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

and was possibility set congress has a. one of the things that disturbs us is that she has defended the president's authority to act in the way that he has administrative legalization about two 5 million people who are unlawfully in the united states. not only has the house rejected that idea from the homeland security appropriations bill with five amendments that make it clear that the president does not, in the opinion of the house, have that power, but now the u.s. district court judge in texas has agreed and has imposed an injunction on the president in that program. the president has been suspended as a result of that. 22 occasions prior to that, the

president himself said that he did not have the authority under the law to do what he subsequently did. we are not satisfied with her answer in that regard, and we are troubled by that. >> net neutrality walls -- rules. you have sent a letter signed by a number of colleagues expressing concern. >> i think it is a truly wonderful idea to take this i drew -- this technology that has been a instrument of growth and stick it into an industrial age regulatory process, that was designed to deal with a telephone company when there was in fact at the time and monopoly. that is not how the internet operates at all.

the internet has been open and three and has had tremendous access because of the fact that it has very little regulation of it. we have a process for making sure that there is open access to the internet, and we introduced the bill, a bipartisan bill, a number of years ago that would address this from a antitrust point. to make sure that not only the justice department and the federal trade commission, but also individuals would have access to our antitrust laws to make sure that it remains open. but there is no evidence today that the internet is under assault and needs the protection of the federal communications division, and there's precious little evidence that the ftc has been responsible for the growth

of the internet has experienced to this point. i do not see this need but also a greater concern is what happens when he knows it is this action that is a precursor to the ftc using this presumed authority to regulate the internet and a whole host of other different ways. i am hopeful, and rather confidence, that this will be challenged in court. efforts by the ftc to regulate the internet has been struck down before. i think it is time to take an aggressive stand in response to this as well. >> the senator has already announced about hearing from the

committee, are you going to hear from them? >> we held a committee from the antitrust point to show that there is a better way to keep the net open than to have the ftc regulated in any way, shape, or form. >> following up on that, and tying together the net neutrality issues, you are in the middle of the fight over homeland security funding and the claim of the power of the first. -- purse. new in the first instance of this he retreated from it. where is congress on the power of the purse? are there any big issues from which the power of the purse can be used in the future?

in order to stop those rules you are already doing it on the immigration issue. you have these orders at stake here. why the republicans particular can ever use this if they do not win this fight. >> we use power of the purse all the time. and some have said with the decision today this is another area where it fits. this regulation. you would have to juxtapose it with what legal remedies there are as well. i support the congress asserting itself using the power of the purse, as i was very deeply involved in and continue to be in the legislation that is before the united states senate as we speak that passed the house and fully funds the

department of homeland security but makes it very clear that it does not fund what has been authorized in the congress with regard to not only the president's current administration policy, but the action he has already taken leading up to that, including the deferred action for childhood arrival. we should continue to exercise that as fully as possible. the question of whether we can use it effectively in a particular set of circumstances depends upon those circumstances the will of the members of congress, and the will of the american people. if they agree with our action and stand with us, that makes it much easier for us to hold the necessary numbers together to assert our power and not fund something that we think is inappropriate. >> your committee is about to consider four different bills as early as next week with which essentially seems like it is the

post-shutdown showdown fight on immigration. go into those bills on what you will to accomplish, and in particular whether -- something you check up something -- something you took up last year whether you think there has been any progress, and if you think we have gone beyond the shutdown showdown fight. >> american people want to have trust in their government that they will enforce immigration laws, and they are not seeing mass. they saw that very clearly last summer during the so-called border search. although it had been building up for a long time, if built up media attention, and congress responded. prior to that happening, the tallest judiciary committee had already passed two important bills. this is a bill that is being introduced -- reintroduced in this congress. it passed through the house

judiciary committee in the last congress, and it takes a very successful system, our e-verify program which is used by 575,000 businesses across the country. it has a 97.5% accuracy rate. it has a mechanism to deal with the 3/10 of a percent of those who will bring back a false positive or a false negative. it is a very good deal. the second one is designed to respond to the states, 26 state attorney generals have sued the obama and administration over this program. what they really want is the authority to enforce our immigration laws themselves. as long as what they do is in concert with federal immigration laws. the superior court ruled in the

arizona case that they have to only with the congress authorizes them to do. that legislation allows that. the bill brought by john carter who was involved in this issue last summer makes it clear that the ua sees unauthorized accompanied minors, they are returned back across the border immediately. but that is not the treatment that other minors received. a large percentage of them do not return for the court states that are assigned to them.

the fourth bill deals with a number of reforms dealing with our asylum laws. >> following up on the dhs debate, it looks like it is moving toward having their own version, a means of resolving the problem. a stopgap bill for the next days and weeks. can this effort to shut down a dhs? >> -- avert the shutdown at dhs? >> he is currently enjoined from

that. it will depend on what is proposed, what is proposed in how to deal with this, how long this would be, with the senate need more time because of their arcane rules? they take a long time to address legislation. if we send something back to them tomorrow, they may not get it done or the department of homeland security shut down. we do not want the department of homeland security to shut down we want to use spending power in an effective way. if we send them back something to consider, it will take a longer span of time. it will be during the time that the president is enjoined by the court from pursuing this program . a short-term extension is something that we need to have a careful discussion about.

we should give a careful examination. >> what does this dhs funding debate say about the issue of immigration with the republican party now? there was a lot of talk about doing a big comprehensive suite the immigration reform bill that went nowhere. now there is a bill that is moving and driving a lot of the debate. >> let us be very clear that from the very beginning of the last congress, we articulated a step-by-step report for immigration reform -- approach for immigration reform, and never brought in a big bill that was a classic example of a law of unintended consequences. back in 1986 when we passed a pathway to citizenship i was

not here, but the senate and house did that and signed it into law, and gave a pathway to citizenship for about 3 million people. but the new enforcement of our immigration laws that would have resulted in theory in there not being any more illegal immigration. we got the pathway to citizenship for those people that we did not get the enforcement. and here that many years later we saw the senate bill as a repeat of 1986. i think a great many people did not want to pursue that. so we took a step-by-step approach and 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, as you know, the president waited until after the election and then took an action that he

himself many time said he did not have the authority to take. that transform the environment and many people expected us to stop that action, and they also want to see our border secure. it is certainly a legitimate question to ask will this president carry out new laws? we believe that there are many improvements to the law, whether does this president or the next president, they should have those tools to really show that the order of our country is being properly enforced with illegal immigration. we can address illegal immigration reform, and we can always have before us the necessity of determining what to do about the status of people who are not lawfully here.

there are many ideas about that, and there are many people, and they do not have to be treated in one group of billions of people like the 5 million the president has identified. there are people here. all of that needs to be addressed but the first thing it has to be done is to regain the trust of the american people that in these difficult times, when we are concerned about terrorists, the security of our borders, the fairness of our immigration laws and people who go to the process legally are put behind people who are unlawfully entering the country. those enforcement issues and legal immigration reform issues must be addressed first. >> what are your plans right now

for putting a bill through? is there any chance for an agreement here? if not, what are we looking at as of june? >> i think we have to have an agreement because we've to talk about the necessary legislation that talks about our intelligence and law enforcement that have the necessary information to stop terrorist attacks. >> there is a lot of daylight between where the senate republicans are and the bill. >> the bill that we produced that was very bipartisan and had the support of congress, we

worked with him to make some modifications to the bill, and it passed the house with a very strong partisan vote. it has a very high protection of our intelligence gathering without intruding on american citizens. i thought that that bill should have been taken up by the senate. if they had taken up that bill or the leahy bill, we could have worked out the differences between those bills and said something to the president for his signature. the president supported what we're doing in the house of representatives in that fashion. so we have to start up again, but we're facing a deadline that will bring clear vision to everyone in the house and senate

. we need to protect our civil liberties at the highest level possible. i think we will bring something very similar to something that passed the house with such a wide margin in the last congress and look to the senate to come up with their version and then we have to sit down and work out the differences. it would not surprise me if they came out with something different. with baby to understand that this is an important measure that has a deadline -- what they need to understand is that this is an important measure that has a deadline. >> we have already seen tension between mcconnell and speaker ma john boehner. we have seen fingers be pointed at senate republicans. are you satisfied with the leadership, or are you is

appointed that we already see these tensions? >> i think the staff of our leadership and the staff of senator mcconnell's communicate on a daily basis on dili ♪ issues. but the senate have very different rules than the house. and those have always been a source of frustration to the house members. we have our opinions about what rules are able to function well in the 21st century when republicans are trying to restrain the power of the federal government. those rules can be used to inhibit the ability to do that. that is exactly what we are seeing in the department of homeland security debate. they have measures that have allowed for the passage of legislation by majority vote. we have already come together on this.

the senate price their own rules, and we have to figure out how to work within that. we have also had some success in passing the keystone pipeline bills. giving that through both the house and the senate. it has gone to the president and now we have, in that case, where the president vetoed the bill, a clear difference where the unified republican congress has shown where we stand on america's energy independence, and job creation compared to where the president and his party stand. we're going to have a veto override vote, and hope to add more democrats to our vote totals. but we have opportunities to work together, we like the apartment that are than this -- the environment in this congress better than the last congress. we think the bills will at least

get a look at whether or not they can be passed out of the senate given thatt constraint of the senate rules. >> what constitutional amendments do you try to plan to move through your committee on the floor? are you looking into if enough states have issued a call to an article five convention? >> as a matter of fact, in the house rules at the beginning of this congress, we passed a rule change that set up an informal process of the house taking in and recognizing that a state has a path and a call for this.

several congresses on a balance budget amendment, it is vitally important, and not my idea. thomas jefferson was the first one to call for what we are trying to accomplish today. we came one vote from passing in the senate back in the 1990's. 72 democrats went for it and gave us the two thirds vote we needed. and last congress may only got 25 democrats. we need to continue to press this case. one of the things that helps and that is the direct input from the part of states that the fiscal mess in washington dc affects them in very his ways -- various ways. one of the accounts says that 25

states, including south dakota which just last repast a call for a constitutional -- last week passed a call for a constitutional convention. it is a good process because it reflects the statehouse concert -- state's concerned that i share with them to put pressure on the congress to take it up and deal with every other amendment as we have before, two thirds of the congress and then sending it up for ratification. we are also working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle who said work a balance legend amendment to the constitution to bring that up and have a vote on at least one version of that in congress.

>> final question? >> you were talking about veto overrides earlier. is theyre a bill where the congress can pass it the president can veto it, but you have the votes to override it? >> we hope when we accomplish that that the president will actually signed those into law. we are not looking for the ones where we can definitely override his veto. but if he indicates that he is going to veto a bill that has strong bipartisan support, we would welcome the opportunity to work together with democrats to achieve good public policy changes. >> we are pleased to have you here in the midst of this busy week. thank you. >> newsmakers is back with john

sullivan after our conversation with the chairman of the dishes your committee -- of the judiciary committee. this fight over satellite security and immigration -- homeland security and immigration. >> tells you that the republicans really do continue to be divided on this issue of immigration as they have for the last half decade or so. it has been interesting watching the senate republican leaders try to manage this. they figure they could come in and by allowing more amendments bring more democrats into the process to wait used to work. and the democrats show that they are not going to do that. they're going to filibuster at the very beginning and not even get into the debate where the

republicans had hoped to entice them. the players have reversed in the senates, but the gridlock remains the same. >> the democrats have really resisted the republican agenda. it will be interesting to see what happens in the next two months as we see moderate democrats support to break away from that. and if you look at bigger john boehner, it is more of this same problem. an unruly conference, where there is no consistency about what people want no matter what he says. there's going to be somebody unhappy. quite we have learned that the speaker has not met with the majority leader for two weeks. he was saying that their staff is talking but that strike you

as a sign of anything? >> in the middle of this, when it was clear you had a dispute between mcconnell and john boehner, there was absolutely tension there. i also take him at his word that they are talking, and they were honored recess last week. the fact that they did not talk is not necessarily surprising but it tells you a lot about how congress is operating so far. like in this is john boehner's problem so far. he has to work with mcconnell, but he cannot appear too close to him because there are a lot of republicans who are upset about the way that he proposed this bill. the john boehner camp cannot look like he is part of that

strategy, he has to separate himself. >> on immigration you asked specifically about the four pieces of legislation that they are hoping will address their concerns. what is the strategy? >> republicans, one of the other bills were they had problems earlier this year is a border security bill. it was border security only, and they had to pull it from the floor back in january because they did not have enough votes. the conservatives rebuilt saying they do not like the bill, and they said it is not the border, but interior enforcement that is the problem. this is a chance in some ways to rehabilitates that border beill. this is the republican chance to not just push back is the president's executive action but tell you exactly how we think the enforcement should

happen. this really is the post-shutdown fight. >> we are talking on thursday and by the time you see this on sunday, we will know more. but with regard to the shutdown strategy, what happens if we get to that point? >> republicans would absorb most of the blame, and see a repeat of what we saw a 2013 where when that government shutdown the republicans did absorb a lot of the political blame. this is something where they are going to face back to the public if they do. >> even with their base? >> republicans are looking toward 2016, a presidential year this is not ideal for them at this point. >>