think. you can call us on the republican line, (202) 748-8001. democrats can call (202) 748-8000. independents call us at (202) 745-8002.

you can also find us on social media. our handle on twitter is @cspanwj. you can find us on facebook at www.facebook.com/cspan. or send us an e-mail at journal@c-span.org. we will start talking with lee munsell, staff writer at politico. lee, good morning to you. guest: good morning. host: can you start by taking through what exactly happened yesterday. it seemed like republicans had the vote to pass a three-week extension of the bill for funding of dhs. what happened that they were able to get that through? guest: it did look like they have the vote, but a did not turn out that way. the three-week stopgap vote did not do well. it did not do well at all. it turned into a shorter

extension which ended up happening later in the night yesterday. host: why were republican so opposed to a three-week extension of funding for the department of homeland security? guest: they were hoping for a different situation. they were hoping for a bill that included the immigration -- the reach of executive power of the president in the department of homeland security on immigration issues. they were hoping for of at a different bill. when that did not happen, a lot of republicans did not vote for the three-week extension because it was less than what they were hoping for. it turned out that they were trying to -- at this point, rebel against what speaker boehner wanted to do. it was just not what was

expected yesterday. the white house was kind of taken aback by it. a lot of people were taken aback by it. the vote yesterday was kind of a surprise. host: how are lawmakers able to come together to fund dhs for another week? guest: it is only a week. it is a very short. of time. it is a stopgap measure. it is something that will keep the department homeland security in operation for the next week. we will be doing this again next week. at this point, we know that this is but will happen. there is not necessarily -- the growth at this point were there. just to make it go on for another week but it is very unclear what will happen in the next week. host: talk to us about what this might mean for the department of homeland security. obviously, they will be in operation for a few more days. is there any long-term impact of this debate, controversy on the employees? guest: not yet.

if there is a shutdown, we know there will be 30,000 people that go home straight away. they will not be allowed to work. 200,000 will have to work without pay if there is a shutdown. now, there's another week. at this point, the question is what will happen in congress in the next week. host: can you break down who exactly would end up going to work and not going to work in the event of a shutdown of dhs? guest: the essential employees will have to go to work. they just won't be paid if there is a shutdown. the nonessential employees won't. at this point, we know that is probably like administrative staff, as well as kind of the behind-the-scenes -- where talking cyber security might be one of the things affected by a shutdown. it would be people doing

information sharing, secondary staff. not immediately critical to homeland security. also, it would slow down the whole process. host: can you take a step back and ask plaintiff how dhs ended up in the crosshairs. how did he get to this point? guest: what happened is there is a debate in congress and in the country on the present ability to have executive power over immigration decisions. he made a couple of executive orders that republicans in the house objected to. they put, within the dhs funding bill, which dhs has some authority over immigration issues, a couple of decisions which were related to immigration. democrats objected to that. that's what kind of the congressional standoff came from. it was the concern over the

limits of the executive power and democrats felt that the should of been a clean bill on the debate. they call it a clean bill that does not have any sort of immigration provisions in it, or which does not hold up immigration in this dhs fight. host: some people are saying what happened yesterday in the house is a repudiation of house speaker john boehner leadership and his ability to control the members of his own party within the chamber. what do you think about that? is this a sign that his time may be limited? guest: republicans are in a tough spot right now. absolutely, a lot of people are saying this is a repudiation of bigger boehner's leadership. it seems to be the case. the words that are being used in stories are "a humiliating defeat? ." he was hoping to get republican

support for stopgap of three weeks, but that was not doable. only a week is what he could get . absolutely, this was not necessarily what he wanted to see. now, there has been a week extension, we will see what comes from this point on. it was not necessarily a good day at work yesterday for speaker boehner. host: that is leigh munsell. thank you for joining us this morning. we will turn out to your phone calls. first up is john from spring, texas calling on the republican line. john, good morning. john, are you there? all right. we will move on to idf from san antonio, texas. caller: good morning. i just wonder how may times this has to happen. we have seen this happen over and over again with john

boehner. how may times does this kind of thing have to happen before people realize how incompetent republicans are at governing. this should have never happened -- this would have never happened with nancy pelosi. this is happened time and time again. host: i need a -- anita from said tornier, texas. we will go back to john from spring, texas. good morning. caller: i don't understand why they think one week will make any difference. these people are set in their ways. you have the tea party people who don't want to vote for anything. i don't see what difference it makes. host: does that mean you think house republicans should have passed the three-week funding extension? caller: yes. i think so. or all the way till september, either one. one week, i don't get it.

host: c don't think they should make funding of dhs contingent on rolling back of the immigration bill. caller: no. host: next is tommy from tennessee. go ahead. caller: i think we need to start practicing some common sense for china fund dhs. -- for china fund dhs. our security is very important right now. especially when it comes to the secret service protecting the president, and other government officials. i think president obama should threaten martial law to force congress to find dhs. if something does happen soon, why would you go to work when you are getting paid? i know you are getting paid. you don't mind coming to work. why can't we get some common

sense and practical ways to fund this department until at least the end of september? host: tommy calling on the end of that line. next up we have another independent caller, anthony from fear of vista, arizona. caller: good morning. good morning, c-span. i would just like to comment that we seem to have gone retro and politics. we are back to 2008. we are getting ready for an upcoming presidential election. the previous caller reference security. let's just get down to the basics of personnel who defend our country and work for ghs. they have families budgets they have to go to work. they have more row. and the political leaders, if

they are truly elected, and there are three branches of government, then use that ranch that you have the exercise what the constitution gave you and don't affect all of us just because you can't figure out a better way to get your other elected officials to move our nation forward. host: anthony, which party do you think should be blamed for bringing us to the crisis point? or do you think both parties are to blame? caller: both parties are to blame. i look at it in the aspect of the way our country was set up with the three branches of government. now, the president is like the ceo. he is the leader of our nation. all the other elected officials are managers. that -- so, your job is to help move the leaders job of forward.

that is the president's agenda. and you have that power because you are a branch of the government. host: anthony from sierra vista arizona. tensions were high on capitol hill yesterday. i one point b with had to apologize after calling republican kevin mccarthy a coward. [video clip] >> mr. speaker, i rise to apologize to kevin mccarthy for a comment i made. it was set out of frustration and anger. it was wrong. i have apologized privately to kevin mccarthy, a man who i consider -- host: the dhs funding measure made front-page news in most papers across the country. here in washington in "the

washington post" -- congress buys one more week in dhs standoff. "the new york times" headline says congress pushes shutdown back another week. the story goes on to say that

the funding stalemate bodes poorly for any larger policy of competence for this year, leaving lawmakers pessimistic that the 114 congress will be able to work in a bipartisan fashion on more complicated issues, such as a vote to increase the debt limit. lawmakers will also take up trade policy as well as a modest overhaul of the tax code. undertakings that now look increasingly difficult. we want to know what you think of what happened on couple hill -- capitol hill. up next is clarence from virginia calling on the and and and clarence, go ahead. caller: good morning. we do not have any idea how much money we at least than on homeland security. not including the nsa, the cia -- beerthese are all secret

agencies. i think the debate should be whether or not we need all of these agencies and where the money is going. the people should be there. they should be employing more sustaining jobs, other than spying spying, spying. our whole budget will end up with nothing but spy agencies, and really we don't even know what they're doing, and i'm not sure if they do either. that is my comment. host: the next caller is paul on the republican line. paul, good morning. caller: good morning. the republican party they are gung ho on shutting down the government. what stupid ideas.

the best part is they are supposed to 365 days in the year, like everyone else, but they only work -- what, 60 days per year? and they are being reelected. why don't they work 30 hours per year and let people work 80 hours per week? host: paul, you are calling on the republican line. do you think republicans should have linked the funding of the department of homeland security to the presence action on immigration? or do you think it should of been a separate debate? caller: what does immigration have to do with homeland security? what do they mean by having people for load?

they say, look, they will get their pay anyway. i've been in this country 37 years and i've watch this country go downhill. the most beautiful country in the world, and supposedly, they are christians. i am ashamed about myself, a christian. i am a roman catholic. host: next on the line is surely calling on the democrat line from enterprise, alabama. surely -- shirley. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. first of all the big problem here in my opinion, there is no bipartisanship. mainly, that is because john boehner thinks he is only speaker for the republican side. he will never vote on anything unless you can get them to vote on it. that is unfair to america.

there are democrats and republicans in america. not just republicans. when a bill is passed, such as the immigration bill, by 68 people in the senate, a needs to come to the floor of the house and be voted on. i do not know what is the matter with him. right now, we are in a very dangerous situation. i mean, on the one hand, they are trying to scare us to death about isis, and on the other hand, they want to defund dhs, or's guess that they will not find a unless immigration is gone. well, they know the immigration thing has to be taken care of. host: our next caller is tyrone

calling from north carolina on the independent line. tyrone, you're on the air. caller: i am a democrat. please don't cut me off. i was listening to the previous callers and john boehner that caused all of this. dhs should be by itself. immigration should be by itself. they said that they would block everything that the president does, and that's why they tie this -- tie this together. i'm a missionary chaplin, and i don't go for this kind of stuff that's going on in america. we need to protect america at all costs. host: tyrone, calling from north carolina. on the floor yesterday, house appropriations chairman paul rogers from kentucky spoke on white house needed to pass the short-term funding bill. [video clip] >> the house passed a funding

bill for department of homeland security maybe three weeks ago to give the senate and the time to consider and take appropriate action. the house acted three weeks ago. sent the bill to the senate. the democrats in the senate have refused to let that will be brought before senate, four different times, over three weeks. now who is to blame? for not finding the department of homeland security. the house has tried. the senate refused to act, until finally this morning, the senate took up a clean funding bill for homeland. in the past it. -- and passed it. so here is where we are. the house has passed a bill. the senate now has passed a bill finally. so what do you normally do? what's the procedure of congress

when both bodies passed the bill that is different from each other? you go to conference. we've done that. that's the recommended way. that's what's in the constitution. and so, the conference is necessary, but that will take some time we need some time to allow the conference to go to work and conclude this problem and work out the differences. host: in politico, in the story congress passes one week six. stephen pierce on new mexico explained his position. he said his vote rejecting the master was of brinksmanship. he noted that the house and over

-- he called his position a protest vote on the ho the whole thing is working. we are taking a calls on this issue. what should congress do about funding the department of homeland security going forward? we will turn out to the republican line, bob is calling from new jersey. bob, good morning. caller: good morning. host: what your thoughts this morning, bob? caller: well, since there seems to be a problem getting a problem getting anything done, i think congress should declare an emergency and find each individual department with a check for each department. just trust the immigration part. -- just drop the immigration part. host: see think lawmakers should take up a clean immigration bill? caller: right. host: do you care how long the funding is for?

caller: for the whole thing. they should find each apartment fully. and jobs the immigration part. not fun the immigration part. host: next on the line is gilbert from beaumont, texas. caller: yes. good morning. host: good morning, gilbert. caller: the reason why i think boehner had to go along with the seven day extension is because someone must have pulled his co-and made him realize that next week, we have the prime minister of israel coming to the united states and how could we have s this person, with them defeating that vote? he was in a hard place. i also want to make one more

point. we need to also revisit gerrymandering. because of gerrymandering, this is the reason why the congress deadlocked. thank you very much. host: gilbert from beaumont texas. our next caller is alan from st. joseph, missouri on the independent line. allen, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think you could solve this whole problem in four or five steps. first, anything dealing with security should be a clean bill. if they have this problem over and over congress has an operating budget of about $65 billion. what they could do is. representatives pay and benefits divide that $55 billion in two days, and pay dhs out of those funds. once they go back to work, the

congressman and senators do not collect on what they were owed on back pay because they did not do their job. this would solve the problem every time. host: allen, you are calling on the edge that line, i will call as you the same questio as i did of other independent call do you think both parties are to blame? caller: both parties are to blame. that is why we need a solution. i just gave a solution as to how we can continue, at least for a minimal of 82 days with their operating budget. pay these people to do the security which we need, and when it gets passed those 533 members will not collect their pay or benefits. that way you solve this problem every time. there's money there and that is where the money is that. let them pay for indecision. host: next up is larry from

normandy, texas calling on the republican line. larry, go ahead. caller: yes ma'am. thank you. our president says he is not giving amnesty. he says he is not ignoring the constitution, and he is only telling our border agents that there will be consequences for them if they enforce the law. a dictator can resolve this extremely quickly by resending his executive orders. i just recently had another friend killed by an illegal alien. we have to enforce our law. we can better -- very simply resolve this by the president resuming his unconstitutional directives. host: larry do you think this should be tied to the department of homeland security? caller: no.

he needs to resign his orders. he is the problem. not the party. one single person, president obama. host: next up is paul from san antonio, texas, calling on the democratic line. caller: i would like to follow up on the last caller talking about the executive action and constitutionality. we have a bigger problem in washington that probably played out in a lot of the attention on the dhs funding. it is the tea party. the tea party is a bigger problem for the united states than isis. they promote violation of the constitution by trying to violate people's constitutional rights. your ted cruz's, your donna campbell's. until someone votes these tea baggers out, we will not get anywhere. thank you for taking my comment.

host: that with paul on the democratic line. several lawmakers turning to twitter yesterday after the vote. representative pete king said this about his vote on the dhs funding bill -- not finding dhs is wrong politically because gop is blame it is also wrong morally because american lives are at risk. we also had representative steve pearce take to twitter. what he said about the vote opposing the extension of funding for the department of homeland security was that he felt it was a protest of the presidents decision to enforce immigration action reform. here is his tweet. time to end it in action, let's shake things up, seven days doesn't cut it. we are turning now to ken from

massachusetts on our republican line. 10, go ahead. what are your thoughts this morning? caller: first of all, i believe that the department of homeland security employees will eventually be paid. second, john boehner is in the spot that he is in because he gave the back of his hand to the tea party before. since the midterm, the people have said, i'm talking about the american people, they have overwhelmingly said that they want the obama business stopped with his executive action nonsense. i do not believe that they should have even given one week. i think they should have let it run out in them -- and then let's let this come

host: the "wall street journal" has this to say about how the department of homeland security might be affected by a potential shutdown. republicans were not the only ones to vote against short-term funding for the do homeland security. several democrats, five democrats voted against the final measure to fund the department of homeland security for one more week. the national journal reports this conversation in capitol hill. representative david scott from georgia sat through a tongue-lashing from his democratic colleagues friday afternoon after casting one of

the few yes votes. representative brown told him jim from maryland on the republican line now. good morning. caller: well, good morning. and good morning c-span. i'm struck by the notion that the republicans are not offering the democrats any incentive to support this bill. if they don't support the bill with the language that the republicans want to strip out obama's executive action and

d.h.s. shuts down the republicans will be blamed for it. and if they do support the bill, they will be blamed for not supporting their president. boehner needs to put -- let's just take something that democrats would find very difficult not to support. put a dollar in our raise in the minimum wage. that would be a very tough decision for many democrats to vote against doing something like that. and you might actually see a deal get done. you have to give something to get something. i'm a conservative republican. i don't support the concept of a minimum wage. but for all practical purposes it really doesn't make that much difference because it's so darned low anyway. so i just think better negotiating skills on both sides would help a lot. host: do you think that sparne should maintain his position -- speaker boehner should maintain his position? caller: yes. i think he needs to be a

lilling more willing to deal. host: all right. california, democrat yin line. ted, good morning. caller: good morning. host: it's very early in the morning where you are. caller: yes, it is. i wake up very early. but thank you for having a show on. but the question i would like to ask is, one didn't homeland security replace fema right after 9/11? and that means it seems that its directive is unclear anyway, but regarding the immigration problem, why isn't mexico and california the good friends that they should be? i mean, we can walk to mexico from california here. but there shouldn't be an immigration problem. and that's what i would like the people to consider. why are we not friends with

mexico? host: all right. next up is tony from tennessee. caller: i just want to say i do support the idea of stopping the executive order by president obama concerning immigration. i believe the republicans were given an absolute total mandate from the american people in the recent mid-term elections where they won overwhelmingly not just the house and the senate but also statewide. state after state the governors, the local the house seats, there was a mandate. and the key in the mandate was stop president obama concerning the immigration issue, concerning his obamacare. those are the two main issues that folks voted for. and those gentleman that are standing up for that are doing the right thing. i want to encourage them to continue to do that. host: you think they should

have let the funding for d.h.s. run out? caller: the funding was not going to run out. 85% of the employees were going to be there. they would be paid eventually once it was brought up. so there was not going to be a total shutdown. and the fact we had a shutdown the republicans came out on top. they just won the election. so a government shutdown that's not what it is going to be 85% is going to continue to operate. host: all right. next up is vernon from charleston, arizona. caller: arkansas. the way i see it, they were sent up there to do a job.

and they aren't doing it. host: republicans or democrats or both? caller: all of them. but mainly democrats. get rid of reid and we might do something. but as long as reid is in there, do you think that anything is going to get done? no. host: that's vernon on the independent line. the next caller is richard from florida. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. it's about time that the republicans protected the people from the tyranny that's going on in the white house. president obama raised his right hand and took an oath to the constitution to protect preserve, and defend. and he has done nothing but

trample the constitution ever since he's been in there. immigration. aca. obama care. when he changed it fixed law gone to war in libya without consent or even the knowledge of congress. the office of the presidency belongs to the people not to the democrats not to the republicans not to any party but to the people. and congress has the power to protect the people which they refuse to do. d.h.s. real quick when janet napolitano had d.h.s. guess who was on the watch list? conservatives, catholics, pro-life people. military personnel. veterans coming home from the war. this is who they put on d.h.s. as far as i know, tsa, transportation safety agency, has not caught one terrorist

the whole time they've been in existence. i mean they scan people with the scanning machine which exposes them to x-ray all the way through their clothing and everything. and we do not know how much harm this is going to cost the people. this is a -- you had a caller earlier who said that each agency should be funded separately. that's the way it should be done. we've got to do something about this out of control president. host: all right. we've heard your point. next up is buy ron from cleveland, -- byron from tennessee. caller: good morning. i hear all these people talking about the tea party. it's a problem. but the democrats have got a worse problem. they've got these progressives that are socialists. they hide behind the progressive title.

and if you don't believe that all you have to do is go to the communist party u.s.a. website web page and read their propaganda. they call title. and if you don't believe themselves progressives also. they're nothing but socialist communists hiding behind that title. host: all right. a few comments now from twitter. we have time for a few more phone calls now. caller: good morning. i just hopefully come from a point of reason that regardless of what party you are there

are priorities. funding bills should be passed with no thing no poisoned pills attached to them. i called two female congress people yesterday and urged them to vote to pass a clean bill. and i got from my congresswoman, the idea that, well, the house did its job. it passed its bill. well but they attached the poison pill to it. what they don't tell people is that the senate did pass an immigration bill that was bipartisan. and it was sent to the house and they don't bring it up. they don't even let people debate it. and a lot of people sit at home and they don't pay attention. as long as their snow gets shoveled and their trash gets picked up, they hear bits and pieces and they don't even really know the facts. host: so what do you say to the handle of democrats who voted

in favor of the three-week extension of funding for homeland security who said we want to make sure that the employees blue collar workers who work for the department of homeland security can get their paychecks and stay on the job? caller: well, i think three weeks is not going to -- what is going to change in three weeks? the house keeps putting forth -- i sat back and watched this ever since the republicans took over the house and i vote for republicans. i vote for democrats. i never vote a straight ticket. but sat back and watched this ever since the republicans took over the house and i vote for republicans. i vote for democrats. i we don't even have an opportunity where i live to even have -- we would go back and forth. we would have a democrat representative for the state for our area. but with the jerry mannedering i don't even know when there's going to be a possibility for another democrat to be elected. and a democrat -- in indiana are basically conservative republicans. host: next up is bob from

bloomsberg, pennsylvania. caller: good morning. this president has done more to decimate the constitution of the united states than any one that i've ever seen or heard of. and this is just another chinching in the destruction and destroying of the constitution as he seeks to have more power than -- take more power than he's been given under the constitution. and if we for any reason allow him to take these pieces out constantly in two years it's not going to be the same country i was born in and raised. host: all right. our next caller is robert. caller: i would like to ask a question of the republicans.

i would like to know how they can call obama a dictator when dictators do not tolerate dissent? host: ok. we have time for just a few more. vivian from georgia indiana. caller: first of all i would like to say -- i will be quick. first the american people we the american people need to learn our history. second, from d.h.s., this immigration stuff. mexicans are not the only immigrants in this country.

there's all kinds of people here undocumented. so why just point out the mexicans? it's wrong. congress should never add a ladder to a bill. they're just trying to be mean. host: i want to make sure we get in one last caller. bill of houston, texas on the independent line. caller: good morning. i just want to say that the budget for d.h.s. this year is supposed to be $35 billion. and i want people to know that we spend $113 billion on illegals annually for hospitals

and incarcerations plus they send back $20 billion each year to mexico. obama wants d.h.s. funded this year, but for hospitals and incarcerations plus they send back $20 billion each year to mexico. obama wants he's sitting there letting gitmo prisoners go. they return to fight against our people overseas. he sits there and lets 30,000 plus illegal criminals and aliens go last year. so why should we fund d.h.s. if he is going to let criminals go? but god bless america. host: next up we will continue the conversation about the extension of homeland security funding with tom shoop. he will give us the latest developments and break down the action with us. and later we will talk to the executive director of move on.org discussing the progressive agenda leading up to the 2016 elections. and on "newsmakers" this week, house judiciary committee chair bob glat will talk about

republican objectedives for immigration reform. >> from the very beginning of the last congress we articulated astep by step approach doing immigration reform and never bought into the big comprehensive immigration reform bill which was a classic example of the law of unintended consequences. if that were put into effect i think it would simply have taken us back to 1986 when we passed a pathway to citizenship. i wasn't here but the senate then did that and the house, too, and was signed into law that gave a pathway to citizenship for about 3 million people but also promised new interior enforcement of our immigration laws that would have resulted in theory 3 million people in there not being any more illegal immigration. and of course we got the pathway to citizenship for those people but we didn't get the enforcement.

and here all these many years later we view that senate bill as being a repeat of 1986 and not only us but i think a majority of the american people do not want to pursue that. so we took a step by step approach passed four bills through the judiciary committee but became bogged down in this larger dispute about what should happen to the people who are not lawfuly here and then toward the end of that congress as you know the president after making threats to do this for quite some time but waiting until after the election then took his pen and his phone and took an action that he himself many times said he didn't have the authority to take. that has completely transformed the environment here. and i think again the majority of the american people expect us to stop that action but they also want to see our borders secured. now, it is certainly a legitimate question to ask, will this president carry out new laws? we have grave misgivings about

that. but we also believe that there are many improvements to the law that whether it's this president or the next president they should have those tools to really show that the border of our country and the interior of our country is being properly enforced with regard to illegal immigration. host: and we are back now with tom shoop. he is vice president and editor in chief of government executive media group. he is here to talk about the latest developments in the im pass of funding for the department of homeland security. can you start by taking a step back for us and explaining how we ended up at this point. how we got to the point where we are in terms of the funding for the department of homeland security potentially running out? guest: sure. you can really go all the way back to november when president

obama announced his executive actions on immigration at the same time that the house and the senate were debating various appropriations bills. they then ultimately decided to fund all of government except the do homeland security, leaving that until february 27 when their funding would run out. then there was various debates over what should happen then. the house passed a bill that would fund homeland security for the full year and also resquind president obama's immigration orders. the senate voted on that four times and failed to pass it. the democrats blocked that every time. and ultimately the senate gave up and yesterday passed a clean full-year funding bill for homeland security, sent that to the house where the house was not interested in that as a measure. instead, voted to go to

conference committee on its bill and try to work out the differences. this was unacceptable to democrats. so the house made an effort to pass a 3-week funding bill for more time to go to conference and to try to work out some sort of arrangement. this was unacceptable to the senate. the senate ultimately went with a one-week funding bill. and in the meantime the house tried to do its three-week bill. that failed. the senate passes a one-week funding bill. and almost literally the 11th hour the house went along with that and they bought themselves one more week of funding for d.h.s. host: we will be taking calls from viewers. the numbers are on your screen.

we're opening up a special line for federal employees to talk about the impact this may be having on you. you can call 7488003. so the way it stands right now, we could be sitting here next week having the same exact conversation. how likely do you think it is that congress will come to some sort of compromise or that the department of homeland security might be shut down? guest: i think it's very likely we will be sitting here in another week having a similar conversation and that it will probably take right up until the 11th hour again to reach some sort of arrangement. it is very possible they will ultimately decide -- work things out over the next week and move forward because i do think that the people on capitol hill are getting tired of having are getting tired

of having this debate over and over again. but it does seem to be a log jam that recurse many times that people try to appropriations measure and it becomes very sticky and it was clear yesterday that house speaker boehner really didn't have control over his sticky and it was clear yesterday that house speaker boehner really didn't have control over his complete control over his caucus and was somewhat blind sided by the initial vote not to get action on something attached to an approve three week extension. so there's much remains to be seen as to whether these differences can actually be worked out. host: what will the impact of a shutdown actually be on the department of homeland security? guest: ok. it would be in terms of the day-to-day operations, relatively minimal in the sense that very much of the homeland security department would continue to operate. so about 85, 86% of employees at homeland security would continue to report to work. and continue to do their jobs.

they just wouldn't get paid until after the impasse is over. about 30,000 d.h.s. employees under current plans would be furloughed with no guarantee that they would get back pay for whatever time they were not allowed to work. host: and you ran an article their jobs. they just recently listing eight ways the shutdown could damage homeland security. one of the way you mentioned was long-term security planning local law enforcement could also be affected. training for federal law enforcement training centers and the funding for that might also be impacted as well. what impact might this have on employee morale? guest: i think that there's a very serious concern there. because for starters d.h.s. is one of the lower morale agencies in government to begin with. they have consistently ranked relatively low in the federal employee viewpoint survey in terms of how their employees view their work and view the department and how it's managed. and what's unfortunate is they've actually made some

progress recently on this front and in a way this sort of sets things back again by introducing a lot of uncertainty into the operations and making people wonder have to wonder whether they're going to get paid and when they're going to get paid. and even people who are doing important national security jobs such as border patrol agents and transportation security administration officers under a shutdown scenario would be required to go to work without knowing exactly when they would get paid. host: we'll bring in some viewers' comments now. britney from texas. caller: good morning. i just have two points to make. d.h.s. funding shouldn't be tied to the president's executive order. they have nothing to do with each other. it should be a clean bill like normal common-sense. pass the bill. there shouldn't be no

three-week extension because we'll be right back at the same point. the same thing is going to happen. going to waste people's time. people won't get paid. and that three weeks people have bills to pay. that's their livelihood right there. and my third point is about the president's eo. people need to remember their american history. abraham lincoln did two executive orders. every president since ronald reagan has done some form of eo where they've done the same thing. barack obama isn't doing anything that our history hasn't done. guest: that's definitely the democratic position that congress should pass a clean funding bill and deal with whatever action they want to take on president obama's executive orders separately. and over the course of the past few days there actually have been several republicans particularly in the senate who

have gone along with this idea and said that is the approach that congress should take. and it may likely be the approach that they ultimately do take because it seems like there is not a path that involves tying whatever action might be taken on immigration to the funding bill. host: next caller from arizona on the republican line. caller: i have probably a statement and what i think could be a -- bring this thing forward. the bill that's being sent now if they could put in leave in the nonfunding on the immigration for six months or nine months, with the promise that in that time they will bring forward an immigration bill.

and that if they don't get an immigration bill sent by that time then the president would be free to go ahead with his executive order. this congress has not had a chance to work on immigration. the president signed this after the election. they should be given an opportunity to pass an immigration bill. my statement that i would like to make that would maybe make some of the democrats realize the essence of this. if you had a republican president who came in and said i think the merciful and fair and moral thing democrats realize to do is to ban abortion therefore i'm going to sign an executive order doing away with abortion, i think their attitudes might change just a little bit. we have the congress and the president three separate

entities and that's how it's supposed to work. host: all right. we got your point. guest: i think it's to the point about separating out the immigration provisions in the bill and actually asking the president or asking for a separate vote on those measures, that's very possible that that could be something the democrats would sign on to. in other words that they would agree to say ok, we'll hold off on the immigration actions if you agree to bring a comprehensive immigration bill to a vote. it's not clear whether republicans would agree to do that. and the -- part of the we'll hold off on the immigration actions if you agree to bring a comprehensive immigration bill to a vote. it's not clear whether republicans would agree irony now is those executive orders are for all intents and purposes on hold right now because a federal judge has ruled against them. host: cow explain that. what is the status of obama's executive order on immigration? guest: sure. earlier this month a federal judge in texas issued an order

stopping those -- on hold those immigration actions from going into effect. the administration has appealed that but in the meantime most of the actions are not taking place. so things are already on hold. and this could provide an opening for republicans to say essentially we're going to let that process work itself out in the courts. and that's where the challenge is going to be. and then we'll move ahead with the funding part. host: our next caller is mike from maryland. he is calling on the democratic line. he is also a federal employee. caller: i just want to comment it seems like that the government worker seems to be the sacrificial lamb in what continues to be the inept tude of congress the unwillingness to work with the president and

if we are honest we can easily see that the president over these years has attempted to do multiple things where whatever he introduces congress makes sure or republican party makes sure that they reject it. not attempted to do multiple things where whatever he introduces congress makes sure or republican party makes sure that they reject it. not rejecting it with reasoning but rejecting it with scare tactics. and here we are again the president of the united states a black man who voted in by the american people twice every scheme they try to do did not work. here he is again trying to do something to move forward. the republican party doesn't introduce anything but scare tactics. but the hidden agenda continues to be here we are talking about

things surface things. host: all right. guest: he mentioned federal employees. and i think it's definitely true that in these situations federal employees feel as though they're the ones who are caught in the middle of this battle and sort of taken for granted and introducing all kinds of uncertainty into whether or not they're going to get paychecks on time and they've had to endure pay freezes and furloughs due to sequestration. so it is a great time of uncertainty in the federal workforce and they thinks like this sort of continue that feeling of being sort of trapped as political pawns in a game that doesn't really involve them directly. but they seem to be caught in the middle of it. host: how is it determined who is an essential versus

nonessential employee? guest: actually one of the interesting things is there's not in law a regulation actually a distinction between essential and nonessential. there are especially in the case of d.h.s. there are a couple other things. officially they're designated as excepted from furloughs or nonexcepted from furloughs. and that distinction is made on the basis if there's an absence of appropriations if you work in a job that involves the protection of life and property. if so you're deemed excepted from furloughs. the nonexcepted then would be furloughed under that situation. some factor in the case of d.h.s. and other agencies there are also agencies that are exempt from furloughs because they work by operations not funded by operations because they're funded by fees. so in the case of d.h.s. this is true of say for instance

u.s. citizensship and immigration services. that's largely a fee funded operation. so its operations go on even if congress of say for instance doesn't provide appropriations. host: john from pennsylvania. caller: good morning. and thanks for taking my call. i think this is kind of ironic when we think about what's going on here. this whole fight is over an immigration executive order. here we have a situation where our country is deciding whether or not we're going to have open borders or not open borders or controled immigration. we have this huge debate going on and the way it's solved by one president, republican or democrat, give an executive order. that's what caused this gridlock in congress and in our government. i wish they had just let the bill not pass and that they didn't fund d.h.s. we should be having a national debate just like we are right now over immigration. this isn't about d.h.s. this isn't about homeland security. this is about whether or not we

should be having open borders. and we never had a debate. we had a president just say executive offerederwise we're going to do this. guest: i think there are a lot of people who think there should be such a debate. even democrats would say that they would prefer that that debate take offerederwise we're going place separately in congress around that they wish that for instance, the bill that -- comprehensive immigration bill that passed the senate would be taken up in the house or would have been taken up last year which might have addressed this issue in a bigger way. and the president's position is that in the absence of congressional action he has taken whatever action he believes is leelly permissible and of course that's -- there's a lot of debate over whether he went to far. host: in terms of the executive order and immigration. guest: yes. host: did the judge rule on whether or not the order itself was constitutional or was that

not the question that was answered in the court case? guest: the judge ruled that the executive actions could not proceed. that they in essence were unconstitutional. and the administration has appealed that order and it is going to have to work its way up. it wouldn't be surprising if it went all the way to the supreme court. host: now, the immigration action is not the only sort of bill or only sort of issue that is specifically impacted by this debate. the "new york times" reported this morning that the funding still made also bode for any larger policy accomplishment this is year. for example the office of management and budget the vote to increase the nation's debt limit. lawmakers were also hoping to take up trade policy as well as a modest overhaul of the nation's tax code.

what does this tell us about republicans' ability to enact their domestic agenda going forward? guest: it's certainly not a good indicator that progress will be made going forward. republicans came in to their majority in the house and the senate this year saying we need to -- their leaders were saying openly we need to show that we can govern. we need to show that we can make the process work. and so far the process looks like the old process. and this is on a measure that arguably is not as contentious as some others that might come up later in the year involving funding for the next year and things like no child left behind. and the debt limit. so we may be very much in a situation where we're still seeing the same kind of stalemate. on the other hand the senate did yesterday seem to break the

log jam and say, we can't keep holding an appropriations bill hostage. we did the best that we could. and we need to move forward. and ultimately that may happen among the house leadership, too, that they find a path that says -- because there's a growing point of view that it's not an appropriate strategy to attach things to appropriations measures as a means of trying to get them -- trying to get the other side to give ground on a particular measure. and that's really has -- there's not a great track record of success in using appropriations measures to advance other legislation. so you may among the house leadership see ultimate pli as this continues not to work very well that these things get more separated. host: this comment from twitter.

how likely is this? guest: his position is not in immediate peril. he was just recently reelected speaker. he clearly has a problem with the conservative, more conservative part of his caucus. and it makes it very difficult for him to get things done like we saw yesterday. and votes clearly going the way that he didn't want them to go. so he definitely has a problem managing that wing of the party. and if what happened yesterday in the -- in terms of the three-week extension where the democrats were unified. that puts him in a very difficult position. host: next up on the phone lines joe. caller: good morning. obviously at this point i've been on long enough that the

injunction has been mentioned, the comprehensive immigration bill has been mentioned. i will go with this. the difference puts him in between the senate republicans getting a little bit of courage in the state where the republican representatives elected their voters are all collected. i would like the guest to talk about the comprehensive immigration bill that they never took up in the last congress that would have avoided this problem altogether.

guest: that's certainly something that the democratic leadership would like to see happen, a vote on a comprehensive immigration bill and that's what the president has said that he would be in favor of and would prefer that this these matters be taken up separately in the funding for d.h.s. not held hostage. that's not a debate that republicans have shown a lot of interest in having. and they've been -- and speaker boehner in particular has not wanted to take up a comprehensive immigration bill such as passed the senate. host: what would be the bill that passed the senate do? guest: it would do -- i'm not an expert on the legislation but it would do largely many of the things that president obama

has attempted to undertake in terms of his executive action in terms of providing

what is the cost? is there a price dag? guest: there definitely is. i can't remember exactly what the figure is. this would be a smaller scale shutdown. but there is a very definite cost involved. and you can think of this in two ways. one there's a dollar cost because there's money that has to be spent on implementing the shutdown. the other thing is it really makes it difficult to get an

agency's the figure is. this work done. much of the last couple of weeks people at the doff homeland security have spent having to spent having to plan for what would go on if a shutdown took place. they've started informally notifying employees of who would be furloughed and who wouldn't be. they started doing analyses of what would happen with grants and contracts. and ongoing operations of the department. these things have a real cost. and it means that it makes the agency less effective in doing its long-term work which becomes sort of a vicious cycle because then people complain that the agency is not doing its long-term work. host: this from the article you ran. contracts. and

guest: fema under the continuing resolution has had to cut off funding for new grants. what people should know is that even under the current situation with the temporary funding, this has an adverse effect on the regular operations on d.h.s. because there's certain things they can't do in terms of long-term planning and issuing new contracts. host: so just by having a one-week extension there's an impact. guest: already since november there was an impact. and the longer the longer it continues. it becomes difficult for them to do long-term things and new things. and one of the ironies here for people who are very interested in border enforcement, for instance is there's lots of plans they have on the table to beef up and build new facilities and a lot have to be on hold if they don't get the funding the. host: next andy from south

carolina on the republican line. caller: two things. one, there is one person that could solve the problem immediately. everybody could go back to work and there would be no problem at all and that's the president. all he needs to do is rescind his order on immigration. number two there is no bill that is comprehensive existing any more. the bill passed out of the senate does not exist any more with this new congress. therefore, there is no bill. and it wouldn't pass now anyway with the people in the senate because the republicans are in charge and many of those that voted for it before would not vote for it now. thank you. host: all right. andy on the republican line. one more caller now. bob from california. caller: two things. one is homeland security. i don't know why we even worry about it's a joke. the russians warned us who the boston marathon bombers were. but our law enforcement doesn't

seem to be able to get it. we had better get people in who know how to run the homeland security. and we had better hire the russians. and another thing. in 1965 doesn't seem to be able to get it. we had better get people in who know how to run the homeland security. and we had better hire the russians. and another thing. in 1965 i joined the army because in the early 60s, they took away the green cards and all the illegals started coming. i had to join because the only thing in this area was construction jobs that was a mainstay job and the illegals were in those jobs. host: comments on either of those callers? guest: that what those callers show and others is that there's a very stark divide on the country on the subject of immigration and it's a debate going on for several years and needs to continued to go on. and the question going forward is will congress and the administration have that debate separately from funding for federal agencies and work out whatever they can work out on immigration. a big part of the problem here is that the regular operations of the legislative branch have been really disrupted by this

idea of attempting to tie things to appropriations. and you don't see -- it's much more of a winner take all situation where both sides are dug in and you don't see the kind of horse trading that might ultimately result in a bill that you could get say a lot of democrats to vote for and it becomes -- that's when it becomes much more of a stalemate and difficult to move forward. so the question is can congress break that kind of log jam. >> time for a couple moff callers. curtis lot of democrats to vote for and it becomes -- that's when it becomes much more of a stalemate and difficult to move forward. so the question is can congress break that kind of log jam. >> time for a couple moff callers. curtis from virginia. caller: i would like to mention that president obama said repeatedly like 28 times that he could not do what he actually just did. and now all these democrats are calling all upset that we're trying to stop him from doing what he admitted himself is unconstitutional. it's a slam dunk. i would also like to address the earlier democrat that called and said that we're racist for opposing this.

they need to learn that playing the race called is old and stale. ok? it needs to stop. host: all right. last caller is valerie from indiana. caller: good morning. caller: i would like to make four quick points. we wouldn't be in this mess the mainly the congress did their job in this lass session. the last time i looked, all of them were grown or think they are. and all this is not on the president. he's done a great job. i would like to see him do bills separately. separately. what's so hard about that?

president obama is not in this alone. there's enough blame to go around to everybody. they refuse to deal with the immigration in the last congress. that was fault

we will talk to ana.

>> we have received more than 22 entries from 400 schools across the country in this years c-span student cam competition. wednesday morning at 8:00, we will announce the grand prize winner and show their winning documentary picked you will. >> here are our future programs for this weekend. on book tv allan ryskind. sunday at noon -- her books include the tierney of majority, lift every voice. on c-span three on the civil war

coming discussion about the brimming of -- burning of columbia, south carolina. an interview with daniel ellsberg on the pentagon papers. find our complete television schedule at www.c-span.org. let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us at 2026 through 630 400 -- 202-626-3400. when the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our next guest is anna galland, executive director of moveon.org.

thank you so much for joining us this morning. host: thank you for having me -- caller: thank you for having me. host: what are the top issues as a progressive? guest: i'm really grateful for c-span for creating this kind of forum for people to come from both sides of the political spectrum. looking toward 2016, moveon.org represents millions of americans across the country. we are at a crossroads. economic inequality -- people are working to were three jobs still not able to make ends meet. how are we going to build an economy that works for everyone? how do we make our democracy lift up the voices of average

americans in an era of citizens united and these other decisions that if open the floodgates of corporate and 1% cash into our political process? those are just two of the big issues we want to see addressed. one very concrete and visible thing members are doing right now, given we still have plenty of time before the 2016 election really kicks in in earnest is to encourage one of the leading that most powerful voices speaking out about economic inequality. talking about senator elizabeth worn. moveon.org has launched a $1 million effort to encourage her to get into the 2016 presidential election. to run in the primary. we opened offices in new hampshire and iowa are to have members across the country signing petitions, holding house parties, standing out in the bitter cold asking lauren --

warren to bring that vision and track record into the presidential primary. host: i want to read a bit from the open letter you all wrote to her back in december. we are making it clear come if you want for president, we will be right there with you helping forge a path in the iowa caucus to the white house. there is too much at stake to have anything other than our best candidates taking part in the debate. we need powerful champions like you for real solutions. have you heard from senator warren? guest: we are running this as a positive independent effort. this is a grassroots campaign. we are not coordinating with the

senator in any way. we hope she is listening. there is plenty of time for her to get into the race. all elected officials and all public servants need to be responsive to the conditions on the ground. the conditions on the round -- on the ground, the polling we have seen in new hampshire and iowa in this critical early primary states, the conditions as i see them are a movement of americans imploring her to bring her message come her track record come everything she stands for, to bring that into the conversation and into the race for president in 2016. host: viewers can join the conversation by calling us. republican line at 202-748-8001. democratic line at 202-748-8000. independents can call 202-748-8002. we are also checking twitter.

and facebook. we've been talking a lot this morning about the extension of funding for the department of homeland security for one more week, this debate and controversy on capitol hill over how best to do that, whether or not to like it to president obama's executive order on immigration. how do you think this debate will play into 2016 or will it have legs to last that long? guest: i think everyone watching would agree that this is a disaster. it's a repeat of what we saw in 2013 when republicans in congress forced the shutdown of the entire federal government for two weeks. that was a devastating road that had a terrible effect on the economy, had federal workers going without pay for weeks. this is no way for the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world to run its own affairs.

it is worse than embarrassing, it is damaging. the fact that we may see a partial repeat of that in coming weeks is unthinkable. it is early to say how this might affect the 2016 elections. it shows that we need public officials, public servants who will act in the best interest of the country and not be beholden to extremist fringe of people. that's like governing by burning the house down. it doesn't make any sense. americans see that across the political spectrum and there will be a price to pay if they allow this nonsense to continue. host: our first caller is george from west virginia calling on the democratic line. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i watch it quite often and i listen to the congress every day in the senate everyday.

i sit and watch and listen to what's going on in the country. the conservative state of west virginia was talking about impeachment -- he called our center and -- senator and want him out of office. as far as mrs. clinton and mrs. warren, they don't have a chance to win anything. mrs. warren has not done anything. i've been following her, watching her. mrs. clinton has so much baggage that will come out on her. she should quit running before she even get started. all of the baggage will get forced upon her shoulders. she is going to be drug group so much -- drug through so much.

guest: our members would disagree with where you are coming from there. i would point you to -- when you say conservative state like west virginia, it is misguided. it is misguided for the talks of impeachment. moveon.org was started in 1998 when congress was calling for the impeachment of bill clinton. people want to see government take on the big challenges that are affecting us. they want to see government do something about the fact that people cannot send their kids to college. they are mounting up his huge piles of debt. they want to see government do something about the fact that people are working to were three jobs and are still not able to make ends meet. they want to see government do some thing about the fact that

the world is becoming more and more dangerous and unpredictable and we need diplomatic approaches to address the issues. they don't want to see government bogged down by these phony crises. host: why is elizabeth warren a better candidate than hillary clinton? the she have a chance of getting elected by the general public? guest: we are focused on bringing elizabeth warren's message and track record and vision into this process, not on pairing any other candidate down. west virginia, folks may remember that elizabeth warren campaigned there before the 2014 midterm elections and was met with huge and very enthusiastic crowds. she grew up in oklahoma, was a republican for many years, grew up on the middle class -- we

tested her message and life story in polling in those early primary states like new hampshire and iowa, we found that people are strongly supportive of where she stands. a respected pollster did a focus group with democrats and republicans and found elizabeth warren was the one candidate that people across the spectrum said "i like her." she stands up to corporate special interest. i like her. she can relate to people like me. the evidence suggests -- it's not just moveon.org. the evidence points to elizabeth warren being a compelling figure across party lines because of the fact that she is standing up to the entrenched special interests which have to pouch -- too much power. host: mark in cincinnati, ohio

on the republican line. caller: i'm calling on the racist republican line, but i'm against crony capitalism. that brings me to a question about the commitment -- elizabeth warren is a fighter. she wants to take on special interest. to me, rather than trying to go against the top 10% of the country or the top 1% of the country like the occupy people, why not go after the top 10 of 1%? if you took warren buffett's assets -- his geico insurance company is a government enforcement that makes people have to buy that product. we have to pay more for old

because we are shipping off his choo-choo train instead of building a pipeline. you can take on those guys and it would not be a speed bump -- it would be a great lesson on what happens to monopolists when they break the system. -- rig the system. guest: i do think it is worth pointing out that republicans and democrats alike and independents agree that something is broken in our democracy and in our economy. the language people use may differ. some people talk about crony capitalism and corporate corruption or runaway money. there is a problem here. we need to be serious about it. what we are seeing right now is a grassroots movement of americans across the political spectrum and political lines

saying we need to do something about it. this past week is an amazing example of what people power can achieve. just this week, we saw president obama veto the keystone xl pipeline. a project that oil companies have been pushing hard for years and he has be vetoed that for now. we saw the fcc and act that neutrality -- enact net neutrality. it will ensure that the internet is open and free for everyone -- open and available for everyone not divided into fast lanes for the rich and slow lanes for the rest of us. we saw chicago where to a garcia pushed rahm emanuel into a runoff for the first time in chicago's history. following in the tracks of other developments around the country

build a blase winning in new york city -- build a blaseill deblasio winning in new york city. walmart raising its minimum wage to $10 an hour. you cannot raising a family -- raise a family on the current minimum wage. we are putting people in an impossible position. this week is evidence that there is a rising tide of people having had enough with the rigged system, or people saying corporations cannot control our politics we have had enough. left my people agree something is broken and we are doing something about it. moveon.org encouraging elizabeth warren to run for president as part of that rising tide. host: i want to get your thoughts on this article. "elizabeth warren loved by

progressives." other groups are not calling on her to run. the cofounder said we are organizing a in early states -- some of the party base believe that moveon.org is more invested in propping up someone rather than endorsing someone that will likely win. guest: adam green was on c-span last week talking about this. he noted that their strategy is synergistic. it complements the strategy that moveon.org is taking it we all have an interest in seeing the

2016 presidential election get to the core issues we need to deal with as a country. moveon.org is pushing with our friends at democracy for america and the working family party pushing one of the most powerful and compelling voices out there to enter the presidential fray. others use different strategies to push a particular agenda. i see those efforts as complementary, not competitive. everyone can agree that it is not healthy for our democracy if we go through -- the only two parties we have as a country that are going to really compete in the 2016 presidential election, it's not healthy if one of them doesn't have a contest.

they won't have been battle tested. we won't really air all the competing visions for who we are going to be. it's bad for the country. even people who aren't sure whether or not elizabeth warren will run, many people agree it is good for our candidates, good for the party and good for the country for there to be a genuinely contested primary. host: new york, new york on the independent line. caller: good morning. i really like elizabeth warren but i have two strong reasons as to why i think it is illogical for her to be president. the only way she would be successful as a president is if she was accompanied by a titanic wave of progressive votes across the country that would literally result in 400 representatives

and 75 senators that would be completely in lockstep with every aspect of her policy. that doesn't seem like it would happen. congress will still be in republican hands. the house of representatives for some time. i think she would be locked in the same useless stalemate that obama is in now. i think the second strong reason is that -- if there is another terrorist attack on this country , i would hate to see a groovy woman like elizabeth warren swept up by the same war fever that influenced bush's administration and wrecked obama's administration. you would watch elizabeth warren turn into maleficent overnight and we would be job dropped --

johnaw dropped. host: on twitter -- guest: thank you for both of those thoughtful points. this is an incredibly important conversation for us to have. i would point to president obama , when he began his campaign for higher office, one of the most frequent criticisms leveled at him was he doesn't have enough experience, he only has two years in the senate, x number of years in the state legislature. what we need to do as a country is have people who are credible with credible visions get on that stage and we can be a judge of whether someone has the experience that we need at this

moment in our history. we need to be having that conversation. we cannot have that conversation unless elizabeth warren gets into the race. elizabeth warren is someone who has clearly stated powerful important positions on a range of issues. including that we need to be talking about expanding social security, not cutting it. we need to be talking about taking on an addressing the real crisis in student loan debt. we need to protect consumers from companies taking advantage of them. the consumer financial protection bureau is an example of government making a concrete difference in people's lives. we need more policies like that. that expense, that track record in the mix of the 2016 presidential primary. host: pamela from florida. democratic line. caller: good morning to you.

i think your organization is awesome. it is doing a good job and is focused on the important things. every day, i listened to c-span and i listen to this craziness about how businesses create jobs. nothing that is not a life can create anything. it is the people that create jobs. people that have income that can buy the goods and services create jobs. we need an income that keeps up with inflation. if everybody -- walmart raising its wage, that's awesome. mcdonald's feels it's ok to continue exploit these workers -- to exploit these w

workers. let's go by wendy's or chick-fil-a. anything but mcdonald's. we will see their business crash . i would like to put that out there and hope people can focus on that. host: you mentioned earlier that you guys are focused on running a positive campaign. there was a lot of controversy this week over some comments that scott walker made at the cpac convention. [video clip] >> sometimes people in the media don't understand that as a governor -- i would tell you for years, i have been concerned about that threat here on american soil. using the reported stories about what we see in the twin cities and some of the issues there.

i know all of u.s. parents feel the same way -- i want a commander in chief who will do everything in the power to which were that the threat from radical islamic terrorists do not wash up on americans will. we need someone who will ascend a message -- send a message. whene need a leader with that confidence. host: your response? guest: he compared peaceful protesters in wisconsin who were outraged that scott walker was trying to end the right to collective bargaining in the state of wisconsin. he is comparing them to one of the most brutal -- a group of

people who have butchered civilians in a terrible conflict situation in the middle east. that is an insane comparison. it doesn't dignify a response except to say that i hope we can have the kind of conversation that talks about the real challenges that our country faces in a way that doesn't stoop to that kind of level. host: lee from florida. go ahead. caller: what a great discussion this morning. i spent 24 years in the military. i'm an entrepreneur. democratic, liberal to the corporate i'm tired of hearing about immigrants south of the border when there is a lot of anglo-saxons in our country and they never get talked about.

i hear them call in time and time again and called this great president, one of the greatest of all-time, call him over and over again -- i hate this kind of speech. god bless you all and god bless c-span and thank you so much for bringing it home. host: our next caller is bob in wisconsin on the republican line. caller: i totally disagree with you and your policy. i believe obama needs to be impeached. he has broken our constitutional law. he has broken our immigration laws by allowing illegals in here and then they find out

there are terrorists coming in with these illegals. i think obama is a coward and he needs to be impeached. he forces us to buy insurance we did not want. he forces us to accept illegals we do not want. whether they are anglo-saxon or anybody. obama has broken the constitution. host: anna galland? guest: moveon.org members worked to help elect president obama. we have not agreed with every single thing he has done as president. we have been very proud and have shared in many of his a couple schmitz. enacting the affordable care act gave millions of americans access to health care. -- shared in many of his accomplishments. we are proud of the work the president has done on many fronts, including the affordable care act.

and immigration reform -- the our families that have been in the united states that have been working, productive members of society that the right wing fringe would like to tear apart and ship overseas. it's unpractical and unethical and not the american way. the fact that president obama took action to keep those families together was a wise move given a completely dysfunctional congress on this issue. i members want to see that reform a permanent. -- made permanent. they don't want to see the government shutdown over it. i members are proud of the progress of achievements of president obama's administration and we look forward to having the conversation about what kind of country we want to be going forward. do we want to take action on the terrible problems of economic

inequality? are we going to come together to secure long-term, sustainable immigration reform as opposed to the kind of short-term patch we have had to make do with so far? if you talk to the american people, that's what they want. a government that works for average americans. host: next up is another republican. peter calling from new york. caller: good morning. i have to disagree with you but you are a really nice person. i will tell you a few things. what we need to do, where we are going -- i've had enough of democrats and republicans. they have destroyed our country. i will tell you what the cause of all this problem is. we are not the richest country anymore.

we cannot take care of everybody in the world. our immigration is -- the people coming in are taking, not giving. how we destroyed this country is -- it started in 1913 when the federal reserve took over our money. here is a quote from -- they control the centralized banking. whoever controls the money controls the policies and they control the politicians and corrupt the politicians. politicians don't do anything anymore. they are supposed to work for us, but they don't. host: next on the phone line arnold from north carolina on the democratic line. caller: good morning. i'm enjoying your conversation with this young lady from moveon.org.

i enjoy what she is saying. i'm a progressive democrat living here in a red state. a lot of young people that would be supportive of our party and programs are so turned off by our government and -- they would chill up at a gunfight with a butter knife. this is a sad thing. i'm 63 years old. my children are in their 30's and 40's. the democrats take the beat down by the republicans and they get turned off by it. they don't want to go vote. guest: in the 2014 midterm

elections democrats did not turn out in the ways they needed to. democratic voters did not turn out the way they needed to and we lost control of the senate as a result. our diagnosis after the fact was we all need to vote. you have to make sure we get to the polls. we need to look to the democratic party twist fire people -- to inspire people. democrats will be bold. if democrats will stand for average people and stand for the little guy against the system that is rigged, against the corporate special interests that have too much sway, that will fire people appeared that is the kind of politics we need come about politics that puts regular people first and looks to level the playing field and expand social security and fixes are

broke a student loan system and looks to have a diplomatic peaceful foreign policy that pushes back against corporate power in this country. that is what we need to see. it's what we are doing with our campaign and i hope you will join us at moveon.org. host: nbc news had this article a few months ago. elizabeth warren star rises amid confrontation. her move suggests her role in 2015 will be holding obama accountable for the political left. the you will agree with those

statements? guest: i agree that her power has increased in recent months as people in the country have come to know her. when we put the question to our members of whether we should encourage her to run for president, 81% said yes because they want her message and vision . they want to see it in the mix of the 2016 discussion. i think we are seeing a rising tide of people power. i talked about how just this week, we saw net neutrality becomes the law of the land, we saw the veto of the keystone xl pipeline, walmart raises minimum wage, all in one week. this is evidence of where the energy and passion is right now in the democratic states. the heart of the democratic party right now is with an

economic populist debate. people want to see the party fighting for the log i. -- the little guy. if they hear that message, it will be successful in elections to come. host: betty on the independent line. caller: good morning. i'm calling on the homeland security and immigration bill. what i don't understand is, why don't the democrats -- i don't understand why they put the immigration bill in there to start with. it is homeland security. you are supposed to be for us, not immigration. you want to help them, that's fine. host: it's the republicans who initially tried to link funding for homeland security with the

president's executive order. caller: that was before. that was in november and december. then they turn around and put immigration in and said no because that's not part of it. they don't want the immigration bill. host: which party do you believe deserves the blame? caller: why don't you all do that later on and right now protect us? worry about immigration later on. guest: the fact is the republican party which has made homeland security funding contingent on repealing president obama's immigration examiner border -- it's a craven move and dangerous. the department of homeland

security is hundreds of thousands of employees. funding for local police and part apartments to port security to fema staff. -- police and fire departments. putting the funding at risk because republicans are upset that president obama tried to fix a broken immigration system is profoundly irresponsible. voters are already holding the republican party accountable for the threats to funding and they will hold them accountable even more if they go through and shut down the entire department. host: next up is sherry from chicago, illinois. caller: hi. i wanted to talk about elizabeth warren. i've been following her for a number of years. i saw her speak here in chicago a number of years ago.

i really support everything she does. nobody talks about it, but in her own mind, i think beyond all of us actively trying to persuade her and try to get her to run, i think if one or two things happen out there like we have another financial crash or worse or if republicans succeed in doing something critical those are the kinds of things that might just tip her and make her say screw it, i'm in. you know she's the real thing. this is not just lip service for her. her book convinced me she would run. i think it would take one or two things that are not out of the ordinary -- we have had financial crashes. the whole system is a house of

cards. somehow, the most fortunate, most wealthy people seem to serve the crash when it happens. guest: i totally agree with you. millions of americans agree that elizabeth warren is the real deal. the working family in new york agrees with you. hundreds of thousands of people who have signed an open petition agree with you. the road between here and november 2016 is long. there is a lot of time left for people to get into the race. it is incredibly important that everyone who wants to see elizabeth warren's message and vision included in this debate, go to runwarrenrun.org. we can show her the depth of

energy and excitement out there for her vision and we will see what happens. we can help make it more possible. elizabeth warren was drafted by a grassroots movement to run for senate. she was a reluctant politician but she answered the call of her time in the call of her time now is for her to bring back the mission of making this country work for the little guy. host: this question from steve on twitter -- guest: we follow our members. we have 8 million members around the country. you get e-mails from us all the time. empowering you to take action by starting your own petitions. however this 2016 election develops, we will look to our

members to make a final decision. we are totally focused on running a positive campaign to ask elizabeth warren to bring her message and experience and vision into the 2016 democratic primary. host: vancouver washington. jeff on the republican line. caller: it's an interesting discussion we are having this morning. divided we stand. all i hear is us working against each other for our own self interests. we are all looking out for ourselves. guest: thank you for sharing your perspective. the events of this week and the events of the last few years have shown that the real salt lake's are not democratic versus republican. it's little guy versus entrenched power structure.

-- the real salt lines. it is corporate special interest versus the rest of us. what you are seeing is a rising tide of people who have had enough. the occupy movement spoke to that. the moment we are seeing now speaks to that. we need a government, elected officials that work for all of us, not just for their friends and corporate benefactors. i agree with you. this is a moment when we need to pull together and demand a government that works for everyone. that's what moveon.org members work for every single day and night bite you to join us at moveon.org. host: next up is robert from alabama on the independent line. caller: i really appreciate the

show this morning. i really enjoyed it. i really like elizabeth warren heard i been watching her on c-span and i like what she has to say. we had so many lawyers up there in washington. and lawyers of the lawyers. as far as the immigration concerned, my wife and took ui took 13 years to make it through the immigration system. she finally got her citizenship and her passport and she was able to go home and see her father when he was sick. thank you so much for the immigration people in atlanta that finally got the bill straightened out. i feel like the lobbyists have taken over our country.

i really feel like the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. host: our finer caller will be victoria from tallahassee florida. caller: i do believe the last caller said the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. my son was born early premature, so he has medical issues and i can't work. last year, i tried to work three jobs and every time he gets sick i stop working. president obama is doing the best he can to run this country but nobody wants to work with him so it can get better. how can america be named number one if everyone is working against him? host: anna galland

we leave you with the last word. guest: my heart goes out to you. your story is a call to all of us to take action. i invite everyone watching to go to moveon.org and join us in our efforts to make this country a place where everyone can thrive. that works for the little guys average americans, not just wall street. we are encouraging elizabeth warren to run for president because she shares that agenda. our democracy won't work if we don't stand up, organize, talk to our friends and neighbors and encourage them to vote and keep this work going. thank you for all you do. host: anna galland, executive director of moveon.org. thank you for joining us this morning. next up, we will speak to ned ryun on the other side of the spectrum.

he will discuss the conservative activist agenda. stay tuned. ♪ ♪ >> this is sunday on q&a baltimore police commissioner anthony bass on the challenges of policing the city. >> i still had an issue with public trust and people believing things that were said. regardless of the fact that i stand in front and say use of force is down 46% and lawsuits are down and we are moving in all the positive ways, people in communities say they don't believe it. >> sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's q&a. >> the c-span cities toward textbook tv and american history tv on the road, traveling to

u.s. cities torn about their history and literary life. we partner with comcast for a visit to galveston texas. >> heave ho! >> with the opening of the suez canal in 1869 ships were almost dealt a death below. coal fire ships had a direct route. sailing ships needed to find a way to make their own living, so they set up high-value cargo and started carrying lower value cargo, coal, oil, cotton, etc. carrying any kind of cargo that did not require getting to market any fast-paced. >> watch all of our events from galveston, saturday march 7 and

sunday, march 8. "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined now by ned ryun founder and ceo of american majority come here to discuss his conservative -- the conservative agenda for the 2016 presidential election. good morning. guest: good morning. host: can you tell us about what american majority is? guest: i founded american majority in january of 2008 with the idea of going out and doing two things. identifying and training people to run for state and local office. i'm a big believer that the real change we want to see his conservative -- it doesn't begin in d.c. we train people to run for school boards, cutting emissions, statehouse and state senate. we train activists to be better

at what they do. -- county commissions, statehouse in state senate. encouraging people to run for office and supporting them and not relying upon rallies or other things that might take up a lot of time. we've been doing this for about seven years now. done trainings and 45 different states. and trained well over 30,000 people. a good start. we are headed in the right direction. we've been doing training at cpac, equipping people. we've been excited about what we've been able to do here in 2015. host: we can see that you are in the middle of the action. can you talk about what the big issues are that are being talked about at cpac this year? guest: it has been interesting to watch. we've had virtually anybody that is considering running for the

2016 nomination in the gop primary here. it's been interesting to see what they talked about. immigration has been a big issue. isis, global jihadist some is another big issue. it's been interesting to see the reaction, the response. i was impressed. jeb bush came yesterday. he did a very good job of being in the midst of maybe what was not the most friendly crowd, but he did a solid job. it's been interesting to see the debate and conversations taking place. let everybody make their case as to why they think they should be the nominee, not only policy wise. how are they going to do this politically? how will they put the right infrastructure in place and raise the money to be successful? i've been hammering this and a lot of the boot camp sessions.

unless we went politically, we are just having great conversations. i want to see what people can do to put pieces in place to win politically. the next couple of months will be telling to see what these potential nominees are able to do. host: ourur viewers can join the conversation. republican line at 202-748-8001. democratic line at 202-748-8000. independents can call 202-748-8002. you can e-mail us. ned ryun since he mentioned jeb bush, i would like to play a clip of him speaking earlier this week. his response to those who feel like he may not have what they're looking for. [video clip] >> i mentioned candidates --

some people boo when i mention your name. >> for those that made a boo sound, i want to be your second choice -- it's a record that may be hard for people to imagine because it's a record of a college men, of getting things done. taking conservative prince pulls, running on them and having the courage to say this we need to take on -- host: you mentioned you were impressed with his performance. why were useyou so surprised that he did well? guest: most of the crowd was not going to be friendly towards jeb bush. he did an admiral job of being able to make his case on some points.

a lot of people do not agree with him on common core come his immigration stances. he did some good things as the governor of florida that many in the crowd would agree with. whether it's government spending taxes. there is ground for agreement with those who attend cpac. just the fact that he showed up and did a solid job. kudos to him. we will see what happens now. it will be interesting to see -- scott walker has a big following here. rick perry did a good job yesterday. will there be a third player in the mix that can make this an interesting nomination process? we will see what happens in the upcoming months. host: first caller is marlon from pennsylvania on the republican line. caller: i want to know how you felt -- jeb bush will probably

not win the nomination. if he has to face hillary clinton or elizabeth warren, what are his chances? guest: i think you make a pretty valid point. the voting base skews more conservative. jeb bush will have a hard time regardless of how much money he raises. it will not be an easy fight for him to win the nomination. if he does, it depends on who his opponent is. i think he will do a good job. people are ready for a change. primaries are the type for us to have our disagreements. when it comes time for the general, we put our disagreements aside. you will see a real unity between republicans and a real conservative base so we can win the white house back. if jeb bush were to be the nominee, i think you would see a great deal of unity behind

whoever the general candidate is for the gop because we want to win the white house back. we have seen the damage obama has done and we want to make sure that does not happen again. if jeb bush does become the 2016 nominee, he will get support. i would support him if he was the general election nominee. host: i want to ask you about the last minute extension of funding for the department of homeland security. republicans got the brunt of the blame. how much do you think what happened over this past week and what has happened -- what happens next week could influence what republicans do in the year going forward? guest: i will plead ignorance. the last couple of days have been a whirlwind here doing all of the training. i honestly could not comment in

an intelligent way on anything outside of cpac. i will have to catch up on the current events starting monday. i'm afraid i cannot give you a good answer on that. my hope is republicans in congress -- we elected them and 2014 to have the majority vote to shrink government and be more responsible when it comes to spending. we will see what happens. that's all i can say. host: new york. democratic line. caller: i would like to know if you could explain -- has some long writtenaw been written since bush and reagan did their executive immigration action? is there some law passed since

then that makes obama's illegal? guest: we know there is an issue in regards to how immigration is taking place. we know the process by which you become a citizen needs to be made a better process and we need the border to be more secure. one of the things we are trying to promote as conservatives is let's secure our border and look at this immigration issue coming from the rule of law and coming from the realization that people want to come to this country. america is a nation of immigrants. we have to make the process a smoother process. in the upcoming years, we have to figure out how we can smooth the process out and make it an easier process and realize we have to go through certain process to make sure it is the rule of law. i'm hopeful that if a republican wins the white house that we can

take a responsible look at how to do immigration correctly moving forward. caller: greg from stafford, virginia on the independent line. ♪ i would like to make acaller: both republicans and democrats switch votes every time. president obama that people have a short-term memory. 2008-2010, he had the majority. he could have passed immigration. he ran a health care plan down people's throats. most of the american people were against it. wait until 2017 when rates start going up. my rate is going up now. i have great insurance, but my deductibles keep going up every year.

how are you paying for illegal immigrants? who is paying for that? we are. guest: it is a shame. i would not say that this obamacare was a pressing, huge issue when obama decided to make it -- one of the signature bills of his administration. we have to look at it and say this was not the right thing -- do we need to go in and look at how the health care process is done? yes. was obamacare the right move? no. being able to buy insurance across state lines, health savings accounts, that would have been a much better approach. it would have reduced the cost of health care and been a much easier fix. wrong move, wrong priorities. if a gop nominee wins the white

house, we can take a hard look at this and offer a good alternative. that is something republicans have not been a good job -- one of the things were publicans have fallen down is offering a strong alternative. that's where republicans have fallen down. there is three things that are easy fixes. being able to buy insurance across state lines, health savings accounts and a compelling idea from the inside -- from the republican side, people would be willing to take a listen. host: people around the country looking to cultivate fresh faces for the republican party. what are you looking for in terms of ideas personality caps on guest: we are looking for good

men and women that first of all are looking to take that stuff into the public arena. this is a big step regardless of if you are running for school board or congress that you would be willing to step into the public arena take the risk and run for office, and if you win, commit to doing the work that is necessary to be involved , to fight the good fight, to pass good policy. we look at it a couple of different ways -- identifying people, training people, getting them to run getting them to win, and the most important is implementing the right ideas. host: what are the right ideas? guest: i tell our people that politics is policy. one of the questions i got to ask scott walker is this younger generation right now currently with the economy with the job market, many of them are not hiding the jobs they hope to find. one thing i would say is how can we create the environment that's

more conducive to creating jobs? reduce regulation. i would make the argument we could probably regaled -- probably look at reducing corporate tax. these local bodies, the city council, the school board usually are the ones that impact our daily lives even more than sometimes the federal government. how can we start taking a look at how we are spending money on the school board's? what our property taxes looking like? how was the city council using our money? is it being used responsibly? the idea of government is where have to have responsible government, but at the same time we want to have limited government in size and scope. we want the government to have light touch regulation. those are some of the ideas we are promoting with the people we are training to give them the tools to win so they can implement the right ideas. host: former texas governor rick perry spoke about the issue of the economy and unemployment at seatac --cpac on friday.

[video clip] >> it's no surprise that one out of 10 children are -- one out of five children are on food is because one out of 10 americans are unemployed, underemployed, or just stopped looking for work . i want to say this clearly -- the unemployment rate is a sham. it leaves millions of american workers uncounted. [applause] if the republican party does not take a stand for these uncounted americans, who will? [applause] the answer is not to expand the welfare state. it is to build the freedom state, and i happen to know it can happen because we did it in my home state. and our formula was simple -- you control the taxes and the spending you provide smart regulation, you develop an educated workforce and you stop lawsuit abuse at the courthouse. host: your thoughts about his

ideas yucca guest: i thought rick perry did an excellent job. i really think of all the potential nominees that came, he did an excellent job of speaking and of answering the question. one of the things we tried to do at cpac this year is not only encourage people to not give the same stump speech, but we did question and answer afterwards, and he did an excellent job of answering the question. he's right -- governor perry was able to do in texas and the environment he created -- loosely, reducing regulation, encouraging job creation encouraging companies to come into the state to be there, to be able to create jobs -- he has done an excellent job. we like to see more people like rick perry implementing the policies in various states that make it conducive for companies to come in and have the ability to hire people, to create more jobs. that's not about raising taxes on corporations. it's not about increasing

regulations. again, understanding we have to be responsible and how we approach these things, but we do need to reduce regulations and corporate tax, and we need to be able to create an environment in which people can create jobs. host: will take a phone call now from gabrielle in phoenix arizona, on the republican line. caller: my question is a little bit off the mark because you are covering cpac, but actually, it was addressing an issue that i had with the previous person on the program, who, you know, supported elizabeth warren. and elizabeth warren's commitment to the little people. little people, if i understand it, actually refers to dwarfs

politically correct. what does cpac had to say about little people? guest: i'm afraid because of the noise here i was not able to hear the last part of your question. host: i'm assuming the color is referring to how does cpac feel about helping the most disadvantaged. guest: we want to see everybody have the ability to change their station in life. one of the panels i did yesterday was about how we can as conservatives and even republicans, change our message. we want to strengthen the individual. we want people to have the ability to become everything they hope to become and achieve in life. again, i think we have the best ideas and we have the best approach for everybody regardless of current station. that's the great thing about the american dream and about

america. you can come as a first-generation immigrant regardless of where you come from, regardless of your background, and because of who we are as a nation and because of who this country is, you can achieve your dream. we want to have the climate and the ability to do that or as many individuals as possible. i understand it's the role and responsibility of government to provide a safety net, to make sure that people, the disadvantaged are taken care of at some level. at the same time, we want them to have the ability and be empowered and go out of become all they should become. conservatism by its very nature is compassionate. we done a very poor job of communicating that because we've been so strident sometimes in our tone. one of the things i hope to see moving in the 2016 elections is, you know, stay true to our values, stay true to who we are, but change some of the message change some of the words we're using, and do a much better job with communicating with all the american people. host: you've mentioned immigration a number of times. is that one of the issues you

feel is most energizing to new entrants into the conservative movement or two perhaps young people? what is the issue you feel will get them sort of motivated? >> right now again, i think a lot of the people here currently at cpac are looking at a couple of things. yes, immigration is one of them. and again people regardless of where they are at know that's going to be one of the main issues in the 2016 election. national defense is going to be another issue, and how we deal with threats like isis and what some are calling the global jihadist movement. how will we approach and deal with that in a way that a strong and deals with it over there so it does not come over here he accor obamacare obviously, is going to be a big issue. how do we put forward a compelling alternative to that you could at the end of the day, the role of government, the size of government, the size of the government debt, which is at $18.5 trillion, i believe --

these are some of the issues being discussed, being talked about. obviously, immigration, national defense, obamacare -- that will be three of the main big issues on the 2016 elections, and i like some of the ideas that have been proposed by nominees. it's not about the ideas necessarily, but about what you can put in place to put in place a winning campaign. the next few months will be telling to see who will become a very legitimate candidate and have an ability to win the nomination and hopefully the general. >> what's interesting is some of the issues you did not mention as perhaps being energizing such as same-sex marriage, abortion issues that typically may have defined the conservative movement. guest: it has been mentioned a few times in regards to the same-sex marriage issue. the life issue has been mentioned. i think the life issue is something that is becoming a more compelling reason, a strong argument among young people as they are becoming more pro-life.

i am deeply pro-life, but it's not one of the issues that has been heavily emphasized here at cpac though i know a lot of people in attendance feel strongly about the life issue. but it's not something that has been highlighted. again, at the end of the day people want to know that they are safe. people want to know we are doing the right thing to give them the ability to make a good income. i think you are going to see a lot of those at the forefront. at the same time, whoever the nominee is for the gop will have to address those issues because a lot of the base do feel strongly about those. host: kenneth from arkansas is on the republican line now. caller: i want to tell you something. one of the callers called in a while back. he was a "jerry springer"

producer. you are really good how you talk. when you start putting people against one another -- president obama, what i'm saying that she has tried to do the best he could to help this country. i want you to go watch the "amistad" case over in britain when they outlawed slavery. once you go ahead and watch those cases, and when you understand where america has come from -- see, they pay you well, what you do. you are a good talker. i'm sitting here listening to you patiently. they hired you. you are making your money for what they are paying you for, but you need to understand america. america is racist to the core. when you understand the problem of america race is a problem. america will prosper. guest: i appreciate the tone of the collar, and i think he was very -- i would disagree.

people ask about racism in these issues. i personally -- i don't see anybody's sex, i don't see their color, i don't see their gender. i don't see some of the issues people might see. i want to know who they are as an individual. what are their hopes, what are they dreams? what can we do to help them accomplish those dreams? i disagree. i know there are obviously some people that i believe are definitely in the minority that have racist views, but i would strongly disagree that it is a majority view in the u.s., and it's definitely not something we believe or encourage at all. we've come a long ways from where we used to be as a country, so i would probably disagree pretty strongly with the premise that we are a deeply racist country. host: charles from arkansas is on the republican line now. caller: good morning.

racism has nothing to do with the illegal situation. the law has been broken. unbelievable. democrats want the illegals to be able to vote. the republicans don't want that. when they do let them in, they are illegals. they will hurt the poor blacks. they will hurt the poor whites. they will help the poor illegal spanish people, and there's nothing that you can do about it because there are so many people that don't care about where the money is going to come from. guest: one of the things i would say about the issue is the issue of immigration has nothing to do with skin color. it is about how we are going to do this correctly. how are we going to have the immigration process done in such way that it is done -- definitely, the process has to be made much simpler. it has to be streamlined. it's a very messy, complicated

process right now. the border needs to be secured. i think we can approach this in such a way so we obey the rule of law at the same time. this has nothing to do with skin color. my people came over from ireland in the 1800s. i would say most people, at some point their ancestors were people from another country. that's the great beauty of america. we've had people from all over america live the american dream. we have to make sure that people come in in a proper way and a way they understand the beauty and greatness of america and do it correctly. has absolutely nothing to do with racism. it's how we approach this in such a way that we solidify and firm up and encourage people to understand part of america's greatness is the rule of law. part of it is the process by which we do things. let's have people come in in such a way that we can see that, understand that. one of the things we need to do

a better job is educating immigrants on what has made america great, who we are as a people, all great things we been able to offer to people coming in. i don't think we do a great job of that. i think we can do a better job of that. >> i want to share with you this poll from the pew research center on american exceptionalism. these numbers represent the percentage that believe the united states stand above all other countries. republicans have the highest percentage at 37 percent and believe the u.s. stands above all other countries, but the numbers are still rarely low across the board. and act, young people, those aged 18 to 29, have the lowest percentage who believe that the united states is the greatest country. what do you think the conservative movement is trying to do to turn that around? guest: again, one of the things that is troubling with the younger generation is i don't think they are being taught -- in fact, i know they are not being taught in our school system the exceptionalism of

america, what has made america great, understanding where we came from, how we were founded understanding all these things that have made us great. so i'm not surprised that the younger generation does not have the same views of american exceptionalism as, maybe, an older generation. that hit one of the great challenges of the conservative movement -- how can we communicate to the younger generation in terms that they understand, terms they are willing to have a dialogue with you about that when i was explaining at a panel yesterday -- i would to sxsw in austin a few years ago and realized a lot of young people who were attending might have been wearing obama shirts or coming from a centerleft perspective, but they were asking panelists how they can get their products to market, how can they make a living doing what they love with as little hindrances possible, and i realize these young people have a very entrepreneurial spirit. they want to be able to make a lot of these different choices for themselves and yet what

they are doing in many ways with their political views is they are actually fighting against their own deep desires. one of the things we got to do as conservatives is figure out how to communicate to them. a lot of these young people that were at sxsw do not like the term republican. they don't like the term capitalism. limited government, free market, all these different things. but it's a very inherent value very basic desire, we have a lot of connection with the conservative movement because we want people to achieve their dreams and make a living doing what they love with as little hindrance as possible, so we got to do a better job the during out how we can communicate better terms, better message, at the same time stay true to our values. host: caller from minnesota on the independent line. caller: i want to adjust the midterm election. then i do have a comment. approximately 37% of the voting public voted in the midterms.

about 20% republican, 17% democrat. the democrats took a pretty good shellacking, but when the republicans say that's a mandate, that's the voice of america, that is so un-accurate. 60% of the voting public does not vote, ok? if we had a law in this country where everyone had the responsibility to vote, we would see the landscape in this country change dramatically. guest: if i could, i don't know if you're done, but it want to just that -- i think that's one of the things republicans have to be very aware of. the 2014 elections had one of the lowest turnouts since world war ii in a midterm election. a lot of republicans after the 2014 elections walked away thinking we had fix the mistakes we made in 2012, we had a very successful midterm onto 2016 and victory. once the lowest turnouts, completely different demographic will be had in the 2016 election, and i think a lot of

ground needs to be made up in a lot of different things -- getting up to vote, technology, database analytics. there's a lot of ground that needs to be made up. one of the things we've been doing is training people on this and saying, "do not rest on your laurels." 2014 look good for republicans. the climate, though, was good for republican candidates, but again, 2016 is a different story in regards to the electorate. one of the lowest turnouts we had since world war ii in a midterm election, so a lot of ground to be covered. i'm encouraging conservatives and republicans do not rest on their laurels. host: callie from teva, florida is on the democratic line. -- tampa florida. caller: you are a fast talker all over the board. but that is jed bush's strategy -- jeb bush's strategy.

i suggest that "washington journal" that they have a call in for floridians only and asked loadings how they rate jed bush -- ask floridians how they rate jeb bush. they encourage wealthy retirees who do not want to pay income tax to come to florida. gave them a break on that income taxes. he got rid of the intangible tax. before he became governor, he opened the first charter school in florida, and he wanted as governor to start a school voucher program, which the florida supreme court called unconstitutional because you are underfunding public schools. so, yeah, come on, jeb. we are waiting for you to run. come on, baby. caller: --guest: one of the things i think is a real tragedy

in the u.s. public school system is lack of competition. i'm a big believer that competition leads us to the best product, and right now, we've not seen a competitive environment in regards to training up the next generation. basically, i want to see laws and policy put in place that allow for a very free market approach and competitive approach to education. this is not about protecting teachers' interests union interests. it's about encouraging the next generation to become all that they should become. if they choose to go to a good public school, excellent. i would love to see that happen. if they want to go to a charter school, that's great as well. they wanted a private school, that's great as well. if they even want to do homeschooling, that's great as well. i did homeschool private school, public school. i would like parents to have the ability to take their money -- and let's face it, this is their tax dollars -- and put it where their children would be best educated. sometimes that's public schools. sometimes it's not, but no more

of this monopoly on the education system. i applaud the act that bush wanted to take a run at providing a more competitive education environment. we'll see what happens in 2016 but i do think that will be one of the issues. i think there's a lot of ground that needs to be made up in regards to our public school system. host: our next call is bill from georgia on the independent line. caller: how y'all doing today? guest: good, thanks. caller: how are republicans or conservatives or libertarians going to overcome the liberal bias in the media, the liberal bias from k-22 graduate school? people are not being taught today that there are equal opportunities, and we do not need people being cared for. we need people out there working for themselves. guest: i look at it this way --

because of the growth of the internet, because of different mediums on regards to how people are getting their information and their news, what people call the mainstream media is not as powerful as it used to be. i think that trend is going to continue as people are finding their news from other sources, be it online or cable. that is not as big a concern to me as it is for some because i'm seeing the different trends. you've seen it over the last couple of years, and i think it will continue as more and more people look or -- look in different places for whatever's education. i think we need to look at our public education system, if it is in grade school, if it is high schools, if it is colleges, and really start to take a look at how we can bring about a more competitive environment, change up some of our education system. i am concerned about some of the things the younger generation is being taught, the millennials. are they really being taught what's necessary to continue

making america a great nation? that's a concern. we will see what he can do in the upcoming years to see what we can bring in regards to change. host: we spoke in an earlier segment with some of the trench recruit senator elizabeth warren to run for president. she said there's a lot of momentum around that particular campaign. i'm interested in who you feel has momentum on the conservative side that's getting people energized and who might be leading the pack currently. guest: first of all if i could go back, i'm very interested to see who will be the democrat nominee. some people would like to have a hillary clinton coronation. i'm not in that crowd. i think that she is not a done deal in regards to winning the nomination of the democratic party. i'm going to be really fascinated to see what takes place on that side. i think it's a bit premature to think that clinton will absolutely be the nominee. in regards to the republican side obviously jeb bush is going to have a lot of money. he's going to have what we call

the bush team in place. obviously, scott walker. we've been doing some polling with my technology company gravity, in regards to the super gop primary voters in a variety of states. he's doing very, very well scott walker is. and a lot of these polls, he is winning. scott walker if he can put the right team in place -- he will have a national donor base because of the three elections in four years up in wisconsin. he has a big donor base on the national level. it will be interesting to see if rubio can gain some steam, if bobby jindal can gain traction. i think my cup b will have some play at some levels. i do not see him getting much traction. -- i think mike huckabee will have some play at some levels. i don't think chris christie will have much traction at all. i think you will probably see this reduced pretty quickly to five or six very legitimate candidate, and we will see who

is able to really put in place -- the thing i tell people, too is by the middle of january 2016 through about the first week of march of 2016 -- you're talking 6, 7 weeks -- there will beat with the to 22 primaries and caucuses all having one after the other in chunks. sometimes 5, 6, 7 in the same day. people will have to have the ability not to be able to win a couple of states, but be able to organize on a grand scale. that will be a question of if you have the right staff and enough money to be able to do that and i think that will really separate -- i hate to say this it sounds cliche -- but the pretenders from the contenders. right now, i think jeb bush, scott walker are definitely tear one. i think rubio can make a strong case to get in the mix. obviously, gentle can -- obviously, jindal can as well.

host: edith from greenwood arkansas is next. caller: i have so many comments and talking points i could write a book. guest: -- host: ok. we had teed of minutes. please make it quick. caller: i want to talk to the general men. guest: -- i want to talk to the gentleman. guest: you can talk to me. i'm here. caller: maybe i can ask you -- how long have you been around in america? guest: i have been around in america since the day i was born. that's been 42 years. today is my birthday. 42 years as of today. caller: well, i have been around since the 1930's, and i have never seen anything like the way -- hello? guest: i'm here.

caller: maybe i'm watching your lips. it looked like you were -- host: we're going to need you to ask your question or make your point. caller: what are you going to do about helping the needy, and tell me how you propose to do that? guest: if i think i heard the question correctly, how do i propose helping the needy? again, they goes back to i understand the role of government in regards to providing a safety net for some of the less fortunate, some of those in need sometimes. we find ourselves in tough circumstances. at the same time, we do not want to see a growth of the welfare state. we do not want to see the welfare state becoming something people think is a long-term place for them to be. we want them to be able to go out and have a job, make a real wage, be able to go out and

create and achieve all their dreams. we understand there's a need for that. at the same time, we do not think it's a long-term thing that people should be residing in the welfare state because we don't think that's a positive thing for us to become a strong country in the future. i understand the need for it. i think we got some things in place. at the same time, i don't want to see a growth of the welfare state. host: we have another caller now. policy calling on the republican line. caller: my name is actually saul but i think that's the way he got it. i am latino and spanish-speaking, but i am very conservative. that's the way i try to be. i love cpac. whenever i have a chance to watch it, i watch it, and i like what i hear, but the thing is we in the latino community -- we don't have a conservative voice.

elections come, and they don't have any type of outreach to the hispanic community. that's why when there's a big opportunity, a lot of latinos are really conservative, but they just don't hear any voice. host: your thoughts? guest: i agree with that tillman. conservatives and republicans have not done a good job of being involved with the hispanic community and african community. i have a good friend who runs the libre initiative and i was having a conversation with him after the 2012 elections. i was asking where we were failing in relationships building in the hispanic community. he's a part of the problem is we don't show up. i tell people we actually have to start showing up and being there,