discusses the homeland security department. with congress still working on a long-term solution for funding we look at how the department operates with alicia caldwell. host: good morning. it is monday, march 2, 2015. you are looking at a live shot of the capital building on an icy morning in washington, d.c. where little agencies are opening on a two hour delay. the homeland security department shut down deadline is five days away as the agency continues to be caught up in a debate over president obama's executive order on immigration. it puts speaker john boehner between hard-line conservatives and centrists in his party on how to move forward. this morning we are opening up our phones to republican viewers

only to hear what you think republicans should do on this debate and how you think the next five days should play out. republican colors in just the first 45 minutes this morning. host: you can also catch up with us on social media. host: a very good monday morning to you. here are the headlines in some of the papers in washington. "the washington times," "another cliffhanger week begins for homeland security funding." "the washington post" lead story this morning "boehner on dhs funding." "he has just five days to craft

a new out like keep dhs funded or face the politically debilitating prospect of at least temporarily shutting down an agency designed to protect americans. republicans had no clear path to a solution other than retreating from their demands that the dhs funding measure include provisions that would block implementation of president obama's executive actions on immigration." we want to hear from republicans of this morning, how you think speaker boehner senate majority leader mitch mcconnell and others should proceed. speaker boehner was on "face the nation" on sunday. [video clip] speaker boehner: as i said earlier, the house is a rambunctious place. in a lot of members have different ideas of what we should and shouldn't be doing. john: can you lead to those

members? speaker boehner: i think so. remember what is causing this the president of the united states overreaching and not just on immigration. he made unilateral changes to obamacare and many of these, i believe, far beyond his constitutional authority to do so. the frustration in the country represented through the frustration of our members as people started at. -- people scared to death that the president is running the country off the cliff. one of host: one of those republican members is peter king of new york. he was also on the sunday shows on how republicans should proceed in the debate. [video clip] rep. king: there is an element in the country that is absolutely irresponsible. they have no concept of reality.

i am as opposed to the president's immigration actions as they are but it is essential that we find the department of homeland security. we saw it happen in denmark, in paris, what isis is doing with beheadings, the people arrested the other night. for these people to be threatened to defund the department of homeland security at a time when the threat streams have never been greater is absolutely irresponsible. i sent last night at the republican meeting that they are self-righteous and delusional and they don't realize what is happening. we talking about 40 or 50 people at most out of a caucus of 247. we cannot allow such a small group to be dominating and controlling the united states congress especially at a time -- martha: so, chairman king, what do you do to bring the party back together, and does speaker boehner keep his job? rep. king: we have to have john

boehner keep his job and once prime minister netanyahu visits, we need a clean bill. let that come to a vote. there's no doubt it will pass. host: congressman peter king yesterday on the sunday shows. that debate playing out all week in washington, d.c. we want to hear from our republican callers. first, a few tweets from members of congress on that side of that debate. here is congressman trent franks, one of those who voted no on the short-term department of homeland security continuing resolution the three-week bill that republicans were unable to pass on friday night. "barack obama's unconstitutional actions cannot be left unchecked." a tweet from steve king of iowa.

"just one more finalf swing through and we areunnel cooked in to obama amnesty." representative kevin yoder. "president has shut down the government's ability to carry out immigration laws." host: we will start with a john from gatlinburg, tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning. boehner should have never -- they shouldn't have never passed with a past friday. the should of let it shut down. the first time they shut it down in 2013 was because of obama. this would have been on account of the democrats. boehner for six years has been

nothing but a yes-man for obama. we voted republicans in both houses to take a stand and stop him, but like i said, as long as boehner is in there, always will have is what obama wants. -- all we will have is what obama wants. host: is there a chance that speaker boehner will not be there if he moves forward on this and allows the homeland security funding to move forward without blocking the president's executive actions on immigration? it was a story from politico over the weekend "conservatives warn that the speaker's fate could be determined by how he handles the next seven days." caller: yes, sir, you should have done been gone right after they took office in january. they should have done voted him out and he should be gone this time for sure. like i said, all the is done is whatever obama wanted for six

years and it is time for him to go. host: we are talking to just republicans this morning. phone lines open to republican viewers to call in good michael is up next in pennsylvania. caller: thank you for c-span. thank you for taking my call. i think that the republicans should stand tough particularly in the senate. i think the senate is the problem. i don't think necessarily that john boehner is the largest issue. i think they have to get rid of -- if they can't stand tough on an issue that is so unconstitutional as this the own teeth time that the president has ignored the constitution, and it is about time that somebody in the legislature stood tough, and the senate should get rid of the filibuster just like they did when harry reid had the senate to push this thing through.

i think there is a lot more support for this -- what do they call -- small group of senators -- small group of congressmen these tea party-like congressmen, around the country. host: the freedom caucus, is that the word you are looking for, michael? caller: yes, the freedom caucus. i think most americans, republicans and democrats alike, are saying how is it that this president at such a time can institute and immigration policy that is going to give benefits and everything to 5 million immigrants without authorization from congress, to authorize this kind of spending and those kinds of benefits while there are other immigrants waiting in the wings legally to get such benefits. host: michael, you talk about using the nuclear option in the senate to get rid of the filibuster and proceed to debate on the collinsville, -- collins

bill, the one that would block the president's executive actions on immigration. it was not able to move forward last friday when republicans in the senate tried to bring it up. the option was discussed on the sunday shows by house majority leader kevin mccarthy. he was on "meet the press" yesterday and here is what he had to say on the nuclear option. [video clip] rep.chuck: one way this could change is if republicans and mitch mcconnell invoke the so-called nuclear option. on legislation, the filibuster is still there. do you want senate republicans to go nuclear? rep. mccarthy: i don't think going nuclear when you had 57% of the senate voting for the amendment that would have taken away the president's action -- that is not nuclear when 57% of the representation says it is wrong. that is not in the constitution.

host: kevin mccarthy yesterday, majority leader talking on "meet the press." that is one of the options this week, and all the options on the table for republicans -- we are asking republican viewers what would be your message to speaker boehner, to senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, in this funding deadline, the showdown with homeland security. clyde is up next in maryland. caller: i say shut homeland security write-down. everybody is coming across the border. just forget it. host: all right. don is up next in branson missouri. caller: yes sir. i tell you what, i got an e-mail from the tea party a month ago urging me to support those who are trying to get rid of john boehner. i wrote back to them and told

them as far as i'm concerned that they are forming a circular firing squad and i didn't want anything to do with it. boehner is trying to herd cats up there and he has at least 434 representatives who think they can do a better job. as far as i'm concerned they better go ahead and support him. thank you, sir. host: phone lines are open to just republican callers. also talk to us via twitter or facebook. jan writes in boehner that "has been a yes man to obama." carol writes in that "obama has the veto pen, it is hard to block his wishes." richard rogers -- "gop says government does not work. now they will prove it?" is his

question. the deadline is this friday after the house passed a bill last friday to extend funding by one week, originally tried to do a three-week funding extension but that failed. 52 republicans voting against a three-week extension. so here we are this week with five days to go before another funding deadline for the homeland -- department of homeland security. paul is up next in massachusetts. you are on "washington journal." caller: good morning, sir. my question is, if this happens and they defund the department of homeless pretty, are they defining the military also? the coast guard is under the department of homeland security. or they planning on defending themselves, their own pay.? they have got to be very careful

if they passed such a measure. they should defund their own pay as well. i don't agree with the immigration bill, but whoever these gentlemen and the ladies are who are pushing for this thing, they have to question they whether they should defund themselves and if they are going to do it, defining the coast guard as well. there are several consequences that must be considered. host: paul, the president's executive action on immigration blocked by the federal court judge's decision last month, the federal court judge in texas, do you think this should play out in the courts and that congress should step away from this debate now? caller: well, i just don't feel that they should -- all these illegal aliens should be allowed in the country in the first place. as far as i'm concerned there

breaking the law. host: paul, to your point, the coast guard is part of the department of homeland security. we will be talking about the different agencies that make up the department of homeland security, it's budget, staffing levels, what would happen in a shutdown in our last segment of "washington journal" at 9:15. in our weekly "your money" segment we will be focused on the department of homeland security and all the different agencies that make it up as well. in kentucky, we're just talking to republicans this morning. joe, good morning. caller: i would like to touch on what the gentleman from massachusetts just said. yes 1/5 of it -- he has 1/5 of it. the department of homeland security is also army, navy, air force, marines, and the national guard. i think they need to do away with that. do away with the department of homeland security, take some of that money and refund our

department of defense. as far as the immigration how in the world is it fair for somebody to come in this country that is not a citizen and be put through college on our dime? that money should be used for citizens of this country, our kids. that's all i've got to say. host: joe, before you go, on getting rid of the department of homeland security, do you think the military should take over port of ritual and these other agencies in dhs? joey hung up on us. we want to chat about the department of homeland security and we want to talk about this funding deadline that hits in five days. the subject of several editorials and opinion pieces in today's paper. here is the lead editorial from "the wall street journal" this morning, noting that "the sad and predictable ironies that this is exactly what mr. obama

hoped to inside with his november immigration order. he wanted to goad and overreaction that made the gop look both anti-immigrant and in temperate enough to shut down the government to the double ironies that in shutting down part of dhs, the republicans would give mr. obama and opening to claim the political high ground on national security. the smart play would be for republicans to fund dhs and move on to more promising policy ground including the budget. texas and other states that oppose the order have already won a legal victory when a federal court issued a preliminary injunction against and lamenting it -- implementing it." that is the lead editorial in " the wall street journal," "squandering a gop majority." alonso is next in mississippi. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, sir. you are on "washington journal." caller: my problem with the dhs funding is that i don't think

congress or the senate should use politics to more or less put our country in harm's way. the congress has the right to make laws, the senate has the right to make laws. they need to use their pen in their job to make laws that can circumvent the system. in the meantime, what they need to do is because of trading on their constituents and their districts and stop pandering to the political powerhouses in order to circumvent the system that they are supposed to be protecting citizens of the united states of america. obama is just one man. stop playing games with obama, stop playing politics obama, and concentrate on the security to protect the united states of america. host: what do you think this potential shutdown of dhs last friday and the next deadline is

friday, what do you think it has done to the republican and democratic brands on capitol hill, this playing games that you are talking about here? what do you think it is done to their ability to look like they can lead? caller: well, it has really diminished their leadership role in the nation, and as afro-american republican, having an afro-american president i think what they need to do -- i agree with some of the things they are doing on immigration but i don't agree with them holding hostage the dhs funding. funding -- they can word things in a way where the funding to be taken out the process and they can make laws and amendments that can more or less fight back against what president obama is trying to do. to me where they are doing is opening our country up for more attacks. they are not thinking. they are not thinking about

america. they are thinking about the political gurus that is funded them and their special interests. host: on her twitter page "it is just another dog and pony show." there is a poll from the pew research center asking all americans about the brands of the party. among all americans 5000 adults who responded to this survey 50% said republicans are too extreme, 36% said democrats are too extreme. among all of those respondents those who said republicans had good policy ideas, 48%. those who say democrats a good policy ideas 52%. those pew numbers cited in charles blow's column this morning in "the new york times." pat in maryland, good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? host: i'm good. caller: i think the democrats and the president are being

disingenuous. if they are so worried about homeland security, how come they are releasing everybody from gitmo? you can't have it both ways. host: republicans not the only ones on the sunday shows yesterday. democratic members went on as well. one of those works on the senate homeland security committee, senator dianne feinstein on cbs' "face the nation." here's what she had to say about the ongoing debate. [video clip] >> can you see anything other than allowing a clean bill? senator feinstein: i do not believe that will happen. we want a clean bill. it is well-known. and i see nothing else happening other than a clean bill. host: one other column to point you to this morning is "the washington post's" e.j. dionne. "the gop's big yes to no" is

the headline of his piece. "many right-wingers and has do not care about how their inability to govern looks to people outside the bubble. this is mostly about high principal and since most of them come from conservative districts, they strengthen their political situations by continuing to link the dhs funding to overturning president obama's executive actions on immigration. they have nothing to lose. but collectively their party has a lot to lose. republicans will have to do far better with latino voters that mitt romney did in 2012 and this fight will only make it harder and middle-of-the-road voters don't like this sort of workmanship -- brinksmanship, as will the shouldn't." darrell in missouri, good morning. caller: good morning. good morning.

i think the democrats are really playing politics with this because of the way the issue is being presented in the senate. claire mccaskill votes to continue to filibuster on one hand and then turns white background and votes -- turns right back around and votes for the one small portion of the bill that says don't fund the immigration policies of obama. obama -- it doesn't make any difference what the court rules, he ignores it anyway. why don't they pass the entire bill the way it is presented saying that is illegal enforcement -- illegal immigration policies can't be funded? why are the democrats are going to filibuster something that is illegal, and the courts of already ruled against it, but they said no, we can't let this

go to the president so he can veto it. they are just jacking around in the senate. harry reid is continuing to be the worst minority -- or senior atity senator of all times. thank you. host: beverly is up next in washington, d.c. you are on "washington journal" as we talk to just republican viewers on how this dhs and immigration standoff should end. beverly, you with us? we will get back to beverly. mary lou is waiting in california. good morning. caller: i am not from big creek california. i'm from simi valley california. host: sorry about that. go ahead, mary lou. caller: it is in the middle of the night here but i am very happy to see you are attacking this problem.

i would like to have some facts here, not so many arguments. host: ok, mary lou, go ahead. which facts do you want to talk about? caller: well, i understand that nobody has said how much homeland security is, the actual facts of how much it is. i would like to know how many people who work for homeland security work for a union and want higher wages. host: mary lou, we can talk about federal employee unions in the department of homeland security, breaking down the numbers with an ap reporter who covers the department of homeland security at 9:15. there are 231,000 people who work at the department of homeland security. you can see this chart from "the

washington post," the numbers that would be furloughed under the shutdown in different of promise, whether it is customs and border patrol, secret service, down the line. mary lou what else do you want to know about? what would you say to john boehner about how he should go about his work this week? mary lou, you with us still? caller: i would say to john boehner that please don't get caught in a cobweb. host: what is that cobweb that he would be caught in? caller: well, i am concerned that the unions and some people in the pentagon are wanting higher wages and that would make the cost of homeland security increase a lot. host: caller: all right, on her twitter page "this is all a smokescreen

so we won't notice the current gop actions that threaten social security and medicare." we want to keep getting your calls on this topic. 20 minutes left in his opening segment of the "washington journal." we are just talking to republican callers, asking how republican leaders should move forward on this dhs funding and immigration standoff that pits centrist in the party against those on the hard-line of the party who don't want to give in to the president's actions on immigration executive orders. give us a call. we will talk about it for the next 20 minutes or so just with our republican viewers. fred, good morning. caller: do you hear me? host: yes, sir. caller: the department of homeland security -- um -- it is also about jobs in the private sector with homeland security.

basically, i like the president bragging about his jobs number so what do you do, cut off funding? four or five divisions a month and i don't like the political atmosphere right now. i think a lot of that is in the private sector too, to the department -- through the department. host: ok. here is how kenneth puts it on our twitter page. "the shutdown is a ruse. the only people i will be sent home are nonessential to its mission. a pr problem, not a crisis." certainly a busy week on capitol

hill. benjamin netanyahu, the israeli prime minister, is set to speak on the house floor on tuesday. here is the headline from the front page of "usa today." "netanyahu visit exposes partisan rifts." certainly a lot of back and forth between members about the speech. the prime minister will be the 117th speech given on the floor of the house in a joint meeting of congress by a foreign dignitary. he will be the eighth by an israeli leader. he is speaking today, actually at the aipac policy conference and we are showing that on c-span2 at 8:00 third -- 8:30. also talking about that visit and the debate it has caused on capitol hill. speaker john boehner on cbs' "

face the nation" spoke about this topic. [video clip] speaker boehner: the demand for seats in the house, the demand for tickets, i've never seen anything like it. everyone wants to be there. what i do wonder is why the white house feels threatened because the congress, who wants to support israel, and wants to hear what our trusted ally has to say. it has been, friendly, remarkable to me the extent to which over the last five or six weeks the white house has attacked the prime minister attacked me, for wanting to hear from one of our closest allies. john: has the white house damage to the relationship? speaker boehner: the animosity between the white house and the prime minister is no secret. john: but they made it worse? speaker boehner: they certainly made it worse the past five weeks. the threat from iran is a threat to the region, threat to the

united states, and a threat to the rest of the world. this is a serious issue. and we're not going to resolve this issue by sinking our heads in the sand. host: as we said, benjamin netanyahu will be speaking at the aipac conference today. later at the aipac policy conference, you can see national security advisor susan ric e speaking at 6:00 and we will show that on c-span3. here is a story from "the wall street journal" this morning noting that john kerry flew sunday to switzerland to advance iran diplomacy and meet with his iranian counterpart. "in an address before the united nations humans rights council meeting in geneva today secretary kerry will make a strong singing about israel -- strong statement about israel. mr. kerry and netanyahu spoke on a telephone call on saturday.

on sunday kerry says the u.s. has a closer relationship with israel right now in terms of the security than at any other time in history." benjamin netanyahu's speech to congress is the subject of several ads in today's major papers. here is one that was in "the new york times," a full-page ad from a group of liberal and progressive jewish and non-jewish allies. the headline of their advertisement, "no, mr. netanyahu, you do not speak for american jews. the american people do not want a war with iran or." another front page -- another full-page ad, this one from eli e wiesel, "will you join me in the case for keeping weapons from those who preach death to

israel and america?" we are talking about the upcoming deadline. in five days, another deadline for the department of homeland security. the shutdown would happen if the funding deal is reached by midnight on friday. gail in south dakota, republican people would be your message to speaker boehner on this standoff? caller: i think the whole government has become corrupt. i don't think it is the congress. i think it is the president. i think the white house needs to be cleaned out. i'm so sick and tired of all the crap that has been going on in this country. it never used to be like this. that homeland security bill should not be attached with the immigration bill. he gets his way with everything, and our country is going straight down the tubes. and it is not just this incident.

it is almost everything that he does. host: gail, do you think there should be more compromise or you think the president doesn't even try to compromise with congress? caller: our president doesn't compromise. all he does is veto everything. he is nothing but a dictator. host: what happens in the next five days here? how do you think this plays out? caller: i don't know could i just wish congress could somehow work it out that the homeland security bill is separate because that would get voted for. the people want homeland security to be funded. absolutely. what has happened to this country? it is not congress' faul itt is what is going on in the white house. . and it is not congress. host: gail, that separation happened in the senate when the senate move forward at the dhs funding bill and a separate bill sponsored by senator collins

that would specifically block the president's actions on immigration, the executive actions from november. that specific will, the collins bill, was blocked from getting to debate last friday when he tried to be moved to the senate floor. here we are five days away from a potential dhs shutdown. we want to hear how you think the standoff should end. andrew is up next in bristol, tennessee. caller: good morning, how are you? host: i'm good, andrew. caller: my opinion is -- first off, i do think they need to pass a clean one. i don't agree with the executive order, but nonetheless -- but my question is, should we not pass a clean one and then immediately pass legislation defining what an executive order should be and maybe making -- saying we can't

use it for this and painting the democrats as they won't be for it, painting it as there they are, wanting to give him power blah blah blah. is that not something that could be done? host: andrew, do you think that debate is going to happen in the courts as the courts take up this executive order on immigration? caller: well, you know, i think it will. but i am also thinking could we not go ahead and spearhead that as well through congress so you could have maybe a two front fight against this, if you will. host: for future battles down the road andrew? caller: yeah, because you could say we have the battle in the court to fight it and now the battle in congress to fight it and kind of surround obama's executive order saying look, you are far overstepping your constitutional power.

you have courts saying you are and now you have legislation saying you are. you have two branches saying the same thing, basically. host: andrew in bristol tennessee. stella writes on our twitter page "which is more important, protect the country or keep funding obama's executive order." pennsylvania. caller: good morning. i don't think they should do the immigration bill because they already set a wooden, they need -- said they wouldn't get they need 60 votes. on the three-week extension, as far as i can see, the democrats voted 172 and the republicans only 50-some so the democrats blocked that for the three-week extension. it is just a mess down there. the department of homeland security, we just caught -- i

think it was 10 illegals up her e, and they had a drug ring. the department of homeland security, obama has really directed not to arrest certain people and give them dwi's. we have had these people up here. they are ruining our country. but the democrats were going to block that immigration bill because the republicans need 60 votes and they only have 54. anyway -- host: what is more important to you here, keeping homeland security funded or blocking this immigration executive action? caller: well, my thought is that if the democrats felt so strongly about the homeland security, they should have just voted to block the immigration

block both of them. it is all politics. but homeland security has to be passed and everything. i believe in that. they are letting the american people down, too via obamas instructions. host: do you think the republicans have done a good enough job explaining who is blocking this as this debate has played out over the past two weeks? caller: i saw that the three-week extension, the democrats blocked that. 172 votes from the democrats and we 50-some from the republicans -- only 50-some from the republicans. they wanted to pass it initially for three weeks and then go to conference. the senate, down almost to the last minute -- the congress had voted on the immigration and the dhs funding for three weeks.

and the senate waited until the last minute and then they had to vote on it, and then for the three-week extension, the democrats blocked of that. they had 172 votes against it for the nays and the republicans have 52 -- i think it was 52 -- for the nays. host: 52 republicans voting against that three-week extension on friday night and then the next vote happened for the one-week extension and then here we are. jim is up next in alabama. good morning to you. you are on the "washington journal." caller: good morning. i think it is the senate involved in this thing particularly the democrats. mitch mcconnell is caving on this thing and he should employ other avenues. for instance, the nuclear option that harry reid used for the last five years. it is time for mitch mcconnell

to use that, to get the vote through as it is. yes cap to defund the immigration support -- he has got to defund the immigration support. host: saul centers talking about that option -- some senators talking about using that option the collins bill. "is it possible to pass the homeland secure needle and a separate bill transferring border response ability to state and local hands?" we can talk about how big those are for the federal officers that are part of the department of homeland security in our last segment of the in "washington journal" today. we are talking to just republicans in the last 10 minutes of the opening segment this morning. caller: good morning.

i forgot her name,yoiurur name, mister. this is all just a cover for the gay marriage thing. they put this in your so that everybody takes their mind off the gay marriage, overturning of the ban. judges acting on conflict of interest on whatever their agenda is. myself, i think obama ought to be impeached, giving prisoners back and the darn -- every other thing a put in front just to keep your attention off of what he has done. they are going to have to go and impeach him. the people that live here, took second in line, because the troops are coming back and they wanted jobs to come home to, so

all the people from the recession are waiting to get good, decent jobs, and the hispanics are coming right in front of us, and it is like we are law abiding citizens. they don't hear us. pelosi, she is a space case, and those guys down there they don't know what people want. host: owen bringing up the gay marriage debate. there will be a supreme court argument later this spring on gay marriage across the country. this week there is that challenge that president obama's health-care law will be heard at the supreme court, the subject of several stories and papers around the country. there is the headline from "the washington post" this morning. we will be covering that on

c-span as the decision comes down later this week. larry from washington. good morning. caller: morning. i agree with your previous caller. o'connell needs to go nuclear on this thing, peter want to go nuclear -- be the one to go nuclear. everybody can't even do their job and this spring we will have 100,000 immigrants crossing the border again and everybody is going to be freaking out everybody but obama and the democrats, are going to love every minute of it. illegal voters in here. they are destroying this country. they need -- we need help and boehner needs to stand his ground and shut it down. host: last caller in this segment of the "washington journal." up next we will talk to retired

general wesley clark, former democratic presidential candidate and former nato supreme allied commander in europe. he joins us to talk about national security and foreign policy. later we will be joined by the new chairman of the house natural resources committee, congressman rob bishop of utah. we will be right back. >> we have received more than 2200 entries from schools in the country on the theme "the three branches and you." wednesday morning during "washington journal" we will announce the grand prize winner and show the winning documentary. following the announcement, you can see all 150 documentaries at studentcam.org. the political as it has changed with the 114th congress. not only are there 43 new republicans and 15 you democrats

in the house, there are 108 when in in congress, including the first african-american republican in the house, and the first woman veteran in the senate. keep track of the members of congress using "congressional chronicle" at cspan.org. it has lots of useful information, including folding results -- voting results and statistics on congress. "washington journal" continues. host: general wesley clark is our guest for the next 45 minutes here on the "washington journal." he joins us from little rock arkansas. with so much going on in the world from isis and syria and unrest intentions in ukraine telegram concerns, -- taliban concerns, is there an area that most concerns you from a national security perspective? guest: well, ukraine is the main

centerpoint for my concern right now. host: why is that sir? guest: because in ukraine putin is challenging the international order. he seized crimea using the russian military. the united states and germany basically stood by and encourage the interim leaders in ukraine not to resist this in an effort to avoid a wider conflict. and then putin began his operations in eastern ukraine. he has taken this sovereign state, ukraine, whose sovereignty was guaranteed by the centers of the budapest memorandum in 1994 when ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, and he has invaded and put russian military in theirre, and the commander of the russian general staff, the man taking orders from putin. there is not much that we don't

know about what is happening in eastern ukraine. the question is is the world prepared to admit it and recognize the consequences and do something to stop it? it is the most important national security issue facing us because if we allow putin to overturn international law and violate borders and threaten the security of nations in eastern europe the structure of the international community is at risk in a way it is not at risk by what is happening elsewhere in the world yet. host: you argued in a piece in "usa today" recently that the united states should arm ukraine. what do you say to the opponents of that effort who say that would only escalate tensions that it would drive putin away from the negotiating table? guest: first of all, it is not tension in eastern ukraine. it is aggression in eastern ukraine. there are between 10,000 and 14,000 troops in eastern

ukraine. some in advisory roles, some commanding separatist units. electronic warfare, the air defenses all manned by russian forces. 40,000 russian troops on the borders standing by and ready to intervene. this is not tension. this is active conflict. if you have a diplomatic settlement, you have got to close the military option off to putin. he has got to understand that he cannot continue to execute warfare on the ground and deny it in the media. host: former nato supreme allied commander in europe. talk about the effectiveness of nato these days when it comes to deterring russian aggression. guest: well, ukraine is not a member of nato some technically nato doesn't have any responsibility for deterring russian aggression in ukraine. but what nato must do is provide a credible deterrent for nato members, and they feel the

baltic states -- romania, other states in eastern europe -- feel threatened by the strategy they see unfolding by russia in ukraine. that is to say you can infiltrate central forces and create disturbances and sees administrative headquarters and sent intelligence operatives in, import people from russia and claim that they are local citizens, mercenaries, essentially, being paid a couple hundred dollars a day send them in with weapons and let them create mayhem, and then demand to put russian forces in as peacekeepers. it is a pattern for aggression. when the peacekeepers fail or the separatists fail and the russians use their own artillery and own forces to achieve their military objectives or attempt to do so, the question is, if we let it unfold in ukraine, how safe are the nato member states? remember nato has always been a deterrent alliance. we need the consequences of aggression intel tillable --

incalculable for leaders in the kremlin. there was a linkage to the united states strategic nuclear deterrent. we had strong u.s. forces deployed in west germany along the front lines. this wasn't a tripwire strategy. there was a credible deterrence. the russians could have launched an attack, but they couldn't predict the consequences. that incalculability is the critical part of deterrence. what putin has done is erode the deterrent could what eastern europeans fear is that these tactics would enable russia to spark a riot in some eastern european countries, and so-called demonstrators sees government buildings and then local people, supposedly, would suddenly have arms and defend

them straighter seizing the buildings and suddenly russia would say you are mistreating russian-speaking citizens and it is our duty as mother russia to protect them, we are putting our forces in, and then dare nato to do something about it. this is a very worrisome scenario in eastern europe. that is eroding nato's deterrent. host: we are talking to general clark for the next 40 minutes on the "washington journal." host: we will also look for your tweets and e-mails as well. i want to turn, general, to syria and iraq. you are a man who has experience building a winning air campaign. is the current air campaign that the u.s. is applying against isis -- is it working? guest: well, it is working to

some extent. it has inflicted harm to isis. isis claims to be a state. it has finances, a structure, aiming to impose a strict interpretation of sharia law. it is not just a much of fighters hiding out. therefore it is vulnerable to air power to some extent. now -- now, it is going to take the work of the local allies on the ground, the peshmerga from curtis stand, the iraqi forces trained by the united states and re-equipped by the united states to do something effective against isis . you can't take it out from the air, but you could certainly cripple it and hobble it and cause it to do a lot of things it wouldn't like to do to protect itself from the air that is what the united states is doing. it is a strategy that buys time, inflict damage, and helps contain the threat of isis. host: reports that iraqi troops

and allies on the ground are starting the effort to retake some of the cities that isis has taken. some reports that mosul second-largest city in iraq, there could be an effort this year, maybe the summertime. when the iraqi and the allied troops on the ground do that, do they start losing the advantages of the u.s. air support and what can the united states do during those operations? guest: well, the united states can certainly preplan targets to go after. the united states and put unmanned aerial vehicles overhead and use that to facilitate real-time targeting. the united states can put some special operations forces who are able to call in airstrikes up there alongside the iraqi troops. i suspect that at some point we will do that. that is the issue that is live right now and we have got to do it in a way that is effective and also safe for the u.s. forces on the ground.

one of the keys to this operation is that this is a long-term struggle against isis. it is not going to be decided by a single battle. it is unlikely it will be decided during the incumbency of president obama. it is very important that we do this in an efficient way without risking our own forces. it has worked beautifully so far -- no losses have been reported on air power. and it has affect on the ground. we have got to be careful about putting special forces forward. we don't want to end up in a position where we have u.s. boots on the ground fighting darkly against isis -- fighting directly against isis because that serves as a huge recruiting magnet for isis. host: we are talking to general wesley clark currently a senior fellow at the u.s. l.a. burkle center. his new book is "don't wait for the next war." he is taking calls from our viewers. we will start with larry in

michigan, line for independents. you are on with general clark. caller: good morning. i've got one question for mr. clark and realize question -- real nice question -- if you remember the terrorists in yugoslavia, kosovo, they bombed for 78 days. why don't you bomb russia? russia is doing the same thing. isisl you can do nothing you just talk about. try to bombard isil, you can do nothing. answer me that one, i will appreciate. host: caller looking for more robust efforts against ukraine and isis. guest: i think to go to ukraine first, the united states has not made the decision to supply lethal armaments to ukraine, and i think that would be the next step. it should be done in conjunction with renewed diplomatic efforts with more u.s. involvement in the diplomacy.

in other was it is the way we stopped the fighting in yugoslavia in 1995. we went to slobodan milosevic, the server dictator, and said here it is, 51-49 split of yugoslavia, and if you accept it, you will get some sections relief, and if you don't we will lift the arms embargo imposed on the muslims and we will use u.s. air power to strike forces. he brought both the carrot and the stick. that is the kind of diplomacy that makes a difference in eastern europe, and if it is applied correctly with the right backing from west europe, it could halt the fighting in ukraine. but we come to be prepared to provide legal agreement that the ukrainians need. i think that is the preparatory steps, long before we talk about u.s. air power. there's no need for that at this

time. u.s. air power is making a difference. it is unlikely it will be decisive. all the generals know that. if you ask the generals, there will all tell you we have got to have boots on the ground to defeat isis. but what is not being discussed in the isis dialogue is what comes next. it is not just a matter of killing people. you have to replace isis with effective governance in the region. as the united states is working up his military plan, we have to be working behind the scenes, as we are trying to improve the effectiveness of the iraqi government, its inclusiveness and ability to then governor the territories -- govern the territories that are recaptured from isis. if that is not done, we can't succeed against isis. that leaves the quandary of syria, where we are striking isis forces in syria. charlotte sought is still in power in damascus.

-- bashar al-assad is still in power in damascus. president obama has called several times for his removal as someone who has lost legitimacy because he has killed his own people but he does occupy a seat of government and is assisted by russia. there is no wonder effective authority -- no other effective authority. we talk about creating authority, we armed and supported the moderate. opposition -- moderate syria opposition that has had some difficulties there. we have got to at some point address what happened in syria as well if we are going to go after isis, and that includes not only attacking isis but the future governance of syria. host: you mentioned talking about the prospect of u.s. boots on the ground. it is not just military officials. politicians talking about this as well. on the sunday shows, rick perry one of those who brought this up. he was on cnn's "state of the union." [video clip]

rick perry: you see the opportunities that we have missed. funding for the syrian rebels could have stopped isis before they got out of syria. as they moved into iraq, we had the opportunity with the peshmerga to fund them and give them heavy weaponry. we failed with that. so, the options we have left are not the best ones. having a coalition, with the jordanians, the saudis, -- >> which is what the obama administration is doing. rick perry: i will also suggest to you, we need our military actively engage with those special operators from those other countries to eliminate the isis threat.

>> does that mean boots on the ground? rick perry: that's exactly what it means. host: your thoughts on texas governor rick perry's statements about how we go about isis. guest: i think we will probably have to provide some special forces. full to can call in airstrikes when the iraqi armed forces move. we need to do the best we can in training and not fall back on reliance on u.s. forces here. ultimately the iraqis themselves have to live in their own country and provide security in a very rough neighborhood. we have tried to train the iraqi military before. it was corrupted. the forces represented by prime minister and iraq. that effort is being points -- put back together again. host: let's go to alan.

my for democrats. brooklyn, new york. caller: good morning. i'm honored to be able to adjust general clark, who has a wonderful record to our country. considering the munro doctrine -- munro doctrine from. the history of russia burning the brunt during world war ii and loss of civilian and military life during that war do you think if most americans had a clear understanding of geography and history of russia that they would have supported the kind of needless provocation that we engaged in by trying to make ukraine, not only independent and free, but to absorb it into the nato alliance and a formal way that would foreseeably pose a threat to

the psychology of russia. i'm not justifying violence or aggression by the russians, but i'm saying from the point of hindsight and historical perspective, do the was wise for us to try and grain that little margin of identifying ukraine with nato as opposed to just letting them be independent? this kind of problem white house followed. host: i will let you respond. guest: i think it is important question. i hope the american people understand that people in eastern europe want to be associated with nato because they fear russia. they knew how russia would behave. i was in bulgaria in 1987 as nato commander. and people said all gary had be part of nato, i was told the

same thing in romania and ukraine. ukraine has been in the opinion, even when it was part of the soviet union, when it fell apart in 1991, ukraine was there. it was a nuclear stay at that time. we signed the doctrine saying that we would respective borders and its independence. so did russia, by the way. but, in russia, when the soviet union fell apart, the power -- the kgb, the foreign intelligence service, the interior ministry, armed services, they never fell apart. they struggle through. on top of that was the thin veneer of elections. underneath that was corruption and the power ministers. it may have looks like it was going to become a capitalist country, and certainly a lot of people made a lot of money out of it, and the comments party at least so far as marxism and let leninism passed away.

but the 19th century view of europe as about a persistent. western europeans do not see it that way. they see countries as opportunities for economic growth, trade, commercial relationships. they do not see eastern europe as a chessboard to be fought over. but, the power ministries inside russia do see it that way. and they have ever since the end of the cold war. so the munro doctrine -- that was 19th century. this is 20 century. we do not want spears of influence. we want stability, respect for international law and borders freedom, the right of people to choose their own form of government and associations. so, it is the ukrainian people's choice to be associated with the west rather than with russia. russia has made a choice for them in a way. before this attack last year, i think the majority of ukrainians would have said, why do we want

to be affiliated with nato? now, they are agreeing with others in europe saying that they w need protection from russia. what we need to do the united states, our historic role as the leaders of nato, we are the leaders that ensure the stability of europe. we fought two world wars to make sure there would be powers from a to us in europe. we need to take the lead in diplomacy to end this conflict and restore ukraine's territorial integrity and its right to freely chose with whom it will associate. host: wesley martin the twitter page rights and saying, negotiation is the way to stop fighting in ukraine, maybe a little less meddling from the west would help. we are talking to general wesley clark, the ford former nato supreme allied commander in europe. he is currently at the burkle

center. joe is up next from west valley new york. line for democrats. joe, good morning. caller: good morning. good morning, general. i'm a navy veteran. full disclosure, i see a lot on fox noise -- fox news. how do you feel about these generals coming on tv that work for defense contractors and all that? inks a lot. -- thanks a lot. guest: i think it is important to hear from retired officers. i know most of them. a are honorable men. they have integrity. they are telling you what they feel. yes, they are working for defense contractors because that is what they are good at. when you get out of the military in your 50's, it is hard to say, i have been in the

military, i've been a general or a senior officer, i think i will become a lawyer or accountant. it is hard to change your profession entirely and forget what you have done. i have a lot of that these are these guys who are on television and talking on fox news. we do not always agree on everything. we are our own big domes -- our own victims of our own experiences. what i think is if you are going to have effective diplomacy, you have to that the diplomacy with power. sometimes economic strength is not enough. sometimes it has to be backed by forces and the threat of force. that's how we brought an end to the fighting in yugoslavia in the 1990's. i'm afraid, that is what will be required in ukraine. host: general, do you want to talk about your own career track when you left the military and your presidential run in the 2004 election? guest: i could be one of these people that could go my own ways

and so i became an investment banker. i have worked with a lot of big firms. i have my own investment bank. to be honest with you, it is still a struggle for all of us who have gone now. we are who we trained to be. i have been associated with the armed forces since i went to west point at the age of 17. most of the other generals are just like me. at our heart, what we are good at is talking with troops and working military strategy and operations. then, we are all out in the private sector, trying to apply those skills. i'm in oil, gas, wind, solar, a lecture power, investment banking, international business all over the world. we are trying to put together some funds to invest smartly. my heart goes out to people who are in eastern europe and suffering under fear. i was in ukraine a few weeks ago and i was asking people, why did

they stay? under eastern ukraine, under attack, why are these people living in basements and so forth? the ukrainians explain and said these are poor people. they have nothing. they live in the summer off the vegetable gardens and they can what they can grow. they have a little bit of cash sometimes from retirement money. and they have their home. if they leave that, they have vastly nothing and no support. and so, that's the reality of life in eastern ukraine. there's a lot of poor people. were not so far removed from that. my grandparents, they lived out there that's will garden, can things -- canned things. i have a lot of sympathy for people like this. i think that's why people like us are able does become a television because we went into the armed forces, we believe in things we followed it, and we believe in the great ideals of america.

we hope we are wise enough and strong enough to live up to them. host: let's head to west jefferson, north carolina. wayne is waiting on our line for independents. caller: good morning, general clark. why is the liberal press, the liberal democratic party, and academia going to quit ignoring the elephant in the room -- a failed president who is indecisive weak, and not capable of being a president. when is everybody going to see the elephant? guest: you know, in the american political system, we have different perspectives. you are certainly entitled to your perspective. some people see it differently. the way i see it is president obama came to office, and he has tried very hard to write the course of american

foreign-policy. i'm one of those people who believe that the invasion of iraq was unnecessary. it was a strategic mistake and has unleashed a huge wave of instability in the region that we are still dealing with. we have never really got back inside countably for the mistakes of those that were in office in that. period. what he has done is try to back is out of the middle east by leaving in place governments that work. i'm in favor of that. he has advocated strategic patience. that is to say, we cannot sibley russian every time we feasibly happening in the world that we do not like. we know we are the best people in the world, but other people do not always agree with us. we have to bring together those people that do not always agree with us. you know, i respect your point of view, but there is a legitimate alternative point of view. it will be decided in the election.

you know, there's as many people out there in the press attacking the president as they are supporting him. all the media is liberal. if you're watching fox news, you probably know, it is the largest and most successful network. it has a very loyal group of people that watch it. they have their views, but other people have their views too. and democracy, we all have to respect that. host: already is waiting on the line for democrats. caller: i am a 25-year-old military veteran. i went to vietnam and i was in combat. we had over 350 combat missions. my problem is this. 90% of the equipment that i have seen on television that these guys arrived up and down the streets with is equipment

abandoned by iraqis. my question to you is why don't we do what we did in vietnam. if these helicopters are out there and spot are army equipment heading in one direction, why can we destroy it? another thing. and glad you made the comment about the president's efforts in this area. the president is doing what he can to keep this country out of chaos and destruction. people in other parts of the world are waiting to destroy us. thanks to our congress, to fox news. obama is not weak. i think the whole problem is that we have this thing called the country. these are the gets doing all the talking. thank you for listening. host: on the questions of the military equipment first. guest: first of all, thank you for your service. secondly, we do try to destroy that equipment. we are not necessarily doing it by helicopter.

we have some apache helicopters over there but they are being used more for close range defense. if you are flying and see a tank, may be taken out but maybe you have other more important targets. we had taken out some equipment. host: charlene is up next from maryland. my for democrats. caller: good morning, america general clark. could you speak a little bit about the natural gas in ukraine or what resources russia is trying to secure. kenexa docs for us -- connect the dots for us regarding this pipeline and alliance with china. is that why russia is trying to secure ukraine for the natural resources? host: general, that goes along with michael's question on twitter, who just a minute ago asked, is europe willing to give up his economic ties to russia?

if you want to take those. guest: first of all europe is not willing to give up its economic ties. no one wanted to. what we want to is return normalcy to the area and respect for ukraine's boundaries. i think putin and people around him see the world as a chessboard. their real threat is not nato. they see that they need to reestablish the soviet space in order to have sufficient resources to face china. china has always been the concern of leaders in the kremlin. going back to stalling. they know that with the growth of china, its technology, it's unitary state, its lusts for natural resources, it's facing towards mongolia and siberia that's the natural adversary. to be strong enough, they have to have ukraine. ukraine has 45 million people,

modern technology, coal and gas. how much gas it's got remains to be seen because a lot of that is in the eastern sector. we cannot get at it. because of what has happened in the last 10 years with technologies, we have reason to believe that there is a lot of gas in ukraine that could be developed and not imported. it is located in ukraine, but we cannot get in there to exp lore. ukraine is where the pipelines go through. a lot of europe's gases coming through ukraine. when putin's friends the cut off gas in ukraine, he is threatening europe. russia is a market for a lot of capital goods produced in western europe, particularly germany. it's natural that they would want to retain that market. secondly, it is a source of raw materials including natural gas that is necessary for europe. we would like, everyone would

like, for normalcy to be restored. that is really up to vladimir putin. he is playing the game. at least the way i read him, he believes he can juggle the europeans, string them along and still read enough of ukraine to make it amenable to russian leadership. what would he like in ukraine? one of the plans shows him taking crimea, odessa, and the coast, and leaving behind a very small romp state that could be called ukraine but would be out -- be without a seacoast and many natural resources. even without some of its farmland in central ukraine. that's not a very appealing prospect for both ukrainians. i was surprised when i -- i have been over there six times, i have always been surprised by a strong sense of nationalism in

ukraine. we may consider them just like russians, but they do not consider themselves like that. they are fighting for their own identity. when you thought ukrainians, they will have tried to do this before. they've tried to have an independent state. ones are as russia fell apart they will tell you about ukraine's that were shot and killed in the 1930's. they will tell you about the resistance to the soviet union after the world war ii. there is a strong sense of nationalism in ukraine. host: when was the last time you are in ukraine? guest: i was very mid february. host: where did you visit? guest: i was in kiev. and then i went down to a provincial city. host: we are talking to general clark for about the next 10 minutes or so. an independent caller is waiting on the line from new jersey. caller: please don't cut me off.

i want to ask a question to mr. wesley clark. mr. clark, you hear me? guest: yes, i do. caller: i am serb. i was -- what you did over there, you and president clinton and madeleine albright, and the rest of you people, over there, what you did to yugoslavia, you choose all enemy sebs. you bombed all serbian places. and you took half of serbia and gave it to our many are. you know what is going on over there. all armenians, they would like to leave kosovo. i'm not against arminian. i'm not against m muslim.

i'm not against kurds. i grew up with them. they are all my friends. mr. clinton, mr. albright, mrs. clinton, prepare a few million dollars, go over there. host: i want to give you a chance to respond. guest: we did not do that over there, actually. we had nothing to do with outbreak of fighting. if you go back to the historical record. when tito died, what happened is that the ethnic conflicts that had been suppressed, broke out again. ethnic nationalism serb nationalism, was used as a

binding force for authority. in so doing, he alienated other groups. the slovenians, the croatians the bosnian was loans, they were all afraid. of course, when most of which created -- milosevic created the army, he pulled all the bosnian serbs, put them into the serb army, and try to use it to overrun bosnia, supported by the yugoslavia national air force and other yugoslav assets. actually, milosevic created this war. but three 100 and 200,000 people died through some brutal ethnic cleansing. most of it was done by serbs. some was done by muslims. it was initiated by serbs, and

they created by far the greatest proportion of atrocities. the united states and europe stepped in to try and stop the fighting. 200 million -- 2 million people were displaced. it was disrupting all of europe and dreams of european immigration. yes, please, stop the fighting. that's really what's happening in ukraine today. this is a war of aggression. it's got to be stopped. just like in ukraine today european leaders spent two, 2.5, three years jawboning with milosevic. he said, it's not me, it sees bosnian serbs, i can't control them so forth. it was all a sham. we finally got it stopped through american leadership. i would not blame the clinton administration for what's happened there.

you can blame the clinton administration for stopping the fighting, but starting at? that rests with mobile village. i have met a lot of americans with the serbian descent. they are fine people. they are proud of their country. in particular the case of serbia americans, i found so many that just didn't follow the events closely in the 1980's. the late 1980's. they did not understand, yes you grew up with muslims and albanians, and many other people . it's the way the balkans work. but, the hatred was fomented as a tactic of leadership begun by milosevic. i'm sorry, that's the way i see it. host: in terms of the way the world responded to atrocities in that situation what parallels would you draw to the world responding to the atrocities that we are now seeing via

social media from isis in this current conflict in syria and iraq? guest: i hope the world is responding. we do see those atrocities. it is a little different. the atrocities in the balkans the lockup, the starving, the massacres of these muslim men were designed for military purposes. milosevic's do not want any resistance from the people and they wanted to eliminate any potential opponents. in the case of isis, the atrocities are perpetrated for different reasons. they are not worried that these various ethnic groups and religious factions would action by isis. they want to create a atrocities. they want to horrify. they want to terrorize and recruit. they want potential recruits to feel a pornographic thrill when they see these atrocities on youtube.

they want to shock the west into sending its infidel soldiers into the region so they can use the soldiers as a recruiting magnet to create something that is a religious war, when in fact it is a gang of terrorist thugs there are masquerading using religion as a pretext. and trying to create a g greater conflict to serve their own ends. it is an entire different purpose. yes, it is horrible. we should stop it. host: steve has been waiting in hendersonville, north carolina. my for republicans. go ahead. caller: first off, as far as isis's consent, if we do not consider that a holy war we will lose it. this business that it is just a bunch of thugs is crazy. as far as iraq is concerned, the thing about iraq is, regardless of how you feel about it, in

2008, it was a basic success on its way to becoming a democratic country. we should have left the residual force there. after all, what would have to happen if we did not have a residual force and south korea. i think we made the same mistake in ukraine. i often wonder why we did not have some sort of residual force in ukraine. guest: we never had any force in ukraine. that was not the case. with respect to the residual force in iraq, i was not there i was not on the inside of the negotiations. i know republicans feel the president did not try not. i spoke to the ambassador. i was over there at that time when we were still arguing those things. the ambassador told me he was working really hard. we expected to have some sort of residual forces of some type.

we expect it to have the same sort of agreement as south korea that let serviceman that got in trouble to be tried under u.s. law. we could never get that through. one of the reasons we cannot get it through his because iran did not wanted to go through. iran was always pulling the strings b behind maliki in iraq. there was a strong ukrainian influence. you say was on the road to success. it may have been more peaceful outwardly, but it was on the road to ukrainian domination. -- iranian domination. we cannot keep them in there without the right legal status for those forces. just couldn't do it. with regard to the holy war concept. there's a lot of talk going back and forth of blaming the president for being politically correct i saying that isis is not islamic. here's the thing. they would like to make it a holy war.

they would like to be able to say they represent all muslims and tried to bring a billion muslims against others for their own purpose. they actually don't. if you look at what they say and their actions, they are not with keeping in the precepts of the koran. they violate those precepts. murder of innocents, punishment so forth. that is not in the koran. when we say they are islamic, we are actually doing them a favor. what we are doing is lumping them together with the rest of the islamic world. our success against them is going to depend on depriving them of recruits. so, when we call them islam it, and we echo that across the land, and young men in america and elsewhere -- they may be muslim.

they may hear it as a holy war. if they hear as that, maybe they would sympathize with isis. we do not want that. we want isis to be branded as terrorists renegades from islam. not as representatives of islam. host: general clark, i'd have just one minute -- i have just one minute left, by want and where we began. a comment about the death of the liberal politician and puttin critic that is making news around the world. here is an article from the financial times on the desk. guest: i think in the media, in the west, we always try he said, she said types of journalism. thus far, the government has suggested that he was may be

killed by ukrainians, maybe members of his own group, people in the region understand that he was likely murdered by russian intelligence agents acting on instructions of mr. putin. he was about to publish an expose on russia's involvement in ukraine. that is the secret. the dirty secret that wound has been trying to keep from that russian people. from the time he started operation, he is in trying to deny that russian forces have been in there. they intimidated mothers. they've had what our mobile -- disposing of evidence of russian participation. i was told. i was in ukraine in november and told that a russian city located near ukraine declared

itself off-limits due to play so that trucks caring bodies of dead russians could be brought in and buried and disposed of. there is a massive subterfuge under way. mr. putin had the motive for the murder, the means for the murder, it bears all the hallmarks of a russian intelligence hit squad done as a signal to the opposition to stop unmasking mr. putin. that's the way it will be read. whether, in the west, we are sophisticated enough and able to see it for what it is is a test to whether we can deal with russia's tactics of hybrid warfare. host: general wesley clark is a former nato supreme allied commander. we will be joining next by utah

congressman rob bishop. he is the new chairman of the house natural resources committee. then on our money segment, we will talk about immigration. we will be right back. ♪ >> the c-span cities tour takes booktv and "american history tv" on the road, traveling to u.s. cities to learn about their history and literary life. this week, we partnered with comcast for a visit to galveston, texas. >> the rising tide, the rising wind certainly drew them. as both of these factors -- at

the time, we had wooden bathhouses out over the gulf of mexico. we even had a huge pavilion. as the storm increased in intensity, these structures literally were turned into matchsticks. the 1900 storm struck galveston saturday, september 8, 1900. the store began pouring in increased in dramatic intensity, and finally tapered off toward midnight. that evening. this hurricane was, and still is, the deadliest recorded natural event in the history of the united states. >> watch all of our events from galveston, saturday at eastern on c-span twos booktv.

>> washington journal continues. host: backyard us now is utah republican congressman robert bishop. he became chairman of the natural resources committee at the beginning of this congress. cosmic, i want to begin with dhs funding and the fight over the present action on immigration. congress itself one week before another potential shutdown at the department of homeland security. how do you think this week on capitol hill plays out? guest: i have no idea. look when i was a schoolteacher, i controlled my environment in the classrooms. we were able to do some good things. we do not control the environment out here. we have to accept the hand. host: "the washington post" --

boehner in pinch on dhs funding. can boehner control his classroom of congressional republicans to go guest: we will have to wait and see what will happen. we do not want to have a shutdown. we also have these other issues that need to be addressed. there may be some other alternatives are options. certainly, the court case coming out of texas gives us an alternative that we can grab onto. i think that maybe one of the better alternatives that we had. once again, it is not an ideal situation. we cannot control everything. we have to be more creative in the way we approach us. i also hope that the senate would be more proactive. they should go to conference. we should try to work those things out. until that action happens. host: do you think speaker boehner and majority leader mitch mcconnell are singing from the same songbook? are the coordinating and asked? guest: i think they agree with the goal.

how to get there, we will see what happens. host: you are the chair now of the funds that manages federal lands. could you talk about that. guest: as the deal specifically with immigration, we have a role to play. especially along the southern border. it also plays out in the northern, but not to the same degree. for example, from california to texas, i don't know if they can see the map that you have. 80% of that is controlled by the federal government. the problem that the board which will has is that they are not allowed to go into those wilderness areas in any form of transportation. it simply means, they come to an arbitrary line on the border and may have to go in on foot or

wait for courses to arrive. the board of ritual does not need more equipment, eight need access. when i bent down to the southern border, the people that live there say that. when people actually talk about it that's what they see, they need access. it is being prohibited by federal laws. congress actually passed a law to waive certain environmental laws. there are certain laws that restrict the border patrol from doing their job that have changed. host: to explain this map, the red areas on the map are federally controlled lands. not necessarily federal parks but for service lands. you were talking concerns that are restricting border patrol agents from going into those areas. guest: it is silly.

host: are these the key routes that people crossing the border are using? are you finding the numbers there that these are the areas where they are coming through here the federal lands. guest: easily. arizona is divided into two sectors. the tucson sector is where we are cataloging people coming across. it is the route of choice. it is the easy access because the federal laws is making that way. there are other factors as well. it is much more difficult on the southern border. in texas, you notice there is less federal land. they have much more access and ability. also, along the northern border, there is not as much federal law land. host: u.s. news & world report

wrote about your bill in the last congress to try and allow border patrol better access to these lands. they quoted a solicitor under the clinton administration saying these are republicans using immigration to waive border laws. guest: it is a ridiculous claim. right now all the benefit is given to the land managers versus border patrol. anecdotal example. in one of those national monuments that but the border, border patrol wanted to move a transitory device, basically a pickup truck from .82 point the -- point a two point b. one agency -- one land

management agency approved. what the argument is is basically lets see what six on the wall. that does not work. bottom line is that border patrol needs to be able to do their job. they can do the job. our environmental laws are prohibiting them from doing the job. it has to change. host: congressman ron bush bishop is head of the natural resources committee. if you have questions for him you can call in. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independence, (202) 745-8002. we will get your phone calls and just a minute. i do want to get to and terry secretary sally jewell, she will be testifying before your

committee to talk about her budget for 2016. are you going to bring up this border issue with her? guest: not necessarily. i think we made our argument in a pass to the point that the last several bills that have been introduced in the house have always had this concept of part of it. i think we have made the argument. people understand the argument that putting arbitrary restrictions on the border patrol is past its prime, it needs to change. host: the interior department budget, $13.2 billion is the current proposal. the park service would get about $3 billion of that. bureau of land management would get $1.2 billion of that. land and water management, $900 million. is it enough? guest: there is never enough when it comes to funding any kind of problem. -- program. we have to be realistic.

what bothers me about this budget is not the numbers. the numbers are inflated. they are not going to get that kind of request. what bothers me about it is that they are is nothing creative about approaching the problems we had. host: what's a creative example that you like to see from her? guest: for example, on invasive species, the agency has already admitted that they cannot keep up with the number of the vases cc -- even if the species. there are projects that states have done the art that fact is this. we need to incorporate those to put money back on the ground in the states where he can do some good instead of sending it back here to worry about the administrative aspects of it. there's nothing in that that deals with how we are to get people into the parks and how we address the backlog, nor how we address the fact that we keep expanding the amount of acreage

without being able to maintain what we are you have. my problem is that if the white house is not going to come up with anything innovative, then it is ans incumbent for my committee to come up with innovative situations that is what we will do over the next year. host: from the white house looking over the shoulder of the department of interior. guest: unfortunate, there is a difference between the white house and the agency. secretary jewell i think does try to look at things in a different way. i feel comfortable with that. this budget, it's raise more money and throw it at an issue. it's not creative. the are distinct issues, and sometimes are not in sync with each other. host: rob bishop, head of the house natural resources committee.

we will start with randy. caller: good morning. i would like to thank you and all the other. mr. representative, the only thing after listening to you that i'm worried about is that you seem willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. you want to protect one thing by destroying another. that does not make sense to me. i have more fear against bad air or bad water i have against any terrorist that you guys keep trying to come up with that will begin. guest: i appreciate that concern. let me expanded slightly. you have to realize, the federal government owns one third of all land in america. that is a remarkable statistic and something that no one ever plan. the problem here is that we have enough land that we can solve environmental issues and have economic development at the same

time. it is not an either/or situation. that is what you are saying. reform that becomes essential reform that need to take place. it does not have to be all one or the other. i'm looking at dealing with land issues in the future, as well as air and water issues in the future. they have to realize that there is a balance the needs to come in here. there is plenty of space and opportunity to do conservation as well as economic development. the other thing that is often forgotten his outdoor recreation which we do not do enough of. host: if you want to explain the proposals coming out of the white house for economic development in offshore gas leasing, both in the arctic and off of the east coast of the united states and the gulf. proposals coming out in january from this administration and possible as soon as 2017. guest: and one more, they are pitiful. we have turned into an economic giant of the united states. we already surpassed russia and

signing up -- saudi arabia as far as energy we produce, but it is all being doine on private property. we have to produce what is available on federal lands and offshore. that is what does the administration is not doing. these nasty have there the bottom line is the administration in the few leases that they allow, our leases that are bound to be an acceptable by the industry or unwanted by the industry, or bound to be sued. in the offshore, in the atlantic -- host: the brown area here on the math would be the proposed program areas for the new leasing that could start as early as 2017. guest: that was minimal. it was arty repose from 2000 five, then the administration pulled it back. i would not be surprised if they pull it back again.

it is the least amount that you can propose. not action go forward. this is a starting point and that is ridiculous. ms. administration since most of its time taking opportunities off the table on federal lands. once again, if we want to move forward as a nation, we have to develop offshore and federal energy development. it can be done while preserving the environment at the same time. it is not an either/or proposition. this is administration seemed to look at it that way. host: i should also note that the congress and -- congressman is also a member of the armed service committee. here with us for the next half hour or so. andrews up next. caller: good morning. representative bishop, how are you today? guest: find. a little early in the morning, but fine. caller: i appreciate you fighting the good fight with the environmentalists.

they get a little crazy i think. i have always complain that barack obama, who comes from a pay to play political culture in chicago, took way too much money from the environmentalist and have to play the tune that they call because he held them off in his first the administration a little bit. now, he really has to dance to their tune. you know what i'm saying? guest: i get the point you're trying to make their. look, i have no problem in trying to sit down and work with any environmental special group. i want to work with all them. i want to listen to the issues. the thing and trying to say and point i'm trying to make with these groups, is if you are trying to expect me to solve the problems of future, you are tying my hands. what we all need to do, whether it is the government or white

house, we have to think things, there has to be a different approach. i'm willing to look for those different types of approaches to find new solutions. that's why hoping committee will be doing for the next several years. host: let's go to arizona. monday on the life of democrats. you're on the line. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. it is my favorite channel on tv. i like that you people asking the questions are not trying to influence our thinking, but rather are doing a good job of journalism. to congressman bishop, thank you for appearing. i do appreciate your comments on sally jewell. i also think she was a great appointment and doing a great job. i split my time between arizona and alaska and i live close to the arizona border and am active in several border issues and volunteer in mexico. what is going on in dhs is of particular interest to me. i have a question for you.

from 2008-2012, dhs was allowed to then $500 per square foot building homes. about 10 times more than the average home has benchen selling floor in the last 10 years. prices fell, and even today, you can still buy homes for well under $190,000 any day of the week. now, i understand, they have money for 36 more such townhomes. in addition, they spent about 10 times too much on some trailers that they are parking at an rv court. those have been vacant the whole time. he said it was so urgent that we needed, they bypass all public hearings and bidding, and went

in bought them and put them in. they did not go around and ask other rv courts how much it would cost. also, since they are vacant, they have had some breaking news , they will move them to texas. i wonder you can you tell me how much it will cost them to move those trailers over to texas tech of host: an issue that you have listed to? guest: no. i appreciate your comments about secretary jewel. i was overly harsh of her first nomination. i think she does look at things differently. let's face it, there are things on which we disagree. most of her decisions will be wrong, but at the same time, i like her and i like her approach. the buildings you are talking about, i do not know what it will cost. you did issue an element that should be reviewed and would be perfect for oversight. my problem here is that oversight would not be done

under the purview of my committee. it would have to be a different committee. we will work together on that. what you illustrated is something i want to look into by do not have an answer. sorry. host: william is up next on new jersey. life for independents. william, you are on with congressman bishop. caller: good morning. i just want to make a statement. i am a staunch conservative. i have to remind you see both -- i'm sorry, don't take this offensively. i have to remind you see will that in 2010, when the tea party movement came into being, they sent 50 or 60 people to action give you guys -- actually give you guys the majority rule in the house of representatives for the first time in several years. that was to stop the progressive marches.

and i believe communist movement that is doing a lot of damage to our country. now, in 2014, we gave you the senate. you have sent very conservative people to do this. to listen to you guys slant pass these guys for doing what they were sent to congress for, and watch you being run over by harry reid and nancy pelosi, and the progressive marches and chief in the white house it absolutely disgust me. i can tell you what the outcome will be. eventually, if you do not start getting some intestinal fortitude, let's call it. and start fa fighting back i think your bunch of cowards, to be honest with you. host: you take offense? guest: no. i one of those so-called tea party guys at the same time. i don't know if i am the oath

and dior of offender in this process. what i will say is i appreciate you giving us the house and senate. give me the presidency, and maybe we can do something. when i say we cannot control our environment, we cannot control all issues. we can still filibuster, and that is what happened on dhs. the president can still do executive orders, whether they are or appropriate or not -- those are the factors that we have to deal with. change the administration, and you will see a different approach as well. what we have to do now, instantly take the reality of what we face and try to find another approach to do it. we have to keep on finding different approaches until works. it will be easy and will be done quickly. it takes time, simply because we do not control all the factors that relate to the environment

-- the political environment in which we live. host: congressman bishop serving his senate term. -- seven term. he served 20 years as a high school teacher in utah. i guess for the next 20 minutes or so. jim is up next on palm beach, florida. life are republicans. -- line for republicans. caller: everybody in the world would like to be here in the united states. if you overload the vote, we will all think and we will all be in trouble. the laws are made to work. if we can't trust in any law what can we trust in? when the president takes over and force it ous out all the law that makes him the way he wants them

to be, where we going? a dictatorship. we cannot afford to have a man in office that has taken complete control over the country. host: so, jim, what would you like to see happen this week? this question has come up on how to deal with the impasse of the dhs funding and the executive order on immigration that has been tied to it. caller: like i said before, he's trying to mess up the bullets. in other words no law comes down the path that he tries to change around to the way he likes it. we are working against a man that wants to take complete control over the country. guest: first of all i hope the rain has stopped down where you are. it was really nice until the rain started down there in florida. the point you're making here. we have a separation of powers

with three branches of government. there is a reason why it most of the decision should be making in the legislative branch or the judiciary branch. if the judiciary does not -- make the decision a do not like eiit, you cannot change it. if the executive make the decision, you do not like it it you can't control it. where the legislative makes a decision, you have more access. when the executive makes a decision, the input of people are taken out of the situation. that is why i am a supporter of the legislative branch. people need to be a will to have their voices heard and they can only be heard working through the legislative process.

i agree with the guy. if the guys making -- president is making to me a figure orders and overstepping what has judicially been his bounce, that takes the people out of the process. if you allow litigation to make policies, people are taken out of the process. that's why i want to bring these factors back to the legislative branch where they belong. host: how about this it legislative -- ms. legislative route, why not conference the house and senate bill >> good democrats block that? guest: if democrats don't want to play ball, the best way to do it is not allow an issue to be debated in the first place. once you go through a conference and come up to an agreement, they have fewer options at that point. host: let's go to leslie waiting in virginia, life or democrats. leslie, good morning. caller: good morning.

i'm curious why the congress and believe there was never the intent that as third of our territories should never be federal lands when we acquired them through the louisiana purchase, florida purges, alaska purchase. countries where they do not have a such protections, like india we have union carbide coming in their and running roughshod over their population. guest: i am sorry. i taught history. i apologize for that you only gave half of history. in the 1800's, sale of land in the territories is how the government funded itself. almost 25% of everything the government used to run came from the sale of land. once those lands were turned into estate, those lands were supposed to be given back to the state. the 1840's, there was a supreme

court decision to make sure that the western states, like illinois and alabama and florida at that time, were given control of their lands for the betterment of people and for the purpose of moving government forward. the sad situation is by the late 1800's, that had changed. when western stains -- states came to the land, it did not happen, the land was not turned over to the state. over half the land is owned by the federal government, nevada and alaska, 90%. in texas, it is 4%. things were treated differently. the reason of the states were giving control -- for example, north dakota as almost the same verbiage in there and ably act. -- in their enabling act. the reason the states were able to do that is because states have better control and better

management opportunity. our committee has shown in the past that if you look at land owned by the federal government or land owned by the states the counties, and the tribes, those who are living there and making decisions are better land managers, better stewards of the land. the land is better. the forests are better than the neighboring central lions are. there is a difference between federal and public land. i am not opposed for public lands were people who live in the area can make decisions about their own future. i am opposed to federal lands were summit in washington makes decisions for people who live miles, hours and an airplane, away from her those decisions are being implemented. states are better managers than the federal agencies period. host: as chairman of the natural resources committee, do you view the minutes to preserve natural resources are to exploit natural resources? guest: [laughs=] it is not an either/or.

there is plenty of land. it is not a black and white decision, never has been and should never be in the future. host: back to florida dennis on our line for independents. host:caller: i am interested in finding out, what is the impact in the united states on the force tree service, the epa, of methane and its collection in the farming economy in the united states? that is my question. thank you. guest: you have a whole rash of issues there. it is one area we can deal with. you're also talking about agriculture and its impact on what could happen. one of the things that could be counterintuitive is if you were worried abbout cleaner and want to take the carbon out, if

you have a healthy forest sc system and healthy grazing on the lands, you can get most of that out of the air and actually solve the problem of the stuff you want to get out of the air better than any kind of cap and trade provisions. host: urban capture and sequestration? guest: yes, we have not looked at it effectively enough but it is out there. when you're talking about agriculture and how we are dealing with these things, we have a whole lot of opportunities to find new solutions based in what we are doing, especially on what will take place on federal land. that is another area i want to look at. if we do a better way of grazing on federal lands, we can have a better environment and cleaner air. host: jesse in huntington, west virginia, on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. i was calling because when the

democrats had the house and the senate they were able to pass everything they wanted. the republicans asked for the house and senate and we gave it to them, and now they are running away from the fight. they are afraid that the american people are going to claim them for shutting down the government. shut her down. we sent them there to fight. the democrats know that -- they are afraid about what the public is going to say. i do not care. if we don't fight, half of you will be losing jobs in 2016. guest: that is fine and deity. if i lose my job i can go back and teach school and be happy again. what republicans are going to do is govern. they are going to find solutions to problems. it is not a matter of who wins or loses, it is a matter of

finding solutions. if we get stop, we have to fight a different approach to reach the same goal. the goals have not changed. the tactics sometimes have to change. we cannot control the entire political environment, but that means we have to find a different option to actually move forward. and move forward, we will do. host: spokane, washington, james on our line for independents. caller: i have a question comment, argument. this is about border patrol. the people crossing are doing a lot more environmental damage than the border patrol everwood and i would like your comment on that. guest: that is obvious. that is a clear and obvious statement. those who are coming illegally into this country especially those bringing illegal drugs into this country, do not care about what the laws are. it is only the border patrol that obeys the law. that is why did he greater

flexibility and greater access. it is to counter the illegal activities down there. host: on your website, you have pictures of some of the damage that some of those illegal crossings in these natural resource areas have had on the environment down there. we can show you the pictures and you can check out the congressman's website, robbiship op.house.gov. guest: some of the arguments is that border patrol will destroy the government. that is a reckless government. an effective order patrol will do more to protect the environment down there than anything else we can do. host: north carolina, line for republicans. james, good morning. caller: since the president uses all these executive actions and has overstepped his bounds, why can they not impeach him then?

thank you for your time. guest: actually, we could impeach him. it would probably take longer than the two years he has remaining in his term. i will simply give you, as some of you suggest that as an option, if we were able to impeach him, the last time we tried that in the house, and i was not there, to impeach the president, there was a trial and then that president became even more popular than before. personally, if we were to impeach the president, that means joe biden would be the new president. between you and me, i do not think you have gained anything from the concept. i am not willing to go down that path right now. i do not think it is efficient host:. host:host: how about the proposal on getting rid of the filibuster in the senate to bring the bill to block the president's executive action? guest: i think that is the perfect question. people have to think the filibuster has been a tradition of the senate since the

inception of this country. whether it is a proper tradition or not, i still think it should be discussed again. i do not know if the founding fathers would have ever approved of the concept of the filibuster. things in the past have been an official to me because they were able to filibuster it. long-term, i do not know if it should be maintained or not. in the house, there used to be a negative filibuster which meant by not saying "present" in a quorum vote, you can stop things. speaker harry reid put an end to that. since that time, the house has been a majoritarian body. the senate still has that filibuster on the opposite side, the filibuster of speaking, and it has stopped things from going through. even sometimes i win by i5tt, sometimes i lose from it it may be better to do away with all together. host: jessica is waiting on the

line for democrats. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to make a comment. i used to be moderate republican . unfortunately, i -- well fortunately -- however you want to look at it -- i switched down to being a democrat because of the tea party leaflet. i really do not think that is something that the tea partiers should be proud of. i have been listening for you for a long time this morning and you are kind of talking out of both sides of your mouth. at one point you were saying how you want to work with people but on the other hand, the tea party is not about working with people. i believe the tea party is all about control, and that is exactly why i am now a democrat. so you can comment on that, and i will take my comment off the air. thank you. guest: well, those who claim to be part of the tea party of whom i am concerned or no have

claimed their goal is to self problems and move the country in a positive direction. whether we tried to come up with policy based on if we win the next election or not is a pretty fruitless task. what i hope to do with my committee and what i think my colleagues want to do is come up with creative solutions. if they are good solutions hopefully people will buy into them. if they will not, we will try to do some thing else. the goal is to come up with solutions for the future. as i said, i cannot base it on the presidents of the fast or we will fail. whatever the motivation is, what i want to come up with is creative new ideas, period. host: how does that differ from your predecessor doc hastings? guest: he was a good guy and change the paradigm and change the way people approach the issue. he gave me a foundation of which to build. so i will take they concept he

worked on and expand upon those. we actually had the same philosophy about things. it is just he has given me the opportunity now of being even more creative and coming up with a new way of doing these things. he broke down gridlock in the past, and i think you did a great job. host: barbara in rapid city, south dakota, line for independents. caller: good morning congressman bishop. i live in south dakota and we have the black hills which is one of our mainstays of tourism in this country. for the last 10 years, pine needles have invested the hills and have destroyed it. if you drive through the hills you will see acres and acres of dead trees, just brown dead pine trees. nobody cleans them out. nobody does anything about the bugs. they just leave them and let them die. and there are different sides of the argument. we also have a problem with our

logging industry. they come into the lack kills and bring in the heavy it women and tear up the roads, logout, leave trash, and scrap pieces of lumber all over, never clean it up never reclaim the land. how is the epa in all of the agencies that are supposed to protect our land doing their job? thank you. guest: you caught a couple different concepts going through there. first, i have been to south dakota with your congresswoman who does a great job there. when those trees turn red you also have problems. forest health becomes extremely significant. if you actually do a management program which thins those out you create healthier trees that are resistant to those type of attack. you do not have the forest fires or the wasted timber out there. the less question through me on the epa. a think you kind of answered

your on question. the epa cannot do it because it is too big and too far away. you allow the people of south dakota who live there and know the land and know the unique variations of the land, because south dakota is different from california and other states, you allow them to make those decisions locally and you will have a healthier forest. we have examples of that in places like washington and idaho where you have national forests right next to state forests and tribal forests. state and tribal forests are much more productive and healthier because they do not have the restrictions that the federal agencies put on when they do a one-size-fits-all approach to everything in this country. there is a new way to look at things and to centralizing these decision-making abilities is key to making us go forward. host: a good place to end for the chairman of the house natural resources committee. congressman bishop, thank you for your time. next in our weekly "your money"

section, we will talk about the department of homeland security breaking down funding, staffing and agency history. we will be right back. ♪ announcer: the c-span cities

tour takes "booktv" and "american tv" on the road. we have partnered with comcast for a visit to galveston, texas. >> the rising tide, the rising wind drew them as they watched in amazement as those of these factors battered -- [indiscernible] we had piers in the gulf of mexico and we had a huge pavilion. as the storm increased in intensity, these structures literally were turned into matchsticks. the 1900 storm struck galveston on saturday, september 8 1900. the storm began before noon and

increased in dramatic intensity and finally tapered off before midnight that evening. this hurricane was and still is the deadliest recorded natural event in the history of the united states. announcer: watch all of our events from galveston saturday at noon eastern on c-span2's " booktv" and then also on c-span3. "washington journal" continues. host: each week, we look at how your money is at work in a different federal program. we are looking at an entire agency this week, the department of homeland security. we're joined by a alicia caldwell with the associate press. she covers dhs for the ap. alicia caldwell, give us a sense of the scope of this agency in terms of staffing size and in

comparison to other federal agencies. guest: think largest biggest most obligated agency you can think of. 230,000-odd people. the folks patrolling federal buildings to coast guard customs and border protection, immigration and customs enforcement, u.s. citizenship and immigration services. immigration is one of the primary missions, but they have all these other components, as well. the folks who protect federal buildings. you have the secret service. host: second only to the department of defense? guest: correct. host: in terms of budget, this fight over funding this week in the immigration executive action, what is the budget that is actually being debated this week for extending the department of homeland security through the end up the fiscal year? guest: the department of president have asked for about $40 billion over the last year

or so. slightly less in the last budget request is what they are debating. you're talking quite a bit of money to fund the entire department. putting it at peril is the debate over the president's immigration decisions, his decision to implement executive action on immigration authorizing some roughly 5 million or so people in the country currently illegally to sort of normalize and stay for up to three years at a time. he does not provide legal status. they are actually still in limbo. it is a divisive issue on capitol hill. republicans have argued it is amnesty and providing a legal path to save your when one is not due to these individuals. host: breaking it down within dhs -- customs and border protection $13.5 billion for the fiscal year 2016, the

proposed budget. federal emergency management agency, $13 billion. coast guard $10 billion. transportation security administration seven billion dollars. immigration, $6 billion. that is just five of the components of dhs. how many components are there within dhs? guest: 27-odd components. the big ones are the ones everybody knows. psa, customs and border protection, ice. one many people may not know but is at the center of the budget debate is uscis which handles the immigrant cases. those who want to convert their visa to a green card or such they go to that agency. perhaps little known to the average american, hugely important in this debate because it is their job that is at the center of -- are they going to get funding immediately or are they not? host: if you have questions

about the department of homeland security this shutdown debate and how it would impact dhs and the different agencies within that department, our phone lines are open. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats,748-8000. independents 748-8002. we are now five days away from another shutdown deadline. there were certainly preparations being made last week. what is happening right now at the department of homeland security? guest: not as much as we'll probably think. memos go out. there is a lot of back office planning. who gets to stay, who has to go? about 30,000 employees have to go post at they are considered

non-essential. so they will go home and not work during any potential shutdown, furlough. about 85% of the department will continue to come to work. you'll see customs and border protection officers. if you live on the border, you will see those border patrol checkpoints. that might be good news, mike beebe add news, depending on how much you go through them -- that might be good news might be bad news. there are essential functions that do not go away. what happens is they go to work and do not get paid. it is one of those situations where you have got to be here but we do not know when we will pay you. we will give you an iou. you will ultimately get paid, but we have to wait for the budget to pass. the question remains, those who were furloughed, will they get paid? historically, they have been paid retroactively for the time that they were not allowed to come to work. literally, you are not allowed to come to work. you are not allowed to check your e-mail or interact in any

official capacity, even so much as going into your office could be a potential violation. host: concerning the shutdown and if you're working at the dhs, who decides whether you are essential or nonessential? guest: i believe it is laid out very specifically within each agency in a contingency plan. if you are not a front-line employer or a uniformed individual there is a chance you're going home. office workers come all the folks who handle the stuff we do not always think about. the payroll folks, they are gone. all of the secretaries, those sorts of things. and those are hugely important jobs because their handling paperwork and doing things that the field officers do not necessarily have the time to do. there are civilian employees at the coast guard who will be furloughed, as well as fema. fema has probably one of the larger hits in terms of personnel actually off the job. if a disaster strikes, as did during the shutdown a year and a

half ago, government white partial shutdown, they would have to bring folks back on an emergency basis as storms were rolling in. that sort of thing happens, but they go home in the interim. host: a "washington post" chart makes it down -- about 14% would be considered nonessential. that is 12% of customs and border protection, 7% of the transportation security administration 12% of the coast guard, and so on down the line. it places the office is taking the biggest hits as the office of undersecretary for management 91% since home considered nonessential. the federal law enforcement training center, 94%. the science and technology directorate, 96%. so you can see that chart from the "washington post." alicia caldwell is taking her questions and comets about the

department of homeland security its history and funding. greg in chattanooga, tennessee line for independents. caller: thanks for taking my call. a couple things -- one of the main things is, i find and amazing, the hypocrisy about people saying the vhs and immigration has nothing to do with each other separate them out. that is about one of the main things, i would think. order control, hello -- border control, hello. i am curious why nobody brings up the fact that our border security had to sue secretary janet napolitano because she did not want them to enforce the laws. we never hear about that. why don't media ever cover that? host: are those things you are familiar with? guest: a couple. first is the most recent.

26 i believe states have sued the obama administration, most recently in december, for the administrative action. that action is actually on hold. the center of the budget issue is that executive action. it is on hold under a federal court ruling. i believe the lawsuit greg is speaking about, filed in 2012 or so, by a group of ice agents also impacts it. that was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, i believe, or technical grounds. they argued implementing effort action or prosecutorial action on a wide scale is violation of their jobs so they were asking the federal court to strike that down. the judge said, while he might agree, he did not have the jurisdiction or authority to handle the case and there were other avenues by which they should take it up. i am not sure the status of that case, to be honest. it has lingered. host: william in eureka

california, line for democrats. caller: yes, good morning. what i am concerned about is you keep reading and keep hearing on fox noise in all the other stations that they are going to send 30,000 people home. nonessential -- it seems to me that we have to trim our budget, so it seems that some of those people can eventually be trimmed to. that is all i have to say. guest: i am not entirely certain how to respond. when we talk about nonessential/essential, it is not -- it does not mean what we think it means in terms of a budget shutdown. essential means literally what function the government has to have, like the coast guard. the military has to operate. law enforcement has to operate

just as a function of the way the government is set up. when they wrote in some of these provisions, budgeting and so on -- host: the caller is concerned about wasted workforce at dhs. 231,000 and 117 staffers at dhs. has that gone down over the years? has dhs cut workforce over the past years with budget cuts? guest: a little bit. border patrol and customs and border protection, in particular. obviously, admitted the cry about the border. those agencies have expanded ever so slightly. they have trimmed, under napolitano, the trimmed various functions that had a lot of repeat when the department was created. 26, 27 component agencies were under different department heads under the transportation

department treasury justice and so on, and they cobbled them all together in one network. so there were some redundancies. those have been trimmed but not significantly. i do not have the number in front of me, but i would say not a proportion that perhaps william would be happy with in terms of eroded government. the department will tell you it is not. host: that combination and happening in the wake of the september 11 attacks, if you want to talk about the history -- this chart shows where different euros and agencies within dhs, where they came from post from the treasury department dhs got u.s. customs service and the federal law enforcement training center. justice department, immigration and naturalization services, office of domestic fairness. from the transportation department, the transportation security administration, and so on down the line. you can see where the different agencies moved from. guest: right, and they all had

different demands. when the coast guard was at transportation they they are working with immigration functions. they had done all along. we remember about the crossings from cuba to florida in the 80's and 90's. the coast guard was all in charge of that. instead of it being a transportation issue, they are under homeland security area --. the have some additional rules and abilities to enforce different laws so they can put customs guy on that boat or an immigration guy on that vote. -- boat. is it good or bad to have them under the same umbrella? they are all under the same umbrella.

there is no getting around that. the dod is many years older. it took a while to know before the components of the dod. the navy and marines are under the same umbrella. host: we are talking about dhs and the history of funding its personnel. steve is in wisconsin on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: my question to the guest is why can't money from other departments such as energy or education be taken from them. they are more nonessential. itwhy not?

why is the press not asking about doing those particular things? thank you. guest: it's complicated it --. i am no expert in federal budgeting. each agency is allocated a budget. it is writ large in the federal budget. when the department of energy is given its budget, it's appropriated for the department of energy. they can use it in whatever rules congress has approved. it doesn't allow for the transfer of money to the department of homeland security. within each department, they can transfer money and they do. we saw that last year. we have seen that in the last several years, particularly with the budget sequester.

homeland security had a crush of immigrant families at the border. they had to reprogram money. secretary johnson is said they needed to bring more border patrol agents into that area. people were apprehended at the border. you can reprogram within your agency. host: is there a process for inter-agency reprogramming? guest: it's like saying we both work in media, can i borrow $30,000? you would laugh at me. it's not just darling from peter to pay paul. it's an entirely different world. it doesn't quite work that way. host: tom is in tennessee on the line for independent. caller: good morning. is it president obama enunciating the policy that bush

implemented by not deporting this many people out of the united states? was bush as good at deporting as obama has been listed mark --? guest: deportations have gone up since president obama took office. there is no doubt about that. posted 9/11, from the bush administration into the obama administration, there has been a focus on immigration. the reality is there are 11 million people in the country without proper authority whether they crossed the border or overstayed a visa. they are here. how do you find them and remove them? there isn't the money to remove

11 million people. everybody has recognized that for decades. what president obama has done he has stepped it up further than resident bush. he has said that these are people we are not going to deport. he has three levels of priorities. anybody on a terror watch list is in the first group. serious criminals are in the second group. third are those of an a notice of removal since january 2014 who have misdemeanors. it could be a dui. it could be considered a serious misdemeanor. we are prioritizing. we are not giving anybody a free

pass. we are prioritizing during --. republicans say that you are. he's gone to expand that to parents of u.s. citizens and legal permanent residents. that is about 5 million people. to not allow permanent residence or let them on three-year terms stay in the country and give them authorization to work. that is different than anything we saw under the bush administration. they considered something very similar and for a variety of reasons said we are not going to do that. one of the reasons they said it no on a deferred action of program was we don't have the support of congress. let's see what happens in congress. they were very close to e and

immigration reform bill. the obama administration has said we're not getting anywhere with legislation, here's what we are going to do. we will say that these people who meet these criteria and we approve you, you are good to go. you can stay in the country for three years. that would bring numbers significantly higher, about 5 million people is on hold with this issue in texas. host: she is the homeland security reporter at the associated press. she has previously reported on the drug war. we have her for the next 20 minutes. we are on the line for democrats in texas area --. caller: good morning.

i am talking about this executive order. abraham lincoln was a republican the. he passed the emancipation proclamation by executive order and freed the slaves. obama hasn't freed anybody. he's just postponed. when something is wrong the country, if you tell a lie long enough, it's true. that is what they do, they attack obama until his term is over. host: tag has a question or you on our twitter page. can you talk about morale at the

dhs? guest: it's the lowest in the government. we have known that for years. there is a r survey. it has come in rock-bottom or very close to the bottom. there is no getting around it. when you are at the airport and your interaction with tsa, we have different versions of that. they have a very difficult job. it's the same with the border patrol. they are driving two hours just into a patrol section and then they go to work. there have been management issues in the department. when secretary johnson came in, there were a third of top management positions vacant. he had to fix that.

he has tried to address the morale problem. things are getting better. if you tell somebody come to work but were not going to give you a paycheck for i don't know how long, that is going to erode morale. if this happens for three weeks like it did in 2013, it wasn't a fun experience. it was a government wide shut down. it's not the most fun thing to come to work and not in a check. this is a department that is highly criticized like everybody. everybody has an opinion on homeland security. think back to your airport experiences. if you live in a border community you may be asking through a checkpoint just to get to work. you are having interactions with these people and it may not

leave the best impression with you. it might leave a fabulous impression with you. it's a massive department that is constantly under an umbrella of observation from congress and the public. that we are having this conversation is a much talked about agency. you don't have the same criticisms fair or not of the department of defense or the department of justice. justice might be a bad example lately. host: 86% of the 231,000 employees would be told to come to work and no guarantee of a paycheck here it --. we have an independent caller. caller: thank you for having me on. i think the whole thing here is that she said it exactly. it's massive. that is the problem.

everybody is talking about we are struggling and the government is getting massive. how can you control massive? dhs was created a while ago after 9/11. bush added more things. it becomes massive again. to me, let's get rid of whatever was has done. go back to the department of homeland security and let's stop being so massive so we can start communicating and rejecting the country -- protecting the country. host: on the history here and the efficiencies. guest: it's important to remember that the department of homeland security is a direct result of the september 11 terrorist attack.

there was no consideration of a department of homeland security. other countries have something of this nature. we did not. we had the components in other departments. the coast guard was under transportation. ins was under justice. customs was under treasury. say you are crossing in el paso, there would be three different uniforms and badges there. there would be a customs employee from treasury and immigration agent from justice. all of those individuals would talk to you. they would have something behind you. you had some t-shirts that you

bought and then you forgot your birthday the get or your drivers license. you have another set of individuals. today, you have one individual who sits at the border checkpoint and take sure passport and asked to all the question that the other two guys were asking and now it's one guy. is it still too big? host: in all of this reorganization after september 11, did any agencies go away? guest: sort of. instead of a customs service and a border troll, you have border protection. when you pull up to the border, they are field operations. the guys in green are border

patrol. they are part of the same agency. it's the same thing as citizenship and immigration. you put some people at customs enforcement. ins had this function of handling green cards. you took a little peace out here and a little peace out here. ice is a brand-new agency. it is nine or 10 years old. its function is 100 plus years old because everybody forgets about the customs enforcement part. they been doing that since the old days of the treasury. they had those people in place in one form or another. now they are under a different

umbrella. is it too big with too many components in one agency? perhaps. it's been debated. there is a lot of oversight. whether it's too big is another person's question. what happened was posted 9/11 we need to do something to and these different agencies and organizations doing similar jobs being in such disparate agencies. there are some others. i don't understand why protective services is there. host: we've got another 15 minutes in this segment.

we are taking your questions about those agencies. we are focusing on the department of homeland security. rex is waiting in north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to know how the obama administration gets by with counting the illegals at the border and turning them back as the porting them. host: definitions of deportation. guest: what happens is if you get caught the border, crossing the border illegally, if you are from mexico you can be quickly turned around. in the much older days, in the mid to thousands, you would drive a bus of to the border and send mexican immigrants home here it now you have more people from central america. you can't send those folks back

to mexico. they are not mexican nationals. you have to put them on an airplane. that takes time. how they tell them has been a question. the people -- rarely would the to mix. in large part, you have more people from countries other than mexico. once they get apprehended, they become an apprehension. the border patrol can't remove you to honduras. ice does that. maybe some of these are only here for a few days.

others will be here for six months because they are fighting removal. if you go into ice custody there is great consternation from congress about why we are double counting those numbers. they are just giving you an accurate representation of what ice is doing. host: pennsylvania is next where john is waiting on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. we have a democrat and a republican in the home. it's very interesting it. i am calling about the homeland security. it all goes back to the middle east. if both had been that are stewards of the middle east and the people been treated differently, they are getting run out of the middle east. all these other things are just

immigration on the border sideshows. it goes back to the middle east and it always does. it's always about oil. that's why they are beating up our country now. it's not a good situation. it comes down to that. these fortune 500 companies like these airlines that use marshals, they can provide their own security. you look at the ryman security agents -- private security agents, they are capable of controlling bridges. there is no reason why the taxpayer should be putting any of these. delta will make $3 billion alone. we are paying for their airplane security. one of their ceos made a $22

million profit sharing. silly. it goes back to the same things here it --. host: has there ever been an effort to get airlines to pay for their own security? caller: we have air marshals and the tsa as a result of 9/11. we remember pre-9/11 security. you kept your shoes on. you could bring any liquids. you could walk your friends to the gate. that all changed. they wanted a uniform security. they implemented the tsa. san francisco is an airport that has private security that is funded with tsa funds partially. there are security funds that go into when you buy a plane ticket. i don't have the breakdown. i don't know what delta is

paying for security. there are contributions. host: we haven't question from twitter. caller: it's under the department of homeland security. it has been since the beginning. they will continue to run protective operations and so on. we won't have a free-for-all of security issues at the white house. host: 8% of the secret service has been deemed nonessential. they would be furloughed if there was a shutdown of homeland security. don is in south carolina. caller: thank you for taking my call. i was glad to hear your concern

for the dhs employees who might not get a paycheck here it i only wish that you and the people in the media have the same concerns for the american citizens who can't get a job and who went up line for a job -- applying for a job lose it to an illegal immigrant. it's the white house that is shutting down dhs. they will not accept the funding bill unless it includes money for him to do what the texas court says illegal. you people don't explain that. you jump on the congress and say it's the republicans fall. -- fault. host: can you talk about the immigration debate and your work on that? how many years have you been at

the agency? caller: 10. i have been the el paso correspondent. we are across the street from the border. 2005 was the peak of when we were looking at immigration again. we looked at it in the 80's and a little in the 90's. post 9/11 it became a big issue. we had a big drug war across the street in 2005 and 2000 takes. the job -- 2006. those guys are in this strategy position. they get a lot of criticism for not stopping everybody. a lot of people think an analogy with your cat in the backyard. i just would open the door. immigration is different.

if you hear that cat the person is already there. it's a big place, the border. there is aligned in the sand. you have to wait until somebody crosses the line to pick them up. that's where you get this huge debate about is it secure or not. after watching those guys that's all they were doing. those numbers of dropped her it we have one of the lowest apprehension rates in the last 40 years. host: continue with the back door analogy. what does it do to row if you're told to go to work and are then told not to do your job?

caller:guest: there is some concern from ice agents in particular. a group of agents suited. the law requires them to apprehend people and to remove them. when you have seen in the last year in particular is an influx of families and children at the border. when you arrive as a family, they can't just put you in a detention facility. they have to have a special detention facility. when 60,000 family units arrived suddenly last spring, they gave people a notice to appear. people did not appear. about 70% according to ice figures they were not returning

to enroll in alternatives to detention. if you get caught at the border, you agree to show up when you get to your destination. i will get myself on the court docket. 70% were not showing up here it we can debate all day wide. -- why. some people said there was a language where he or. -- area or -- barrier. others said this is willful. they just don't want to show up. the reality is a lot of people did not show up here in that 30% are on the non-detained docket. that is part of the the department of justice.

there are cases being docketed for 2019. host: we are trying to get a couple of more calls. tony is in sugarland, texas. caller: thank you to c-span for taking my call. my question is, i read an article that the administration released 30,000 illegal aliens with criminal records in american cities in the last year. i want to know if that is true and when will the next surge come now that mr. obama has issued this executive action? guest: i think that is generally

accurate. if you're from a country that won't provide travel documents for you to come home, we can't send you home. we can't send people back for fear of torture or government persecution. you have cases where somebody is fighting removal. you can't keep them in jail indefinitely. others are awarded on's by an immigrant -- bonds by an immigration judge. that is out of ice's hands. in individual was released after a felony conviction. he did not get a jail sentence in arizona. he is now in custody on a homicide charge.

does anybody have a crystal ball to predict that? i would like one. i am not trying to make light of it by any stretch. sometimes decisions work and sometimes they don't. the department ultimately has to answer to those. the secretary is looking into how they can detain more convective -- convicted criminals. the courts are clogged. there are years long backlogs. there is only so much detention space. host: let's see if we can get caller: thank you. i would like to as the lady that clarify something for me. it seems to me that they are thinking that the democrats added the