get 100% of the issue of what they want.

i have a couple of other issues. i'll get often listen to the program. one, work permit programs. if you get a work permit, they were just come and stay like they do with the visas. that is just common sense. i have called twice about this. this is from the representative, not me. he made the statement that they are paying into the social security. i call the social security administration and personally asked them, can in the illegal immigrant get a social cuts -- social security number without proper recommendation? the answer i was told is no, the cat. if they are indeed paying into social security, they are doing it fraudulently with somebody else's number. that is a felony. that is fraud.

if you mail tax return and, now you have committed fraud through the mail. i think that is a federal crime. also a federal -- felony. greta: ok, congressman? representative meadows: he brings up a few good points. i think the probably troubling points for a number of us is the irs commissioner a capitol hill just a few days ago said that a lot of these folks, when they get the social security cards, if they can prove that they have paid taxes or better put, the can go back and get a credit for previous years. so all of a sudden, we start looking again at the dynamics of being fair. a lot of hard-working american taxpayers have a real issue with that. now certainly, is there this underground market of people who are paying into social security under someone else's social security card? i think all of us would say yes to that. but really, it gets back to the

respect for the rule of law and what is fair to the american people. read of them -- greta: lena is a democrat, you are on the air. caller: yeah, i'm having some problems. i'm a bit confused because my understanding was that the dhs funding is a separate bill from the immigration bill. and i thought that the republican party wanted to combine the two, or either, you know, not fund dhs. there seems to be some confusion. and also, another, tell it like to make before i get off the line is that i wish that when you guys have the shows on, i think it is fair that republicans and democrats get a chance to give their side.

i have no issues with that. it doesn't to me that sometimes when you guys come on with, like, the heritage foundation that you do far too often you don't have any retorts to them. i think that is like fox news. greta: you have to watch the program in its whole. because maybe we don't have the other side on the show that day, but we might do it a few days later. so you have to watch the show as a whole, not just that they were that segment. congressman, if you want to respond. representative meadows: think you for your call. i will say that just like with henry cuellar, giving one set of the story, part of the reason why c-span has reached out to us is really to make sure that they can have both sides of the story told from two different perspectives.

and i think that is healthy. it is what debate is all about. getting specifically to your question about the dhs funding what was put on in the house was a limitation. we are going to fund the entire department of homeland security. all the agencies within it. it went through the appropriations process. the appropriations committee worked very hard. and then a limitation was put on that 10 that none of these funds can be used to actually -- that said that none of the -- these funds can be used to actually fund the president's executive order. a number of us were working in a bipartisan way trying to move forward with that. i think this bigger told the president that if you took this action that it would poison the well and make it very difficult to get real immigration reform. and there are a number of us that really want to find some common ground on this particular issue. henry cuellar, myself the two of them.

we come from very diverse constituents. and so, thank you for your call, but i would push back a little bit in terms of just them having both points of view on this particular program. greta: j johnson has warned about a possible for low and a shutdown, saying it could impact were out. today, you're going to hear from former home led to critique directed -- from former homeland security director under george bush. you wouldn't do this to the military troops in the field. send them in to combat, but not get paid. they need to take them seriously. representative meadows: you know, greta, it is a great point because honestly that is the kind of thing that keeps me up at night. when you are really talking about it, you're talking about people's lives.

it is moms and dads. i agree. so we are looking at that. but really, that is not a choice that we have made. we have put a vehicle out there. the president is making that choice. it is real easy to spend a narrative that ok, it is the republicans that are putting up this particular block. but ultimately it is the president who is saying he wants to give a specialty at two 5 million get a special deal -- give a special deal to 5 million persons. those are the ones that get caught up in that. and i'm troubled by that. so we are hopeful that we will start to see some more rational you know, the federal judge made a ruling that said that this was not constitutional in his opinion. being appealed by the white house.

but again, if we are going to break the law, you know, what laws do we enforce? what laws do we not? that becomes very dangerous. greta: just to clarify, the texas judge did not answer the constitutional -- constitutionality question. representative meadows: i think that is what most of us have. there's a part that the executive order is certainly within, in terms of deferred deportation or at least prioritizing that, i think all of us believe that there is some precedent for that. going further issuing social security cards and work permit and all that, there is not a basis of law for the executive order to be supported. greta:. in st. joseph's, missouri. an independent caller. you're on the air. caller: yes, i have enamored --

i have an issue with the immigration system. i think it would be better to spend the money now to round them up and deport them and let them deport the system for 20 years will congress debates the issue. why not put this issue before the american people? if the american people vote and say deport them, spend the money, round them up, and get them out of this country. if i break the law, i go to jail. that is the bottom line. thank you to get my call. representative meadows: thank you for your point. i think that what happens is because we have ignored the law for such a long times time, it becomes very difficult to try and round up, you know, 11, 12, 20 million people to deport them. i think for the vast majority of the american people, and there are some who agree with your position and say we need to round them up and deport them, but the vast majority -- and i think if you put it to a vote -- the vast majority say we need to

do with this compassionately and make sure we deal with the issue. and let not have it recur. the real problem with the board right now, and as my good friend from texas, congressman cuellar would indicate that we had to do some stuff. maybe not with offense, but they come across the border. and what we're finding is -- as they may be stopped. they don't necessarily have to go back. sometimes they get a little certificate that says you need to show up for a judge. and they come on in to the united states. so that part, any port security needs to be coupled with a way that we can send them back at the border. but rounding them all up and deporting them probably the best maturity of the american people would not agree with your stance there. and it really looks at the issue. how do we deal with this is a nation of immigrants? and how do we do that compassionately? well, you look back with ellis

island. a number of law said, this is our immigration policy. it has just been very dysfunctional. we have had a legal process. the illegal process has been found to be more advantageous to many people. so they go that route. greta: boulder, colorado. a democratic caller. caller: yes, i'm just interested why we hear hardly anything about enforcing laws on our corporations. and why in arizona, through the first year of these recess, they only have 76% compliance and no penalties were assessed or enforced. even if they were, i doubt it would serve as any deterrent to most of the corporations companies, and small businesses that hire undocumented workers to begin with. i tell you, i would think it is easiest for us to enforce laws

on our own people, more than two punish people who are guilty. most of them have nothing more than wanting to work harder to improve the lives of them and their families. representative meadows: when you look at the whole immigration debate, it can get very emotional. i know some of the callers have said that it can't, but it can get very emotional. for me, you know, when i heard about some of the foreign workers displacing 400 people in southern california and that was on the legal process, a legal visa that they did that, and yet they were having to trade these new workers coming in that were replacing them. i had a hard time with the fairness of that. and i think, again, and i said this earlier, but it gets back to the fairness of it. it is that we are a nation of laws. we have to make sure that we support those laws. but yet the other part of that

is that when we allow people to come here illegally, there is a consequence to that. i know there are a number of, you know, you talk to college students were having a difficult time finding work coming out of college. they have invested a number of years, and yet for many of them, they are going to be competing with 5 million new people. if that really fair to them? again, we have to be a nation of laws, but we also have information that treats people fairly. lady justice is blind. she was a blindfold. and the reason she does that is so that it is not with regards to race, creed, religion, or anything else. but when we start allowing that blindfold to be pulled off of when i -- one eye to say that this is fair in the situation or not, and we and or -- and ignore the rule of law, that is troubling.

caller: good morning. i have a few comments. first, i don't like when politicians tell me how they are friends with the other side. it just makes me want to puke in the morning. so don't do that anymore. second, i'm sick of mitch mcconnell and his comments. now he won. after he got elected and he said we are going to show the american people we can -- he is showing his hand right off the bat. i mean, he did to save stuff that inspires americans. i mean, what he said hasn't inspired the young generation. it is just boring. greta: ok. representative meadows: i think from my perspective, you know, we do have friends. i apologize if having a democrat friend is offensive to you. actually, my dad was a democrat. so it becomes real problematic if we allow that these -- the

d's and the r's to get in between one another. i think what you'll find is that i'm willing to articulate that in debates that in a very civil manner. but it is also that relationship. you know, if there's going to be a give-and-take, the has to be that foundation of trust. and it is very hard in this town to just anybody. i think that goes back to point that if leader mcconnell says something, with the american people want more than anything else is honesty. and someone who will stand by their word. i think that for us in the house, that is the reason why this has become that particular day. we need to stand by our word. the voters in november made a decision and with that, we need to be treated with that.

hopefully there is a little bit of a foundation there. greta: the independent line, david. virginia. caller: hey, good morning. i have two questions. as an independent, i like to look at things from both sides. now, with the immigration, most of the was that he was saying that he wasn't going to support are having american children. we can't to the children because they are americans. if we do put the parents, what happens to the children? to the end up in the system and eventually into the criminal justice system? and my second question is with the keystone pipeline. what happens to the people, the american people, who own lands that the pipeline would be running through the don't want the pipeline running through their land? do we give up their land to a foreign company? i will take the question off there. representative meadows: let me

start with the keystone pipeline. anytime that you have a pipeline whether the keystone pipeline or other pipelines are going through it is not that you just go in and take the people's land. they concocted for it. your point is really more about jobs. let's look at this realistically. the president since 2008, is saying, we are waiting for a study. we are waiting for a study. and it needs to be safe. it needs to make sure the environmental impact is not that great. that study came in, and it was clear that it was not going to have the impact that some had feared. and yet, we got a veto yesterday which would indicate that that particular line of reasoning was really not the reason from the start. so, it is about jobs. that pipeline is going to create jobs for tens of thousands of people. not only during the construction, but longer term. in terms of just losing your

property because it is becoming -- because it is coming through normally they are compensated and compensated very well. exit, my son worked in oil and gas in texas last summer, and i can tell you that the compensation that goes along with that, normally a lot of the families receive money that they never thought was possible in terms of really thousands and thousands of dollars. but let me go back. i guess your other point was really as it relates more to the president and where he is going with this particular issue. and what i would say is that we don't want to separate families. however, anytime that you have an issue where you ignore the rule of law, it has consequences. and so, those consequences -- one of the real troubling things that representative cuellar and

i were talking about last summer because you had all these children coming across and it made headlines across the country, and yet there's a real dangerous path for them to get there. they were exploited. they were already separated many of them, from their parents. otm, "other than mexicans." they make the long trip through. a lot of those dangers those decisions were made long ago when they send their kids here to the united states. greta: let me read this e-mail from carly from minneapolis. it looks like the gop would rather poke the president in the eye. representative meadows: my

brother was in minneapolis. i have never been to the mall of america. this came home parsley to me -- this came home personally to me. the terrorist threat on american soil. not only the department of homeland security today but the department of homeland security next week will be taking it serious. you have the fbi and a number of other agencies that are working great together. that issue is not as much as. the protection of american people as it is the political aspect. i do not want to poke the president in the eye. i believe the president has gone way too far. 22 times he has mentioned he did

not have the authority to do this and now he does it. he is going back on what he said previously. greta: front page story in "the watched in times" this -- 'the washington times" this morning. tens of thousands of refugees have been moved to minnesota where they can take advantage of welfare and charity programs. democratic caller, gary, you are on the air. go ahead. caller: as soon as the representative is speaking with a forked tongue. he talks about the rule of law. he makes no sense. the idea of immigration reform.

we're going to deport all these people. funded to deport 420,000 a year. that would take a quarter century. i do not see how the argument they are making, the republicans are making, makes any sense. we are not at war with mexico. representative meadows: i've been down to mexico and met with the president. from a trade partner standpoint, that is something the majority of us value as it relates to deportation, maybe i was not clear. i do not see that as a viable option, the deportation of millions of the people that are here right now. i do not see that.

perhaps you are referring to write their on the border. they need to be sent back. to give you an analogy, there is no consequences to the action, it just exacerbates it. if you are speeding along the highway and know you are not going to get a ticket, you let that speedometer creep up more and more. only where there is a deterrent does it slow you down. if our borders are porous, we will be dealing with this issue in a number of other ways. the court made a ruling. i believe it will be appealed to the appellate level and probably to the supreme court. those issues of constitutionality would be

addressed at that particular point. the way i read the action, i am probably middle of the road. i think some of the executive action was within the powers the president has. when you start to have executive action that creates law and is not based on other laws and the ability for the president to implement that law it is troubling and that's where i have the issue with it. congress is charged with passing that legislation and allowing the president to sign. greta: after this week congress will have to take up another debate granting new authority to fight isis. could you support that?

it is extremely troubling to have the authorization to use military force. he says he has that ability right now. he is asking congress to pass a new one that limits our auction -- our options. you say this is our clear military objective and the president recommendation does not do that. i believe we have operation powder puff as we try to fight these terrorists in syria and iraq. we need to do more. greta: the committee will be

hearing from one of those generals. he will be testifying and that starts at 1:00 p.m. eastern time and we will have coverage of that. go to www.c-span.org for more. the house judiciary committee take a look today. we will have coverage of that on our website to find more. michelle an independent caller. caller: hi. how are you? greta: doing well. caller: my question is, why does congress and the senate not pay any attention to their constituents who voted them in office? 99% of the people i talked to believe in immigration reform. i think it should be simple or.

i do not think it should be such a lengthy process. illegal is illegal. you are talking about illegal immigrants breaking the law. coming into the country illegally is breaking the law. it does put a huge strain on the state possible economy. when they come here illegally they are not working. they are getting social services, food stamps, housing. it does put a strain on us. greta: we learned last week that if you are here illegally, you do not get access to the federal benefits. representative meadows: and that is true in terms of federal benefits. the caller does make a point in

terms of strains on other areas that perhaps would be there. in north carolina, schools provide education for many of those. they do not ask if they are undocumented or not. it is illegal for them to do that in my state. there are some -- hospitals. there has been studies in terms of some of the uninsured motorists that typically accidents and so forth with that. probably the caller, you are talking about listening to your constituents. i think that is key for all of us. we take every single phone call, e-mail, put them down in a matrix.

we send out surveys. some of the most difficult notes are those when i might not agree with the policy. people said, this is what we want you to do. if i don't agree, i will try to change their point of view. as we look at that, i think it is important. your point about listening to the constituent is very different. where you say the vast majority of americans feel the way you do, there are many representatives with a different constituency that do not feel that way. it may be solid in my home state on this issue perhaps in california in may not be the same. that's where you get this conflict from time to time. greta: birmingham, alabama

gina. caller: thank you so much. ok is the issue. it starts at the border. our border patrol is 45 miles off the actual border. our nation is a nation of sovereignty. democrats and republicans have let our nation be taken over. we have to push one englishfor -- we have to push one for english, for god' sake. you don't let them in in the first place. representative meadows: thank you for calling in. i can tell you that the chairman, who has worked on a border security bill, is addressing the issue you talk

about. part of his bill allowed some of that enforcement to be moved closer to the united states -mexico border. we can move it back. there are some environmental concerns. if we're going to protect the border, it needs to be at the border and not 50 miles inland. the other component is being able to empower those border security agents to not just stop them and let them come in but to send them back. making sure our southern border is not porous. greta: eddie is our last caller for you.

caller: what happened to the cubans went ronald reagan was president. a lot of people were sent to the united states. somewhere put in camps. they can never be sent back to cuba. second question. the people that used to pick apples and oranges on contract. are they still using people because canada is doing it? this is the situation that is still going on. greta: ok. representative meadows: thank you for calling in. with regard to reagan and the cuban policy, i think he has been consistent over the years. some of those that come to florida have integrated within the community, large cuban-american population throughout florida.

and that will stay that argument for another day. when we look at the way whether it was apples or oranges, the way a lot of people from mexico would come in and work for a season and go back. that has gotten to be more of a come here and work and stay mentality. an ag program is something we are committed to. greta: to supreme court will take up the latest lawsuit of the affordable care suit. republicans say it is not the case. if the court rules in your favor, around 8 million people

will lose the subsidy. do republicans have a contingency plan ready to go if that happens? representative meadows: we are working on that right now. there are a couple of waivers that would give the states a lot more flexibility in terms of that subsidy. if it is unconstitutional, it is not likely to have a six month window to fix it. the supreme court will not let us continue in an unconstitutional manner. paul ryan has been working on this. a number of others, all working closely to have a plan a, a plan b, a plan c. i do believe he was clear in terms of the way that he put that fourth. i am hopeful the supreme court

will see this as an unconstitutional issue. there are a number of other problems with respect to the affordable care act. i think one in four getting the wrong subsidies. greta: you are saying republicans will move quickly? guest: we have to have a plan. one of our concerns is that the administration seems to not be working on a plan. the republicans in athe house are doing that. greta: there is no remedy for ruin against the health care law. there is nothing the president can do by executive action. representative meadows: the secretary of hhs will be testifying on the hill. i am sure you will be covering

some of those hearings. if they don't have a remedy, shame on us. we must figure out a way to make sure people with pre-existing conditions get the coverage and the health care that they need. the way we've gone about this system -- my open enrollment date is different than most other americans. i have read the law. you would think you would have the same open enrollment as everybody else. we didn't. reenroll people and plans other than those they have with that people's knowledge. you have people who may show up, not have a doctor they were covered with last year, not have the same coverage. we are talking about the potential for hundreds of thousands of people to show up and say, i thought i had that coverage but they were

reenrolled in something else without their permission. i find that very troubling. greta: congressman mark meadows thank you for your time. next up we will be speaking with john hudson "foreign policy of." his latest piece on the unrest in yemen. we will be right back. ♪ >> the c-span cities tour takes american history tv on the road, traveling to cities to learn about literary life. we visit houston texas, next week. >> with the opening of the suez canal, sailing ships were almost

dealt a deathblow. with the opening of the canal coal-fired ships had a shorter route to the far east and to those markets. the sailing ships needed to find a way to make their own living. instead of high-value cargo they started carrying coal, oil cotton etc. she found her nitchche in carrying cargo. her connection to galveston is unique. she sailed and arrived here in galveston about 100 from where we are standing right now with a cargo full of bananas. she came a second time later in the 1880's. it was important for the

historical foundation to find a vessel with a connection. she was a sailing vessel. >> watch all of our events on saturday, march 7, on new and eastern. american history tv on c-span3. "washington journal" continues. greta: we take a look at recent magazine articles as part of our spotlight on magazine series. today we're talking -- looking at "foreign policy." is yemen the new benghazi? john hudson, what are you saying here? what you mean? guest: the u.s. evacuated its embassy from yemen and there has been a couple of different narratives that emerged. either this was a hasty retreat

involving the exposing of sensitive information are the hallmark of professionalism and a calm and orderly with draw. greta: why those narratives? what happened with the evacuation of the embassy? guest: of course there was the rebellion overthrowing the government in yemen. the u.s. with true its embassy -- withdrew its embassy. fox news reported it was a hasty retreat. state department officials told me that report was grossly exaggerated. the open net link was cut off after the evacuation occurred.

there are current security guards outside of the embassy. also hired guards by the state department inside the embassy. everything is secure and it was a calm and orderly withdrawal. they are trying to combat the idea this is another benghazi experience. greta: what is the open net link? guest: a pretty normal portal to check facebook, e-mail. it doesn't include classified information. if you read the fox news report, it might sound like it was sensitive. you could get the feel of how an embassy operates. the state department pushed back.

it was exposed but not in the first place. greta: talk about what is going on in yemen that this is being compared to benghazi. the importance of yemen to this country. guest: yeah. we have always had a strong counter terrorism relation with the former government. yemen is home to al qaeda and the arabian peninsula, the most dangerous al qaeda affiliate. that has been an important relationship. the government was overthrown throws into question how our counter terrorism efforts will be conducted. republican critics of the administration point out obama pointed to yemen as an example

of our positive counterterrorism efforts. the government failed to the rebels. they see this as an opportunity to criticize the administration cost policies. greta: "yemen's ex-leader seeks to retake power." and now seeking to retake the government in the southern part of yemen. what does that do to this dynamic/ guest: using the resources of saudi arabia, to reclaim power could open up a full-blown civil war in yemen. that is a scary thing. the united nations is trying to create some kind of peace deal between the hutus and the sunni

majority, the coalition. it is unclear if they will find some kind of 50-50 power-sharing agreement. greta: some say this is a proxy war between saudi arabia and iran. guest: saudi arabia is a strong backer of the previous government. the rebels are aligned to some degree with iran. no one has been able to establish to what extent iran is supportive of the hutus. this will come up today. it came up yesterday on the hill. to what extent could the hutus have taken power without direct support of iran. to some extent kerry downplayed iran's support.

republicans were asking would hutus be able to be around for 15 minutes without iran? they have been helpful. greta: others say this is a tribal conflict that dates back to the 1980's. that the movement, the tribe does not see eye to teye with iran. guest: an it is very complex. that is what secretary kerry was trying to do. it is a little bit simpleminded. some allegations have been raised that people are trying to draw this connection in the hopes of smearing iran as sensitive nuclear talks are happening right now. greta: what is the impact on the northern africa fight?

other efforts to fight terror in northern africa? guest: it is going to be important for the united states to continue working to combat violence and extremism in this area. the white house hosted a summit. the idea is that you cannot just win this war militarily. you need to hit some of the root causes of terrorism. given the attraction of the extremist ideology, which comes in different forms and groups, it couldn't be a more important time to tackle this problem. greta: a call from egypt for a counterterrorism effort. how does that work when you've got saudi arabia and iran

supposedly fighting this proxy war in yemen? guest: there are different countries trying to insert themselves in different ways. you saw the egyptians take attacks in libya against isis. the u.s. government would not fully condone those attacks. they were trying to marshall this large coalition against isis. it is so obligated. there are so many different actors involved. we want to be careful about who we are endorsing. we want to make sure the war against isis is not simply a blank check to repress minorities in their country. greta: this raises questions in yemen about new authority for the president to fight isis.

under the proposal, would he now be able to go after isis or other terrorist groups in yemen and other places in northern africa? guest: he would be able to do that if congress were to pass this. the administration believes they have the authority to conduct attacks against the islamic state all around the world. the war authorization they brought to congress did not include any geographical limit. that has been a concern to some liberals and some libertarian republicans who don't want to be authorizing a new war that doesn't put any restrictions on where the united states can conduct military efforts. a lot of these people are still stung by the previous authorizations, used by two

different white house is to conduct drone strikes around the world. greta: john kerry testifying before two committees yesterday. italy back up there today testifying. -- he will be back up there testifying today. he is on the house side. there was some specific push back. senator barbara 1 -- had

concerns about this term in during forces. the au and that specifically prohibits enduring forces. the problem is no one really knows what that means. republicans are worried this might and any kind of combat operations and that could potentially be useful. a lot of democrats are concerned that enduring forces could include anything like the first golf war invasion and it could involve hundreds of thousands of troops and the ground. what kerry goal was yesterday to give a better understanding of what he was talking about and he gave more specifics about talking about overnight raids and assistants and not a number of weeks and weeks into combat. legally speaking, how does enduring forces find the white

house? no one is clear what that might mean. host: we are talking about the fight in yemen and what it means against the fight of terrorist groups like isis. we will go to frank. frank, you are on the air with john hudson. caller: it says john hudson, but obviously used the term extremists which means you are a democrat. you are not speaking for all the people. you are a democrat. republicans about yemen were reporting the news and just reporting what has already happened. you people turn it around because you are idiots. host: i am going to cut you off because we are not going into name-calling. let's show respect for our guest is here and vice versa. guest: i know this is an issue a lot of people take very seriously. i am not a democrat.

i am an independent and have no party affiliation. this is an issue we see people take very seriously, especially making the argument that if obama and the democrats do not say the magic word, radical islamic, extremism then they are somehow unwilling to take the fight in the policy space against islamic extremists. the white house argument is that there really is not a lot of benefit and publicly convening in an international conference around the world under the explicit and are of countering extra -- islamic extremism. it is not helped the outlook that is seen in many areas of the world that the united states is conducting and the western crusade against islam. host: built in new mexico, a democratic color. caller: before yemen was a

player the first time i heard about yemen was under the last bush administration. when they had a ship of weapons and president bush said, no, do not stop it. let it go through. is there any investigation as to why he said that? thank you and enjoy your day. guest: i am not the way with that, so i cannot help you answer that question. host: another bill in pittsburgh. a republican color. caller: i am trying to get details of this incident. the last i heard yemen was to countries that united into one. south yemen was socialist regime and north yemen was a conservative kingdom. now i hear -- now we have all

this internal difficulties coming out. what is the politics of everybody in the yemen and -- and to our they and how long have they been there? they are obviously a separate ethnic group, what are their grievances? please get into the weeds. host: great point, bill. guest: great question and i think the administration wishes they had a better grasp on yemen. it has been mystifying to so many people who thought just months ago this had been a case where the administration had a success with counterterrorism plans. but people looked into efforts and counterterrorism cap efforts in yemen.

they have really raised questions about this success and this effort. if you look at a relatively small number of al qaeda in the arabian peninsula and the actors that were in that country, and since the drone war picked up and started taking members off the battlefield, but also causing civilian casualties. we have actually only seen al qaeda's president of yemen grow more and more. the country has becoming increasingly lawless. we have also seen in different actors as for power within the country. of course the arab spring revolution brought in a new government that we have been working with since 2012. in a counterterrorism aspect. you are right to ask more of it. i think a yemen historian would be a better authority for that.

everyone is really trying to wrap their heads around this country and what u.s. policy should lean toward it. host: are they shiites? are they similar to the ironic shiite population? do they have agreed this is with sunnis? host:guest: yes, they do have grievances with sunnis. they are not the same form of shiites that you see in iran but they do have commonalities and reportedly accepted resources from iran. this doesn't sort of play into the large of what you mentioned earlier of this only shiite riyadh versus tehran confrontation that you are saying with a larger parts of the arab world. host: if you take a look at the map, you can see where saudi arabia, the location of that, next to the country of yemen.

we will go to betty in west virginia. an independent collar. go ahead. caller: i guess i missed it, but since you asked the question yemen was the new ben ghazi, i would like john to talk about how the situation is like and unlike ben ghazi? guest: right, so the idea of a yemen being the new ben ghazi is more of a reference to this information war that the state department finds itself in again. with the events that happened and then ghazi, the state department has been trying to make its case that mistakes were made but the amount of conspiracies and allegations called to stand down and anything that makes it seem like the u.s. did not do everything it could to look after the

ambassador who tragically died in ben ghazi. the night of the attacks. the state department has been involved in an information war over all of the actions, especially surrounding diplomatic security. this is another diplomatic security many fiasco at the state department -- that the state department had to deal with last week. fox news was raising allegations that there was malfeasance. they said that they simply had the faxed wrong. -- facts wrong. the report really took off and the state department found itself a little bit flat-footed in trying to push back against it. of course, as you remember, fox news is a publication that has aggressively covered ben ghazi as well. this was kind of a rematch between two media host: spokes.

is it bigger than that? in that the united states was involved in the country of yemen and backed the government there similar to the situation in libya when they overthrew the government that was there and back to the government put in place, and then you have these events this violence, that happens after the united states has gone in? guest: both cases point to the unpredictability and and stability of events and the situation in both countries. you know, in the case of libya this was a war of choice in the administration at the urging of a lot of european allies. it created a power vacuum in that country and that country and the events have been unpredictable since. yemen doesn't have the same sort of history in terms of any sort of u.s. effort to regime change

in the country. we have certainly been involved there and have suffered from the consequences of instability there. host: our conversation with john hudson talking about the unrest in yemen. host: the democratic caller, you are on there. -- you are on air. caller: i am part of -- yemen is a hotspot like syria. you can call them taliban if you want to. they are trying to over there all the democratic communities in the christian communities and all of those countries. do not be naive. you are comparing it to ben ghazi. there were only 11 investigations in benghazi. we did not have enough time to get there to rescue them. i wish you republicans would let

it rest. you should have a lot of information that we do not have. even with what little information we get back, yemen is a fairly, very hotspot. host: let's take that point. yemen is a hotspot, like syria. guest: there is no doubt. i completely agree. this is something they will be dealing with over the next years and with no end in sight. host: take a look at the map where you can see yemen here at saudi arabia above that. jordan, syria, egypt, and of course libya over here. we will go to shreveport louisiana, lisa. caller: i wanted to ask hillary clinton was in the state department during ben ghazi what would you think about her being president at the time and

what would she do? guest: yeah, it depends -- there are a number of different ways that hillary could be held accountable in uncomfortable ways given the events that have happened in libya during her tenure. some people see the u.s. intervention in libya as a flawed experiment. in yet another case of the u.s. pursuing regime change without an exit strategy. also, other people from the right have looked at the diplomatic security failures that happened in ben ghazi and the whole -- and hold hillary clinton responsible. what we have seen is a concerted effort in republican professional operative circles and democratic professional operative circles to really with the narrative over what happened

in ben ghazi and how it relates to hillary clinton. the democratic machine in trying to do everything they can to distance hillary from any decisions made up in the run-up's to benghazi to suggest that diplomatic security was not where it should have been and republicans trying to link hillary as much as possible to the events. host: emanuel in st. petersburg, florida, on our line for independence. caller: thank you for taking my call c-span. good morning, mr. john. i'm calling about some minutes ago about the men calling us idiots. you can tell them, i'm a person and my religion is god. when you look at another person who criticizes another religion by calling and criticizing their religion they are only

criticizing their religion, to because that religion did not teach you to criticize another religion. that is why you criticize your own religion. you have to sit down and say to yourself, are you true to your own religion? that is number one. another thing -- host: emmanuel, we are getting close to the end of the show and i will leave it at that. the egyptian leader who has called for a united arab counterterrorism strategy has also said in speeches that there needs to be a discussion about radical islam and that people in the arab and etc., need to be pushing back. guest: that gets to the point of who should be saying radical islam is a problem? it looks much better when you have an arab leader who is

addressing this problem. because of u.s. history in the middle east, because of so many of our policies are seen as toxic and not looked on favorably, when you have a u.s. president calling out islamic terrorism and the extremism, it just looks different. that is probably what the white house has been trying to avoid and they would love it if our arab allies would call that out as much as possible and really be the main voices addressing that. host: john, mississippi democratic caller. go ahead. caller: good morning, mr. hudson. i have an idea for you. why can't we just set up a new government. we do not like the government why can't we say, ok isis.

you stay there. that is your country. you can live there from now. could that work? guest: so this idea of why don't we just withdraw from the middle east. our policies do not seem to be making the policies better, so why don't we leave it alone? people have communicated this in different ways and it is not necessarily a harebrained idea. it is something that is debated feverishly in washington, with some saying if we withdraw from the middle east, we will only be putting ourselves more vulnerable. others saying that our involvement, if you look at the war in iraq, if you look at the drone war in the middle east really has only expanded the number of anti-american extremists so it is certainly a

part of the intellectual debate. host: wasn't that part of the overthrow of the yemen government? the hatred for what is going on with the west and the drone attacks that were happening in that country? guest: the rupees are certainly anti-american and they do not support the united states or washington's efforts. especially over the previous government. i think it also has to deal with the really week government -- weak government and how they conduct the main function as you would expect. host: linda, democratic caller. caller: hi, this is linda from virginia. i had a question. i have been listening and i have heard multiple times, don't attacks, collateral damage could be the reason why we have

so many problems with the middle east. i guess i just want to know since you are a foreign policy reporter expert, senior, do you know how many don't attacks there were prior to 9/11? guest: don't attacks prior to 9/11 question mark obviously, -- prior to 9/11? obviously, the aftermath pushed for the drone strikes and became something the united states relied on extensively after that. before that, i would love to know the numbers, but i do not have that information. host: built in patriot, ohio, a democratic caller. caller: what i was wondering was, you have the rebels there in yemen and they are basically fighting against their own government and the saudi's. i am just wondering about the american government, why don't

we go ahead and give the saudis whatever they need to go ahead and wipe them suckers out? host: so, bill, the question is are we hoping the saudis help the yemen government -- former government? guest: saudi arabia has plenty of resources to be helping the amenities, however, which way they would like to be helped -- and this is something the former president of yemen has referenced that it has been promised unlimited resources from saudi arabia to retake the country and rescue it back. the worry is that nobody wants to see a full-blown civil war in yemen and this is what the united nations is doing. to try to find some kind of power-sharing agreement between the two.

really, the main u.s. concern in yemen is al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. that is what actually ok with the u.s. conducting operations against aqa p because as a shiite aligned, they do not like the aqa p either. host: sandy from lexington, kentucky, hi there. caller: thank you for taking my call. i do not think we should with draw in the middle east. we need to become more active and regain the position as the greatest nation on her. since obama has been in office, i am not bashing, but we have dropped tremendously. no one respects us, no one listens to us, and just like the prime minister of israel coming next week, the president and vice president are leaving an opportunity for the congress speech he is holding. our one ally that is a tiny nation, fighting all of this

middle east wars and surrounding her, and he knows iran better than anyone in the world. iran has definitely got nuclear weapons. they are back in isis. read you think they are getting all this money? in the beginning, they did not have the money for this stuff. they are backing them. host: let's talk about this because senator of -- secretary of state john kerry had to take questions about the emerging deal with iran and the new year weapons program. guest: there is a lot of confusion. you said iran has nuclear weapons. they do not have nuclear weapons. the current framework of the debate is how do we make sure iran does not have nuclear weapons? the israeli prime minister believes they are unexpectedly close to the nuclear threshold state and he is worried that the current negotiation as he understands them are not going

to do enough to restrain iran's nuclear program. the u.s. says, first of all, we have not completed a deal, so do not judge it before it is done. also it is doing everything it can to expand the time where we would be able to detect iran getting closer to nuclear breakout capacity. they point to the status quo before and say, we have more information, more inspection and a greater understanding of iran's nuclear capabilities. now than we ever did before. for all of those people trashing the talk, they had -- how is having less insight into the nuclear program a good in? host: an emerging nuclear deal with iran, they say if they can be resolved between the two countries, they may be able to tackle differences including iran's missile program.

it will not be easy, but it could open up space for cooperation. that is in "the new york times" and their opinion. mike in rockford, illinois, an independent caller. caller: good morning, c-span. after they ran our government out of ukraine and yemen, i am wondering -- three questions. should we celebrate their independence? number one. should we have peace talks, what would gandhi do? host: are you talking about the unrest in yemen?

yeah, the government -- host: john hudson, what is the status of the form of government, the western backed government, he says he is still the president. guest: he has the recognition of the united state's government but the fact that he does not have control of the country, he is rallying support in other areas of the country and he may have success in doing that and creating a sort of coalition that will gather and overthrow the who sees. right now, a lot of diplomatic energy is going into the effort of trying to make both sides agree and share power as opposed to just fight over. host: does that mean dividing of the country? guest: i do not know that anybody is talking about a sort of partition or anything like that, but i think that would be a power-sharing agreement in the

sense of 50% of seats in the year many government -- in the yemen government and 50% available to other parties. host: one news report saying that the former president of yemen considering to move the capital to the southern part where he is after getting out of house arrest from the overthrow. it will go to gideon in washington dc, a democratic caller. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say i am very happy with the guess you have today. he is very knowledgeable and i wanted to say by the very nature of the foreign policy, there is always going to be issues because basically any issue happening in any country, the united states is called upon to intervene. it is not an easy situation because if they do it, there is a problem, if they do not, there

is a problem. like what happened in syria from the beginning, obama knew it was going to be a problem. being a superpower, is always going to be a problem for the united states. host: ok, gideon. georgia, ernest, a democratic color. caller: my question is, in yemen is on the border of saudi arabia, why did they not find it necessary to intervene? host: they are. you might have missed that earlier. john hudson, go ahead. guest: i think your question might be more directed to, why do we not let the saudis take care of it and why do we have to get involved? host: ian, cincinnati, an independent caller. caller: i have a question recalling reports i have heard that the saudi arabian government or royal family

channels money to these terrorist organizations to keep them out of saudi arabia and soil and i have heard that yemen has become a hotbed for this as they try to maintain or basically keep them clear of saudi arabian soil. another point that was not up with the statement of our brain -- iran's nuclear program. just yesterday, i heard the massage has leaked cables -- has presented leaked cables that the program is not anywhere near what benjamin has been claiming. host: john hudson? guest: that is an interesting point. that came from the guardian. an interesting week of intelligence detail from the massage, a cia, basically offering an assessment that they

believed iran's nuclear activities were far less advanced then yahoo! i certainly cannot confirm a report. it is something a lot of people have been watching. there is this idea that iran has always been one year away from acquiring a nuclear weapon and it has really kind of been the line for many, many years. people have questioned the veracity of that claim and it has only added to scrutiny on whether he is telling the truth about the nuclear capabilities of iran. host: let's circle back to the situation in yemen. what are you watching for next? guest: what to watch for is if international diplomats in the united nations are able to put a lid on this conflict and tried

to prevent a civil war from breaking out more than it already has. host: john hudson is reporting at twitter on underscore john hudson. guest: thank you for having me. host: live coverage of the house, up next. >> the house will be in order. washington dc, february 25 2014.