usa director ron pollack joins us. then, joshua meservey talks to us about the threat that our cheval poses to the u.s.. ♪ host: good morning. the looming issue over congress is the same issue that dominated much of last week. funding for the department of homeland security. lawmakers approved a one-week stopgap measure. the next deadline is the end of this week. from bloomberg, there is this question, when will republicans start governming? also this week, and israeli prime minister is said to give a speech. as speech that continues the spark controversy. the president tomorrow will meet

with members of his task force that have been looking into 21st century police practices. he traveled to selma, alabama for the anniversary of the historic civil rights march. we want to pick up on the question from bloomberg news. what's next for republicans in congress? (202) 748-8000 is our line for democrats. (202) 748-8001 is for republicans. independence, (202) 745-8002. you can also join us on facebook. www.facebook.com/cspan. you can also send us a tweet @cspanwj. or send us an e-mail journal@c-span.org. happy first day of march. we want to get your comments. can house republicans govern? you probably saw much of this on

friday, well into the evening. bloomberg news has this piece, again, the piece begins by saying, mark your calendars originally set for midnight, it has been rescheduled for march 6. the house of representatives did not, and said it pushed through a one-week extension. that means two things. the department will continue to hobble along under the threat of defunding. some house republican members will continue the rigmarole of executive overreach. congressional republicans, back in january, agreed to fund it, but only until that and of february lee get to operations that demanded that the president reversed executive actions. we will get your calls and

comments in just a moment on that question. can house republicans govern? also, the other big story this weekend, the chpacpac conference wrapped up yesterday. senator paul getting about 25.7% of the votes. a close second was governor scott walker of wisconsin with 21%. senator 10 crews coming in third with 11%, along with dr. ben carson. former governor jeb bush at 8%. former senator rick santorum at 4%. senator marco rubio at 3%. donald trump and carly fiorina at 3%. the headline from washington times.com, rand paul winning the cpac conference. joining us on the phone, stephen dinan.

thanks for being with us. what was your take away yesterday? it seems like the story was rand paul strong showing. guest: he has now won for three years in a row. his father won a couple of times. there seems to always be one of the calls at the top of the test -- top of the contest. the story was scott walker who one year ago was down around 5% -seven percent. now into the 20%. that shows all you need to know as to how interest conservatives are into his potential candidacy . for a number of different reasons. i think the other two interesting story out of the straw poll were jeb bush, who had a decent showing, but nowhere near what he would hope

for being jeb bush. probably the worst part for him is that when his name was announced in fifth place, he was booed by the audience. it tells you that the reception he is getting. the other thing is marco rubio. two years ago, he was the runner up, a close second to rand paul. that was just before he engaged on this site for immigration reform. was part of a gang of eight senators to pass the immigration bill through the senate. actually wrote the bill and passed it through the senate. it of course did not become law. it not only did not become all it hurt rubio immensely amongst conservatives. you dropped 20% from where he was two years ago. that's a real problem for someone trying to regain

conservative trust. he is not done that yet. at least not with these grassroots leaders whose job for events like this. host: while all of this was taking place and maryland, there was also the event in florida where friday and saturday, members of key republicans headed down there to try and raise money. this was the headline from "the new york times." it's what many call the invisible primary, but not so invisible, correct? guest: that's exactly right. the press is done a lot better job over the last decade or so tracking down and covering the side of the nomination contest. as a talked about a few minutes ago, the problems that jeb bush is having with conservatives in places like cpac, the area where he is likely to do a lot better is exactly what you mentioned the invisible primary. the queequeg -- key question for

republicans -- they believe scott walker to do both well among the invisible primary but also among conservative republicans. as you touch about, the campaign strategists say it takes three things to win a campaign -- money, message, and manpower. manpower is generally those who go and knock on doors, that's where the activist come in. the money is exactly what you just talked about. wooing these donors and hoping to get them on your side. that has become even more important over the last five years or so. the ability, in particular in a primary, for a very wealthy donor to come and fund a political action committee, or some other outside organization that can aid a single person in the primaries.

we saw and 2012 in the republican primary at a lot of these folks are hoping to get essentially, a major donor behind them who can help them a lot of anniversary. host: scott walker, who is part of the story this week, if he were elected as president, he would be the first since harry truman that does not have a college degree. will that be an issue? guest: it will be an issue. there will be folks who actually try, whether it is a whisper campaign or something actually -- someone actually challenges him on in a debate. i don't think many voters will make a decision based on that. to me, that is more this sort of thing that if you're looking for a reason to dislike a guy, you may settle on that and become hardened in an opinion.

i doubt there will be many voters and the primary will vote on that. it will get attention. there are people like you or me who may ask him about it. he will have to talk about it. there may be some people who in the general election and up finding that an intriguing thing. in terms of relating to them. i'm not sure how it plays. i do suspect they does play a role, one way or another, to some extent. host: stephen dinan. you will be joining us on "newsmakers" as well. i want to talk about one other issue that we will see more of this week. put on your congressional hat. this is a story from your colleagues over at politico. allies of john boehner's considering a possible coup. guest: the vote last week on one

of these continuing resolutions failed pretty badly. you had several republicans who were unable to vote with boehner. he did not have a very good strategy for them. he does not have a lot of options going into this week. all of these are reasons why you could expect there could be a coup. there are big reasons why a coup is very difficult. it is not impossible. there may even be an effort towards it. a will be difficult, first of all because there are not many prominent candidates out there who can fill the shoes. second, even a number of folks who voted against his position on the continuing resolution they like boehner. a have a lot of faith in him and know he is doing a very difficult job. the fact that midget -- mitch mcconnell in the senate was not able to do anything different over there than boehner was able to do the house, tells you that maybe the issue is not boehner

may be the issue is the republican conference and its inability to get together and everyone walk in the same direction at the same time, before they take these issues to the house floor. there will probably be a conversation in the house about boehner's leadership, we seem to have these conversations every five or six months, or so. especially around immigration issue, it is a very tough issue for republicans, and it will prompt conversation about boehner's future. host: always appreciate time and insight. stephen dinan of "the washington times. go he is politics editor. the other story this morning, on the front page of the washington post. members of congress prepare for the speech by israeli prime minister then yahoo!. i've piece points out that this

will probably be his most important speech of his career. the question we are asking, can house republicans govern? a story from "the l.a. times" points out that leaders other vote in congress never want it to be like this, another cycle of lurching from crisis to crisis. feeling the impression that the gop cannot govern. boehner and mcconnell struggling to retain their grip on power. and when christian has this on her twitter page saying, they determine which republican party is in charge. jerry is joining us from michigan. our line for democrats. thanks for being with us. caller: yes. it shows they cannot govern. they do not know what they are doing.

the tea party is holding them all hostage. i think they ought to just lock up all the congressmen and senators and make them work 12 hours a day seven days per week and come up with something. i'm 70 years old. i never seen such a dysfunction in government. the republicans are supposed to be the managerial -- you know the people who know how to do things. we are not seeing it. to have the government in this dysfunction is just incredible. host: jerry, thanks for the call. on the republican line, next is filled from virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. the republicans, every time we collect them, they give us the things feel that they will go to washington and strain the place out. it will do the right thing. it seems to be two different worlds. they get to washington, they

turn into jelly and melt. harry reid, i don't think you guys play this out. he change the voting system in the senate when he could not get his way. he went to a 50 vote majority. host: the nuclear option. caller: mcconnell could do the same thing. he does not have a guts to do it. as far as boehner being a strong leader and give us a break. this guy is a waffler. mcconnell is a waffler. we are looking for people who can lead this country, not people who fall into the traps set for them every week by the democrats. one other thing. as far as scott walker not having a college education, i think obama has had all kinds of degree from harvard and everything and he has totally screwed up this country. all those guys in washington have all these fancy degrees and they cannot go to shanghai and find a chinese man. that's my feelings on that.

host: your last point? scott walker is what? caller: a good man and a good leader. he should get the nomination of the republican party. host: thank you very much for the call. we will go next the chuck from florida. independent line. good morning. caller: good morning, steve. how are you? host: fine, you? caller: wonderful. good morning, america. a couple points. cap upload -- can the republican party lead? of course they can lead. what we have is a president who absolutely refuses to deal with the majority. he has the tools, and harry reid to completely stop anything that the republican party what to do. now, i am an independent. i do not care what party is empowered. the majority is the majority. the president is not a king. he only enforces the laws of the

majority passes. he will not allow them to do their job. number one. number two. if everyone would go back to remember when we establish the department of homeland security, there was a huge argument over whether or not it was a smart thing to do to put all these different organizations under one umbrella. here we have the situation where we cannot fund the homeland security department because the one issue that the president is a legally -- a legally administrating, and is tied up with the immigration issue. host: a comment on twitter, they cannot even order a pizza. our next call is david. good morning. the question we are asking, can house republicans govern? where is your answer. caller: good morning, steve. yes, they can govern as long as

they can get everything their way. that has been the case especially in the last six years. the previous caller talking about how harry reid brought out the nuclear option in the senate, that was for judicial nominations. that was because republicans -- the two congresses previous to this one with the least productive in history. i think the dhs situation right now is critical for the security of our nation. we haven't coming -- an upcoming debt ceiling vote, i think in march. when he until the government shuts down again, then we will see how republicans govern. they will shut this down. the worst thing that happened in this country was when john mccain gave sarah palin the

microphone to spread the radicalism of the right. uneducated masses seem to follow it, all the propaganda spread by fox news. it should be modest -- modified the cup is out. rupert murdoch over at fox news has created all the chaos. they are basically political terrorists, in my opinion. host: on our facebook page, a lot of comments. this is from gary who says, this is a stupid question, why is is not asked about the democrats? they stick together to defund dhs and there is no backlash. craig says, neither party can govern alone, requires mutual interest to supersede personal. brenda says, they're passing bills and working, and harry reid sat on over 380 bills, that

is dysfunction. david says, no, that is proven. jerry says, no. harold has this on her twitter page saying, president obama exacerbates the problem with his veto power, this too shall pass. we are asking the question, can house go republicans gove? we'll go to owl on the revoking line. how do you answer that al? good morning. caller: steve, good morning. first off, let me say this. the problem with republicans governing is that you have democrats on the left -- now, everyone knows that they are more progressive now. there are no more blue dog democrats, they are all liberal. everything they are doing is liberal. we cannot have on the other side, on the republican side, a half republican leadership. we need a conservative

republican leadership. i think boehner and mcconnell: should go -- i think mcconnell made the mistake that he did not keep the 50 vote. i think they should go. we need real conservatives leading the way. host: next is john from akron, ohio. caller: this is a really important issue what we're talking about today. listen democrats, please do not be cutting them off. i want to hear the main thing that they've got to say. never two, they been cutting people off your democrats all week. during grad, and the girl yesterday. she should be fired for that. she was awful yesterday. anyways, the first caller, he was right about everything. the whole thing is a joke.

people need of will in -- need to vote in 2016 for democrats. they want war, so they will have to pay taxes to republicans. they want health care and everything to go out the window. people, get out and vote democrat and 2016. host: john from ohio. another viewer on twitter saying if you call total legislative dysfunction governance, then i suppose they are governing. "how's chaos on dhs funding leaves gop senators fuming." that is the headline from "the hill." they worry that voters may soon

question their ability to govern if they don't move forward with a more substantial agenda. congressman dent saying -- and peace from "the hill" newspaper saying that the showdown will not end well for us. let's go to the end line, a caller from florida. caller: they are doing a good job on immigration. that's -- i saw on the media

that any use of immigrant was deported he that amnesty, he's a cashier, try to change -- now, in south texas, some i got deported twice killed -- someone got deported twice, and killed border patrol. you can do for them 100 times, and 100 times they will come back. and california, there was another incident, a cop got killed by a man who was deported twice. i can go on and on. the republicans are doing a good job. host: next is marcia from pennsylvania. caller: i'm absolutely opposed to all the republicans. they have not been affected. -- effective.

i do not think they have accepted the fact that we have a black president. it had been against him since the beginning. they are not working for the people, you are working for big business. they are bought and paid for. i can list issue after issue. they all get a thousand -- $100,000 voted for voting for the keystone pipeline. i think we need to overturn citizens united. i wish to god that this country would get smart enough for a third party. the last decent third-party candidate was ross perot. they pushed him off the airwaves . they did not give him a chance to run. we were not even founded on democrats ever publicans and we seem to be end of two party deadlock. all i can and with is that i support my president. i think he will go down as one of the greatest presidents in history. the american public has a

short-lived memory, and it needs to remember the mess that he was handed on his first day in office. host: "the washington post" with this editorial -- "an embarrassing spectacle." -- -- -- martha is joining us next from huntington, indiana. republican line. caller: i think they can govern if they just told the democrats, like they told us, sit down and shut up. i think that is what it will take. host: "the christian science monitor" -- can john boehner

survive the dhs the bok -- after the dhs debacle? that is the headline. frequently rot tears to his eyes but it has largely been a slog, he has had to fight off democrats, tea partiers, members of his own party. in fact, republicans voted for someone else last month, the largest rebellion since the civil war. our next caller joining us from george r. -- georgia. caller: i am 64 years old and a black man. you know what, when have they ever govern?

statistics showed and him preach -- and impeach president, you know what, i have not seen them govern never. another thing. about the prime minister. it's an insult to every voter in america who voted as president in office. all of them need to sit down. the democrats need to sit up and let them know, when do you let an out sider -- it is an insult to the president of the united states. any ally, they should come in. host: thank you for the call. another viewer saying, trying hard to put the blame on the gop. that is a tweet. you can join in, @cspanwj. our next caller from maine.

caller: i believe the democrats are destroying the country with the open border policy. we cannot even protect our border. homeland security has become a joke. there's no sense of having a homeland security when you have all these people coming in illegally. and then you have legal immigration. the country is being destroyed. we had nafta under clinton. the jobs are gone. the democrats are literally destroying the country. this guy in the white house now, he is a joke. host: leslie from maine, thank you for the call. "will call" has a interesting story, you may want to check it out on their website. "how an obscure rule could give boehner a way out of dhs mess." it is a long story, but basically says this, any house law arguing that the argument is

moot could take to the floor and concur in the senate amendment. the senate passed a bill that would fund the department through september, but it did not pass the health -- passed the house. issue not be confused with a senate rule 22. a motion to dispose of any amendment shall be privileged. again, it is a parliamentary language from "roll call." the question we are asking is can the house gop govern. bernie is joining us from florida. democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. i really feel that these people that are insulting the president

have no information at all. unemployment is down. the stock market has tripled. we have universal health care in this country. this is fighting a republican congress that wants to do nothing but make him look bad. yet, he has done everything. they will not ignore it a because he is black. he because he is educated. see, -- c, he will not submit to blackmail. adding up the old and says, you will not let me have my way, then you will not have funding. that's like funding the army should be separate from banning the books. homeland security's financing should have nothing to do with any other issue. either we fund it or we don't

fund in. steven scully: thanks for the call. this is the headline from the houston chronicle. wrote to the white house may take a texas term. a look at candidates with texas connections. rand paul, rick perry, jeb bush and ted cruz. from fox news channel, this statement from the senate democratic leader, harry reid, who said the republican congress has shown the cannot govern. we are staring at hume -- a homeland security shutdown scare in the face. this is about our country, says senator reid. how many more times will republicans send us toward a completely avoidable cliff? from connecticut, gary is next.

caller: good morning. i want to talk about mr. obama attaching his amnesty, which is overreaching, to the homeland security. what you expect the republicans to do? all i get is from cnn or msnbc is blaming republicans were doing their jobs. obama is overreaching and nobody is talking about that. the amnesty is wrong. he cannot give amnesty and money to 5 million people. steven scully: thanks for the call. we will go to cecil on the republican line. danville georgia. caller: why can't the republicans install the nuclear option with a simple vote like harry reid did? another thing --

steven scully: speaker boehner cannot get a majority in the house. caller: the republicans are not sticking together. steven scully: can the party govern? that is the question. caller: the people voted for republicans in the house and senate. it does not matter that it was only a portion of the people of the country that voted. the ones that are elected are determined by the ones that vote. obama is trying to run for the people that did not vote as the majority of the people did not vote. steven scully: more than 3000 votes were cast at the cpap conference which began on thursday and wrapped up yesterday. the results we talked about at the top of the program, you can get more details from bloomberg politics. rand paul coming in first.

center rand paul grabbing the victory for the second year in a row -- senator wron rand paul grabbing the victory for the second year in a row. paul, walker, rick santorum, rick perry and ted cruz all had teams of various sizes. paul was supported by young americans for liberty. carson by an unofficial residential campaign. they are the results. let's go to bill from reading pennsylvania. caller: how are you? steven scully: fine, thank you. caller: what happened the other day, the cpac, the only person i

would think will run the country that has the guts to open their mouth is rand paul, walker and tom cruise. i would like to see donald trump . i do not see him there. the guy is wonderful. as far as anyone talking about the black president, they always use the race in their. that is terrible. for the american people to do that all the time. the guy is no good. just like jimmy carter was no good. to me carter was a disaster. -- jimmy carter was a disaster. steven scully: other say the gop are doing a great job. steve, joining us from cleveland, ohio. you're calling on the democratic line.

can house republicans govern? caller: exactly not. if they are the last time. this time around, boehner failed to stand up to the far right extremists. he stayed in the middle and he is weak at the knees. he cannot be his own man. he can't make a judgment call of what's best for the country. your control of the house and senate. to rebuttal with the gentleman said, before he even took office they were making plans to make him a one term president. which mcconnell to the house floor and said that was his number one goal. the guy has not even gotten into the white house. people forget, this country was losing $780,000 -- 7080 -- 780,000 jobs per month. this president has done nothing but turned the country around. the gop, they are

obstructionists. everything he does for the american people, they want to take away. how else can you explain -- trying to the m debunk obamacare? everything this president tries to help the american people succeed, they want to take away. in addition to all that, they do not have plans of their own. they talk about debunking obamacare, but will he put in place? steven scully: frank bruni has a piece really taking aim at the media as well as the politicians called "gotcha: despicable us." we should re-examine how we cover campaigns. stop hyping iowa and new hampshire, he says. don't buy tickets to the circus acts.

resist glorifying certain horses for the sake of saving a horse. resist declaring emergencies with a don't exist. resist overly tidy diagnosis of the nation's mood. some of the recommendations from frank bruni. the question we are asking, can house republicans govern? we go next to henry from las vegas. independent line. caller: good morning. a couple of callers really took the words out of my mouth. i am an independent. i have to say republicans have been bought by a bunch of rich billionaires. all of these congressional district, they filled it up with a bunch of clowns who are going into the house on egos. i had one other point i wanted to make. it seems as though our c-span

all three of your networks -- i've been watching c-span for a while and i love it, but i notice that you guys are going heavily on the republican side. there does not seem to be a balance going on. all of these channels lately, for the last couple of months or so has been heavily favorable to republicans. it seems as though there are very few democrats that are being given a voice lately. it seems it was not like that before. it seems like something is happening. i hope you could explain that to me. steven scully: what specifically are you noticing? caller: i am sure -- every time i turn on one of these channels -- steven scully: are you talking about cpac coverage over the weekend or other events? caller: not only cpac.

there is always some kind of senator or somebody right wing and no balance that i can see. that seems that is comforting best something that has come on lately. -- something that has come on lately. i watch all of your channels. it is heavily republican. steven scully: henry, thanks for the call. there has been a lot more republican events because there are more republican candidates right now. right now, only a handful of democrats are considering a presidential bid. certainly with cpac and the iowa freedom summit, we went live with those events the way we were live with so many democratic events in the race

between hillary clinton and barack obama in 2008. over the course of all of our programming, there is a balance. we are the same network that we were when we started in 1979. thank you for the call and comment. we take your thoughts seriously. this is from politico this morning. tensions rising in the gop over the shutdown this last week with senate republican leader mitch mcconnell. asked on the republican line is jane tennessee. look to the program -- jane from tennessee. welcome to the program. caller: i have a comment regarding the headline of your program this morning. i think the question should not be, can the house gop governed. i think the question should be, why are the senate democrats putting the interests of illegal aliens before the interests of

american citizens? homeland security could have been hundred had the democrats not -- could have been funded had democrats not insisted on this illegal amnesty. steven scully: next we go to elroy from the bronx. democrats line. caller: good morning. my name is l boy -- my name is elroy mccormick. i want to say no way the republican party could govern. the reason why is because they think the word compromise is a dirty word. compromise is not a dirty word. compromise is the way -- that is what our country was built on. if we cannot compromise -- we will never get everything we want all the time. a new way for us to reach a common ground as far as the

compromise is, republicans are not going to customize with democrats -- are not going to compromise with democrats, we will not move forward. we are in a stalemate because the republican party thinks that compromise is bad. until they can move away from that belief, our country is going to be in the stalemate it is today. steven scully: thanks for the call. coming up, chair of the american conservative union which was behind cpac which began back in 1976, will be here to take your calls and assess what we have learned from the conference that wrapped up yesterday. next is william from ohio. good morning. caller: i don't think the house will ever get anything together with boehner and mcconnell. mcconnell, they are in cahoots

and kentucky has been a sour spot in politics for a long time . if it was not for kentucky, backing their own -- not backing their own man, our gore, we would not be in the shape we are in right now. steven scully: you mean tennessee? caller: you will never get anything done as long as you have mcconnell and boehner in there, blocking anything that is going on because they hate the blacks. they are from the south and boehner is from cincinnati and he is right on the border. steven scully: ross has this point. the house has the checkbook in the votes. they need to ensure that fiddler is playing their tune. we talked to stephen dinan of the washington times. republicans racing to collect money.

a piece by jonathan martin saying that instead of the corndogs and pork chops on a stick, the latest stop on the donor trail featured meals of scallops and chocolate mousse. the setting was the breakers, where the cheapest available room is $800 a night. for the republican candidates invited to the annual meeting an inch watchful -- a block of deep-pocketed conservatives, the prize was not votes, it was money. the story is available online at nytimes.com. lynn is joining us from new york. caller: good morning. i'm surprised i got through. you are very busy this morning. i wanted to make a quick comment about how distressed i am about the republican party. i don't think they can govern. i don't think they want to govern. i think they are destroying our democratic process. steven scully: why is that? caller: i'm disappointed that

the attorney general's office has not been able to bring charges of treason. this idea of gerrymandering is not just gerrymandering our districts, this is treason. this is corruption from within. they are destroying our government. they don't want anything to pass. they've been proud of it for the last six years. their plans to do as little as possible. they are earning $174,000 a year for doing nothing? i call that fraud and abuse. i was some sort of -- i wish some sort of legal action could be taken against the policy of having our government do nothing. steven scully: thanks for the call. you can continue the conversation on facebook.com/c-span. a lot of you sending in tweets.

i want to show you this from inside the washington post. the march of time. a foot aggressor countries meant john lewis who was at the edmund pettus bridge 50 years ago. the event gets underway this saturday. 50 years ago when john lewis attempted to lead 600 peaceful protesters out of selma, alabama across the bridge. they were met with tear gas nightsticks. we'll have live coverage on c-span three, part of our american history tv coverage. you can get full schedule information online at c-span.org . when we come back, we turn our attention to the cpac conference. matt schlapp will be joining us the chair of the american conservative union. later, ron pollack to talk about the supreme court hearing on the afford will care act. a preview of our conversation with the chair of the house judiciary committee.

he talks about republican objectives for immigration reform. the interview was taped last night in advance of the attempt to reach an agreement on homeland security. [video clip] >> from the beginning of the last congress, we articulated a step-by-step approach of doing immigration reform and never bought into the comprehensive bill which was a classic example of the law of unintended consequences. if that were put into effect, it would've taken us back to 1986, when we passed a pathway to citizenship. i was not here but the senate did that and the house too. a pathway to showed us and ship -- a pathway to citizenship for about 300 -- 300 -- 3 million

people. of course, we got a pathway to citizenship for those people that we did not get the enforcement. many years later we view that bill as being a repeat of 1986. not only us, but a majority of american people do not want to pursue that. we took a step-by-step approach past four bills that judiciary committee but became bogged down in this larger dispute about what should happen to the people who are not lawfully here. toward the end of that congress, but president -- the president waiting until after the election, took his pen and phone and took an action he said many times he did not have the authority to take. that has transformed the environment.

the majority of american people expect us to stop that action but they also want to see our borders secured. it is a legitimate question to ask, will this president carry out new laws? we have misgivings about that. we also believe there are many improvements to law. whether it is this president or the next, they should have those tools to really show that the border of our country and interior of our country is being enforced with regard to illegal immigration. steven scully: our conversation with bob goodlatte of virginia. you can watch that at 10:00 eastern time. the re-air is at 6:30 eastern time because of our coverage of the aipac conference. matt schlapp, thanks for being

with us. matt schlapp: great to be here. they're very discouraged over what is happened over the last six years. they want the nominee to be conservative and they want that nominee to be able to win. steven scully: will you endorse somebody? matt schlapp: i don't know. i think it is important for me to be fair in the role i play. as the race moves forward, i will make that decision. steven scully: ronald reagan gave, i believe the first speech in cpac back in 1976. how has it changed? matt schlapp: ronald reagan spoke to cpac throughout his political career and presidency. whether that was 25 people or 100 people at a ballroom, it has

now -- we had record attendance of over 11,000. it has become the conservative convention of the year in terms of the presidential campaign. the gun goes off at cpac. for a republican nominating process. steven scully: the candidates also traveling down to florida to raise money. an interesting dichotomy between the public events and the importance of fundraising. matt schlapp: it is the polar opposite of cpac. it is deep-pocketed donors in cpac is more about grassroots activism. as i was leaving the hotel, i ran into one of the guests was loading up his minivan and taking the drive back to boston. it is a different type of person who attends. steven scully: this is a headline from politico.

the subtext is that jeb bush survived. matt schlapp: i agree with that. it was 20 minutes of political drama with sean hannity in the hall. he got tough questions. he held his own. the crowd did not like all of his answers. it was an honest moment. jeb bush did get through the gate. steven scully: sean hannity was on the fox news channel saying is christie did not want to be part of that q and a. why? matt schlapp: i don't think that's right. chris christie got his chance to have q and a with laura ingram. she did not hold back either. i think chris christie was willing to sit there and take the tough questions. steven scully: we will get your calls and comments in a moment. our live coverage of the cpac conference is now part of c-span's video library at

c-span.org. all of the moments and speeches available. including this. [video clip] >> i was surprised. some people booed when i mentioned your name. i want to give you a chance to talk about your record. >> for those that made that sound, i am marking them down as neutral. i want to be your second choice if i go on beyond this. it is a record that may be hard for people to imagine because it is a record of getting things done and taking conservative principles, running on them and having the courage to say i was for a statewide voucher program. that we needed to take on the trial bar and all the things we did. steven scully: jeb bush at the cpac conference. how much of a hindrance is the bush name? to his candidacy? matt schlapp: it is unique.

we have not had this in our history. he would be the third person in that family. what is interesting is you have the same dynamic going on on the other side where hillary clinton looks to be the likely democratic nominee. it is an interesting thing. i think what jeb bush will do is go out and talk about what he wants to do. he cannot avoid the fact that he is from this family. he has to move on and talk about his agenda. steven scully: you worked for former president george w. bush. if you were to advise jeb bush, what would you tell him? matt schlapp: i worked for his brother. i'm honored i worked for his brother. i think his father is a great man. i would have to separate that can put on my political hat and say, put your own team together and go your own way. talk to the american people about what you're going to do in the future. steven scully: seven of the

eight people who were advising him on foreign policy advised george w. bush and many would argue advised him the wrong way when it came to the war in iraq and afghanistan later. steven scully:matt schlapp: one of the things the people in attendance made clear as they like the idea of a strong military but they want it used sparingly. that was a strong message out of the conference. for an affairs continues to be an important issue but they want us to be more circumspect in when we use our force. steven scully: hillary clinton's name was brought up a few times. including this from senator rand paul of kentucky. [video clip] >> hill's war in libya is a perfect example. hillary's war made us less safe. libya is less safe. hillary's war in libya allows thousands of surface-to-air

missiles to fall into the hands of radical islamists. as hillary was declaring victory in libya, ambassador stevens was pleading for more security. when i asked secretary clinton if you read ambassador stephen's cable for assistance, she said no. i believe her abdication of responsibility, her refusal to provide an adequate defense for benghazi, her direction of duty should forever preclude her from office. steven scully: his claim that because of what happened in been ghazi, that should preclude hillary clinton from higher office. will that be a theme? matt schlapp: absolutely. it is in the hands of the american people what they think. her record, the thing she wants to highlight, her foreign-policy

experience. in doing that, you have to take the good with the bad. steven scully: as you look at the republican field when it comes to foreign policy, do these candidates have the experience you claim they need? matt schlapp: this will be in the hands of the american people. we love electing governors to be president. republicans like that concept as well. ronald reagan is one of our most successful presidents when it comes to foreign-policy that made sense and change the world. he came to that job with a learning curve. i think the american people are ok with that as long as they think they have the right character and judgment. steven scully: scott walker who came in second in the cpac straw poll. he was asked about isis and brought in what is happening in wisconsin. [video clip] >> sometimes, people in the media don't understand that as a governor i should get a threat assessment from the fbi. without divulging information

for years, i have been concerned about that threat abroad and on american soil. you have seen stories about what we see in the twin cities on some of the issues. it is clear -- my two sons. i know all of you as parents feel the same way. i want a commander in chief who will do everything in their power to ensure that the threat of radical islamic terrorists do not wash up on american soil. we need someone who will send a message that we will not only defend american soil but do not take this upon freedom loving people anywhere else in the world. if i can take on 100,000 protesters, i can do the same across the world. steven scully: organized labor upset about those comments. comparing what he is dealing with two isis. matt schlapp: he dialed that back. i think he was a little too glib .

his point is well taken. he has at everything thrown at him, people change to the state capital, people doing -- making all caps of threats to his family. he thinks he is battle tested. the people at this conference seem to agree with the votes they cast. steven scully: let me ask you about the electoral map. it is a tough map for republicans. matt schlapp: one of the things we have to do is continue to reach out to people who have not been part of this conservative coalition. we have to have a message that appeals to them. a message that reacts to the problems they face in their daily life. if you look at the tough battleground states, these are states we absolutely have to win. we have other states with growing hispanic populations and it is critical that conservatives have solutions and have an appeal to these voters.

the idea of optimizing our percentage voters. voters that look like me, that is important to do. you want to get every vote you can but you have to be expanding. that was the theme of this congress. steven scully: how do you do that when you have house members who say they want to deport 12 million illegals here? should they be deported? how do you do that? matt schlapp: as we are seeing on the floor of the house of representatives, there is not a consensus amongst conservat ives about how you handle the 11 million. one thing that there was consensus on was how president obama was handling immigration policy as irresponsible. his excess is going around congress. what republican presidents have

done, sit down with congress and or out some steps on immigration policy. to take it into his own hands was irresponsible. it is hurt the chance for any bipartisan promise -- bipartisan coppermine is. steven scully: -- bipartisan compromise. matt schlapp: what was the president obama plan? i would love to see it or it he spent six years doing nothing on this and he has tried to use it as a political issue. it is an issue that both republicans and democrats have to come together on. steven scully: you saw what happened in the house of representatives on friday. many look at this, the headline from the hill.com. there is an impression that house republicans cannot govern. matt schlapp: i think house republicans are doing what is responsible. something we have known in

government for a long time, exercising the power of the person. it would be a mistake for congress to advocate -- abdicate that responsibility. there are house members who are frustrated with the senate over the fact that, if you were going to have a conversation about funding the president's executive orders, this is the perfect time. steven scully: our guest is matt schlapp, the chair of the american conservative union. a graduate of notre dame. matt schlapp: i got to interview him as a student journalist. i did not agree with all this politics but he was a wonderfully kind human being and a wonderful priest. the world's saturn with his passing. -- the world is sadder with his passing. steven scully: let's to get your phone calls. mike, independent line.

caller: good morning. the republicans present themselves as a christian-based party. i don't know when we became and nation of cowards that needed to be covered by 50 gazillion dollars worth of homeland security military nonsense that ain't got a bit of sense in reality. we are supposed to sit around here when katrina came in, i saw busloads of mexicans coming up. they were charging them for their shoes, hats, gloves, transportation. they were giving them jobs and that was the end of the bush administration. these wars. there is no sense in anything these people are doing. steven scully: thanks for the call. matt schlapp: there is a lot in

that question. going back to what we were talking about earlier, we have to have solutions to the problems that people feel are crippling the economy. the conservative movement is trying to help the republican party. most conservatives decide to align with the republican party and are trying to help them in the policy process to make sure we have these answers to questions about the border and immigration. these are but most -- but utmost. usually, presidential elections are about the pocketbook. i think there is a second set of issues that will pop up in this election. that is what is happening overseas with isis and isil. i think the 2016 presidential canteen will be -- campaign will be very much about foreign policy. steven scully: john on our

republican line. thanks for being with us. caller: good morning. i get so sick and tired of hearing the same lies. the 11 million. it was 12 million. this guy claims to be -- the bushes's conservative? please. the narrative has to change. three weeks ago, they passed funding for this homeland security. they had enough votes in the senate. steven scully: they did not have it in the house. caller: they did not have 60 votes in the senate. they should have done what harry reid did they do not have the guts. we voted in conservatives but we

do not have conservative leaders. that is the problem. we have to get rid of boehner and mcconnell. steven scully: the caller was saying that the house should at the same rules the senate has. let me go back to your point. in the 16 race -- in the 2016 race, who is your candidate? i think he hung up. matt schlapp: i think it is a mistake when republicans run for office and say, if you give us a majority, we will be able to fulfill our agenda. in the senate, it takes a super majority. it takes 60 to do it. obama did not change that threshold on policy. he changed that threshold on nomination. this is a question of policy. what is disappointing is, the house passed the d of the obama executive order on immigration

with a big margin. even if the senate had the 60 votes, the president would veto it and then it would take a two thirds vote in the house and senate to override the veto. we were shy of the two thirds vote. we will be in this disagreement anyway. i do not think it is the right thing for republicans to kate at this moment. -- to cave at this moment. what we have to do is continue to grow our numbers in congress. or, a better option is getting a republican president. steven scully: the washington post is what -- is calling what happened on friday and embarrassing spectacle. if house republicans want their own immigration bill, they have the power to do so in saying what should have been routine is integrated into a crisis because the republican right flank prefers confrontation to

compromise. in the end, the best thousand could do was extend the department's funding by only a week. matt schlapp: i could not disagree with that more strongly. house republicans are exercising what voters in their districts have asked them to do. they have said, on immigration you can consider it through the regular order. it should not be done to the president's administrative orders. here the house in one position the senate in another. why is it that when there is a difference between the house and senate, everyone expects the house to fold? i know we call it the upper chamber and senators always view themselves as may be having more power or being more important but they are co-equal. the two of them have to sit down and hammer out an agreement. the house does not have to cave because the senate has a different point of view. steven scully: matt schlapp, the

chair of the american conservative union. this program is heard nationwide . acu is behind the cpac conference. our line for democrats, good morning. caller: all is right with the world as long as you are at the desk steve. steven scully: you are very kind. caller: i worry about peter. he gets so rattled. the viewer's comments just run off your back. what i was going to say is republicans are so self-righteous. i think the only way we will be able to get the house in order is to vote in a republican. i don't think jed is any more horrible than hillary. there you go.

good morning. steven scully:matt schlapp: it sounds like you are a democrat for jeb bush. i think that could fix some of these problems we face. a democrat in the white house. steven scully: michael is next from tennessee. caller: i have a question for you. over the past six years, i have listened to one argument after the other on different news organizations and on the internet. frankly, over the last six years, the republican side, they want to bark but they don't have an answer to a lot of the problems. on the democratic side, even though they thought george bush was not so good every president they use him as a measuring stick. i have never understood why it

is that they justify the things -- whatever they are trying to justify, by using, well george bush did this. it gets very confusing because you are not getting an answer on either side. steven scully: we will get a response. matt schlapp: what i have heard over and over from president obama when there is a problem the reason for the problem is almost always george bush. six years into his presidency it is time to lay that to rest. the problems in the country are now under his control and he ought to show us what he wants to do to tackle these problems. one thing i've noticed about barack obama, i worked in a white house, i have read so many histories of presidents in the white house. one thing that is unique about barack obama is that he is a loner. he does not collaborate a lot with the hill or democrats on the hill.

on the big issues that face this country, it has got to be bipartisan. i think that is the legacy of barack obama. he passed obamacare with democratic votes. with two years left in his presidency, he ought to consider doing some big things that bring in the republicans. whether that is tax reform, big trade deals, whatever he is looking at. steven scully: if he came to the table and said, i want to raise gas taxes to provide money for roads and bridges in exchange for tax reform, do you think house republicans would go along with any tax increase in any form? matt schlapp: basically, if you came forth with a tax increase for roads and bridges, what republicans would say is, what about the $150 billion you are taking them o out for global warming projects?

the advice i'm giving to the president -- he is not going to listen, but the advice i'm giving is to not only come forth with a proposal that you want. i am saying, sit down with folks. if you want to get something hammered out, try to work through a compromise. ronald reagan got a tax reform bill through. he got it through by working with a liberal member who was chairman of the ways and means committee. when they saved social security it was ronald reagan and tip o'neill. he had to sit down and they had to cajole each other. that is what it is like to be the president. that is what this president has never really done. steven scully: what would republicans put on the table with regard to tax reform? matt schlapp: we have all these inversions where we have corporations that are starting headquarters overseas. we are

losing companies from america to go to europe. we always thought europe was high regulation and taxes. we would like to see the opposite happen, where companies change where their headquarters are to america. that will only happen if we lower tax rates in america. we have one of the highest tax rates in the land. if you are a small businessperson, the rates are even higher than corporations. it is one of the reasons why we are not having big economic growth. the president does not have everything to do with the economy, but he gets a lot of the political responsibility. it would be smart to come forward, work with the republicans and hammer out a tax deal. steven scully: tiffany is on the phone. our line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i had a quick comment and a few

questions for our audience today. the first thing is, when it comes to minimum wage, why is it that republicans want to talk -- i am pretty sure no one in the republican party and democratic party has ever worked, not sit at a desk. when you think about that, anti-it to the cost of living -- the area where i live, you have to make almost $20 per hour to get a nice apartment. steven scully: stay on the line. we'll come back with your follow-up. matt schlapp: my answer, i am opposed to raging -- raising the minimum wage. the organization i represent is opposed to raising the minimum

wage. i did work for minimum wage, that is how i started my professional career. a much younger person with brown hair. there are a lot of americans who are struggling out there. i don't think everyone is taking home the kind of money in their paycheck they need. the fact that we have had the stagnation in income is a problem. one of the reasons why people have trouble making ends meet is because government is taking a larger percentage of their take-home pay. i think that is a mistake and it needs to be reversed. steven scully: tiffany, your follow-up? caller: with that being said the way cost of living is now as opposed to what you worked for before is totally different. matt schlapp: i am a fortunate person. i appreciate the fact that i have had some success. i don't want to minimize the

fact that there are people out there struggling, including people in my family i talked to. this economy is tough. the people who are getting ahead sometimes are the people who are well-connected. people out there must feel sometimes that they have nobody to turn to and it is hard for them to catch a break. all i can tell you is that, we will do better as a country when we can get our economy to grow. our economy will grow when america becomes a place where everybody wants to business. if we don't have businesses that are growing and investing, they do not hire new people. i still believe that america is the most important and consequential country on the globe. i think we should be leading in every way. we should be leading on the economy, on the culture and so many important ways. america has to take its role. leading on the economy as part of that. steven scully: our guest service

political director or the bush administration. a native of wichita, kansas. she says, the senate passed a bipartisan immigration reform bill last year. house republicans refused to take it up. matt schlapp: you will have bob goodlatte on c-span. bob goodlatte is chairman of the house judiciary committee. bob goodlatte has several immigration proposals. just because the senate passes a bill -- the senate had rippled in both in passing the bill but the senate has to compromise with what the house does. the president has never come forward with a plan. all he has done is come forward with executive action. what i would encourage the president to do if he wants the parties to come together is to start having meetings with the two parties. the problem with the senate bill

you referenced is that it has no chance of passing the house. the house might not have the -- in order to get some thing done on immigration i would suggest that it be bipartisan and that we take it step-by-step. i will put a third thing out there. it starts with securing the border. steven scully: from west chester, pennsylvania. rich is next. republican line. caller: i am a big scott walker guy. i hope in the future you would invite people like robert spencer, steven emerson, pamela geller, to talk about isis. the host made a comment that there are republican congressman that want to deport 11 million. i wish you would have challenged that because i do not know of any congressman -- are there's

congressmanen? we need to defend that because it is a stance liberals often take. we need to defend it better. steven scully: i'm basing the comment on an interview we did with compass and steve king, a republican from iowa who made that general assessment. there are some in the republican caucus who want to see those illegals not stay here in america. that was the genesis of the question. caller: i thought it should be challenged. matt schlapp: thank you for your comment about cpac. our foundation chair is carly fiorina. she always does a great job speaking to the crowd. she is getting a lot of attention. steven scully: you think she is going to run? matt schlapp: i think she will. i do not know for sure.

it seems she is giving it serious consideration. when she makes a comment about hillary clinton the clintons seem to get thin skinned and respond. i think it is a good dynamic for our side. steven scully: how important is it to have a female candidate among the pack? matt schlapp: it would be historic to have a female nominee for either party. i think it is a great thing for the country. as a conservative, i want our american version of margaret thatcher. this is why it is important to secure the border. people talk about an all or nothing strategy idea to deport people who are here illegally. a problem with the porting anybody now is that if you could deport them and the border is porous, they come right back. i don't know what the cost would be to send a large number of people home. you would simply have them coming back through a porous

border. let's secure the border and look at the 11 million people and deport those who are not adding to our economy and making a difference. let's figure out the other steps we need to take for our economy. our immigration policy should be based on what is good for our economy. we should not just fall into these decisions because it is tough to make decisions. let's take steps to make sure we have the kind of labor force we need. the american people are concerned about immigration reform as they do not see the job opportunities for themselves. they do not see wages growing. it is important that the economy starts to grow again. i think we can start to figure out the immigration policy on top of that. steven scully: another moment from the cpac conference. chris christie with laura ingram. [video clip] >> i'm the son of a sicilian mother and an irish father which means in my house, i got to learn about dispute resolution early. the fact is, what my parents taught me was that if you really

care about something, you need to go all in. this is not about half measures. no half measures in the christie household growing up. i care about fighting for the people i represent. i care about fighting the fights worth fighting. i'm going to speak my mind and be direct. i do not have political consultants whispering in my ear . you are going to hear it directly from me and bluntly because i care. if i did not care, there is no reason to do it. >> sit down and shut up? >> sometimes people need to be told to sit down and shut up. [applause] >> i'm sitting down, by the way. >> frankly, more of that stuff should be happening in washington, d.c. so much ridiculous stuff being spewed out of the white house.

steven scully: governor chris christie. matt schlapp: he is one-of-a-kind. a very charming person in real life. he is a regular guy, real person. it was smart of him to come. i'm glad he wanted to. it is courteous to the conservative activists in the room when these candidates come. he is going to run in his own way and he did not do great in the straw poll, but the crowd appreciated the fact he was there. this is a strange presidential election. we don't have a presumptive front runner so it is completely open. quality of our candidates are very high. steven scully: do you vote in the straw vote? matt schlapp: i did not vote because i am a horrible liar. if you asked me, i would not of been able to hide it.

caller: good morning. i was -- i am an independent voter but i vote for candidates that seem to have the most reason and integrity. that can vary between democrats and republicans in my view. my main point would be compromise is the way this country has run for 200 years. the last 10 or 15 years, there has been none. for example, if conservatives could compromise and raise the minimum wage a bit, democrats could compromise on lower taxes. in the same respect, with immigration, to limit immigration, i understand that. jobs should go to americans first. steven scully: we will get a response. matt schlapp: this is what is true of recent history, when it comes to the minimum wage, often

republicans had to sign off on that. if you think about the minimum wage increase when george w. bush was president. you are right. what tends to happen is, once i get a little bit of what it wants and the other side gets a bit of what it wants. president clinton, republicans did not like president clinton. he was the type of president that would at least sit down with people like bob dole and newt gingrich and hammer out a big deal. in the end, he came up with a big budget compromise. we had balanced budgets during several of those years. we passed welfare reform, which made welfare benefits temporary. we took big steps. what has to happen today for this budget process not to kill us is that the president should sit down with leaders, not to

hammer out what the funding is for the department of education or homeland security, all that discretionary spending is a slender part of the budget pie. we have to talk about entitlements to read until we do something about entitlements, all those things people feel like they get no matter what social security, medicare, all these big programs. we have to sit down and figure out how to get funded over the long haul. they are taking a larger percentage of the budget. all this conversation about shutdowns and whatever that means has nothing to do with what our huge debt problem is and we have to get about that problem. when two years to solve that problem makes it that much harder to solve. i hope the president will step forward and do something about that. steven scully: carol from pauls valley, oklahoma. democrats line. good morning. caller: what i would like to say

is that the president has reached out to the republicans on many occasions. he has invited boehner, the house. they refused to come. if there is going to be by's partisanship -- if there is going to be bipartisanship, it goes both ways. matt schlapp: there is one president. i think that congressmen and senators mean well. there's 535 of them. you cannot expect them to lead like a president needs to lead. whether a president is republican or democrat, there are moments when they have to step up and do something politically tough. when it comes to this debt facing us, the president needs to take a step forward. i believe he needs to take a step forward. in president obama's mind, he

has done a couple meetings with them. he has put his hand out. i do not think he is done enough to demonstrate to the american people or congress that he really wants to work with them to tackle these issues. -- it is not just republican members of congress that can play them -- that complain about this. he doesn't have those types of relationships in congress. he is the anti-lj be -- lbj. he had relationships and talked with staff and knew what was happening. i am not too sure president obama is even i curious to know who those folks are. host: one final tweet and a final call. it is strange that this program refuses to ask this of a questions like, why are benefits to illegals more important than security? you want to tackle that? guest: yes, that is an

interesting question. which is, you know, there is only so much that can go around right tackle -- right? if you go through one of the things that was actually in the senate bill, the concept that if you are going to be on a pathway to some sort of legal status you wouldn't be able to receive any benefits. but oftentimes, what you hear from the left when it comes to immigration policy as they want to make sure that obamacare and all these other entitlements are made available to people who are not in this country illegally. and what is also interesting there are so many fishers on the democratic side. when they talk about people who are in this country illegally you would think that one of their constituencies is labor and the regular working man and woman. the woman who called into the show saying you struggle when you have a minimum wage job. you think they would understand that the folks who are here legally, and by the way, the people who are here in my to

become citizens, those people are the ones they -- you would think they would be advocating for first. but oftentimes they are not. but i do immigration -- we will all find a way forward to solve the things we can come even though we can't solve everything. host: last call is from new london, connecticut. on the republican line this morning. you are next. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i have a question for your guest. my question, i hear a lot of talk from the republican party that obama's action -- the action on the immigration comedy executive action -- is unconstitutional. why don't the republicans seek judicial relief to the supreme court that this is unconstitutional, rather than getting down in the dirt and getting all bloodied up with his government shutdowns? guest: well, first of all, as you know, there is already a federal judge in texas that has

come out to say that what the president did was out by his legal authority. as you know, there is a suit going forward on obamacare, which the supreme court will rule on soon. and there are steps being taken legally on this, as well. the problem is, and i think we all know this, which is that if republicans put their trust in the judicial branch, even in the supreme court, often that doesn't come out in a way that they think is the responsible outcome. and it is ok for congress to take steps to determine how the money is spent. as a matter fact, it is not just ok, it is mandatory in the constitution. that is one of their most important responsibilities. they are the ones that have the funds the government. so when questions of policy are related to an agency that has to get funded, it is perfectly appropriate and the right thing to do for them to hold that funding until that policy is resolved.

and so republicans who are taking the steps -- by the way the bill that passed the house of representatives does fund dhs. the only thing it doesn't fund is the executive orders. everything else is funded. it is the democrat to say no, we are going to shut down government unless you find the president's overreach. so both sides are trying to have their way. it is not appropriate for them to say to republicans and the house, ok, you made your point now back down. they should and back down. they should hammer out of the with the senate and with the president. that means we go to court come we go to court. there is already a judge who said that with the president did was outside his responsibilities. host: we will conclude on that note. the chair of the conservative union. thank you very much for being with us. guest: pleasure to be here this morning. host: a busy week here in washington. we'll have live coverage of the israeli prime minister's speech.

the president is hear much of this week. the course of the -- of course, the issue of the permit of homeland security -- the funding of homeland security is up front. and later, we will get some background on al-shabaab. you are watching and listening to c-span's "washington journal." it is sunday, the very first of march. thanks for being with us. we are back in a moment. >> here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span two's "booktv," alla

ryskind talks about the hollywood -- nazi party in hollywood during the 1930's. and our three hour conversation with adequate air. her books include "the tyranny of the majority," "lift every voice." and on "american history tv," today at 60 5 p.m. eastern, a discussion about the burning of south carolina, following the surrender of the city to union general oil tecumseh sherman and his troops in 1865. and sunday afternoon at 2:00, an interview with daniel ellsberg on the pentagon papers, a classified study on vietnam which he copied and classified -- and gave to the "new york times." let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us. e-mail us at comments@c-span.org

. or send us a tweet at @cspan. like a son puts -- like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. tonight on "q&a," the challenges of policing the city. >> so it was very clear to me that i still had an issue with public trust and people believing things that i think were said. and regardless of the fact that i stand in front like a bit for you today and say the use of force is down 46%, that complaint about 53% that lawsuits are down, that officer involved shootings are significantly down. people in community say, we don't believe it. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern and pacific. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome back

the executive director of families usa, ron pollack. guest: delighted to be with you, steve. host: big supreme court this week. the issue is the subsidies. let me go back, though, to the law. section 1311. an exchange shall be a nonprofit entity that is established ia state. what does it mean? guest: well, the anti-obamacare folks are bringing the lawsuit they argue that you cannot provide subsidies in the states where the states have refused to set up the exchanges directly. these marketplaces. and the federal government has done so in his place. however, when you read the statute in its entirety, here is a not hundred page statute. -- 900 page statute. it is clear that they would make

sure are available in all states across the country, but if you read the statute section by section by section, you see that it is really absurd to suggest that you don't provide subsidies in the states when the federal government is doing so. so, for example, the affordable care act says that the federally run marketplaces are supposed to report to the treasury what the subsidies are that people are receiving, what the basis for providing the subsidies. obviously, why would they report if there were no subsidies to be provided? the provision that you are referring to is a provision not that sets up the subsidies, it is in calculating the size of the subsidies. the provision that talks about providing subsidies makes clear

that subsidies are to be provided based on income. those people between the poverty line and four times the poverty line. in the section that talks about the size of the subsidies, where that language that you just quoted is found so, here the statute says subsidies shall be provided essentially to everybody. and the way the anti-obamacare folks would like to interpret it is that the size of the subsidies in the states with the federal government is running the marketplaces shall always be zero. clearly, that doesn't make sense. host: in the brief that was written by, among others, the republican of texas, ted cruz, the chair of the senate finance committee, senator rob portman of ohio. congressman dave camp, among others. they say, quote, that if the irs regulation is permitted to stamp, projections indicate that it will result in tens of billions of dollars in unlawful

spending over the next year. hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade. finally, they say, the departure from the statutory text at issue here is especially improper given the nature of the cover misys that were required in order to pass the affordable care act. guest: well, in the legislation if you read the legislation, the various provisions in the statute, it is clear that congress actually intended that subsidies are to be provided in all states across the country. the language actually is pretty clear. tickets are talking about providing high-quality affordable health coverage and care for all americans. and you see that in about half a dozen key parts of the statute. so, the members of congress who you mentioned, these are folks

that voted against the affordable care act. they do not crafted. the people who crafted the a photo care act, they have been absolute clear. they submitted a brief, as well. and they said that the language that we crafted made clear that subsidies are to be provided in all states across the country. now, if the folks who don't like the affordable care act were correct, and in effect, if they were correct that this were intended as an inducement to get the states to actually run their own marketplaces and the inducement was if you fail to do it then we would withdraw subsidies from the people of your state. that would have been clearly stated in the statute. there is no part of the statute that provides such a reference. let me talk about -- host: let me talk about the state-run exchanges. california hawaii, idaho

kentucky, maryland massachusetts, maryland minnesota, and rhode island. what could a rule against these have on the state? guest: with respect to the states that a running their own market places, it would have a significant effect. the real issue is what would happen in the approximate 34 states where the federal government has stood in the shoes of the states and are running those marketplaces? and the answer to that is rather clear. what would happen is there are approximately 8 million people who are currently getting subsidies who now have health coverage, most of them did not have health coverage before. they would lose the subsidies. they would no longer find health insurance affordable. they would rejoin the ranks of the uninsured. and many of those people would be at great risk, in terms of their health and their lives. but beyond that, we now have two

studies from independent think tanks about what the impact would be. so, in addition to the millions upon millions of people who would lose health coverage, and rejoin the ranks of the uninsured, it would cause a significant increase in premiums. for example, there would be an increase in premiums of 35%. the land corporation says premiums would increase by 47%. and this is because what would happen is the only people would stay in these marketplaces are older, sicker people. and the younger, healthier people, who can only get coverage if they can afford it to the subsidies, they would drop out. and so, when you have insurance pools that are composed of older, sicker people, it means that premiums are going to skyrocket. host: the supreme court will

hear oral arguments on wednesday in the case of king the -- v. burwell. chief justice roberts now releasing the audio, so you have a chance to hear it friday at 4:00 eastern time on c-span radio. nationwide on xm channel 120. our guest is ron pollack. we will look at some of the other numbers you just mentioned. as we hear from laura in arizona. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning. hello? host: you are on air, go ahead laura. caller: ok, my comment -- basically not a question -- the democrats and obama pushed this thing down the throats of the american people. nobody wanted it. this president seems to think that if he has a 27% that follow him from the beginning to the

end, then he has to cater to that 27%. whether it is lawlessness, he has broken the constitution so many times since he has been in office with his executive orders and shoving things down peoples throats that they don't want. i don't understand why he hasn't been impeached yet to host: ok -- impeached yet. host: ok, we will get a response. guest: laura is obviously not a fan of the of for care act or the present. but one thing that is absolute clear right now is that the affordable care act is actually working. we just saw the close of the second open enrollment. 4 million people have gained coverage, purchase coverage through these new marketplaces. millions of others are receiving covert to the medicaid program. one of the things that i think is very significant is the

gallup survey folks have been tracking what has happened in terms of the numbers of people who are uninsured. what we have learned is that after the first open enrollment period or than one out of four people who were uninsured have now gained coverage. now it is about one out of every three. that is a huge step in the right direction. additionally, we are saying that health care costs have decelerated. that is very welcome news for all of us because it means that premiums are not escalating the way they did before. so this is exit working. and i think most people who have been affected somehow by the affordable care act appreciate it. host: my guest is a former dean of the antioch school of law. he is a graduate of new york university. bill is joining us from maryland. the democrats lied. good morning. caller: good morning, gentlemen. guest: good morning. caller: this is ill from

maryland. i have a question, and it pertains to the fact that the supreme court ruled, initially, that you shouldn't -- that the states then have to expand medicaid. now, in my opinion, that has a tremendous impact on the notion of how they would do the subsidies. so even if the language does say that they needed to have their own exchange, my view is the supreme court disrupted that balance. guest: well, i have to say that i was exit surprised by the supreme court -- actually surprised by the supreme court ruling in 2012. what the court come in effect, said is that the requirements that every state actually expand

the medicaid program that that was course of because with the court found is that if a state failed to do it, secretary of health human services could withdraw money from the state if it failed to expand the medicaid program. now, mind you, we now have about 10 republican governors who have expanded medicaid. some of the most conservative governors, arizona, ohio, and so on, have expanded the medicaid program. there are still 22 states that haven't done so. interesting with respect to the litigation that we are going to hear on wednesday, actually the court found that it was unconstitutionally coercive to force the state to implement the medicaid program at the risk of having its medicaid dollars withdrawn. you would think the court would also say that if it interpreted

the statute, the affordable care act, as saying if the state does not set up an exchange, a marketplace, the people in that state are not going to receive subsidies. you would think they would find that equally course of. so actually, i think that that ruling -- as disappointed as i was -- i think is indicative that the court will rule favorably with the government on this issue. host: our guest is ron pollack, a frequent guest here on the c-span networks. i want to read to you this editorial from the "new york times" this morning. the 40 attack on health care. the essential claim of the lawsuit, which was filed for virginians by a small group of conservative activists, is that the law does not allow tax credit subsidies to be made available to anyone living in the 34 states whose health-care exchanges are operated by the federal government, which stepped in when those dates the

kind to set up their own. this is, to put it mildly baloney. in the long, tangled history of the debate over the affordable care act, no member of congress ever indicated the believe that the law should work this way. to the contrary, the law explicitly provides for quality, affordable health care for all americans. guest: well, steve, one of the things that the new york -- the "new york times" writes in its editorial, a very strong editorial, is that there is no indication at all among those who wrote the affordable care act, who voted for the affordable care act that there was ever any intention of denying subsidies if a state refused to run its marketplace directly and had the federal government do so instead. there is not a single indication at the time the legislation was crafted. and there are a lot of reporters who were following the steps of

the passage of the affordable care act. none of the reporters ever indicated that there was any kind of conditionality conditioning the availability subsidies based on whether a state decided to run its exchange. this is a fiction. i am surprised that the supreme court has taken this case. i used to be a law school dean, and i have argued cases in the supreme court. this was rather surprising that the court decided to take this case. there is no constitutional issue here. there is no conflict between the circuit courts of appeals, which is usually a key standard that the court uses to determine whether it is going to hear a case, and what was most surprising is that they were to circuit court of appeals -- one here in the district of columbia, and another in denver, the 10th circuit court of appeals -- which was already scheduled to hear arguments on these very issues. and the supreme court did not wait for that. the supreme court actually

decided to hear the case without waiting for the d c circuit or the court of appeals in the 10th circuit to hear it. that was very surprising. so even though we think this lawsuit, these issues are baloney, as the "new york times" has says -- said, you have to take it seriously when the supreme court decides to put on the docket. host: we go to ginny. you are next, good morning. caller: good morning. how is everyone doing deco -- doing? host: great. you are on the air. caller: this is just my opinion. all those pharmaceutical commercials on tv because when they put those on tv, it makes medication go up higher. and the people are paying more for their medication. they don't need to put all that on there. people that need to know about medications are doctors, nurses

pharmacists. that is raising the price of medication. host: ron pollack, your response. guest: one of the things that has happened and i think is positive is that in the public programs, particularly medicaid we are seeing that the drugs that people purchase 10 to be so-called generic drugs. they are much, much less expensive than brand-name drugs. as a result, the government has done a pretty good job of trying to put downward pressure on the prices of pharmaceuticals. i'll like to see that the to a greater extent. the medicare program, i would like to see the government bargain with the drug companies about prices. that is prohibited right now. so, i think the more we enable people to get drugs, at a lower cost through generic drugs and allow competition, i think that

is going to be helpful. host: this from cnbc senator hatch are promising solutions to what he calls the obamacare subsidy fallout. if the supreme court rules against the subsidies, what would that solution be? guest: i don't think there will be a solution in congress. you know, we have now heard from numerous members of congress on the republican side of the aisle who are saying, we are not going to rescue obamacare. we are not going to come up with something that is going to allow the subsidies to continue. you know, to believe that congress is going to fix this takes a big leap of faith here because here congress was unable to extend the department of homeland security us funding for three weeks -- security's funding for three weeks because conservative republicans were fighting with ultraconservative republicans, let alone finding a

proposal that the present time. with the affordable care act that makes it even harder because you need to expand the subsidies for a mongo. of time -- for a longer. of time. if the court rules, which i don't think it rules, but if it rules that subsidies are not be provided, we are going to have chaos in the 34 states where the federal government is running these market places. host: let's go to lancaster, ohio. actually, let's go to marty morning to you. marty from north carolina. the independent line. caller: good morning, how are you doing? host: fine, thank you. caller: i believe everybody -- and this is my own arsenal opinion because i remember that idiot of the d.c. saying you can keep your own doctor and you don't have to change -- that is one of his numerous lies

boldfaced lies. because i asked my doctor's and i have a genetic progressive and terminal disease. host: what about having to change doctors? guest: well, if the court rules that subsidies are to be withdrawn, not only will people be changing doctors, they may not even be able to see a doctor because we are going to see millions of people rejoin the ranks of the uninsured. and they won't afford being able to see a doctor. so those of us who are concerned about people being able to stay in their own health plans and see their own doctors, this is going to make it much works -- worse if the court decides the subsidies should be withdrawn. host: we are talking about the supreme court case. oral arguments take place wednesday. we will hear from hhs secretary

in just a moment. but first, tom and sussex, new jersey. the republican line. good morning. caller: yeah, hi, good morning. my question is that if the states that have the subsidies right, if this doesn't go through, they will still get federal subsidies? and i don't see how that would be fair. host: is the correct? guest: well, he is right. if the supreme court rules that subsidies are not to be provided in the states with the federal government is running the market places in blue of the states, the states that are running their own market places will continue to do so. but let's be clear congress when it wrote the statute -- and it was democrats who wrote the statute -- they wanted the subsidies available in all states across the country. if the opponents of obamacare

prevail in the supreme court then they will be withdrawn from the almost three dozen states. i do have states like california, new york kentucky that are receiving federal subsidies for people who have moderate incomes, and people in other states are going to lose it. i -- that is not what congress intended. the caller is absolutely right. it is not very fair if you are in alabama or mississippi or georgia and give no, you could he subsidies, or they were taken away from you. you probably wouldn't feel good that your tax dollars are going to washington, and they're helping subsidize people in california, new york, but not in your own state. host: caller: good morning. i have two questions. the first one is, if a doctor

receives assistance by helping the people with medicare, why not accept all forms of medicaid? if you do not want to participate in the programs then do not produce a bit at all. host: how would you respond? guest: well, i would like to see all doctors accept medicaid patients. unfortunately, right now physicians get paid so much less money when they serve medicaid pressure -- medicaid patients and they do for medicare patients. i was change on a temporary basis for the affordable care act in terms of payment. that was a temporary provision and it expired. i hope it gets renewed. i think the caller would be much happier because many more physicians would accept medicaid

patients, and i think doctors would like to see that happen as well. host: do you think the department needs a contingency plan if the court rules against the affordable care act? guest: i do not know a kind of a contingency plan can make any sense. clearly you could fix this in congress the question is, is congress likely to do that? i think the answer is no. we have had over 50 votes to repeal the affordable care act. it is clear that republicans in the house and republicans in the senate wanted to do as much damage as they can to the affordable care act. i think the likelihood that this will get fixed is slim to none. that is why what the court rules will be critically important. host: we will go to asking the question to hhs secretary. >> i take you at your word that

you have not seen the plan. but don't you think it is proven that there should be a plan? i hope i do not have a primary opponent. i hope i don't have a primary election opponent. that i have a plan in case i do. i know you hope the court upholds a position, but shouldn't the administration and your agency have a plan in case it fails? >> what we believe is if the court decides, which we do not believe they will, but if they decide on behalf of the plaintiff and the supreme court of the united states says that the subsidies are not available to the people of texas, we do not have an administrative action that we can take. the question of having a plan we do not have an administrative action that we believe can undo the damage. that is why when i was answering the chairman, i think it is important to understand what the damages because then it comes to the question of, we do not believe we have any administrative -- >> if the court strikes it down,

the administration is just going to hold up your hands and say we surrender? >> we believe the law stands at how it should be implemented. with regards to when the supreme court speaks, and if they speak to the issue, we do not believe there is an administrative authority that we have in our power to undo it. that is something we do not believe we have. >> i accept that. host: ron pollack, your reaction. guest: secretary burwell has been parading the house and then it for not having a contingency plan. the people who are parading are the ones who are siding with the plaintiffs who want to destroy the affordable care act and cheering on the supreme court's to withdraw the subsidy in the states. this is like an arsonist complaining that a homeowner does not have a sprinkler system.

it does not make any sense. what clearly i believe is likely to happen, i think even the conservative justices are going to understand that not only did congress intend that subsidies would be provided in all 50 states, but if you read the statute, not just for words of the statute, but the entire 900 pages in the various provisions of that would be nonsensical, if you interpreted the way the plaintiffs would like the court to interpret it, it makes no sense at all. i think the court is going to rule favorably. i do not think there will be a need for contingency plan. host: the case goes before the supreme court on wednesday. the audio will be released at the end of the week. you will have a chance to listen to it on c-span radio and of course, we will be posting it on our website and erin it on c-span television. john from new jersey. ron pollack, good morning. caller: good morning.

my comment is basically, the republicans do not want people to have anything, social security any kind of insurance they want to shut down the post offices and all socialization. the doctors are in it to make money. this is capitalist. that is what it really is. host:guest: what is really interesting about this litigation, which is very different than the litigation that took place in 2012 when there was an effort to try and declare the affordable care act unconstitutional, in this case every part of the health care industry, whether it is insurance, hospitals, physician groups, they are all saying that the provision of the subsidies really was what contemplated by congress and should continue. actually, there is another very interesting point. in 2000 12, when the affordable

care act was before the supreme court, you had a majority of the state suing the federal government trying to declare the affordable care act unconstitutional. in this lawsuit, you have their review spaces siding with the plaintiffs. you only had seven states that filed a friend of the court in support of the plaintiffs. you had 22 states -- states that are clearly blue states -- red states states like mississippi north dakota, and they said you should not take the subsidies away. most importantly, they said when we made decisions about whether we would want our marketplaces we were never informed that if we did not run the marketplaces directly, subsidies would be withdrawn from people in our state. you had scott walker from wisconsin saying that very clearly. you had bob mcdonald from virginia saying that very clearly. nikki haley's folks who made the

decision said they had never such notice. in new hampshire this is actually rather strange. new hampshire decided not to run its own marketplace. in the statute that they wrote they said they want an advisory committee to be established and included on that advisory committee needs to be a person who is receiving subsidies from the federal government. obviously, none of them were unnoticed. if you do not run a marketplace to the state directly, then subsidies would be withdrawn. host: here is a look at those 13 states 13 washington, d.c. has the state run exchange and steve is joining us from illinois during the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i was hoping that mr. pollock could react and maybe discuss some of the video we have seen of jonathan gruber saying the intent of this position was

intentional and idea was to run their own changes. guest: well, i have seen that video. jonathan gruber, who i actually know, is a significant economists. but he did not write the statute heard he was not in congress. what jonathan gruber believes in -- by the way, if you look at what gruber has actually said in the entirety, it is different than the excerpts that have been quoted by mr. gruber. the bottom line is, mr. gruber did not write the affordable care act. he was not a member of congress. the members of congress who wrote the affordable care act were absolutely clear. these subsidies were to be provided in all 50 states. host: our next caller is here in washington dc on the democrat line. caller: hi, thank you for taking my call. first off, there was a caller

that said that health care was crammed down everyone's throat and no one wanted it. but there are millions of people who had pre-existing conditions who just couldn't afford to buy health care how it was set up. having said that, i do not understand how the plaintiffs are claiming they were harmed because nowhere when you signed up for the affordable care act do you have to accept the subsidies. guest: well, the caller has a very good point. one of the key provisions of the affordable care act is it eliminates the discrimination that has taken place, and those people who have pre-existing health conditions, whether it is asthma, diabetes, history of cancer. now, this is a big advance in the affordable care act. many people have said this has been a lifeline for me that did

not exist before. to make that work, there is what we often called a three legged stool. one leg of the stool is the prohibition that prevents insurers from denying coverage to people because they have a pre-existing condition. it also prevents them from charging a discriminatory premium. to make that work, you need other two legs of this three legged stool during one of them is a mandate that requires people to purchase insurance because you do not just one older and sicker people in the insurance pool. you want to have a mixed pool so you can keep premiums down. now, if you are going to have this requirement, you also have to make coverage affordable. that is where the subsidies come in. if you take these subsidies away in any state, then it is going to be impossible for particularly younger and healthier people who tend to be in entry-level jobs or may not have a job to afford health insurance. you only have sicker and older people that are getting coverage.

while though sicker and older people now have the protection that insurers cannot discriminate against them, is the premiums skyrocket as they would get these younger and healthier people drop out of the marketplace, then it is going to be unaffordable. and that is why this three leg -- each leg of the still has got to be protected. and so when people ask what happens if the court rules for the plaintiffs, it means that the markets in each of these almost three dozen states, with almost collapsed because the premiums will escalate enormously and people will not be able to afford coverage. you can see one insurance company after another just drop out of the marketplace. it will cause absolute chaos. host: we welcome the viewers joining us on this sunday afternoon treat this program is carried every life on sundays. those of you listening on c-span radio on xm channel 120, we are previewing the case that the

supreme court will pick up on wednesday. ron pollack is our guest from families usa. from martinsburg, west virginia, the independent line. caller: good morning. i have a two-part question. one is, could the gentleman explain what exactly -- where exactly the subsidy comes from question mark where do they get the money for that -- where exactly the subsidy comes from? where did they get the money for that? all these people are signing up for the portable care act and they clearly tell you you either sign up for our we are going to take it out of your income tax check, you just will not see your check because we are getting the money. i will take my answer off-line. the right. guest: first of all we have seen a large number of people get coverage. the penalty would the caller is referring to is is a tax penalty

that people would pay and it is probably a motivating factor. if you look at the survey data it will show you that the key motivating factor are these significant subsidies that are making insurance affordable. the people who did not get health insurance before, they did not get it because they cannot afford it. these subsidies now make insurance affordable especially for young people. as i mentioned before, young people tend to be in entry-level jobs or they may not have a job, so they cannot afford insurance. the subsidies make the difference. now, i think with the caller would like me to say, and i are to say, is that of force these subsidies are funded through our tax dollars. but there are other provisions from the law that try to reduce health care wasteful spending and that also are helping to pay for these subsidies. host: robert, -- there are a lot

of you sharing your comments -- he says, congress did not write obamacare, the lawyers wrote it. guest: there is no question that every member of congress has bad people who are technicians who cracked the legislation. anyone who thinks that members of congress, particularly the committees that have jurisdiction over legislation that those members do not look at this very carefully that is a mistake. i know we all like to crack jokes about the congress and i participate in some of those jokes as well, but this legislation was crafted very carefully. the committee chairs and the key members of the committees that have responsibilities for this sure, they have the staff people who help them, but ultimately,

they understood what they wrote. either way these key members particularly the chairs of the committee, participated in a friend of the court brief. they wrote an op-ed that was clear about what their intent was. they understood that subsidies were to be provided in all states across the country. host: we have one minute or two left. jim, from wichita kansas, thank you for waiting period republican line, good morning. caller: thank you mr. pollock. i just wanted to challenge you when you say the affordable care act is working, for being a little bit intellectually disingenuous, when you say it is working, what you really mean is people are signing up and yeah, the projections or the curve for health care is down for premiums or the cost for the future, but

i think, if i'm correct, the affordable care act is not even fully implemented yet. so the cost is only going to go up higher. we really are not tackling the big issue of the overall health care costs in the country. host: i will cut you there because we are short on time but you would want to come in on this? -- comment on this? guest: he is right. we are seeing a number of people signing up for coverage. we have seen a deceleration in health care costs and that is helpful. how much of that is attributed to the affordable care act, and how much is a treatable to the economy? i think it is hard to say. i joined the caller about the key thing that he said at the end, and that is, i think all of us, democrats, republicans independents -- now that we are

making progress with respect to getting coverage for people who did not have it before, i think we are going to have to focus much more heavily on ensuring quality of care and that the cost that many of which are wasteful and we decelerate that. at some point, democrats, republicans, and independence can join together. once you get over this obsession of the affordable care act, i think we can get down to that agenda and i think the caller correctly says is very important for us to focus on. host: our last call, tom. new hampshire, good morning. tom? caller: since you do not have much time, i will be brief and i would like to ask mr. pollock to expand on what the republican party have done over the years given this is an issue for about

100 years since roosevelt administration, what have the republicans brought to improve health care in america to extended to people who cannot afford it? host: thank you, tom. guest: we have not had this kind of strong partisanship that you mentioned. richard nixon, for example actually offered a proposal with respect to health reform that was extraordinarily helpful. i remember senator kennedy saying that one of the things he felt he failed during his career was not working with president nixon to pass the legislation that would probably require significant modifications. we have seen bipartisanship over the years. unfortunately, we have not seen that bipartisanship recently. right now they are really

obsessed with repealing the affordable care act. we got over 50 votes in that direction. i think over the next 50 years, once it becomes. at the affordable care act is stable and will continue to be the law of the land, it is liable that democrats and republicans will come together and focus on things that involve improving cost so we do not see premiums and adjustable escalate. at the same time, -- and deductibles as great. at the same time, we need to provide quality care for everybody your it i think it will occur in this congress. host: ron pollack, we appreciate your time and insights. thank you for stopping by and taking our viewer calls. finally, the sunday morning programs focusing on part what is next this week for house republicans, including a possible insurrection for john

boehner and tim jordan. all of the sunday programs can be heard on c-span radio beginning with nbc's meet the press at noon eastern time and 9:00 on the west coast. our facebook page, we are asking the question, can house republicans govern? you can weigh in on the conversation at facebook.com/c-span. up next, joshua meservey will be joining us as we learn more about al-shabaab and the threats against laws, including mall of america as well as locations in canada and great britain. you are watching and listening to c-span "washington journal," on this sunday morning march the first. >> the c-span city tour takes american history on the road traveling to u.s. cities to learn about their histories and literary life.

next again, we partner with comcast or a visit to dr., texas. -- for our visit to galveston, texas. in 1869, ships almost felt a death blow with the opening of the canal, cold fire ships had a shorter route to the far east and india and all those markets. selling ships instead of high-value cargo they started carrying lower value cargoes cotton etc. alyssa really found her niche in carry any kind of cargo that did not require getting to market at a fast paced. >> watch all of our events from galveston on saturday, march 7. on c-span2, book tv.

the political landscape has changed with the 114th congress. not only are there 43 republicans and 15 you democrats in the house and 12 new republicans and one you democrat in the senate, there is also 100 eight women in congress including the first african-american republican in the house and the first woman veteran in the senate. you track of the members of congress using congressional chronicle on c-span.org. the page has lots of useful information, including voting results, statistics on each session of congress. new congress best access on c-span, c-span2, and c-span.org. washington journal continues. host: we want to welcome joshua meservey serving as a director of the africa center surety good morning and thank you for being

with us. guest: good morning. host: lesbian with basics, what is al-shabaab and what is the impact in the u.s.? guest: it is a terrorist organization. they are an official al qaeda affiliate and declared loyalty to the group in 2012. a have been around for about 10 years. their origins are a bit murky and most people agree that their leadership coalesced into 2003 and 2004 and it became an official entity in 2005. they were sort of supercharged in 2007 after an ethiopian invasion in late 2006 that really galvanized somali resistance to this invasion. ethiopia is somali's ancient enemy. a lot of bad history there. and unfortunately, the ethiopians were not as discriminate as they should have

been in some of their tactics so the use of shelling and presidential areas that cause a lot of civilian casualties. this really galvanized resistance to the ethiopians and since al-shabaab was the primary and most visible resistors to ethiopia, they attracted a lot of support from within somalia and also outside of somalia along the diaspora, including here in the united states. host: who funds the terrorist group? guest: they have a variety of funding streams. a lot of their funding used to come from wealthy donors in the gulf. most of their funding is it raced through taxation of the areas they control. long before isis even existed al-shabaab controlled and governed large territories as you see isis doing now in iraq and syria. in those areas they control

they have an extraordinarily taxation -- it's ordinarily complex taxation system. they tax everything from farming land, transporting goods, they demanded a muslim tie essentially from those under their control really extorting money, you could look at it as protection money. even an individual or company who did not agree to pay the taxes, they were in trouble with al-shabaab. the final one would be charcoal smuggling. this continues to be a real problem. charcoal is highly prized in the gulf so they have sold millions and millions of dollars worth of charcoal to the gulf. the united states has prohibited the trade and does not appear to have put a dent in it. al-shabaab has gathered a lot of

revenue from this charcoal trade. host: we will get to calls and comments as we learn more about al-shabaab and the potential threats. the headline this past week is stressed -- it's threats against malls america and locations in great britain and canada. is there anything they can do to back up those threats? do they have forces in the u.s.? guest: yes, i think you have to consider the threat into dove ways. one, as you asked, do they have or system the united states? is there a sweeper cell that could pull off a 9/11 style attack? i think the answer is -- i have written about this, and the chances are virtually no, but it is a possibility. a couple reasons for that. one is that so much of their support that i referenced earlier, has eroded within the diaspora. a number of reasons for that, one, the brutality in somalia against primarily somalis

muslims. they have this al qaeda problem and the spices problem where most of their victims are people who are claiming to be protecting or fighting on behalf of. that really eroded a lot of their support. there is a terrible famine in somalia at 90% of the fatalities of people who starve to death during that famine and they were in al-shabaab controlled territory. they do not allow aid into those territories very suspicious of western organizations that would provide a kind of eight so -- that kind of aid, so the rhetoric began to wear thin. that cost them a lot of their support. currently, they are under great pressure from this military coalition which is the african union mission in africa.

the coalition of neighboring countries and regional countries. they pushed al-shabaab out of all of their major strongholds. that has put a dent in all of their many other pillars of support that al-shabaab lies on. i think they have so many problems in somalia right now that their chances of launching -- of having an affiliated or having their members of the united states to launch that sort of attack is really, really small. the second part of this that you could look at is, and this was the purpose of the video, can they inspire attacks? attacks are perpetrated by individuals who don't not have formal affiliation with the group that they do have an

ideological affinity. they are not members of al-shabaab, but they do support al-shabaab and what they say. they are specifically addressing muslims in the west, people outside of al-shabaab, people they are hoping will perpetrate one of the attacks. you can never discount the lone wolf attack because it only takes one individual to do it, and they are very difficult to disrupt because lone wolves do not do the sorts of thing that law enforcement would normally detect. they do not talk to co-conspirators, raise a lot of resources, they really act alone, on their own. the fort hood shooting is a good example of a lone wolf terrorist attack during the boston marathon bombing. those were two brothers who were

acting essentially alone and cut off from any support. from terrorist organizations. because they have lost so much of their previous support, i think they have much less persuasive power with people who might be launching a lone wolf attack. host: our guest spent the time of a corps volunteer and we will talk about that in a moment. our phone lines are open. 202-748-8000 14 republicans. 202-748-8000 four democrats. -- 202748 8000 and one caller: my question is, 50% of the raw goods to run this

country come from foreign countries. what i would like to know, on the opinion with dealing with groups like al-shabaab, how does that come into play as to how we can actually deal with these overriding influences. i will take my answer off air. thank you very much. guest: sure. i think the way to deal with al-shabaab is sort of multipronged. one is, -- the fundamental problem with these terrorist organizations is that they have an ideology and extremist ideology that appeals to some small minority of people. you have to defeat that extremist ideology in order to really solve the root cause of this problems. host: where does their money come from? guest: as a mentioned earlier

the charcoal smuggling and the donations and the taxation's within somalia. host: are there any other organizations providing the money? guest: the you one has accused west ideological support in ethiopia. that state-sponsored money has dried up and it appears that they rely on charcoal, taxation, or any way they can bring money out of folks. host: let me ask you about the recruitment operation who are they bringing into the organization? guest: their natural

constituency in the west is is the somali diaspora. they have been at war for decades and a lot of people have been refugees and resettled to western countries and sought asylum. their most successful recruiting phase was 2006, 2007, to about 2009. they recruited anywhere in the u.s. between 20 and 60 american citizens to go over and fight in somalia. the numbers are hazy and no one knows exactly what they are. it was a concerning number of them. that support dried-up so that

has badly affected their recruiting. there is a muslim population and they heavily target them for recruitment. at their peak, they had jihadist from all over the world, from the gulf, yemen, iraq, pakistan chechnya, members of the somali diaspora, and several other americans who converted to islam and they accepted this extremist interpretation of the faith and went in and joined the group. host: you can also share on the congress station on facebook.com/c-span or send us a tweet at c-span wj. good afternoon. richard? caller: i have a time delay

here. last week the state department said al-shabaab is planning some atrocities in the united states and europe. the thing i am wondering is do they have the resources to do such an atrocity like has been done in other places like madrid and elsewhere? guest: yeah, it is an important question. of course. i think -- again this goes back to the earlier discussion about do they have sleeper cells in the west -- i think that is really unlikely. you mentioned resources. a have a lot of their resources as they have been pushed out of their urban strongholds, they lost the port cities -- sees me -- -- excuse me -- those were

real ports of taxation and they lost of those. they lost a lot of their leadership and long time leader was killed in september of last year. a u.s. drone strike. they lost other high-ranking leaders. they are reeling a bit and somalia. that does not mean they are not defeated, they are still very dangerous. they are wounded but dangerous. i think to me, the mall threats was a hail mary. they have been overshadowed by the likes of isis. really publicity is oxygen for many of these groups. it helps them recruit, bring in money from donors. and, they have been overshadowed. the worst-case scenario for them

is that they will get ignored. maybe they could inspire a lone wolf attacked and suddenly, they are back in the the talks. at the very worst, they just get publicity, which they do get international headlines all around the world. it was a very low cost sort of gambit for them. i think it had moderate success. host: from houston, texas, greg is next. good morning. caller: i have a question. basically, the brothers went back to chechnya and supports of the -- and supposedly got training. i do not know if that is a totally lone wolf situation. guest: that is a good point. i think it is unclear how much training he really received. i read differing reports on the extent of his involvement with chechnya terrorist organizations.

it does appear, from everything i have read of the boston marathon bombings, that this was very much he and his brother deciding to do this on their own and using their own resources. they made these pressure cooker bombs, which they got the blueprints and plans for off of al qaeda online magazine. i think the name of the article was "how to build a bomb in your mom's kitchen." while they did have some interaction with some of these touch that terrorist organizations, it looks like the plot that he and his brother carried out was not supported by a terrorist organization. host: eddie is next. we talk about al-shabaab and the threat to the homeland. eddie, good morning. caller: good morning, gentlemen.

steve, you are the man. joshua, i was wondering if you could tell me if al-shabaab controlled all of somalia? this might be too general of the question, but could you describe what a typical day might be -- if they got what they wanted, they can go around and shoot rocket launches and cause terrorism and everything, but do -- if they got what they want, when they sit down and form a government if they got and everyone under the control? what would a typical day be if they were in control of the whole country? i will take my answer out there. thank you, you guys. guest: well it is governed. they have an entire governance structure and some of it remains , again, they were the original as far as islamic terrorists organizations are concerned, they originate this model of

governing and upholding, taking and holding territory. people often talk about the isis model and how isis has created this model for governing territory to conquer but al-shabaab was doing this for isis was around. they had governors from different regions. they divided the country they had local investors, a bureaucracy, and they were very adept at taxing and remain adept at taxing in areas they control. as far as a day to day existence would look like under their control, they are very much in the al qaeda mold. they bring that domineering and brutal ideology to the areas they control. reports of them stoning women they have accused of adultery,

beheadings, amputation, very barbaric interpretation of islamic law. not so different from how isis controls their territory, as far as the brutality of their punishments. very authoritarian, they have prescriptions, rules for many different areas of normal life. they been watching football -- the ban watching football or soccer. certain ring tones or music is banned. all sorts of these petty rules that were reflective -- are reflective of this sort of authoritarian ideology. host: john next from missouri. the democrats like, good morning and thank you for waiting period . caller: be afraid. be very afraid.

i'm going to use 10 years as a number. every year, 100,000 people go to the hospital and died. 75,000 from infections when they get there and 25,000 are from medical malpractice. 20,000 people die on the highways from accidents. 40,000 people are murdered. using 10 years as a basis, that comes to 1,800,000 people that have died. most of them are unnecessarily. as far as they know, terrorists have come over here and kill the two people in boston. what should i be afraid of? al-shabaab or the society right here where i live. were i can go to the hospital this morning on the highway, if

i do not get killed there, i can get killed while i am in the hospital. host: thank you for the call. his premise behind the numbers. guest: i agree what i think you are -- what your premises. the best way to truly deal with these terrorist organizations is not to allow them to disrupt and not allow them to sacrifice our core principle's. that is the real danger of terrorism and distinguish between some of the things you mentioned. they can frighten societies to the point that they make concessions that they should not. they might compromise some of their deeply held principles that make them a free and open society.

i think, taking back the al-shabaab context, kenya is grappling with this question right now. al-shabaab is typing them -- is attacking them and they are suffering from these. they are responding -- the kenyan government is increasingly responding by shrinking the democratic space in that country in the name of fighting terrorism. the kenyan government has a real and true responsibility and true responsibility to protect kenyans. al-shabaab cannot conquer kenya. it does not have the means to march into nairobi and take over the capital and steal the government. but it can do is scare that country so much that it shrinks and looks inward and becomes something it does not want to become. and authoritarian place with few freedoms and no longer open and multicultural and diverse.

host: you spent some time in the peace corps over there. is it safe for americans to go to africa? guest: absolutely. africa is a huge place. 54 countries, depending on how you count it. each offers a unique society and culture, history. zambia, for instance was very peaceful. one of the safest places i have ever lived. the terror threat of al-shabaab is a regional threat, but that is just one region. even kenya, which is getting attacked quite frequently by this group, those are generally along the coastal regions. that has been al-shabaab's most recent attacked. it was on nairobi in the mall. that was their only really large attack. there have been some small ones.

i also into nairobi for several years. i think the criminality was a much greater concern than a terrorist attack. host: let's go to david in indian trail, north carolina. good morning and welcome to the program. caller: a question -- which is more dangerous, a religious fanatical with a gun or a fanatically religious person with their holy book? guest: ummm, well i cannot really put those into a hierarchy,, i guess. i would say that extremist interpretation, which is what we are dealing with when we talk about all should bob and isis -- and we talk about al-shabaab and isis, yeah, those are dangerous. ideas have consequences.

this minority, but extreme interpretation of islam, we have seen the consequences of that throughout the world specifically in somalia. for the purpose of our discussion, somalia and that region. host: joshua meservey. we are talking about al-shabaab the threat it poses to the u.s.. caller: i am curious on the role of u.s. foreign aid and what they can do to stop threat -- terrorists and what they did to our national security. guest: ask steve mentioned, i was a peace corps volunteer and

i worked with refugees. i think a lot about the developments and security issues -- when you are talking about a group of like al-shabaab, you have to understand it is not a monolithic group. everyone who joins does not necessarily believe the same thing. some of the leadership, they are absolutely interested in an international and global jihad. they very much subscribe to the al qaeda worldview. they also have a lot of people who joined because there are very few jobs in somalia, for instance. it is difficult to get money. many of them lack any sort of standing in society. some of these young men, joining a group like this, you see the weapon and gain a level of prestige. you got a paycheck, you were paid better than members of the somali military, if they got paid at all.

i think with what i call the true believers, the folks who subscribe to the al qaeda like ideology, i call them irredeemable's. a jobs program will not persuade them to give them their ideology. this is what they believe and this is what motivates them. we have to really carefully analyze these groups and try to find those who are not necessarily motivated like the leadership is. by this extremist ideology and perhaps they just joined for a paycheck. in the somali context, clan is very important. some people joined because their clan supported al-shabaab. those folks have to be treated very differently from the irredeemables. those folks can be reached through development projects and hopefully, getting more opportunities into the societies

-- as i mentioned earlier, the leadership to people who really subscribe to the ideology development will have no effect on them. host: another caller from great britain. good morning. caller: hello. i'm calling from the united kingdom, but i am somali. i just came from this area. all should bob is a big threat, not only to the united states and north america but to africa. we understand that it is a big red. -- a big threat. they have a lot of opportunities. what the u.s. government is doing to make sure that our children are not attracted to al-shabaab so that the children

are not on their mission -- >> are you still on the phone? let me ask you the question that is asked in this who knows the region so well, why so much animosity toward the u.s. and great britain? caller: there are a lot of underlying issues. there was a lot of oppression in africa. the main thing is there are a lot of political and economic issues which have not been dealt with appropriately.

who should have been supportive so that they can show [indiscernible] children who are growing up, they need opportunities. i know a lot of people right now who are leaving the country of somalia, kenya, and it is because there are no opportunities. they go in the wrong direction and it is important that we should come together and give these children opportunities. it can only be served by education and enlightening the people of the country.

a lot of people are coming to [indiscernible] that is what is attracting a lot of people to this system. host: i want to thank you for phoning in and letting your voice to the conversation. we will give the get the chance to respond. thank you very much. guest: i agree with a lot of what ali had to say. as i was saying, in my previous comments, we are people who can be reached and can be dissuaded from joining radical islamic terrorist organizations. increasing opportunities and having a chance to do something meaningful with our lives. absolutely. i completely agree with that.

i think you're in the united states only talk about the radicalization problem or struggles of the somali american community, we really need the community to solve this problem and we need to take a lead on combating it. and they have. a need support from the u.s. government and from societies. i think it is there. i applaud the a somali american community and efforts that some of the leaders have taken to push back against the likes of al-shabaab. they have a long history of recruiting there. also isis and al qaeda affiliates recruiting in that society. there are people who are pushing back and fighting the radical message. that is what is needed. a response to this toxic message

that young kids are receiving. of course, it is a really complex issue because there are instances of people leaving or become radicalized who did have jobs, very good jobs. they appeared to be integrated like you would help. there is a famous american jihadi who fought al-shabaab, m omar, he played soccer and grew up in alabama. his mother was christian and his father was a muslim. he grew up in a very dynamic and diverse household. he became radicalized. the full solution is not, as i say opportunity or development of things, it has to be an approach where we attacked ideology where muslims who reject the ideology, the vast

majority of them, really take the lead in pushing back on it. host: our last call, a manual, good morning. caller: good morning. host: be quick. caller: all right. i was just wondering, because i'm a young man. i grew up in maryland my whole life. my generation, we grew up in fear. we had the whole 9/11, the d.c. sniper, anthrax, the whole nine yards. we are just tired of the media particularly the right-wing media telling us to be afraid all the time. i'm wondering what you can say about how much of this terrorism are we actually just putting on ourselves? host: thank you for the call. guest: you know, i think the u.s. government has a

responsibility -- a profound responsibility to its citizens to protect them and provide caution when necessary. the threat of terrorism isn't trite. we have seen the cost that terrorists have excited from the west. 9/11 was the worst attack, but there have been others. i agree with your premise that fear is not the answer. that is precisely what terrorists are trying to instill. they are called terrorists terror is in their name. it is very much a part of their goal, to instill a sense of fear and get us to stop living as we want and stop living as they do not want us to live. guest: host: how closely does public opinion match the media coverage? guest: i think media is hugely influential in forming public opinion. of course, it is my main source

of information tv, yeah, i think media has a great responsibility. i think they really strive to get the story right. but i would encourage people to do well -- to do their own investigation and look at as many different strains of media as they can. host: our guest joshua meservey . graduate of east university and tufts. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you for having me. host: we looking to do the conversation as usual. among our guest, retired general wesley clark. he will be here to talk about combating isis. he served as a nato supreme commander during the clinton administration. also, what is next on the debate over funding for the department of home land security. bob bishop will be joining us. and then, we will take a step back with alicia caldwell of the

associative rest to learn more about the hs, it's funding mission statement, and how it operates. it is the third largest cabinet department in the u.s. government. that is all tomorrow morning on c-span. thank you for joining us on this sunday. "newsmakers" is next. enjoy the rest of your weekend and have a great week ahead. ♪ >> next, newsmakers with bob goodlatte.

after that, the director national intelligence talks about the national security threats. >> thank you for being with us. let me introduce our two reporters. thank you for being here. the senate judiciary committee reported out the nomination of loretta lynch. are you confident in her leadership? how much are you looking forward to her at the justice department? >> we've been very disappointed with the outgoing attorney general for a number of reasons. we will hope that she provides better leadership and be more respectful of the constitution