later, it's the democratic perspective with california congressman, the chair of the house democratic congress. those, plus your calls, tweets, and e-mails. ♪ host: by a vote of 98-2, an impasse over funding homeland security department. a final vote without language blocking the president's executive action is expected today. all eyes turned to the house. we want to get your thoughts on this. should the house gop separate homeland security funding from -- over immigration. republicans, (202) 748-8001.

democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. if you are for the homeland security department across the country, we want to hear from you, (202) 748-8003. join the conversation on twitter or go to facebook. you can send us an e-mail, journal@c-span.org. we will begin with john boehner from yesterday. he was asked whether or not the house would allow a clean homeland security funding bill after mitch mcconnell decided to separate the two issues. this is what he had to say. [video clip] >> the house has done its part to fund homeland security and to stop the president's immigration.

the bill should have been debated and passed. until the senate does something, we are in a wait and the mode. host: the speaker saying the houses and a wait and see mode until senate acts. they decided to advance legislation on the promises from the majority leader that it would be a clean funding bill for homeland security. we will begin with senator mcconnell. [video clip] >> i have spoken with the democratic leader. while addressing the president's

action on a separate track. when the senate precedes, i will offer a clean substitute and work to expedite consideration of the bill as amended to get a back over to the house this week. i would welcome him bipartisan cooperation to pass the funding bill as well as the --. host: they will send over a clean funding bill. it will not include any language that blocks the president on his executive action for immigration. the final vote can happen today. what will the house do? all eyes turned to the republican and leadership over there. here is what the minority leader has to say in response to what the majority leader said. [video clip]

>> it would undermine law enforcement and tear families apart. until funding is enacted, i vote against going to the bill. after a clean bill is signed, i am happy to have a debate on immigration and the way to fix the broken system. host: the democratic leader says democrats will not move to debate on blocking the immigration executive action until homeland security is fully funded. the vote could happen later in the week. now, we want to see what the house is going to do. you heard the speaker say he is in wait and see mode. you think the speaker should separate the two bills and allow the funding for the homeland security department to go through? if that would happen, it would avert a partial shutdown. we want your take on that.

republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. we also want to herar from homeland security workers about this debate. (202) 748-8003. as i said, you can join the conversation on twitter as well at @cspanwj. you can send us an e-mail, journal@c-span.org. what you make of this debate. here is the washington post this morning. as clock ticks, republicans viewed over dhs funding. this is what sean sullivan writes. one republican in the house harry reid still running the senate. that is a sad a said matt

salmon. he argued a clean dhs bill could not pass the house with the majority of republicans' support. mark kirk defended mcconnell and laid blame at the feet of house republicans. mitch has been around the block a few times and we will be able to extract ourselves from an unnecessary battle that the house has put us in. a democrat in saint robert missouri, should they fund the homeland security department and put the fight off? caller: what i wanted to say they have been in the office since 1967, the same folks.

they do not care. host: are you talking about gridlock in washington? caller: everything. this is all about 1967. reagan started it with the -- in 1979. we have been fighting this war since 1967. host: the washington post writes this. a clean dhs funding bill faces a difficult path until it is funded beyond midnight friday. that refers to blocking the president. until they fully fund the agency. if speaker boehner does not take up the senate bill, which democrats believe could win passage and a minority of

republicans there would be little time to formulate an alternative plan. one option is a resolution that would keep dhs funded for a short period and would allow the two chambers to continue debating. president obama met with 17 immigration advocates and defended his actions on immigration which have run into resistance from a federal judge. obama vowed a vigorous fight against the ruling. he will seek an emergency stay on that. for more on this that all on capitol hill, we are joined by mike willis. mike telling our viewers about what is happening so far, have you heard any and into this morning about what house republicans might do now that the senate has advanced a bill

that they will possibly vote on today for funding the homeland security department? guest: that is the million-dollar question. the senate reversed course. they passed ended a move on the clean bill. it puts boehner in a box. he said the house has done its job to passes bill and send it to the house. he is just buying time. he is facing pressures from all different sides. there was a meeting between boehner mcconnell. boehner will have a press conference. this is the senate's job.

the decision will -- host: what do they want him to do? guest: they are telling him this is an unconstitutional move. we are congress and we have the power of the purse. the only way we can do it is on a must pass bill. we are insisting on tying these two provisions together. if you do not do it, you're going to vote against it. he is trying to adhere to the

rules. this probably would not have the majority of the majority. at most early will not have the majority of the majority. he is having a tough speaker reelection vote a couple weeks ago, a couple months ago. 25 republicans voting against him. there is a conservative ill will, pressure on the right. he does not want to start this congress with a new majority. the biggest republican majority since the hoover administration. there is all this discord within the party. politically, it looks bad. for job security, it looks bad. he does not want to start the year this way. he may have to. host: what are his options? guest: the senate is expected to pass the bill today.

he could take of the clean bill and it would pass -- he could take up the clean bill and it would pass easily. it would be an easy task. he would break the rule and the conservatives would revolt. or, they could pass a short-term continuing resolution and buy themselves some more debate time for the house to take up the clean bill. we do not know how long it will take. we do not know how long a continuing resolution will take. another factor here is that benjamin netanyahu said to come in on tuesday and speak, there

is a huge fight in congress over homeland purity. there is enough controversy surrounding his speech. this debate is going on at the same time and it would look bad on republican leadership. host: we could be heading into a weekend session for congress. guest: there has been talk of that. house majority leader said to keep your schedule flexible. we might be doing it over the weekend. that would depend on a couple of things. if someone in the senate wanted to hold up the senate bill, they could do that. everyone knows what is going to happen. no one is expecting that to take any time. if it comes back to the house, no one knows what is going to happen. we could be here for a long snowy weekend. host: would republicans agreed to a short-term funding?

guest: that is the other question. short-term funding would not include anything that undoes the executive action on immigration. there are a lot of people who would vote for it. the tea party wing says we cannot rely on the courts and we have to do it ourselves. rather than have homeland security agency shut down, democrats would vote for that and i think that would pass. host: we turn to you to get your take on this. what should be done here? michael, hazel, arizona. caller: -- host: let me move on

to joe in florida. joe, good morning. what do you think? caller: [indiscernible] dhs is to protect us against terrorists and not for amnesty. it is a different story. i totally agree with the republicans. what we saw last year, in summer , it was not right. 100,000 to 200 thousand illegal

aliens came from central america where we have unemployment and homelessness. host: i want to bring up the point that companies should be penalized that hire illegal immigrants. the board holding homeland security hostage. while critical functions will continue, the hope in financing would compromise their ability to respond effectively to a natural disaster and could make the country more vulnerable to organized crime and acts of terrorism. one program would have to be suspended, e-verify. many of you have called in about this saying the e-verify program

is one program that would shut down. ramona, front royal, virginia. caller: harry reid is going to muddle the water. host: what do you mean? caller: he is going to disagree with having this two part solution. in order to hold out to the policies that no one in this country wants. negative all the way. host: he got the entire democratic caucus to vote 98-2

to advance this legislation. caller: except that he would not , he wants immigration. he wants obama's policy to go forward. the majority of the nation do not. host: you agree with senator mcconnell's strategy. the republicans in the house some have said it is a mistake. if you send the president language blocking his executive action, all he has to do is veto that and he signs the legislation that funds the homeland security department. caller: that is what the president would do. he thinks he has that power.

he is breaking the law. host: washington state, go ahead. caller: why don't they tell the truth, that the democrats are not interested in america. 1.5% of the population are willing to hold up homeland security 41%, one point 5% of the population that are not even citizens. what is the matter with them? host: the democrats agreed to go ahead. caller: know they have not. all they have to do is sign the bill. they are holding it up for noncitizens to get benefits. that is all they are doing.

a petulant child in the oval office is a petulant child. host: should house republicans stay strong? caller: yes they should ask why they are holding an up for noncitizens. host: there working to fund the clean funding bill. so far, it has run into little resistance. ted cruz led the effort to defund the federal health care law. it showed no signs wednesday that he was preparing to wage a similar fight. the two that did not, along with senator jim imhoff of oklahoma.

here's a quote from ted cruz. nothing is to be gained by a delay of 12 hours or 24 hours or 36 hours. ted cruz voting with 97 of its colleagues yesterday. bill, pennsylvania. caller: and it was the republicans that put all of our eggs in one basket by putting everyone under the department of homeland security. it seems john boehner is using a poker chip for something else. if they want to argue the other that should be a different proposition. host: jim, missouri, hello. go ahead. caller: how can the current dhs

bill be clean when it includes provisions that one of the courts might not be legal and secondly it seems we may be having 5 million people who want to be in this country because they do not like the conditions they were in in latin america or whatever, but they are not citizens and they will hold 310 million of us hostage over all of the funding that has been expiring around the department of homeland security for the sake of people who are not citizens. host: when they say a clean homeland security bill, they mean it will not include provisions stopping the president's executive action on immigration. what are you saying? you think republicans should hold strong and not have a clean dhs funding bill?

caller: i would separate the two. there should be one that will go to the senate and the president and say we are passing a bill that is like it was in 2014. funding everything exactly the way it was. there is a separate bill that is going to include whatever 300 page executive memo you signed that is going to end food all the bureaucratic procedures to make people who are currently in this country who are being educated and said and protected and speed up the bureaucratic process and put that off as a separate bill. host: sam, virginia. caller: i think they should shut down the homeland security office. this is why. forget about democrats and

republicans. the presidency has become a dictatorship. it has destroyed congress. whatever he wants whoever's in the office, they can do whatever they want. congress has become obsolete. in order to bring a message for congress, to stand up to them, they need to defund this to show them that congress is back. you take washington, d.c., they legalize marijuana. congress runs washington, d.c. they say we do not need you, you are a joke. he is laughing at them and everything else. it is basically, let me finish, the presidency and both parties

seek to become a dictatorship where neither party can do anything. host: here is the associated press. if it is not funded by midnight friday, there is printing -- there is plenty of overheated rhetoric. in reality, america's defenses would not be relaxed in a partial shutdown. they will continue to report to work. checkpoints will remain staff, air marshals would do their work and costar patrols would sail on. others say you are jeopardizing national security at a tense time. lydia, good morning.

caller: what i do not understand, when the house and the senate came back in the first bill is wasted. the bills had never, homeland security is another. most of these people are not glorious. the courts decide what is constitutional. federal employees are always held hostage.

he has a spineless speaker and afraid of his own caucus. they are totally useless. host: some of the republican party like that he did that. some are saying in the tea party wings, we are glad he is holding strong on this. elizabeth, wisconsin, what do you think? caller: i agree with her 100%. the very first inning the constitution says is we are going to be protected. what is more important? our security, i do not

understand congress at all. i have never seen anything like it. they want to blame president obama. host: speaking of the house legislature the white house threatening to veto a gop overhaul of no child left behind. that is expected to get a final vote friday. yesterday during debate over this legislation, the house democrats tried to bring up a clean homeland security funding bill to try to bring that to the floor. they were denied by republicans to try to bring that to the floor while they were debating an education bill.

that is what the house chamber is debating this week. they will take that up today. more debate today. a final vote expected on friday. philip, centerville massachusetts. caller: america you guys are asking me wrong questions for congress. why don't you pass the bill? it will only last for two years anyway. it is not like they're going to enforce the law. congress should be taking up a comprehensive immigration bill. that way, they can put this bill put it in moratorium, that gives the time so they can do the work. it is amazing how america, you guys are voting against your own interests.

i say to you, wake up, obama is gone in another two years. where will the country be then? you will still vote for republicans to do the things they're doing to her you. i do not get you people. you people are just retarded. host: let's not do the name-calling thing. the president was in a townhome meeting. here's what he says about the debate on capitol hill. [video clip] >> mr. mcconnell, speaker of the house, john boehner, they want to have a vote on what i am doing is legal or not. they can have that vote, i will veto that vote. i am confident what we are doing is the right and to do. in the meantime we are going to

pursue legal avenues to make sure we are respecting the law and we are respecting the fact that we are a nation of immigrants. host: if they send him a legislation that would block executive action, he would veto it. caller: i used to work for the democratic party. this is nothing like the one i have. as far as getting a clean bill passed, a clean bill has been passed. if everyone in congress wants to worry about 5 million people versus 330 million people that are already here, i find that

ludicrous. two or he 500 illegal people -- host: take a look at harry reid. this is what he said on twitter yesterday. the majority leader and i have had a number of good discussions. we agreed on a way forward to pass homeland security funding. he said we are eager to debate immigration now or any other time. we cannot do that until we fund homeland security. he will not let legislation lock the president come to the floor. on the republican side, part of the leadership says we have already won.

the subcommittee saying chairman chef sends -- chairman sessions voted no on the motion to proceed to an unconditional day chest without amnesty restrictions. very vocal opponent of what the president has done on immigration. gary, augusta, georgia. caller: harry reid has dominated the senate and now he is trying to dominate the house. the house needs to stand firm. let it go to congress. let the people in this country know who is standing in the way

of this. host: johnny, what do you think? caller: they pick this fight. they decided they wanted to tie these together. when they decided to tie them together, they could not get it through to congress to approve it without vetoing it. then they decided that we will not fund anything. come sunday morning, something serious happens in this country, you're going to wish you had funded something. here in washington, there was a news conference held by tom ridge.

they stood alongside jay johnson , arguing that morale is low and that they need to go ahead and funded the homeland security department to fight -- despite being opposed to what the president has done. here's what tom ridge had to say. [video clip] >> the solution they seek is unfortunate. it is wrong. i would say we would know more ask the men and women the 3000 boots on the ground combating isi l to provide safety and

security without pay and i think it is an appropriate analogy. whether you are working for customs and border protection we would no longer think of not funding our soldiers. these were a different uniform. the objective is the same. i would encourage a full and complete funding for the department of homeland security. no more additional continuing resolutions. host: tom ridge, a republican who served under george w. bush said he has opposed to

what the president has done on the action. three charge was supporting an organization. three brooklyn men were heading to syria. one willing to kill obama, it says. they have been apprehended and charged with -- the security group. mostmosul may pull u.s. back into war. they renew a debate over whether u.s. forces should play a larger role in the operation despite the risk of drawing them back into the war. the white house says pledge to help take back the city as part of the debate. also making the front pages, tension between the u.s. and israel.

senior u.s. officials are moving to undercut the israeli leader's in full at the head speech. new tensions with netanyahu. his address to congress accuse six world powers, including united states, of giving up on their commitment to -- a nuclear weapon. many headlines as morning in the papers. there is also this. a full-page ad taken out in many of the newspapers this morning.

they agree with the administration on what they are doing with that long. prime minister netanyahu, congress is not a prop for your election campaign. back to our question, do you think the house gop should go ahead with the homeland security bill that does not include language to stop the president on immigration. charles, ohio. caller: i do not think people took classes serious in grade school and high school. there are three parts to government. the part of the congress is to write the law. the president is to defend and execute the law. the supreme court is the one

that says whether it is legal or not. he is not a cane. he is a representative. he is my president, as well. if they are not going to stand together and use their power to stop the president from taking a legal action, winter they going to stand for anything? that is why i became an independent. i am disappointed that the republican party acts like they are more afraid how someone will vote in the next election then how hard government is why and. it is disappointing.

caller: they should keep it separate. these people do not come here under obama's watch. why don't they get their nose at a fox news and listen to reality. host: richmond, virginia, a republican. caller: it is a problem. i am wondering what federal laws are being passed on.

host: look at the reaction from capitol hill. nancy pelosi, house gop has voted to block clean homeland security funding bill. democrats tried to bring it up during a debate over an education bill. scott peters saying if congress does not do its job and fund homeland security, lawmakers should not get paid. introducing legislation that would deny congress pay if they shut down homeland security. peter king, a republican, a critic it -- a critic of his republican leadership says there are terror attacks all over the world and we are talking about closing down homeland security. this is like living in world of crazy people. that is what congressman from new york had to say. marty, what do you think?

caller: senate is abusing this homeland security. it is not the right way to do it, but there is no other way to go against the president. he is vetoing everything. he is going to veto the next bill. how many vetoes can you have? host: you think this is the only leverage to shut down the homeland security department? caller: you can't -- how is he doing this? host: melvin, a democratic caller. go ahead.

caller: they cannot pass the keystone pipeline because they have that law where people own their land and you cannot just push people off their land. host: what about homeland security and this issue over immigration? caller: they should pass the bill and deal with the other bill later. host: george, connecticut. you work for dhs. what do you do? guest:caller: i am a federal employee. i wish someone would explain to me that when harry reid was in charge of the senate and the republicans and congress passed a budget, harry reid tabled the bill numerous times. it was the republicans who were closing down the government. now, the democrats refuse to vote on the issue related to homeland security and it is

republicans closing homeland security. the logic out there is amazing i should say the lack of logic. the solution is obama should issue and executive order abolish congress and let him role as a dictator. that is basically what the democratic rule is available -- is allowing him to do. host: we are going to talk with two legislators to discuss this issue. first up, james lankford. then, later, we will be joined by xavier -- hobby or becerra -- xavier becerra. we will be right back. >> here are some of our featured programs. book tv, on "after words."

allan ryskind talks about the 1930's. sunday, our live conversation with lani guinier. on american history tv, saturday at 6:00 p.m., a discussion about the burning of columbia, south carolina, following the surrender to sherman and his troops in 1865. an interview with a former consultant to the nixon white house on the pentagon papers. find our complete schedule at c-span.org.

let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us, e-mail us, or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. this sunday on q&a, the challenges of policing the city. >> i had an issue with public trust. i discouraged -- lawsuits are down officer involved shootings are down. we are moving in positive ways. people in communities say -- we do not believe it.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: the senate agreed to advance legislation to fund homeland security. joining us is senator james lankford, republican, oklahoma. one of the 98 that agreed to move forward. why did you decide to vote yes? guest: this is the same vote that has been taken four times last week. they did not want to debate the bill. it is odd for senate procedure. you open it for debate and then you amended. this is the fifth time we brought it up and we are glad the democrats decided to start debate. it is a little late, but we are glad to be able to engage in the debate. host: democrats agreed to this because of assurances from your

majority leader that the language blocking the president's executive action on immigration would be stripped down. do you agree with your leadership two vote solution? guest: the issue becomes not whether or not you agree or disagree. mitch mcconnell is dealing with a difficult situation. we are passionate about funding home and security. that is why the house passed this a month ago, basically. fund homeland security, but not the president's actions and executive actions. we are in a strange spot at this point. terrorism is on the rise. the constitution is also extremely important. no president can take actions that are inconsistent with the constitution and not cause a constitutional problem, and that is where we are.

host: a final vote will be today on a clean homeland funding bill. how will you vote? guest: is that i am holding on to at this point. i have concerns this is a constitutional problem. judges have stepped in and said the president has exceeded what his legal ability was to do. we have judiciary things, house things, senate things inappropriate. this is a bigger issue than immigration. that is the problem. we have to be able to resolve this. homeland security and deal with the constitutional issues. when they look back, the conversation will not be about homeland security or immigration, it will be about the constitution. host: what is the endgame? guest: to fund homeland security. you will not find a republican that does not want to fund

homeland security say we have to resolve the issue with the constitution. that is the issue we face. we have the nominations process funding, very few levers to deal with. it is ironic, the president vetoed the keystone pipeline saying congress was impeding into his powers, that he did not make a decision yes or no about keystone it is ironic he can slide by on that but when congress says we have the same authorities, we have to deal with these issues, that gets spun a different direction. that is the nature of it. host: would you support a continuing resolution that keeps homeland security funded for six weeks or so and take this fight up again? guest: i would be glad to. a very small number of levers we

have in this problem to do a constitutional issues. we are going to use what we had. -- what we have. host: mike, go ahead. caller: good morning. happy to have you as our representative. i voted for u.s. senator. right now, i am angry and disappointed with what is happening. congress' power is the power of the purse. that is your leverage over what is happening. you are taping in by splitting this into two bills. they say one is the clean bill. that is a bad name. it is the unclean bill because it still allows for the immigration problem. it is not clean. it is unclean. the president will veto the second bill. hello. what are we missing here by splitting it into two?

we are trying to cover our tale in congress saying we tried, but we did not make it. the president vetoed it. am i missing the point? guest: you are not missing the point. that is the challenge we have right now on trying to walk forward on this. we have to find a way to limit the president's power. we agree. we want to fund homeland security. it needs to be funded. there are issues we need to deal with. the issue is immigration. we are trying to keep our eye on the ball. i'm grateful the judiciary has stepped in and stated clearly that the president exceeds his power. regardless of how we fund or do not fund homeland security, the authority to fund that illegal

actions stops at this point. host: that call, when you will decide what you're going to do on the vote. what goes into your thinking? guest: mrs. not a short-term issue. it is a long-term constitutional issue for me. i have to deal with my colleagues in the house and the senate. we are going to try to see what are the next steps. this is a multistep process. i understand the frustrations people have, but they are working hard to keep the focus on one thing -- how do we deal with president's legal action and not hurt others in the process. host: do you think mitch

mcconnell and john boehner are coordinating well on this? guest: i don't know if they coordinate completely. they are separate bodies. the senate has a responsibility in the house has a responsibility and they should keep each other informed. i think they are keeping each other informed, but they operate separate from each other. host: john, great falls montana. caller: great respect to you and your colleagues. i watched your career in congress. the rule of law -- watching the hearings yesterday, there is no more rule of law coming from the democrats on the opposite side. they want to try to obfuscate with the rule of laws. without the standing in the court, how quickly as anything ever going to get done anymore? how quickly is any legislation

going to be passed? guest: a great question. a great frustration we have in congress. the senate used to be a place where we voted all the time. the focus was protecting the rule of law and advancing the rule of law. if you go back to robert byrd he was always on the floor of the senate challenging the executive branch saying you're exceeding the party of the executive ranch. even if he -- of the executive branch. even if he agreed. i am in the same mode. you cannot do this. we have to honor the role of law. it is what makes us one of the greatest nations in the world. to ignore the rule of law sends a bad message. guest: senator lankford -- host: senator lankford serves on the

appropriations committee the governmental affairs panel the committee on intelligence and indian affairs. david, sanford, maine. caller: i want to make a comment to c-span after i get done with the senator. i know you are trying hard, but you have to understand my question. i am going to teach greta and you a constitutional issue. all bills emanate from the house of representatives. you were just there for advise and consent. you do not like the bill coming out of the house of representatives, you send it back. somehow, it got changed around here. there is nothing in the constitution that says the senate makes bills. greta, last saturday, you had -- about policy about rudy giuliani

and what he said about the president. do not bring up personal issues about a person again on c-span. the most nasty things from both sides were put on c-span. you should stay away from personal issues and talk about policy. thank you and have a good day. guest: you bring up an interesting question. all bills of revenue originate from the house. this is an appropriations bill. the house of representatives passed it and had multiple amendments. the senate tried to debate this the senate has the power to amend any spending bill that originated in the house. we have tried to bring it up for debate for the past two weeks and democrats have blocked us. that is the power of the senate to bring up a revenue bill coming from the house, to be able to amend it and send it back. we can volley back and forth so

long as it starts in the house and this one did. host: donald, shreveport louisiana. hello, donald. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: the senator said this is a revenue bill. why with a tie a revenue bill to a bill for immigration? it is not generally a revenue bill. why wouldn't the republicans come up with a viable bill instead of waiting until now when the homeland security is up for refunding entiat to that bill? guest: that is a great set of questions. it is normal for appropriations bills to have different policy riders in them. they have all sorts of ways to designate how money will be spent. when you say money will not be

spent for something, you are directing the flow of the world government. it is how congress does its job. this is a priority, this is not a priority in spending. at this point all of homeland security is fully funded and has been fully funded. the stamen an executive action especially right now when the courts have said, no they can't do it, and the congress is actually saying the president can't do that. it is a normal part of the process. as far as the immigration bill, everyone knows the senate got together to establish the bill. a house got together during the last session and it worked its way through the committee process. the house passes process is different from the senate. the south -- the house takes things a section at a time. border security, get that resolved and set it aside. immigration is incredibly contentious. you try to do it all at once, there is too much to discuss. so we want to take a slice of time and work our way through to

solve it. host: alabama, independent caller. caller: good morning. great to talk you guys. thank you for c-span. i have a comment and a question. my comment deals with executive orders. the removal act removed out of the southwest and a southeast of the united states to oklahoma. congress defunded it. also, the courts deemed it illegal but andrew jackson did it anyway because congress did not defund it. that was my comment. my question is concerning a lot of issues, specifically the keystone xl pipeline. why can it be taken along as the existing route and then increase capacity on the existing route that has already been approved? guest: let me deal with a couple

of questions. you hit the nail on the head with andrew jackson. relocating native americans into oklahoma is one of the darkest moments in american history. we grabbed people and said, we want your land, and we moved them out. issues continued even in look -- even in oklahoma. it is one of those issues america looks back on and says, that was bad, we cannot do that again. there will be future individuals who will look back on this season and say, has the executive branch exceeded its authority. as far as the keystone pipeline, from oklahoma to the gulf coast, they have added to that leg and tried to broaden it. a tremendous amount of oil is coming from west texas intermediate and all the way to the gulf close refinery. they are trying to add

additional capacity to come in from canada. you may know there are already two pipelines just like the keystone that come in from canada in that same area from tar sands. one of them comes from gulf coast and one of them goes to chicago, illinois. this would add a third pipeline to the area. that is why it is so confusing. the previous pipelines took four months and this one is taking six years and waiting. we are trying to figure out why this one is so different from the previous two and it is really not. there is nothing unique about this pipeline. we have thousands of miles of pipeline across the united states. it is the safest and least expensive way to move oil, in fact. why the congress is continuing to push back the president and say, you're not answering yes or no. he is saying, wait, i'm thinking about it. why does it take six years to think about a pipeline? host: the majority leader saying

a vote to override that will take place tuesday, next week. do you think there are enough votes to override the president's toke? guest: i do not know. we did not have enough votes to override the veto and the president is very aware of that. his statement is very unusual. his statement was not, i disagree with keystone. it was, he feels like congress -- executive authority. i feel that it is ironic. we obviously feel the president is stepping into a congressional authority. we're trying to respond to that just as he is. host: pennsylvania, republican. caller: thank you for c-span. s far as i know, i believe the senate or mitch mcconnell have not reinstituted the nuclear option. if i am right, i really cannot understand why the democrats are filibustering the bill at all. i can see there are 54 senators

and it is not going to pass with that vote. why are they filibustering it? i think this decision is entirely too large for one man to make on his own. 5 million new workers in the united states will not have to take jobs supposedly that americans will not do. they will be able to take anyone's job. that is my question. guest: that is why it is a congressional responsibility. it is clearly stated in article one, section eight of the constitution, that immigration responsibilities is a responsibility of congress. when the president steps in and says i will just make 5 million new workers in the united states there are veterans right now coming back for more that are looking for jobs that will now compete with people the president just made new workers in the united states that can compete for any job. i would like to see individuals in the united states compete for those jobs first. i am not opposed to having people come from other places in

the world to make it in united states. i think americans should have that opportunity. every country in the world is designed for the benefit of that country. we should do the same thing for united states law and deal with immigration to all united states -- immigration. all united states laws are to benefit the country. put that responsibility into the hands of congress so the american people have more influence to it. host: new york, go ahead, bill. caller: my first question is homeland security. is that not responsible for the protection of our borders, including the people coming into the united states from other countries and all the airports and everything, the ports and ships around the u.s.? guest: that is correct. you have got border control. that is why this funding is so important because it deals specifically with the area the president exceeded their authority -- the authority.

host: senator lankford, we want to thank you for your time this morning. coming up next, we will continue the conversation a little bit talking about funding the homeland security department with house democrat caucus chair xavier becerra. later, we will open up the phone lines and get your thoughts on events happening today and any other public policy issue. we will get to those thoughts here coming up. we want to show you one of the events that is happening in washington is the start of seatac -- c-pac. " the washington times" is hosting that. the front page of the newspaper this morning -- " conservatives convene." ben carson held a private

roundtable discussion at the national resort and convention center. "the washington times" hosting and supporting the seatac -- c- pac event. the second reason some republican superstars may not be aiming for a top prize in 2016. here are some of the other speakers that will be at cpac this weekend. bobby jindal, the mexico governor, and the ohio governor. they may not be seeking presidency, but they may and up on the second spot on the party ticket. now joining me on the phone stephen dinan, policy editor at "the washington times." what is cpac and why is it important?

guest: conservative political action conference-- cpac stands for conservative political action conference. it is now held in a conference in suburban american -- suburban maryland. people who want grassroots conservative organizations, a whole lot of conservatively oriented students, they all gather to hear speeches and go to workshops and basically talk among themselves about the issues they care about and their priorities for legislative action. most important lake, they talk about who they want to be there leaders. host: former governor of

florida, jeb bush. the headline yesterday " jeb bush heading into tricky audition for activists at cpac." what do you mean by audition? guest: there is a strong poll for the last two ears -- years to gauge where the conservatives are. two things. one is they are going to vote on who they want to be the republican nominee. this is obviously completely nonbinding but there is temperature taking of activists who are very involved. it is not just washington. these are folks who go back to the grassroots organization out in the state so we view them as having a pretty good barometer of where the grassroots leadership is out of the country. one of the things these lawmakers and would-be presidential candidates are doing is they are trying to win that straw poll and also trying

to make their case to these activists. jeb bush has appeared before. he had a fairly rocky speech two years ago where he actually made a joke from the stage that he wished they had cut off the bar earlier because folks were basically talking in the back of the auditorium and not paying enough attention to him and at -- he had a very policy centric speech. he is under a lot of scrutiny this year to see what sort of speech he gives. of course, the republican party right now is very different than conservative activism and is very different than where it was when his brother and his father were president. there is a lot of dispute over what jeb bush will do to distance himself from the policies of his brother that conservatives did not like. we will closely watch scott walker, the wisconsin governor. he seems to have captured a lot of conservative interest.

there are a number of conservative and establishment republicans who think he is the guy who could bridge those two can't spared we will look -- can't. we will watch you speak as well. host: the question is, is scott walker ready for time time? the things he has said lately about president obama's religion, religious beliefs etc. in 2008, senator john mccain had the decency to correct a supporter at a town hall that told him obama is an arab. " no, ma'am. i just happen to disagree with him on fundamental issues." that is the classy way to deal with a presidential campaign. you are seeing cpac

activists arriving here, presumably opening up their doors and finding usa today there. scott walker writing saying "i refuse to take the media passes bait on this." what do you think? guest: a lot of this is about what audiences are talking to. at this point, scott walker is talking to a conservative audience, very specifically to cpac over the next few days. more broadly his goal is to win a republican presidential primary. i don't know whether he would necessarily defend at this point or do the comments about president obama and answer some of the questions. if he had to do it over, he might not do it the same way, but his response there in usa today attacking the media, that is always good red meat for conservative activists. if you are can -- if you are in trouble as a conservative politican, blame the media and

you will at least get a number of conservative voters and activists saying, yes, he did get bamboozled. part of this stems from questions over whether he excepts or believes in evolution . it may be fair to say that is probably an important issue to some voters pay her i suspect there are not a lot of voters out there for whom they will be picking a president based on their feelings on evolution. they might feel -- care more about jobs or taxes or government spending and infrastructure and whatnot. so we in the press probably do get a little over a test with some of those issues that we view as litmus tests g orotch -- or gotchas. " let's at least talk about what i want to do as governor and what i hope to do as president of the country and what i hope to do about other people like

president obama and not evolution cohn host: -- evolution." host: so let's talk about who else will be attending see cpac and what they have to gain or lose. guest: the straw paul asked to 17 different potential white house candidates. most of them are having some speaking role. jeb bush is having a question-and-answer session. he will not deliver a straight out speech he will be answering questions and i believe sean hannity will be doing a back-and-forth from him. there are members of the senate who are speaking -- seeking the nomination. we believe they will seek the nomination. in number of them will be there. there are straw polls about donald trump.

so a wide range of potential candidates who will both be on the straw poll and who will be speaking there. beyond the presidential candidates, there are a number of members of congress. interestingly enough, neither house speaker john boehner or senate majority leader mitch mcconnell will be speaking. john boehner has not spoken since a he became speaker. part of that is they have a day job. it is proving very difficult for them over at the capital. but it is also, what sort of response they would have gotten if they had gone up in the middle of this homeland security spending. it may be better for all sides that it worked out this way. host: all right stephen dinan policy editor for " the washington times.," thank you so

much. you can find our coverage on c-span.org. this evening on c-span three at 5:00 p.m. and on c-span.org, you will hear from the wisconsin governor walker, as well as louisiana governor bobby jindal and the former alaskan governor, sarah palin. that will be on c-span3 for those of you who would like to tune into that. we will take a short break and when we come back, we will talk with the democratic caucus chair congressman xavier becerra, a democrat of california. we will be back. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]

>> this is man city tour travels to u.s. cities to learn about history and literary life. next weekend, we partnered with comcast to visit texas. >> opening the canal in 1869 sailing set -- ships, we were almost dealt a death blow. ships had a shorter route to the far east to india, to all of those markets. sailing ships really needed to find a way to make their own living. instead of high-value cargo they started carrying lower valued cargoes coal, oil cotton, etc. alyssa really found her niche in really carrying any kind of cargo that did not require getting to market at a very fast pace.

alyssa's connection to galveston is unique. she sailed and arrived here in galveston probably 100 years ago now. full of bananas. she came again a second time in 1886 and it was really important for the galveston historical foundation to find a vessel that had a connection. the fact that she was a sailing vessel is all the more important. >> watch all of our events from galveston saturday at noon eastern march 8. this sunday on "q and a," anthony on the challenges of policing the city. >> i still have an issue of

public trust and people who believe what is said. regardless of the fat i stand in front of what i did for you today, and say, you are still down 46%. the lawsuits are down, officer shootings are down. we are moving forward in all the positive or a spirit people in the community say, we don't believe it. >> sunday night on c-span's "q &a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome xavier becerra, democrat of california. we want to --comes to the democrat floor and democrats vote yes -- guest: if it is a clean bill and it focuses on what it is

supposed to be, a budget bill not a bill on substance beyond budget. we are not here to talk about abortion. we are not here to talk about immigration. we are not here to talk about other subjects other than, will we have these departments operating and people being paid for maintaining our security. if it is a clean bill, i think democrats have been prepared for a long time to vote for a clean funding bill. host: if republicans cannot have -- does not have enough of their conference to help us get past will you help them? guest: you get elected to govern , to lead to we are in the minority as democrats in the house of representatives. we don't have the ability to pass bills or defeat bill spirit only the majority camp by not voting for them or voting for them. it is ironic that the minorities will likely have to do the work of keeping our homeland security -- homeland secure.

we don't see a lot of gameplaying in this legislation and it is a clean funding bill, after all the social agenda items that members might want to put on the bill. host: what about a continuing resolution that would fund homeland department for six weeks, and take this up again later? guest: when i go back home and talk to some of the small businesses in my community, they ask, what the heck are you guys doing, when the republicans shutdown the government in bed -- in 2013. they say, i could not operate my small business this way. they are right. if they cannot operate their small business this way with fits and starts, six month six-week funding, how do we expect the largest economy in the world to operate with a six-week budget and how do we expect the homeland security to really secure us and provide us with safety when they only get six weeks of funding? it is crazy and most democrats

would say, this is not the way you govern. host: republicans say congress has the power of the purse. this is their constitutional leverage to stop the president on something they disagree with and that they say they did not get a chance to debate or vote on. guest: if that is what they say, i don't get it. we can debate anything we want on the floor of the house or the senate. all you have to do is put a bill up to it we can debate -- if immigration is the issue publicans have, we can put an immigration bill up and debated as long as we want. to try to insert or inject into a funding bill, especially of an agency that is here to protect our homeland, that is beginning to put your own agenda into what is an independent -- indispensable funding bill. we can debate the issues as we wish, but congress has the power of the purse and is supposed to act responsibly to fund the things we expect the government

to do, and that is to protect this, first and foremost. to use a funding bill for our protection national homeland protection, as a vehicle to fight out your social agenda, it is not just wrong. it is dangerous. host: one of your republican colleagues of arizona wrote an op-ed in the arizona republic. "the democrats'dirty little secret is they want a dhs shutdown so they can blame on republicans so president obama can more easily ramped through his unconstitutional executive amnesty plan. " -- guest: again i am trying to follow the dots on that and i do not see it. i can see how democrats are saying we may have to provide the votes in the house to fund a clean bill for the department of

homeland security to do its job so that men and women who protect us at our ports, seaports and airports, on the road, that they can do their job. we are willing to do that. we just don't want to see that legislation that is supposed to be for funding cluttered with other things. if republicans are saying the only way to flight us -- to let us find our government on homeland security's things that are strenuous to homeland security i do not see how democrats can do the right thing. at the end of the day, we will have to find our agency. maybe some people think it is ok to have the tsa officers who tech -- who check us at the airports work without pay or most of these guys do not make that much money. $35,000, $45,000. maybe they think it is ok for members of congress to pontificate, adding extraneous social agenda matters for

funding for homeland security and getting paid to do that while not paying the tsa officer at the airport or the security officer, the fbi personnel who are trying to do their work for us we will find that out. at the end of the day, democrats have said, if you want to fund the homeland security, we are there and we are ready to support a funding for homeland security. don't add your extraneous funding to a funding bill. host: an independent caller, go ahead. caller: my question is i watched john kerry the other day testifying before congress and he stated that all the syrians that are refugees coming into lebanon and countries like that are causing a great hardship on lebanon because a lot those refugees are taking away jobs from regular lebanese because they're undercutting salary wise

. there are too many of them living in small places. my question to you is, how is that any different from where i live in long island where we have multiple people living in small dwellings? these are all illegal immigrants . they send money that they earned off the books to their homeland. they enroll their children in our school and god knows we have the highest taxes you can imagine on long island and we are giving them classes, they have to be immunized, they give them free lunch. it is becoming impossible. we have too many immigrants. they are hurting our legal population. host: i will jump in and have a congressman respond to your argument. guest: let me try to answer your

question and your comments in two separate ways. first, the situation in lebanon is harsh because you have an overwhelming number of syrians who are leaving syria and the battle and the war in syria and moving towards lebanon. and mostly around the border area of lebanon. that is taxing that area of lebanon because it is a large number of refugees who are coming without anything. women, children as well. the difficulty for lebanon, what they have been pointing out is that they cannot absorb so many people this way. by some counts, it is close to 20% of their population now folks who have come just recently from syria. that is a difficult situation per we are trying to help lebanon with that as we are trying to help jordan as well, cope with the war in syria, what is being caused by so many different forces, including isis.

let me now moved to the u.s. the issue in lebanon is one where we are trying to help lebanon some, but we will help an ally and friend of lebanon in that regard. in terms of the u.s., what we have is a situation where we have a number of folks who are undocumented. nowhere near the number, population wise, that you see have recently entered into lebanon from syria, but we do have a number of folks that are here, no doubt. there are out there working and some of them have children going to school spirit what we have to do is come up with a way to deal with a regular flow of people coming into the u.s. we have to fix a broken immigration system that has allowed our country to absorb 10 million people who do not have documents p or most of those folks work p or while they are using some services, most of them are working and they are also paying taxes. what we are saying is let's be

fair. americans deserve to know who is in the country and anyone in the country has the same obligations, paying taxes biting by the law. if we can figure out how to have a system of immigration that makes sure anyone who gets into the country follows those same things, great. if you're not willing to do that, you are deported. that is what combat for immigration reform is all about. making it clear so we have standards and no one starts to come in through the shadows. host: texas ned, a republican you are on the air. go ahead. caller: good morning to her i have got a counterintuitive solution to this problem. i want your comments on this. if we increased specifically for the part of the department that handles deportation by 30, 40, 50 billion i know that would be tough, but if we did would you

support that? it would take away obama's process to corneal -- obama's -- guest: what you just mentioned last year. we had the surge of mostly unaccompanied minors coming from companies in central america. the president asked for i think about $4 billion, not all focused on what you just said, but importance of you can move forward with the process because there is a backlog in trying to process these cases. he actually asked for funding to do that. republicans blocked the president from getting any of that money but the present has a knowledge -- the president has acknowledged if we determine who has the right to say and who is to be deported, you have to build to process these folks there it without the resources to do it you end up with a whole bunch of folks staying far longer than they should. it is not counterintuitive. it is actually the way we would go and the proposals for copperheads of immigration

reform, we do exactly what you proposed. they would beef up the security to not only enforce the law and apprehend foes, but also a process so you could deport those who do not have a right to say. host: we are costing -- talking with congressman xavier becerra. next, independent caller, joe. caller: i am just wondering why in this whole discussion, no one brings up with that at the immigration department is part of the dhs and where else would they do anything with the budget if they do not do it through the dhs funding, being that they are funded through the dhs and it is an immigration department. guest: the only problem is it is like using a sledgehammer to put a thumbtack on the wall. immigration is handled by the department of homeland security, but two points. the issue that republicans do not like, that the president

used executive authority to put in a measured approach to deal with immigration which deals with the undocumented, all those programs the president opposed our self-funded by charging those immigrants a fee. even if the department shut down the department of homeland security, they could continue to move forward even if the homeland security, the immigration enforcement, even as they are shut down, the programs the president proposed will move forward because they are self-funded. secondly in the fed, you are taking a sledge to put a thumbtack on the wall. why are you jeopardizing the work of the immigration enforcement officers? why would you want to jeopardize the work of customs enforcement, trying to prevent drugs and contraband from entering the country simply to go after the

president has his programs, which are self-funded. it is dangerous because you are telling thousands of homeland security workers, don't come into work. and you're telling a whole bunch of them, come into work, but you are not getting paid for protecting the american people while you are doing your homeland security work. host: north carolina, democratic caller. caller: you know, i have been sitting here watching c-span. i was wondering, why don't the american people realize what they are doing? i just heard the congressman mentioned jordan and i could mention iraq, syria, egypt, we want to make all of those countries democracies and we have caused more refugees running into other people's countries because we tried to

give him a democracy. i hear all the people calling and hearing in their voices "i'm italian, i am german, i am british." they need to take the statue of liberty out of new york and move it over to arizona texas, and california, and they will realize a lot of those people trying to come into america there's ancestors -- their ancestors ran out of those states. it is said people of -- sad people are so mean, it seems like everything today is based on the color or his race. host: i thought you were done there. we will help the congressman respond. guest: i am not a sure -- not sure exactly what his point was but if it has to do with the fact there is a lot of confusion

out in the world and it is a lot harder than we think to have countries adopt democracy the way we have, i would agree with that. it is sad to think about it. we should be kind of proud as well. sad in that we are seeing how tough it is. look at iraq. we spent billions of dollars in lost thousands of american lives trying to help iraq set itself as a functioning democracy to within months of allowing their government to try to operate on its own, we see what started to happen. it started to implode and now isis is taking hold of a good portion of the country. it is sad to see countries have a hard time letting their people be the ones that govern the way they live. at the same time, it is sad, it can make you proud that for more than 200 years, we can make it work. as you look around the world you realize this stuff ain't easy. it is tough to have a good democracy. we are having a whole debate

about whether republicans will shut down the department of homeland security or not. at least what we will do is have a debate. we will not take up arms and fight each other because we do not like the way we're doing it. at least we are debating it and hopefully we come down on the right side of this with the department of homeland security. it is not easy to be a democracy so we should be proud. klassen other vote happening in washington today is a vote in the senate judiciary to confirm or not confirm the next attorney general. here is the political website. the headline -- she said during her confirmation hearing that she think the president had the authority to do what he did care what are you expecting? guest: loretta lynch is endlessly qualified. look at her record. the folks that she has prosecuted, the success rate she has had in going after criminals and terrorists.

she is ready for the job. the president made a wise choice. we are fortunate we have a lot of capable people in the country who can step up to the plate. i think loretto wrench -- loretta lynch will continue the tradition of protecting america and providing the best embraces -- and brightest. i think she will get through. it is unfortunate when people vote against a qualified person simply because they do not like that she gave a truthful answer but that is the politics be a so proud of my democracy, but it pains me a bit that someone may lose a vote simply because she expressed herself on how she felt the constitution operates. host: the senate judiciary committee will be gaveling in a 9:30 a.m. eastern time. live coverage on his been two of that vote. lewis in pennsylvania, a

republican. go ahead. caller: i would like to adjust two issues. one is, watching this show, i hear everybody condemning the republicans are not passing these things. but years ago you had control of the senate and the house. i would like to address why things were not done then. the second question is, you also blame the republicans on the sequester, but president obama did sign it. i will take your answer off the air. thank you very much for taking my call. have a great day. goodbye. guest: great questions and thoughtfully post. thank you for that to all i can tell you is that you are right that when democrats have had control of the house and the senate and perhaps even the white house, we have not gotten everything done the way we should either. that is a democracy.

that is the beauty of the democracy, it does not always work as well as we would like. i would like to see a lot of things go differently, being done differently. i am one of 435 in the house. i cannot disagree with what you said. we can always be better and there is always room for improvement in a democracy but the beauty of a democracy is we get to continue trying to work to make it better. i almost lost the second part of his question. host: i am blanking as well. i apologize. we will move on. guest: if i remember, i will try to respond to it. host: georgia, independent caller. caller: this documentary comes out in the summer. treason, it has got an all-star staff in it.

harry reid. you are in it. it was set in rio in 1992 in the summit and then again in 2012. we have got everything from back in 1992. what we want is to get the names pushing for immigration. don't act like this is new stuff. host: where did you read this or hear this? caller: this is off of videos. i can give you both videos. but it is our moles that have taken up. you would not believe how big a deal this thing is. host: let me move on to david in las vegas. guest: i got -- i don't get to

answer that one? i do not know when he was going. interesting is all i can say. host: david, independent caller. caller: we are facing threats from al qaeda, from isis, and now we have this al-shabaab group calling on their followers to attack our shopping malls. it is not the time for republicans to be playing silly political games with our homeland security. i have to say by their actions a cynical person such as myself, we start wondering whether they are trying to facilitate a terrorist attack on our country so they try to blame president obama. thank you. guest: look, politics is politics. we have got a democracy and you get to do what you want in the sense that once you get elected to debate these things. i agree with you we should not jeopardize our homeland security and put the department in it -- in a position where they guess

they have to go to work even when the funding is not there that they force these folks to work without pay. if it drags on a while, these are folks who cannot afford to have a paycheck not come in week to week, month-to-month. at the same time, i said previously to other colors that this is a democracy and what you're seeing is the debate laid out. unfortunately, more and more, the democratic debate is looking very political and motivated by partisan politics more than it should be. but hopefully, we can take care of that through our own at -- our own democratic processes people we elected and so forth. i agree with your premise this is not the time or the place to debate some social agenda issue in a funding bill that is for the purpose of protecting homeland security. >> on the fight in isis,, a lot is riding in this offensive from iraqi troops, to get ice --

isil out of the bitty city in iraq. the white house has pledged to keep american forces out of combat but iraq would suffer a major setback if troops falter because u.s. advisers are restricted in what they can do. are you for restrictions of what the u.s. can do, including putting troops on the ground to fight isis? guest: i am absolutely for restrictions on what the u.s. will do. this is not our civil war. the fact that an iraqi military force in the hundreds of thousands cannot take on an i so force -- isil force that may number in a tens of thousands 20, 30 thousand, maybe it is a little bit more, but these have been trained and so forth. these to me are a sign of something deeper. it is not that we need to send our soldiers, american men and women, to fight the fight for

these folks, but it is that they have a deeper internal problem. they are not getting along. as i always say, if the shia iraqi soldier will not defend a sunni iraqi civilian, or a sunni iraqi soldier will not defend a shia iraqi civilian, they are not iraqis. they are shia and sunni, and you can add the kurds as well. until they decide they want to be iraqis and not part of their own sect, why are we in there fighting this fight, to keep it in place? host: does your mind change of christians are threatened by this terrorist group? guest: i believe we have done the right thing to help protect populations per we helped the kurds above and beyond what the iraqi government would help their own iraqi kurds. same with the christians. we will do as much as we can. if you are asking me it --

because there are christians, should we send an american judicial christian, muslim soldier to fight their civil war? no. that is crazy. until the iraqis stand up for themselves why my going to have american soldiers stand up for them? we do not have to be the hired gun for everybody. show me want to live in peace with your neighbor of a different religion, and then maybe i will help you little bit more. until then, forgive me. this is your fight. i will do everything i can using american force to contain it, but do not ask me to fight your fight. that is crazy. host: given what you just said, what does the new authority for president obama to fight isis look-alike so you can vote yes? guest: it has to be a defined mission, one that has a clear exit strategy and one that makes it clear we are not fighting someone else us civil war.

if i find those elements in there, and i've had conversations on this, then i am prepared to support it. host: does the current draft do what you want? guest: no. it goes too far and allows elements to send in combat troops spirit i do not believe president obama intends to send in combat troops, to do offensive combat. but the president is gone and two years. if there is an authorization to use military force in place the on his presidency, i do not know what the next president will do. if the authorization to use military force from 2001 is still in place 2001, 15, 16 years, it is still in place later. i am not interested in having a president think he can be john wayne and go anywhere in the world and do these things. we have american soldiers who

have gone 4, 5, 6 times into iraq and at -- and afghanistan. no. and only one or 2% of americans actually ever think the consequences of being in iraq and afghanistan, coming home and afghanistan, coming home in facing the consequences being here, no. if we believe we should be at war and let our sons and daughters go to work, then let's go to the draft and let everyone passes son and daughter, from the richest guy in the world to the poorest guy in a world in america, send their sons and daughters. if it is that important, let's send our own kids. host: we will go to georgia. an independent. good morning, jim. you are on the air. go ahead. caller: good morning, congressman. i am doing fine. just go around -- and what i

want you to do is try to put up a bill to get people to go around and catch these people. these illegal mexicans. that is where the problem is. they're coming here for jobs. if you give them jobs, they will continue to come for jobs. guest: jim is right. they are coming here to work not to lounge. many of them are coming and working for very low wages. we need to have a way of tracking anyone coming into the country. i think jim is right. the reason they come into work is someone is willing to offer them a job. just as the undocumented immigrant is violating our federal laws saying you must come in with documents, the for that -- the person offering -- it is a tango. we have been doing it for years and years and years. that is why 11 laypeople or so are in this country without

documents. we have been dancing with them, allowing them to come, offering the magnet that brings them in. you have got to change the law so it is clear. you violate the law by offering a job, you will get punished. host: editorial, one of the programs that shuts down is e-verify. new york, a republican caller, john, you're next. good morning to you. caller: hello. my question is, what value giving away to anybody who can sneak across the border, and we would have to limit to achieve diversity. if you give away 90% what about everybody else? host: you are breaking up and i don't know. guest: i sort of caught some of that. you're asking how you deal with

it. let me just say this. we should have a system for immigration that people come in when we need folks to come in whether it is for the purpose of filling a job america will not take, and it is hard to believe right now there are jobs americans won't take, or just come it continues our values of family unity then that is the purpose we should have for immigration to her letting anybody come in? absolutely not. one thing we want to do is make sure we are getting people from all parts of the world that accommodate what our needs are in the country. that is what the immigration reform, the compounds of immigration reform, is all about. structuring our immigration laws so they work right for our country, our people, our economy. we have not been able to get that done and i daresay there are some people who think that after we deal with the undocumented letting those who earned a chance, because they're paying taxes, they passed a background check and do not have a criminal record, and we

support those who cannot fit that mold, a lot of folks still say we -- we need to bring in more folks. the leave me, there is a whole bunch of debate on this. i would simply say this, we need laws that work and make sense. if everyone can agree on what makes sense, once we get there and pass a law, i think our system will work far better. host: stewartstown, pennsylvania. you're on the air with a congressman. caller: i just want to reiterate what the gentleman from georgia, these employers who are giving out jobs under the table using a stack of social security numbers, to pay the tax, as you are talking about, why don't we hear about how many arrests and how many businesses have been shut down? i think that would encourage people, you know, besides deportation. the other thing i wanted to bring up, did no president obama

graduate from harvard with a degree in constitutional law? you know, all of these things against the president in regards to his executive power and all that kind of stuff, why would a man who was educated in one of our finest institutions be foolish enough to be going against what he knows and studied for so many years? guest: i agree with you, again. the point is, people come to this country seeking work because they know a lot of folks have gotten work. that is because americans have been willing to violate the law and higher folks who do not have a right to work in the country. we absolutely need to make sure our reformed immigration laws make it clear, you cannot be the magnet that brings people in without documents. the second point, look.

there have been two court decisions on the president passes executive orders. one said, go forward, and the second one, the one that is talked about a lot these days, is the south texas court decision by a judge, a temporary order that said, no it can't. i firmly believe that south testis district court judge's order will be overturned or he will narrow it. he went way beyond what the constitution allows him to do and quite honestly, i believe as you have just mentioned, the president acted fully within his authority. ronald reagan did this, george bush senior did this, and here is the point that i think is important to make. under the constitution, the constitution does not say, you can violate the law this much but once you violated this much, that is wrong. the constitution says you can either do this or you cannot. when george bush senior and ronald reagan did this, they did executive action on immigration. they did it this much.

it was unconstitutional. the president has now taken executive action or he did it this much. maybe he did a little bit more than ronald reagan and george bush senior, but he did it the way they did it. the constitution does not say you went over the threshold here and you were to pregnant and you are either pregnant or you are not. you cannot be half pregnant under the constitution. you can or you cannot do something under the constitution. if ronald reagan and george bush senior, every president since eisenhower, can do it, then why not barack obama? that republicans do not like what he did, that is a fair issue for debate. i believe the executive orders very measured, will move forward. >> you have a law degree from stanford. what did you study? >> you do not concentrate on one subject. i was in public office for about clutch or years.

host: any chance you're looking at a senate bid? guest: i will go through the process and take a look over the next few months and make a decision. host: what will go into your decision-making? guest: can i serve the state in a stronger capacity than now? i am a member of leadership, and that gives me a lot of ability to influence what is going on. it is tough to replicate in other places. even as senator, start at the bottom of the totem pole. it has to be really something where i believe i can do even more work on behalf of the people of california and my country. host: the fund-raising challenge? guest: you had to mention that. i am not a wealthy man. it takes millions of dollars to run. fortunately, i have a degree and i got to college, the first and

my family to get a college degree. it has helped. i was smart, and i married a doctor who makes more money than i do it i'm in good shape, but not the kind of shape i can spend millions of dollars on a campaign. host: ohio, democratic caller. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. congressman, i have a situation where i'm a 20% rated coast guard, retired single parent. what are my options when it comes to contacting bill collectors, when i do not have money, filing for bankruptcy, etc.? guest: thank you for your service and thank you for your work as a single parent or what are your options? i am not sure without knowing nor -- more about your personal circumstances, but i would say if you are a veteran, you are entitled to services. they give you more than just the healthcare services. they are there to help you in other ways.

if you are having issues with your finances, you could ask what they might be able to provide you in terms of assistance or direct you to those who can assist. i do not know who your member of congress is, we should sit down with your member of congress and ask, this is my situation. any place you can help me go, there are a lot of places, that offer services to make sure you are able to cope with your finances. the president, as you are probably aware, put out and eat it, an order saying, we will get rid of homelessness for veterans by the end of this year. a lot of veterans become homeless. there are programs out there who try to help folks who served our country to i will say to you vale yourself of those and if you're not aware of what those programs are, go to your members of congress and your state legislator and your city council. that is what we are hired to do. you paid us with your taxes and we should be able to help you. host: north dakota, dave, a

republican. go ahead. caller: i am sure you have a coffee cup on your desk. if you tip it over, you will stand the cup up to stop the coffee from spilling on your table. first thing is that the border has to be closed. if the illegal immigrants coming over to this country voted republican, the democrats would not allow them to come into the country. guest: let me with all due respect disagree with everything you said it i am the son of immigrants. my father, when he was a young man. he could walk out -- walk by a restaurant a sign that says no dogs and know mexicans allowed. my father never once said to me

that he does not love the country. even though he could walk into the restaurant and even though he was a u.s. citizen. they helped build the country can my father was a construction worker most of his life. i take from my parents the love of my country and i want to do everything i can. to believe immigrants have not enriched the country is to not have read your history. the believe that we can shut down our border is to be close to many things are i would urge you to read other things and watch other new station spirit i would urge you to become informed as an american because you and i both have rights. we get to speak our mind. we both want to defend it and i will say to you you are wrong and what you said, but i respect your every word and you're right to say it. >> next, democratic caller. you are on the air. go ahead.

caller: where does it say the executive branch has power over immigration in this country? it does not. it falls under the house of representatives. does it not say that? guest: the president does have jurisdiction over immigration he absolutely does. congress gave it to the president. the constitution and congress have given the president the power to execute our laws. when congress passes a law in immigration, congress does not then go out and enforce the law. it is the president who does. come on. we can have an honest debate, but don't say ridiculous things. congress passes laws. it is up to the president to then enforce and execute those laws. because the congress does not

give the president unlimited resources to execute and enforce laws the president must make decisions, just the way a mayor has to make a decision on how to enforce the laws for safety. it does not tell the police chief after every guy trying to throw a rock at the window, he probably should make sure to go after a guy who try to murder the citizens. just the way the president would, to execute how this -- these laws are. host: the fcc will meet today later today. what do you make of the plan? guest: amen. i would hate to see a day --

someone is controlling access to that stuff. that we could become gatekeepers and they want to enrich themselves. they decide who can come through the gates and what we can see or use. the internet had become a vehicle for change dramatically. we should keep it open as possible, and competitive as open as possible and we want to give everyone a chance to have its access to as much as possible. it has to be regulated to be competitive. the wealthiest will have access to everything and those in the middle-class will start to lose access and those at the bottom will continue to stay at the bottom. you have to make sure. telephone services. electric services. clean water services. those things never would have happened in rural communities had it not been regulated so

everyone has clean water. can you imagine how many people would get nailed today in rural america if it were not regulated that we had to make sure there was a post office throughout the country? if competition means i will go where i get the most money we will not go to places where i get middle to lower-class in terms of income when i get to high income places, to make a lot of money whether it is electricity, water, or the internet. host: thank you to talk -- for talking to our viewers. you heard the viewpoint on the fcc's's decision for an open internet we will take yours as well as what is happening here in washington. loretta lynch gets a vote for the senate judiciary committee p or we will look at those events in washington and other policy -- public policy issues. right after this break. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] ♪ ♪

>> the political landscape has changed with the 114th congress. not only are there 43 new republicans and 50 new democrats in the house and 12 new republicans and one new democrat in the senate. there is also 108 women in congress, including the first african-american republican in the house and the first woman veteran in the senate. keep track using congressional chronicle on c-span.org. the page has a lot of useful information there. new congress, best access, on c-span, c-span2, seized radio and c-span.org. "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back. you are looking at a live shot.

the sec will be gathering this morning to vote on the chairman's plan to open the internet. regulating the internet like a public utility. you can see protesters have gathered outside and we will have coverage of it on c-span3 this morning. that is at 10:30 a.m. eastern time. we will talk more about the debate over net neutrality the open internet plan, as well as other events happening here in washington. the senate judiciary committee will take up the nomination of loretta lynch to become the next attorney general. some roadblocks there although she is likely to be confirmed, her position on immigration is causing some to oppose her. we will have coverage of that vote on c-span2 at 9:30 a.m. eastern time. about to get underway in washington and a little bit. you can weigh in on those

events, as well as any other public dollars the issue here and open phones this morning, we will get to your calls in just a little bit. more on these events in washington. >> here is a tweet from the official twitter handle from the fcc. despite the snow the he is open and a commission meeting will start at 10:30 a.m., pushed back from the original 9:30 a.m. start that can be seen here on c-span3. here are a few headlines from newspapers here in washington, covering the fcc vote on the open internet rules. the hill newspaper, historic vote sets for internet rules is the headline there over at politico in washington dc fcc on the brink of broadband transformation, that story noting the federal communication commission the most romantic intervention on the internet in

two decades, heralding a liberal ship toward greater oversight in one of the nation's's most important economic engines. one of the headlines from foxnews, the headline, locked and loaded here the sec is primed for a vote amid 11th hour drama. some of that involving the fcc chairman's decision yesterday not to testify despite being called before congress, before two house committees holding a joint hearing. that was the house energy and commerce committee and the house oversight and government reform committee. the hearing was supposed to be about new regulations being proposed. a statement from the chairman of those two committees yesterday noting that as chairman wheeler pushed forward with plans to regulate the internet, he still refuses to answer growing concerns about how the rules were adopted. the two chairman say reports as late as tuesday suggest that changes in the proposed rules

are still possible to adjust hours left on the clock before the commission votes. as long as the chairman continues to insist on secrecy we will continue to call for more transparency and accountability. chairman wheeler and the fcc are not above congress. it continues that the future of the internet is at stake and republican members continuing to talk about their criticism of these potential new rules being voted on. speaker john boehner this morning read tweeting -- retweeting one of his tweets from november. -- that is just some of the action this morning on this vote caller: john, let me add to that, a headline in the washington times, republicans vowed to fight net neutrality. tomorrow plus commission vote

does not signal the end of this debate, yet it is just the beginning. this boat brings with it a host of consequences that have the potential to disrupt the internet we have come to know and rely upon. we are open phones. jerry, you are up, go ahead. caller: how are you doing greta? my question or comment to you can you explain the difference between an executive order and an executive action? host: do you believe there is a difference? what are you getting at? caller: it looks like night and day, two different things. www.c-span.orghost: explain. caller: executive order is law

executive action is only pertaining to a law that exists. you can maybe go a little deeper and it because everyone calls in saying the president has issued an executive order, when executive action is what they mean. host: you believe he can do what he wants under the constitution? caller: yes. host: michael, pittsburgh massachusetts, independent caller. caller: i do not know what is going on, but in the last 2, 3 years our city has been flooding with spanish. you cannot get a job now unless you speak spanish. yesterday, the republican was on

this program and he said north carolina has a lot of illegals because they work for the agricultural. everyone in this state, they have kids. i know a lot of white people who cannot get jobs because it is mostly spanish. 95% of the people in massachusetts are -- on low income housing are spanish. host: the fcc gathering to take up this issue of regulating the internet. this is the proposal by its chairman, chairman wheeler. they will be voting on that and we will have coverage on our website, www.c-span.org. the wall street journal has this to say about net neutrality negatives.

"fans of jk rolling pay more for her latest book in the hardcover then those who wait for the paperback. drivers in a hurry take the toll road rather than indoor traffic jams on the public freeway running alongside. economists call the practice price discrimination, charging some consumers more on the same product based upon how badly they want it. it is commonplace in many our kids -- in many markets but not on the internet." that will unable it to ban a practice known as "paid prioritization," basically price discrimination by another name.

john mcardle has more on the fcc vote. >> those fcc rules being voted on today, republicans concerned there is not enough known on them. ted cruz tweeted the sec literally has to pass a 332 page internet regulation plan so we can find out what's in #do not mess with the net. don't know about what these roles could do and this term "net neutrality" that has been used to describe them, this from the progressive policy institute poll. nearly three out of four americans, 74 percent, or unfamiliar with the term net neutrality. 73% of americans want greater disclosure of the fcc's proposal to regulate the internet. eight in 10 americans say the

wording before the fcc votes on its, and one in three americans thinks regulating the internet by telephone service will be helpful. this is a poll of 800 adults conducted earlier this month. one other member of congress who will be talking about this is senator john soon, commissioner of the senate science committee. of course, that vote at the fcc taking place starting around 10:30 this morning. www.c-span.orgcaller: sam, go ahead. host: good morning, how are you doing? what's on your mind? caller: what is on my mind is i wish the republican party can help the president out, because

there is a lot of dishonesty and hatred coming from the republican party. to help the president with this immigration bill, and also with homeland security, because our country is a great risk and the republicans seem like they do not have the whole country the way they have been handling business in congress and in office. it is pretty disturbing the way things have been happening. ever since president obama became president of the united states. host: on this immigration issue what you are saying is echoed in today's washington post editorial. they write congressional republicans are out of step with most americans on immigration. most americans do not think they should be tying this homeland

security budget on immigration. the washington post writing this "increase republicans using this immigration -- they are also at odds with majorities of americans in every region of the nation. that is a recipe for political marginalization." dan, sturbridge, massachusetts independent caller. caller: good morning. on the fcc voting today, i heard this weeks ago and i know there is a committee assigned, which is three democrats, two republicans that will be voting on this. and that it is a 332 page bill that is coming down to be voted on within this group. it is almost like, what nancy

pelosi said about the health care, i disagree with that. everything should be disclosed. it should be told what is in their and if they are not willing to come forward and discuss this, it just says to me that there is something really wrong with this picture. especially with the three democrats and two republicans. i am not sure either the democratic or republican are for myself in what will happen -- what will come down great if i am not educated on what the 332 pages are all about, and it will be disclosed after they vote, that sends a bad message to me. i would say that would send a bad message to a lot of people. obviously, there is a small minority but there is a large minority saying that is not a good thing. host: more on the fcc from

wikipedia's website. the fcc is an independent agency created to regulate interstate communications by radio, wire satellite, and television. the fcc works toward six goals and areas of broadband competition, the spectrum, the media, public safety, and homeland security. the fcc took over wire communication regulations from the interstate commerce commission. it is mandated jurisdiction covers 50 states. fifth -- varying degrees of oversight. the fcc is funded entirely by regulatory fees. it has an estimated fiscal budget of about $335 million

proposed fiscal budget in 2012. you get it has -- you get an idea of the fcc's budget. completely paid for by regulatory fees. john, fairfax station, virginia. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span, a real public service. i want to comment on immigration, and i have a proposal that may be some of your other callers could respond to. what if the president put 100% of the immigration service staff and resources on the border to stop illegal immigration, and did not focus on any deportation? isn't that what the republicans are asking for? is it that consistent with his goal to keep families together who are in the u.s.? i just wanted to put that idea

forward. i agree with representative to cerro that congress, i do not have as negative a view as congress -- of congress as other folks. there is a close split between republican and democrats, and that is what democracy is supposed to do. when you have such a close split, you are not going to have a lot of movement one way or another. when the american public shifts, we will be able to get beyond this gridlock. thank you for taking my call. host: ft. wayne, kevin is next. caller: good morning. i just want to follow-up on others that have spoken on the question of the immigration department of homeland security. -- appropriation, which is now being knotted up in the senate. host: i will just jump in there,

the senate voted 92-2 to advance the homeland security bill -- caller: that is a procedural vote and that is fine. host: the final vote is expected today to send over to the house a so-called clean homeland security bill. caller: first of all, when the republicans talk about challenging the constitutionality of the executive order, as someone properly pointed out earlier there is the constitutionality of congress in this matter. that is acting through legislation. john boehner and the rest of the right wing republicans in the house complained about the president's action regarding immigration. therein lies a simpler solution. and that is to enact a

comprehensive immigration reform bill. the senate earlier, more than a year ago, sent over legislation under boehner's control. leadership in the house, they have done nothing about that. to go and attach rider to the homeland security appropriation, shows how partisan washington is and how dysfunctional the government has become. it is time for congress, as well as the white house to stop the partisan games and act in the interest of this country and work towards passing meaningful immigration reform, for one. and secondly, when you pass legislation for appropriation bills, make this clean legislation, do not attach riders that bring poison pill

partisan politics to the front. host: stephen is a republican in virginia. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to reflect back when ronald reagan did asg, he had the support of congress behind him. we have never, in my time, ever seen a clean bill come to congress and be voted on. if dod, reform subsidies or whatever, are based not in being clean -- attaching these riders, which they just renamed it, is always been attached to these bills. host: lots of calls this morning on immigration. we are in open phones. you can weigh in on that date -- debate happening in washington

or it there will be a vote momentarily in the senate judiciary committee on the confirmation of attorney general beretta lynch -- or the nominee for attorney general, loretta lynch. they say she is likely to be confirmed. if you are interested in that, go to c-span2 and a few minutes to watch that vote take place. also in washington, the federal communications commission gathering here to vote on this open internet rule. john mcardle has more on that here. caller: we mentioned john laffoon. also making some news this morning with an announcement of a hearing on these open internet rules that are being voted on today at the fcc, announcing a march 18 hearing with all five

fcc commissioners testifying. he goes on to say, "the hearing will allow me and my colleagues to directly questioned tom wheeler about fcc and net neutrality." one other politico story, tom wheeler tweaks that news chalabi plan -- net neutrality plan. after google and public interest groups press for the changes. google, free press, and the new america's opportunity institute asked the committee to reword language. such a scenario could open the door for an avalanche of new fees for companies, and threaten their new business model. host: as we mentioned earlier,

the fcc having to delay this meeting by an hour because of the weather here in d.c. protesters or those in support of net neutrality have gathered outside the fcc building in washington. they are advocating for regulating the internet like a public utility. that is the vote the fcc will take. 10:30 this morning on c-span.org and c-span3. don, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. about homeland security, it is supposed to be a clean well. the republicans do nothing because the president has $1 billion to homeland security, and all the money issues have to start in the house. to get this clean bill the way it is anyway. the second thing is, congress

said the fee paid for everything. it is 400 and five dollars and can be waived. if you tell me their education food stamps, etc., can be paid for with $495, i want to get on that wagon. the third thing, why did you give the congressman 46 units and senator only 19 minutes? host: let me answer that, because we asked the senator for a full 45 minute interview like we do. very busy schedules up there was unable to stay with us for that full amount of time. we did, before we talked with the congressman talked about the conservative gathering here in washington at the cpap event an annual conservative --

conservative event, kicking off today, runs through saturday. talking about the people that will be there today. this is another issue you can weigh in on in open phones. we will be covering the cpap rather rang. you can go to c-span right now and we will begin on c-span3 at 10:30. we will be covering it through this evening, when you will hear from the wisconsin governor scott walker and louisiana governor robbie jindal, and sarah palin. our coverage will continue through the weekend great for more of those details, go to c-span.org. speaking of 2016, this is an opinion piece written in today's wall street journal by bobby schindler, the brother of terry sky will -- terri schiavo.

you remember that date from years ago. the case against jeb bush seems to be that he exceeded his constitutional authority and having done so, revealed the kind of rogue president he would be if elected. he was passing -- he was following a duly passed florida law later found to be unconstitutional by the florida supreme court. that's not acting unconstitutionally here it was the statute was invalidated, mr. bush follow the law. that is in the wall street journal this morning. going to nancy in big bear city, california. caller: they are supposed to govern by the -- by what the

citizens want, by the vote. on this last election, according to you guys 70 3% of their vote was because they were anti-immigration reform. you should be governing by that. the other thing though, he does not know of one job that has been taken away at from americans by illegal immigrants. that is totally untrue. we lose thousands of jobs daily because we do not speak spanish. no other immigrants have cause that kind of a problem. they align themselves with other immigrants. i do not like them at all. the other thing is -- host: what evidence do you have that people do not get jobs because they do not speak spanish? caller: i can send you all the information, a piece of paper for a job request with a have to

be bilingual. that is the truth. host: move on to tim in abington, virginia. caller: good morning. got a few things here that i thought might help out the country and common sense. i am tired of hearing about this pipeline. i'm surprised the railroads have missed this. we have a couple of railroads in this country us baby boomers are getting tired and would rather get on the train. send them a bill half now, half when the job is done, but let them pay for it. this minimum wage, do not call it a minimum wage. anyone over 21 years of age call it a living wage, if them enough money. social security, when the baby comes out of the hospital, how the earned income credit, get

most people in this country health care that probably everyone deserves. the last thing here, these people taking their money to the cayman islands, there is nothing american about that, ma'am. they are cheating and hurting our country. i would love to see elizabeth warren president. host: jonathan, glenville illinois. caller: please bear with me because you have mentioned how i think 75% of the people do not know what net neutrality is. i would like to explain about it. i would also like to know more about what is in this bill, what it is important to understand that republicans and/or conservatives were campaigning against this as soon as it became an issue a few years ago. first of all, net neutrality is about keeping the internet the way it is now.

people think, keep your hands off the internet. it is about trying to keep it the way it is now. the way it is now is even though each of us can pay for different size pipes, once your packets -- whether they are voice packets data packets, whatever it is, on the internet they are all the same -- the internet has always treated them all identically. the provider, whether it is comcast or whoever your provider is, just acted the way the electric company did, to pass electricity from one point to another. people in the industry saw a change coming, a bad change. these providers saw provincial -- potential profits in prioritizing packets and said, we can get certain companies to pay more. we will prioritize your packets over other packets if you pay more. if another startup company wants to come and offer, let's say

video services, they cannot compete anymore. they would have to compete against what netflix is willing to pay. it is not different companies they want to prioritize different kinds of packets radel things and treat certain people's data different. rather than treat it like electricity where all is the same. just remember, although i would like to see the rest of the stuff in this bill, the basic point of net neutrality is keeping us -- keeping it the way it has always been and not letting market forces change it. host: i will leave it there. behind us in the senate judiciary hearing room, the senators on that panel are gathering. they have dabbled. there are about to take up the nomination of loretta lynch h.

>> i do not want to cut anyone off, and senator leahy did not do that when he was chairman, but if you could do your very best, keep your remarks around five minutes each. that will help us make sure everyone has an opportunity to speak. in a minute, i am going to turn to the ranking number for his remarks on the bills and the nominees on the agenda. from there, we will go back and forth from each side -- host: chairman grassley there setting up this morning's meeting of the senate judiciary committee on the nomination of loretta lynch to become the next attorney general. if you are interested in how this all goes down, tune into c-span2 right now. we have coverage of that underway here it john mcardle on the news desk with more. >> one of the members of the

judiciary committee that will be voting, we will tell you how he will vote. he will not be voting to confirm loretta lynch. it appears she would represent little different from eric holder. if miss lynch is confirmed, i am ready to work with her on key issues, and i hope she ultimately proves my concerns unfounded. this from townhall.com, noting that in a letter sent to the senate judiciary committee on monday, dozens of house republicans are urging to block the confirmation of attorney general loretta lynch. "we appreciate miss lynch for her many outstanding years of service," but " -- that is a

letter from dozens of house members that was sent over to the senate judiciary this week. that happening on c-span two and you can also watch it on c-span.org. host: john, in politico, they say she is likely to be confirmed but the red alledge's stance on obama's immigration policy, she believes what the president did is allowed under the constitution. she needs three republicans to get out of the senate judiciary community, so we will let you know. turn into c-span2, how republicans plan to vote. democrats obviously in support of this nomination. caller: good morning, greta, i have two or three comments.

i worked for the u.s. justice department for 36 years. i was involved in two shutdowns with the federal government why i was employed with the u.s. justice department. all employees, essential and nonessential, were paid once it was over with. they received record -- retroactive pay. for those congressmen to come on your show and failed to regurgitate this stuff that the country will be put at harm because these people will not be paid, that is absolutely false. you should say something to them when they say that because the federal government do pay these people once it is over with. they receive retroactive pay. host: larry, let me ask you this, the impact of that when you were a federal employee are you against a partial set down of homeland security agencies?

or is this not good for morale, morale is already low at dhs? what was your experience? caller: no, them are out was fine. there was the being counters -- the bean counters who were telling people they should take leave or not stay at work because they would not be paid. this was lies. i went on vacation when clinton had a shutdown. we still received pay. another point i would like to make, they have emasculated the border patrol. they pulled the border patrol back 40 miles from the mexican border to enforce the laws. what is the sense of the border patrol even carrying weapons when they are not allowed to use them? they might as well be at home on pay because they are not doing their job, because the executive

will not allow them. i was at ucla hospital with cancer. i had for nurses assigned to me. all nurses were assigned -- were immigrants who went through the five-year process of getting into this country. up to 1965, we used to have quotas from each country of how many people could come in from each country. mexico does not have an ocean by a, so they can come right across the border. they need to secure the border before they do anything. host: let me show this headline. this is from "national journal," why congress is not that worried about a dhs shutdown, because you are not. they note that stennett staffers on both sides of the aisle their phones are not ringing off the hook. more was heard about the pipeline bills, but was vetoed

by president obama then about dhs. this from a leak -- a weeklong recess with little being said at home. randy, an independent caller. caller: about this fcc vote on the internet, about the internet , i cannot believe people would vote on something they never read. this is like the patriot act. nobody has ever read it, so it got voted on and as far as immigration goes, we need to get eisenhower back in office and implement operation -- host: we are going to move on. good morning, j. caller: good morning.

my concern is, why is there more scrutiny about the speaker? speaker boehner seems to be the person who is doing all of this obstruction, and there seems to be so little opposition to his stance. host: humane from republicans? j, are you there? caller: it seems he has the platform, he could do what he wants, but he is not doing anything. there seems to be little opposition to what he is doing. host: here is a story from politico. conservatives have john boehner's back for now. political rights "conservatives say john boehner is doing something right, at least for now there."

" the speaker, in their eyes, is holding strong by refusing to entertain a compromise." here is a quote from one of them. john boehner of peers to have listened to the american people and whether we wanted to vote for him or not. rall labrador made those comments. that from politico this morning, on this debate in washington over whether or not to go ahead and find a homeland security department without trying to block the president obama's immigration action. we have about 15 minutes left here in open phones, but go back to john mcardle with more on the nomination of loretta lynch. >> that vote happening in

committee, the vote to move it into the floor of the senate for a full vote. we talked about the concerns from republicans. here are some tweets this morning from democrats. a member of the judiciary committee that will be voting, he writes "let's not play politics. the red alledge a proven effective leader with widespread support for attorney general. time to confirm lynch." martha finds democrat, time to confirm lynch. yvette clarke a democrat from new york "america needs an ag with a proven track record." clark served from -- served as u.s. attorney, and would be the first african american woman in

the top nation's position. terrorism cases have given it a reputation at as a hub of expertise on the national security matters of the united states. she leaves the emergency general's advisory committee -- some background on her track record. the lynch's nomination, not the only nomination that will be voted on today, also the vote of michael lee to be the under secretary of commerce for intellectual property and patent and trademark office. nine other federal judgeships are being committed -- voted on in committee today. you can watch all that on c-span2 right now. host: j in winston-salem, north carolina. caller: i was calling in

reference to john boehner and mr. mcconnell. these individuals have purposefully strategically blocked the president on everything he has tried to do. they apparently set aside time after the election to strategize to put him in a lock hold, so he could not do anything legislatively. this sounds to me like terrorism within our own government. host: wall street journal headline this morning, gop leaders appear out of sync. the story this morning about senator majority leader mcconnell. rick in sydney, ohio, a republican. caller: i just basically have a small statement. i am a proud veteran. i spent four years in supreme

headquarters in your. i want people to realize, the internet is a globally distributed network. ww w stands for "world wide web." it does not stand for u.s. controlled or anything, so i feel like the government should not have anything to do with running the internet. the internet should be the way it is right now. i do not believe the government is letting us know things that we need to know, they are not transparent. that is just my feeling, but i want people to know that www stands for "world wide web." host: len, max welton. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am a conservative democrat. and the national democratic party has left me and my kind a

long time ago. they worry about legally, we are not citizens. the big conference by the republicans going on in washington. i believe the sleeper is governor casey of ohio. he has a lot of common sense. the guy knows what he is doing and i hope he is successful. host: you are talking about the ohio governor, john kasich? caller: yes ma'am. host: would you like to see him as vp? he is probably auditioning for a second spot on the republican ticket. caller: i would like to see his headlining ticket, because he represents my values. if he goes for vice president that would be good, too. host: derek, go ahead. caller: i'm a desert storm, ulf

war, and desert shield veteran. i see a lot of time on immigration. now they want to send these poor children to fight isis, that if one of them gets hurt, they come back to the v.a.. i wish someone would spend more time on veterans ban on immigration. that is all i have. host: it is a busy week in washington and will be next week as well. the supreme court will have oral arguments of the case king versus burwell and they will be hearing the arguments whether or not congress meant to allow subsidies for exchanges that are run by the federal government, or did they mean subsidies can only apply to those exchanges established by the state? we will be talking about that

here on "the washington journal" on wednesday. many of you know the prime minister of israel is slated to talk to post -- both houses of congress. j street, a pro-israel, pro-peace organization believes what the administration is doing on iran is correct. that ad along with many front-page headlines this morning about u.s.-israel relations. here is "the new york times." the u.s. toughens the stance. security advisor talking about netanyahu's acts as destructive. new tensions and they note that the prime minister yesterday

accused six world powers including the united states, of giving up on their commitment to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. there is this piece from "the new york times" this morning. the headline is, as that boat nears, a watchdog agency criticizes netanyahu on housing costs. another potential blow to prime minister benjamin netanyahu israel's watchdog issued a harsh report, in dealing with a growing housing crisis, mostly on mr. yet netanyahu's wash. they examined expenditures at the prime minister's residents, including food costs which more than doubled when he took office, reaching more than 120,000 and more than one third

of it in take-out meals. we have got about 10 minutes left here to keep getting your thoughts on public policy issues. john mcardle at the news desk, more on this debate in washington on what to do about immigration. john: the ticking clock on the potential shutdown of the homeland security is the subject of lots of tweets of congress. it is the republican homeland security shutdown unless some sort of funding measure is moved through. here are tweets for members of congress about that issue. congressman john delaney this morning, saying "there are 4400

department of homeland security employees in maryland who worked to protect us, a should not be furloughed or sent to work without pay." senator meadows, question two democrats, are you willing to let dhs shutdown to protect an executive order that was deemed unconstitutional? shutting dhs would cripple fema, do not shut down our security. one other tweet from congressman tim scholz of kansas noting, " the two hour delay because of the snow in washington d.c., is our national security at risk?" just some of the tweets from members of congress as this debate has continued to play out. host: congressman mark meadows, our guest yesterday talked more

about his thinking and why he is opposed to the president's action. joe in lj, georgia, frequent caller on the show great caller: greta, the number one ticket for american history scott walker vice president that would be a winning ticket for the republicans. i would be so fired up about that ticket i could not sleep for two or three nights. people who would put the taxpayers first. the big problem, we have an $18 trillion debt, we have to let people like crewsuz on the ticket. host: joe, you are always fired up. do you think that senator ted cruz should be trying to hold up

this two vote solution in the senate, the leader of the party, mitch mcconnell, says we will vote first. later we will vote to block the president on immigration here and caller: i noticed ted did not vote, he voted with the majority yesterday, and i am following marco rubio, also voted yes. host: they were part of the 98. caller: i have a lot of confidence in ted cruz and i think he is a championship debater. i think he will be hillary. host: joe noting that those 2016 contenders, ted cruz and rand paul and marco rubio, were part of the 98 that voted to advance the homeland security bill to the floor. only two people voted against

it, jeff sessions of alabama chair of the immigration committee. a vocal opponent of what the president has done, he does not like this two vote solution. the second one was senator jim in half of oklahoma. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have been watching since reagan's time. and i the only one that has noticed that since reagan's time, we have given corporations great many perks? tax abatements whatever. and during that time, i have seen more and more jobs leave this country than i have seen come into this country. at the same time those jobs are leaving out the back door, everyone is pointing at the borders. why is that? isn't that making sense to anybody but me? host: jeff in gerard, ohio

just, what is on your mind? caller: my main concern is as i see our country going through a deep conflict, it seems to me that the most necessary thing is honest journalism. if we are able to get the on slanted fax, we are able to figure these things out. a little bit slowly. we may not keep up with the elite, that we generally get it right. i think our biggest issue is slanted journalism. that's all. host: tom in lubbock, texas republican. caller: first time caller. on net neutrality, i think it will raise the costs of the internet considerably treat number 2, 1 of your other callers compared it to a

utility. maybe what he does not realize is businesses always pay a premium in utilities. businesses are already being charged more for services. part of the premium service you pay for is the service you get with that. when my utilities go out, they come to me first, because i paid for it. if you are trying to give the average person the same thing that bigger businesses have, it will not work. host: will you be turning edit 10:30 one the fcc dabbles in? caller: i have two telephone -- television set on c-span. i am concerned, the government leaking into -- leaping into the internet and it will raise the cost we will pay more for this because of federal regulation. to have met neutrality and give joe schmoe the same kind of deal

that he is giving a big internet server, is not going to work. they pay for it. host: if you do not have access to a tv this morning, you can watch the fcc on our website. that does it for today's washington journal. we will back here tomorrow at 7:00. now we will bring you to the house floor, live coverage here on c-span. mmunication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room washington, d.c., february 26 2015. i hereby appoint the honorable dan newhouse to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, joh