on a possible government shutdown and the robert mueller investigation. we will hear from val demings and republican congressman jodey arrington at 8:30. washington journal is next. host: good morning. the senate yesterday agreed to avert a government shutdown but funding the government without money for a border wall. the white house says they are looking at the deal. what is your take on it? call into washington and let them know, do you support or oppose? if you agree to it, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose the short-term bill, (202) 748-8001. wjn us on twitter at c-span or facebook.com/c-span.

let's start with some conservatives of the freedom caucus on the floor last night trying to publicly pressure the president not to sign onto the deal. [video clip] >> i rise today to encourage that colleagues to stay in the fight to make sure we help the president deliver on a promise he made years ago. i am sad that tonight we are here on a backdrop of a potential government shutdown. function ofs more the fact that we have not done our job like we should have already. the president, many months ago said that he would not sign another funding bill unless we gave him wall funding. what did this house do? it passed the bill to fund the department of defense and passed a short-term cr. they said, we are going to have

the fight after the midterms. mr. speaker, it is after the midterms. we are here with a number of my colleagues tonight to say that we are ready to fight on behalf of all the freedom loving americans to make sure we have secure borders. and that never again do we have to worry about terrorists and drug traffickers coming across our southern borders. host: mark meadows there yesterday on the floor. one of the members of the conservative freedom caucus. several others spoke as well. this was after the leaders of the democrats in the house, nancy pelosi, tweeting out that democrats are committed to responsibly funding the government in january. in the meantime, we will support the resolution to keep the government open and working. this runs until february 8. and then, we will have to negotiate again. on the drudge report website, this is their banner this morning. pelosi holiday cheer.

dancing at a bar after a whirlwind. the bar she was dancing at was for a party fred representative joe crowley -- for representative joe crowley. she was in the audience as he was playing the guitar and singing. she was seen singing and dancing along. last night. that is how the drudge report framed it this morning. we are asking all of you to tell washington, the lawmakers, and the president what do you think? do you support the short-term spending bill with no money for the wall? who opposesohio this idea. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i oppose it. host: you oppose it. tell us why. caller: correct. the federal government has the money. it is not the people that work we need togular --

take the money from all the politicians that are there and make them pay for it and see how they would feel about it. like two months of their money given to the wall project. host: do you support the wall? caller: yes. host: ok. so what do you think about the president? caller: the president is doing a great job. host: what if he signs the short-term deal with no wall funding? caller: no. he should not sign it, no. host: why not? just to avoid the fight right before the holidays and then possibly take it up again in , in january. caller: we need to make the rich people pay for it. all the politicians that are millionaires. not the regular workers. host: larry in massachusetts.

larry, go ahead. caller: go ahead. i support the democrats in the short-term funding. i would like to say something very quickly. i hope you can bear with me. i think it was called -- a series of vignettes host: what does this have to do with our conversation? caller: this has to do with donald's ability to change the subject. a very important subject that american should be focused on. host: i am going to leave it there. that was larry in massachusetts. jeff in pittsburgh. you oppose a short-term deal with no wall funding. tell us why. caller: nothing is ever going to get done. what are they going to do come february? it is going to be the same thing over and over. short-term funding is not the answer. passed the spending bill like you said you were going to do. host: democrats will be in

charge in january in the house. caller: yes. host: leaving that complicates things more -- do you think that complicates things work? caller: yes. they are not going to do anything. host: so jeff, what does the president do? caller: veto the bill. shut the government down. it is not going to affect anything. host: you don't think so? caller: no. he funded most of the government anyway. all we are going to do a shut down a few agencies. these people are still going to go to work. maybe it is time for us to put our feet down on the ground. live up to your promises. get the law built -- the wall built. host: this is the headline in the washington post. some conservatives fume as mcconnell agrees to avoid shutdown over wall. here is the majority leader on the floor yesterday. [video clip] >> i am sorry my democratic

colleagues cannot put partisanship aside and show the flexibility the president has shown to secure the integrity of our borders as well as the safety of american families. but, this seems to be the reality of our political moment, mr. president. it seems like political spite and the president may be winning out over sensible policy. is moresible policy modest than water security allocations that democrats themselves have supported in the recent past -- then border security allocations the democrats themselves have supported in the recent past. republicans will continue to fulfill our duty to govern. host: that was the majority leader on the senate floor yesterday. the washington post says despite trump's insistence on building the border wall, many

congressional republicans never viewed the plan as realistic and some never supported it. the president's best chance to get funding for the wall came and went a year ago when negotiations involving citizenship for undocumented immigrants fell apart. the leader of the democrats in the senate, chuck schumer, on the floor yesterday. here's what he had to say in response to the republicans efforts to avoid the government shutdown. [video clip] >> democrats have been perfectly clear. we want smart, effective border security. that is not a wall. the president just this morning, the republican leader have called out repeatedly suggesting democrats are against all order security. of course we are not -- all border security. every expert has looked at that and said it is a total lie. the reason our

colleagues, the president, leader mcconnell, is that they have no defense of the wall. instead of defending the wall, they say deb -- they say democrats are not for order security. nothing could not be further from the truth. in jefferson township, pennsylvania. you support the agreement to fund the government. caller: i will tell you how they should build it. they should use illegal aliens of which they say there are 12 million of them. they should build the wall. they will become citizens when the wall is completed. to help them, the convicts that are in jail right now, we have millions of them. let them build the wall. when the wall is completed, freedom from jail. or give them a pardon. that is my comment. host: all right, bill. adam in new york. good morning to you.

what do you think about this debate here in washington? wall,: i do support the but just in this case, i agree with donald trump. in other cases, i completely disagree with them. also, i want to ask something else about your program some days ago. that was about the yellow vest. the french yellow vest protesters say they have been inspired by the 1979 islamic revolution of iran. as the creation of the islamic republic said, there revolution was the expert -- host: adam, i want to stick to the topic. the short-term spending deal that is on the table. the senate agreed to it yesterday by voice vote. the house is expected to vote today. whether or not the president will sign it -- the white house says they are looking at the deal. it is not include funding for the border wall. what is your reaction to that? your chance to tell washington

what you think. if you support, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose, (202) 748-8001. those are the lines this morning. as we have showed you in the washington post, some conservatives fume as mcconnell agrees to avoid a government shutdown over the wall. this from the washington post. they said, representative mark meadows who you heard earlier, the leader of the conservative freedom caucus who talks regularly with the president says it did major damage to the president politically if he signs the funding bill and said, the base will go crazy over trump's failure to deliver on the border wall promises. i think the vast majority of the trump voters believe that he campaigned on building the wall. ofthat is true, you are one

those that supported the president on his promise to build the wall, will you, go crazy? as mark meadows says. your chance to call in and let us know. rush limbaugh was one of those conservatives yesterday who was not happy. here's what he had to say. [video clip] >> my media calls is compromised. trump has nothing and the democrats get everything including control of the house in a few short weeks. in fact, i just alluded this. trump is going to get less than nothing because the compromised strips out the $1.6 billion that the appropriations committee has approved. that is going too. -- there is going to be 1.6 billion that was already allocated. it is even better in the minds of the drive-by media. not a penny. forget walls. think order security.

-- border security. i still maintain that a wall is symbolic. i know a lot of people believe the wall was actually going to be built. i am one of the people supporting it should be built. even without the wall, there is still the need for border security. a pennynot to be additional for that. the tuneare in debt to of $21 trillion, we are spending money left and right on things that are in direct -- what the purpose of what the spending would be. host: doug, fairfax, south dakota. caller: good morning. $2000 ae something like border. i was watching on c-span. you had the hearing. they said it was 5000 to 25 million per mile. that comes up way over 5 billion.

it is like 25 billion or something. plus, you have a wall that is 20 foot tall say. you have to have somebody watching you. someone has to be watching. is, they need to do something about it. to have aoing to have deal down in the panama golfer something and catch them before they get up here. some stuff too it. we will have to borrow some money. -- 2 doug, are you saying short-term, sign the spending without the border wall because many things need to be worked out and you can do that later? caller: basically.

a wall is not going to do you no good. you get a 20 foot -- a 24 foot ladder, somebody has to be there to catch you. there has to be some kind of technology or somewhere to catch because, -- it is slowing down drive-through's or whatever. i do not now. there guinness and drones over whatever. -- they're going to send drones over whatever. host: these questions are going to be asked of the homeland security director. she is testifying at 10:15 a.m. eastern time. we will have coverage of that on c-span3, c-span.org, or you can listen with the free c-span radio app. a lot of the questions about immigration and border security. one of them could be this story in the wall street journal.

influx of families tax the border patrol. the same crossing used by a seven euro girl who recently died in government custody is seeing a surge in families and children, but the border security is unable to handle it. the death heated up rhetoric around immigration policy. it comes amid a problem border patrol agents say have been growing for years. an agency designed to deport adults traveling alone now spends most of its time dealing with vulnerable families who want a silent. last month, nearly -- 21 asylum. fitly -- wereere fleeing violence. the changes can be seen at every border station. in the yuma sector in southeastern arizona, age and spend more than 25% of their time or about 9000 man-hours

last year on feeding children and chauffeuring families to the nearest bus station. passagese most remote near the mexican border, nearly 5000 migrants cross illegally in a 72 hour. period this week. there is also this headline to share with you. the washington times. a judge blocked the president's attempt to speed up deportation. thederal judge blocked attempt to speed up dorp -- deportation with bogus side -- bogus asylum claims. earlier hado a day excoriated michael flynn ordered the government to allow migrants with iffy claims to be given a full chance to make their claims for asylum. let's talk with doug who is in

-- excuse me,. we will go to david who is in west virginia. he opposes the short-term spending bill. caller: when it be great for our country if we had a president of either party? currently, we had president trump that would support the -- anduntil congress tell congress that they would never sign any continued resolution to fund the government. anytime in the future. they would make the congress do their job more than one day. and congress, if they do not have the budget, they would have to stay in session and do their job for the american people instead of playing this game year after year for the last 10 years. thing to rob from our

treasury. they do this thing. you can imagine the nightmare they are going to do -- funding for next year. they are going to play this game. it is going to be a nightmare. president trump can do this. if he stood up and did this, he could set the tone for future presidents that the people are not going to play congress's game. two thirdshave to do if they wanted to do a continued resolution. host: got it. power would you give that to president obama? caller: any president. we need to stop these silly games and make our congress -- they have been robbing. have $22 trillion they have robbed. this bipartisan stuff. they play the game.

that is how they run up our debt. they work out these deals. do the two thirds if they want to do a continued resolution to the president has no option. you know what i mean? host: ok. david in west virginia. ray in massachusetts. you support a short-term spending bill. caller: i do. if they want to support a border on the wall, they should not spend $1.5 trillion feeling each other's bank accounts up throwing the money back overseas. now they want a border wall. you get one thing. president trump get no more than anybody else. he need to realize that. the democrats did not accept a tax break. they should have known they would need the money. moneyhould have used the to raise the taxes backup. get the money for the border.

do not start talking about cutting social security and taking money from people. that is all this country ever do. give it to the top and it will trickle down. you want to border wall? get some tax. make the taxpayers pay for. the one who has the big money. host: the house is expected to take up tax extender legislation, dealing with the tax cuts of 2017 today. that legislation could be hitting the floor before lawmakers leave for the rest of the year. bow around the 115th congress. that legislation, you can also see the house act on criminal justice reform today after the senate passed the first step act yesterday. and of course, the short-term spending bill they have been talking to you all of -- talking to all of you about. keep calling in. should they agree?

should the house lawmakers go ahead and approve it? should the president signed this with no money -- sign this with no money for a southern -- for no wall along the southern border? we are going to talk with the senior pentagon correspondent about the president's decision to withdraw troops from syria. how did this decision come about? guest: that. is a good question. . i think it is one that a lot of people in washington are trying to figure out. as far as anyone has been able to tell, this is a decision the president made on his own and said, we are going to go ahead and do this. his own national security team has opposed it. both john bolton and jim mattis have said in the past they believe u.s. forces need to stay in syria to be a check on i ronnie and influence -- on

iranian influence in syria. the president has been vocal about syria. we have heard from allies abroad who say this is going to cause instability in the country. potentially it will cost lives. there is a sense that they were not consulted. israeli president benjamin netanyahu says he had a days warning. everyone else seems to have been caught flat-footed. host: what prompted the president to make this decision? what is the justification? guest: as the president himself said, this was a campaign promise. he did run in 2016 saying part the u.s. does was not need to be everyone's cup. the president is -- everyone's cop. he just tweeted that eating out of syria is no surprise.

six month ago, -- local enemies of isis were doing their work. time to come home and rebuild. he is essentially saying i made a campaign promise and i'm following through on it. host: who wins in this decision? guest: the obvious winners right ofy our the government bashar al-assad and his supporters, which is a coalition of russia and iran. they want to get the u.s. out of the area. believe -- obviously president assad believes this is my country and you are not invited. they want to take out some of the rebel factions that the u.s. has been tacitly supporting. careful ins been saying they are not training forces. that we are doing this to combat isis -- to combat isis.

we want to fight assad -- there's been a tacit agreement. said, we are going to fight isis so we can deal with assad in the future. ins puts the kurdish forces the crosshairs. not just from assad and russia but from turkey as well. turkey has been considering going into syrian kurdish territory because the kurdish fighters i looked as -- they are going in and hoping to wipe out some of the kurdish forces. holding is essentially the turks back in the past. whether u.s. forces are gone, the assumption of national security experts is that turkey

will be able to do a full-scale invasion of kurdish territory. the same kurds the u.s. has been equipping and using to fight isis. there are concerns that even though isis may be down, if the forces fighting them are distracted, isis could be reemerging. host: the president just tweeted, does the usa what to be the policeman of the u.s. -- of the middle east? others who do not appreciate what we are doing. do we want to be there forever? time for others to finally fight. iran, and others are not happy despite what the media says. i am building by far the most pallet -- the most powerful military in the world. there were 2000 u.s. troops there. the president is saying, only yesterday when he made this announcement that isis has been defeated. is that true?

guest: depends what you mean by defeated. are they gone? no. have they been dramatically weakened? for sure. they have lost a lot of the territory they controlled. about 99% of the territory they once controlled has been taken back. the problem with isis as with other terrorist groups is that it is less about the land they control and more about the number of fighters and can they regroup? every expert has said isis has not been defeated in syria. the fight goes on. ownp sound envoy -- trumps envoy just three days ago was talking and said, no one is saying isis is going to disappear. no one is that naive. we want to stay on the ground to make sure that stability can be maintained. the point is that while isis may be down, they are not fully out.

forces feel they have to turn around and fight against turkey for their territory as opposed to dealing with isis, isis regroup. if you talk to national security experts, they are saying this is what will happen. u.s. forces leave as they are so close to delivering a knockout punch, isis will just regroup in some form and the problem will remain. turkey'st about agreement for right now to refrain from attacking the kurds. what did they get in exchange? guest: it is kind of a political agreement. basically, the u.s. is saying we will keep the kurds calm. there has been a kurdish terrorist problem. -- some of u.s. says

the groups the u.s. as our freedom fighters or terrorist. the biggest thing has been to keep turkey from doing a full-scale invasion. we have seen the kurds fighting the isis. the kurdish forces backed by the u.s.. turkey does something. they have done small incursions in the past. kurdish fighters leave the fight of isis to go back against turkey and then isis regroups. isis regroup in iraq as well. this is a real concern among those who study this and inside the pentagon. they say we are so close. if we could do this, another year let's say, we might be able to actually knock isis out for good. the assumption among trumps national security advisor's had been, if we leave now, we are going to give isis a chance to regroup. host: i want to get your

reaction to vladimir putin. he is holding his annual news conference in russia today. he takes questions from media outlets across the country. it goes for hours and hours. it started at 4:00 a.m. this morning. he was asked mine american journalist in russia, his reaction to the president withdrawing from syria. [video clip] trumpterday, president announced the american withdrawal of troops from syria. what is your -- he also announced that in his opinion, the united states if he did isis in syria. -- united states defeated isis in syria. what is your opinion on your statement -- on his statement regarding the defeat of isis by the united states? secondly, do you have concern that american troops will remain in some form? is there much discussion around

the president potentially -- whether the united state is active militarily or might want to be active militarily in a more discrete way. as for defeating isis, i do generally agree with the president of the united states. achieved some major advances when it comes to defeating the terrorists. we have struck major blows on terrorist in syria. there is a danger that those terrorist groups might infiltrate the neighboring regions like afghanistan. and also to other countries for example, the countries of origin. this poses a great risk for all of us including russia, the u.s., europe, and asian

countries. we are aware of that. we know about that. yes, double trump is right about that. trump is right about that. the american forces have been present in afghanistan for some 17 years. every year, they talk about withdrawing forces from america -- from afghanistan. they are still there. my third point, we do not see any signs of the american withdrawal from syria. we see that it is possible. ofare now on the track political settlement. to form ant constitutional committee in syria. host: vladimir putin earlier today. his annual end of the year news conference. what do you make of the russian

president's response there? guest: i think that is what you would expect. vladimir putin is many things. everyone agrees he is no dummy. this is a great move that is going to benefit russia. russia has looked at syria as a strategic partner. they have built up their presence there significantly. they have used syria as a military testbed for a lot of military concepts and technology. test out weapons, test up lanes and see how they do in life fire exercises. russia wanted the u.s. out of syria for quite some time. they have argued that it is a negative presence that destabilizes the region. while there is a crossover with isis, certainly russia would like isis to go away, we have seen time and again that the assad regime will bomb people they claim are isis.

the u.s. says those are not isis. as our civilians are part of the u.s.assad coalition -- the says those are civilians or part of the anti-aside coalition. i am not surprised that president putin would be excited about this move. i had not heard the comments until now. his mentioning of afghanistan and how isis could spread their. off the top of my head, i was wondering if that is a sign that russia is influencing -- is interested in expanding their influence in the region as well. it seems like something they are keeping an eye on. host: if you want to follow his reporting, you can go to defense

news.com. thank you. follow-up up on that conversation, the russian -- the washington post editorial board because the president's this vision disastrous writing that -- the president's decision disastrous. mr. trump's decision appears to been to potato by the bellicose rhetoric of turkeys -- to have been affected by the bellicose rhetoric of turkeys president. the autocratic turkish ruler appears to have extracted neighbors for mr. trump including the sale of u.s. patriot missiles and the promise to re-examine the extradition of its rival. if mr. trump has received anything in return, he has not disclosed it. the washington post has numerous articles on this today.

five articles just by a quick count in the washington post. and their editorial two opinion pieces all on the the decision -- all on the decision to withdraw. let's go back to our conversation about the short-term spending bill. it funds the government until february 8. we are talking about certain agencies. other parts of the government have not been funded. ? do you agree with this the house is expected to take it out today -- do you agree with this? the house is expected to take it up today. the democrats are putting up politics over country. i will not sign any of their legislation including infrastructure unless it has perfect border security. that does not say he will not sign the short-term bill. any infrastructure

bill the democrats might want to get done, now had must include some border security. we will see what the president does. what do you think he should do? jean in michigan. good morning to you. caller: i would not get angry with whatever decision president trump decides. slaved -- he has saved us a lot of money on the paris climate agreement. act his tax cut and jobs has increased tax revenue. it is just that the spending is up. how about a little spending for national security? investment tos an solve some of the welfare problems we are having. someone like me does not qualify for any welfare. that does not mean that i do not

need it. i do not get the affordable care because it is not affordable. it would be more than half of my income. it would not cover anything. jean in michigan. i do not think that last point is true. illegal immigrants can go to the emergency room, but they do not get federal benefits like welfare and food stamps. out that trumps is now claiming mexico is paying for the imaginary border wall with money from the trade agreement that is not even been ratified. laura in missouri. you support a short-term spending bill. why is that? caller: i think he should send up -- stand up for the citizens

of united states. i think you should shut down the government if that is what takes. the lady who spoke ahead of me sees right. they do get benefits. the thing you apply for now, you do not do face-to-face. it is online. they do get them. host: where you read that? caller: i see it. i see it at the grocery store. host: how do you know they are not citizens? caller: they are not citizens. they work at the sawmill. they have children working out there. they have illegals working out there. host: have you reported it to the government? caller: wouldn't do no good, would it? host: laura in missouri. richard in kentucky. caller: the president of the united states. this is like custer's last stand. if he does not put his foot down, those of us that put him in office will not support him. mitch mcconnell and paul ryan

have played him like a fiddle. they have not supported him. i look and see that the state department pledges $10 billion to central america and southern mexico. billion --tting $10 they are giving $10 billion to mexico and central america will not secure the border? the president talked about being the policeman of the world. at least let us be police man of our own country. if youdo not get it now, do not put your foot down now and tell paul ryan and mitch mcconnell i am going to fight you, you are a one hit wonder and i will vote against you. get it done and get it done now. host: richard, you agree with mr. meadows who said the president supporters, his base, are going to go crazy if he agrees to this? caller: the president of united states, i used to be a democrat for 44 years until the obama

mass -- the obama mess. i started really -- i started reading and realizing that democrats do not support the workers. i am a blue-collar worker. the president, my union bosses used to tell me, if you do not work -- if you do not vote for this guy, then who are you going to vote for? i think that is what donald trump thinks. that there is nobody else that is going to run against him. therefore, he is like my union bosses. mr. president, i will not vote, period. thank you very much. of the freedom caucus was on the floor yesterday trying to persuade the president. he tweets out, let me get this straight. our chances of getting the wall will be better in february when nancy is speaker then now when

we have the majority? give me a break. this is from the wall street journal editorial board. the lamest lame-duck. the trump folly has because the gop any last-ditch victories. republicans on wednesday agreed to sign letters of safe passage out of town. with a short-term resolution, the gop was probably -- after president trump volunteered to take the credit for a government shutdown that would begin on the weekend before christmas. he dared chuck schumer and nettie pelosi not to give them were alllion and they too happy to applied -- to oblige. by our deadline, was signaling mr. trump would accept the short-term funding bill. whoever really knows with donald j. trump? to uniteng to have with republicans. he is going to have to unite

republicans behind them and make a case with discipline and consistency. that is all but impossible for mr. trump but it is the truth. this is the exact opposite of the way he will have to maneuver in the next congress. john --ll milwaukee john, milwaukee. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. my opinion is this. 'sbelieve donald trump deplorable supporters should hold his feet to the fire and have mexico pay for the wall. if mexico does not pay for it, then i believe they should give them a gofundme page and fund that wall. second option, they should all get laid off their jobs until mexico pays for the wall as trump said that they will do

over and time and time again. thank you. host: jim, kansas. caller: good morning. yeah, it is unfortunate we are at the point where the wall or fence is needed. from the articles you have read, it seems obvious there is a huge influx. it is only increased with the numbers of people coming from central america, mexico across the border. there is a lot of expense involved with those people coming. i think people have mentioned it. i do not know about welfare benefits. i know there is a huge amount of social security member fraud with people getting jobs when they are not here legally. there is also increased cost for

schooling, housing crossroads, emergency care and things like that. where if yoution do not spend the money, you're going to spend more money. it is easy for people to ignore that because it is not the direct. problems insame europe with migrants coming across the mediterranean. they are dealing with it. we are going to have to deal with it. for the president to insist on this wall when border officials are testifying before congress, when they are asked, do need a wall along the southern border, they say no. we need a mix of tools. we need technology and more personnel et cetera. that, what do you make of

the president? caller: when nancy pelosi said does nancy immoral, pelosi have any fencing around her property? you know she does. it is not immoral. this is work. they have worked for centuries. host: the president tweeting out minutes ago, and other tweet. with so much talk about the wall, people are losing sight of what is being done by the military. border is tight. fake news silent. janet in brooklyn. you support the lawmakers passing a short-term spending bill. caller: good morning. yes i do support it because we are actually paying for. we have 14,000 children in this country that have been separated from their parents. we pay $750 a day for those

children to be here. we already spent billions keeping those kids here. probably by the end of the month, we may have 200,000 kids. do not call in and saying you are a democrat or republican. call your representatives to say that i've read the funds to get your wall built. i did not want the wall built. we are spending all these billions of dollars to keep these kids here. i do not wanted see kids separated from their parents. someone has to diverse the funds so people can get there border wall. those kids probably think they are going to be adopted and we will have to turn around and have daca two. host: some other news for you this morning. the associated press reporting that north korea says it will not denuclearize and less u.s.

-- unless u.s. removes threat. the wall street journal this william barr criticizes the special counsel. --sent a fatallyis based on, misconceived theory that will cause lasting damage for the presidency. the document that was reviewed by the journal provides an in-depth look into his views on the special counsel's rush investigation that he would likely oversee if confirmed. in a memo, he see this -- he wrote he was concerned about the probe that has explored whether mr. trump has obstructed justice. that in the wall street journal this morning.

there is also this headline related to that in usa today. byoll shows that most do not trump's denials of conclusion. --e than half intelligence agency just blacklisted according to wall street journal. the intelligence department levied a fresh set of sanctions. in election interference in the u.s. and elsewhere. one more to share with you will quickly. this is a business section of the new york times. news about facebook sharing its data with other tech companies today. that triggered fresh criticism from lawmakers up on capitol

hill. it says senator roy blunt said the revelations made him question mr. zuckerberg decision-making. adding that the disclosures were caused to consider stricter privacy laws. congress is going to have to regulate them. i hate to do it, but by god i will if they cannot clean up their act. jerry in ohio. you oppose the spending bill agreement to fund the government for the next couple of months. why is that? caller: it is good to talk to you. i have been trying to get on your program. you asked me then what what would i do about the health care bill? -- guess what, i was right. on this short-term spending thing, they should never be a short-term spending bill.

these people have to get together and do a year ahead of time and know what the heck is going on so everybody knows what is going on. this short-term stuff is a bunch of baloney. everybody getsk, their hand in a pot. the taxpayers pay for it over and over again. do we need a wall in places? it is notput -- possible to put a wall all the way across because of terrain. where it has been put up, the reports are that the crossings are down like 95% in those spots. it needs to continue. i do not know where he is going to get the money. congress and senate has got to do their job. these people have been there for 30 or 40 years and we still have the same problems. host: the president refused to

-- so thedeal and government should refuse to sign this deal. caller: yes, veto this thing. they don't care about the american people. that is what gets me. they do not care about the american people. like the war over in the middle east. makeess are supposed to the rules about who goes in. when we go in and where we go in. what wars we get involved in. they allow it up to one person. it is not supposed to be that way. it is like president palma. -- president obama. from georgia,tor what the headlines will not tell 186th that this was the time congress has resorted to a continued resolution because it

failed to fully fund the government by the september 30 deadline. neutral platform to fund the government on time every year. ingrid in pensacola, florida. caller: good morning. i heard a good solution for the wall. it said that the 63 million people that voted for trump, if $80,would just send in that would make the $5 billion that trump wants for his wall. walloters can pay for the and leave the rest of us alone. thank you. host: robert, clinton, maryland. you oppose. you are on the air. caller: i think a better solution would be to tax all the money that is transferred, wire

transferred, to mexico and el salvador. if we took 20% of that, that would pay for the wall. my point on the wall, the reason i oppose it is that if the congress has allocated 10.6 billion to mexico, south america, el salvador, all these wonderful countries in central america, but we can't find 5 billion to help out the border security in this country as we are being invaded with drugs and all these foreigners coming in and stealing our jobs, and the congress cannot find 5 billion to look out for the american people, then if you do not veto allocate 10.6 you billion to foreigners, then, you know, then you need to be impeached. you must veto this bill or you will lose the next election. that is all there is to this. host: robert in clinton, maryland.

homeland security secretary kirstjen nielsen likely to be asked all these types of questions. whether the border wall is needed. is it working? how much will it cost? can you get the money from somewhere else? she is testifying at 10:15 this morning before the house judiciary committee. c-span3have coverage on , c-span.org, or listen with the free c-span radio app. ohio.in you support the spending bill, is that right? caller: i do. we need to keep the government open. that is the job of the president and the congress. we know the wall is just a symbol. it is a symbol of people who refuse to acknowledge their other people in this world who want to share in prosperity. i look at the president. each one of his wives came from overseas.

they were all immigrants. all his children where the children of an immigrant mother. to play like have we do not want immigrants. maybe it is the fact that they are brown. that is the only conclusion i can come up with. we are not going to put up a border across the canadian border -- put a wall across the canadian border. this is a symbol of something that is a lot deeper than a wall. there is a thingthere is a thine -- called people -- evil. people who do not want to share prosperity. arguinge want to keep about the wall, which is not what they are really arguing

about, i feel sorry for this country. host: james in ohio. we are going to take a break. when we come back, we will talk with two lawmakers about the short-term funding agreement until february 8. we will start with florida democratic representative val demings. we will talk about the robert mueller investigation. later, more about the possible shutdown with texan republican jodey arrington. yesterday's gop house speaker paul ryan delivered his farewell address at the library of congress. he served as speaker since 2015 and in the house since 1999. here he discussed the problems facing politics, civil discourse, and public service today. [video clip] >> we have a good sense of what our politics should look like. a civil passionate discourse through which we debate and resolve our differences. a system of government. our system does not just allow for that. our system depends on that. one side may win.

one side may lose. we dust ourselves off and start a new knowing that each fought in pursuit of their honest ideals. today too often, genuine disagreement quickly gives way to intense distrust. -- then far more time we do trying to develop our own convictions. being against someone has more currency than being for anything. found ourselves operating on the wrong side of this equation from time to time. all of this gets amplified by technology. with an incentive structure that preys on people's fears and algorithms that play on anger. with anything that gets marketed, it gets scaled up. it becomes more industrialized. more and feeling. -- more unfeeling.

for all the noise, there is less passion. less energy. testfault to lazy litmus and denunciations. it is fed through a trough of outrage. it is exhausting. and, it discourages good people from pursuing public service. the symptoms of it are in our face all the time. we have to recognize that it's roots run deep into our culture and society today. threadshis pulls on the of our common humanity in what .ould be our unraveling nothing says it has to be this way. struggle, we are all fighting some battle in our lives. why do we insist on fighting one another so bitterly?

these kinds of politics starts replace of outrage and seeks to tear us down from their. key question, how do we get back to aspiration and inclusion? we start with humility and start to build on that. what i offer today is something to keep in mind as we all kind of -- try to navigate through this moment. our culture is meant to be shaped not by our political theitutions but by mediating institutions of civil society, community. these are the places where we come together with people from different backgrounds, charities, pta meetings, it is where we build up our social capital. rediscovering that human connection is one lane on the road back to aspiration and inclusion as the guiding

influences of public life. q&a, wall street columnist warren jenkins talks about politics during the trump era. >> i think he wants to be the , i don't attention think he is a racist, i think he looks as everybody as either a friend or an enemy and you can change categories there are easily. ideas, the america first thing is an idea that he holds dear, that our country has been shortchanged in dealing with the rest of the world and in trade policy and immigration policy -- in the minds of others, night on c-span's q&a. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: back at our table is representative val deming's, democrat from florida. thank you for being here. vote?ll you guest: i am glad to see this happening, any thought or possibility of shutting the government down is certainly not good for the american people, so i am glad to see us get through. i was talking with a senator are theyt and i said going to cancel christmas this year or are we going to keep running and he said well the senate has done their part, so we expect it will pass and that the president will sign it. host: would you have voted for it if there had been funding for the wall? thee not the $5 billion but

$1 billion? guest: hypotheticals are tough to deal with because how much of the $5 billion would have been included? they would have to be pretty serious, pretty necessary, emergency type issues and funding for a wall that i believe -- it is just not a good use of taxpayer dollars. i would have had to see it in the context of that particular cr. host: from your perch on homeland security, why do you believe -- is the wall working in some areas and why do you believe it won't work in others? guest: i served 27 years in law

enforcement. security of our nation down to our neighborhoods is a top priority for me but we have to be smart. i believe we have to find ways, certainly there is fencing and other structural barriers that are on the southern borders that are obviously working. another have been some repairs in terms of those areas. we have to look at how we utilize technology and we are doing that in every aspect around the country. let's look at how we can better use technology to help the officers assigned to the border. look at staffing at the border, there have been concerns for some time about staffing levels. do we need to protect and secure our border? we always need to look for ways to be safer, but there are smarter ways to do that. host: another topic to discuss with you is the mueller

investigation, the special counsel and what role congress would play, especially when democrats take over the house in january. matt gaetz, a republican in in saying theoted democrats are not going to be able to help themselves. they're going to impeach president trump. i think impeachment is more popular with democratic primary voters than the wall is with republican primary voters. guest: everyone is entitled to their opinion. certainly my colleague is. i wish he as well lawmakers around this nation could focus on our responsibility as lawmakers. our primary concern on the judiciary committee is to protect the constitution and uphold the constitution and make sure the proper application of the law moves forward. that is our job and we have to do that in every aspect.

impeachment, i have seen it with president clinton. i remember the discussions around president nixon. , it isment is tough tough on the american people. jerry nadler said it is basically overturning the will of the american people and it should be reserved are very serious situations. no one is running towards impeachment. who would want to do that? by the same token, while we are not running towards impeachment, we are not going to run away from our responsibility. hold everybody accountable, even sometimes when we would rather not, and we will provide the

necessary oversight which by the way, we have not seen in the 115th congress. host: what would be an impeachable offense that the wouldjudiciary committee take up? guest: one of the other things that our ranking members has said has -- is in order to make the best decisions, we have to have all of the information. while the special counsel drop -- while the special counsel's investigation has gone on for quite a while, by the same token it should not have any time restraints because we want to get to the truth. we want the evidence to take us to the truth. there is no better person assigned to do that than robert mueller. certainly if i was under ,uspicion or being investigated bob mueller would be the person i want because he is above reproach as we have all seen.

let's see where the investigation takes us and then we as the house judiciary and need to be prepared to do our job and do whatever is necessary. host: let's get our viewers involved. val demings sits on the judiciary committee. what are your comments and questions? republicans, (202)-748-8001. democrats, (202)-748-8000. independents, (202)-748-8002. you will get the question the whole length security secretary today. what questions do you have for her? guest: i had an opportunity to meet one-on-one with secretary nielsen and the district in orlando and there are a lot of issues we are dealing with.

will bery concern today the use of the military. to fill a specific mission and purpose being assigned and what i believe was an inappropriate way at our border. mainly on that particular issue, the use of the military at the southern border, but also i will certainly have to talk to her about -- i believe the mess we have at the wound is a self-inflicted by the president of the united states. it was a solution looking for a persons have always been able to seek asylum in the united states of america but you heard one of the a ministry or say they were never prepared to deal with women and children at the border, that they were prepared to deal with single men

trying to cross the border under the cover of darkness. we have the death of a seven-year-old child at the border. inave worked with children struggling families and also a detective in crimes against children. when we take children into our custody, one of our primary concerns is their physical well-being. ,edical screenings are done even if there are no symptoms of illnesses. received,ormation i there were symptoms that were shared that day. if you are not prepared to deal with the problem, the navy you need to find a better solution to what you see or perceive as a problem. the death of a seven-year-old was just one casualty, one of the most precious innocent casualties of the mess at the southern border. host: if you want to hear the

questions that the congresswoman plans to ask, tune into c-span3 at 10:00 this morning. the homeland security secretary answering these questions. c-span3 and c-span.org and you can also listen with the free c-span radio app. you also heard testimony of the former fbi director james comey. what questions did you ask of him and what could you characterize -- could you characterize what kind of answers he gave you and your republican colleagues? guest: i was not there for director comey's interview but there was a lot of focus around the improper or what appeared to be this a administration's attempt to tear down the credibility of our institutions of justice. we certainly heard the president of the united states criticized

his own fbi, his own department of justice, his own intelligence officers and there was a lot of discussion from my colleagues about the long-term negative effects of doing that. we have to work together to continue to protect the good ,rder, improve the reputation efficient operation and efficiency of those to agencies and their credibility. the american people have to believe in the institutions of justice. we need to find ways of how we can better work together to do that. host: we will go to tim in myrtle beach, south carolina. republican. you are up first. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. val, good morning. i have heard you say now, five or six times that it is your job. if it is your job, how come we did -- how come we can't sign a

budget on time? how come we can't protect the borders and basically, that is your job, that is what you are saying. guest: thank you. i love being a congresswoman in the 115th session but we are finishing up my first session in congress. during my first two years in congress, the republicans have had the white house, control of the u.s. house of representatives and the senate. when you talk about those issues , the list you just named off, the president, the senate and the house have had not only the responsibility but also the power to do that. what i can tell you is i am looking forward to democrats taking over the house in the , and i do believe that we are going to be will to that are aings done

priority for the majority of the american people. host: gloria, maryland, democrat. caller: good morning. first of all i want to give kudos to c-span because this is an amazing discussion and congresswoman, i cannot see the television. you foro give kudos to saying what i knew i would hear. once god reorganize these dominoes so that we had -- nobody is above accountability let me assure -- about accountability. -- we don't want to see anybody

fail in leading this country but if you eliminate accountability or limited holding anyone responsible, we've got 15,000 children in cages. we've got a little girl who died in the first thing out of the white house was we weren't responsible. i am not willing to have a blame storm, but we have to do better. god bless you, congresswoman and god bless you c-span. guest: thank you for being so involved. oft is a painful reminder our responsibility, not just as members of congress but as citizens of the united states of america. i spent 27 years as a law enforcement officer and never got caught up in political parties. i certainly didn't make my decisions based on whether the idea came from a democrat or a

republican. you are right, everybody counts but everybody is accountable. nobody is above the law and i did not come to congress -- i did not have to come to congress to realize that. i will continue to do my job here. host: paul in west virginia, republican. caller: good morning. worked in that city right behind you there for 27 years. as an iron worker. my job was taken by salvador yens coming in because they would work my job for about a third of what i was making. all these people coming across the border are taking the blue-collar jobs that your african-american brothers and sisters could be doing. it is a fact.

i don't understand why you can't see that or democrats can't see that. you know a wall would help stop that. it is getting ridiculous. guest: let me just say this. member of the union when i joined the orlando police department. we know that you helped to build america and i thank you for that. i really wish that solving our security issues in this country were as simple as building a wall on the southern border. as i said earlier, i think we need to be smarter and look at technology. there is nothing as effective as boots on the ground as i am sure you will know in terms of protecting not only our borders but our cities and airports and other places. i believe that the wall, which

by the way, mexico is going to pay for, was a campaign promise. it would have served canada trump well to talk to experts about the effectiveness of that promise. trump well to talk to experts about the effectiveness of that promise. thank you so much for calling. host: 90 is in michigan, an independent -- maggie is in michigan, an independent. caller: good morning congresswoman. i just have a quick question for you and i am being absolutely serious. immigrants illegally ,ry to get into our country 7000 at one time, how do you think our border people could , all of thatthat

7000 amnesty claims that once. host: are you referring to this caravan? caller: yeah. it is pretty simple. i just want to know how they could have all been processed for amnesty in such a short amount of time. guest: thank you so much. certainly the numbers of people we may have to deal with at one -- but we have to think about who we are. yes we are a nation of law, but we are also a nation that says that if you are seeking asylum, running away from threats in your particular country, that you can seek asylum in this country at the ports of entry, whatever that is seven silent --

seven asylum-seekers, 700 or 7000, it does not change and should not change our policies which means we need to have a to screenient process asylum-seekers and make sure we are able to adequately separate those seeking asylum from those who may not be. thank you for calling in. host: robert is next in pennsylvania, republican. caller: hello. good morning to you. i have this to say. the president should not sign that short extension of running the government because that is just the democrats way of taking and being able to figure out how to get those illegal people into this country. , they have nooney

job, they have no home to live in and they have no health insurance. who is going to pay that? we the american people? tell them to go home. in.t: thank you for calling earlier with another caller, the republicans had the white house, the u.s. senate and the house of representatives. the fact that they cannot pass funding for the border wall tells me that the president does not have support within his party. it tells me that there are a lot of republicans who have been reasonable about this and have thought it through and do not agree that that is the priority in the united states of america. as a law-enforcement officer from orlando, i can't help but

think about the pulse nightclub shooting. that mass shooting in orlando. ands an people were killed we have seen it in newtown and las vegas. we have seen it in too many places around america. we have to ask ourselves the question, if we are going to be reasonable and honest with ourselves. maybe homegrown terrorists are a bigger threat to the united states of america at this time. mexico was supposed to pay for that wall. maybe we should better use that $5 billion to protect our communities from homegrown terrorism. host: the president tweeted this out this morning, the democrats are nurses -- who know -- what they are just beginning to realize is that i will not sign any of the legislation when democrats take over, including infrastructure unless it has

perfect border security. guest: there is nothing wrong with perfect border security. i would suggest the president talk to people who have the knowledge about what perfect border security looks like a for he makes any promises to the american people. i am going to continue to drive this home. houseesident in the white , the republicans control the senate and the house. inability to get funding past for his border wall, for his campaign promise fall on democrats. how is that our responsibility is to mark apparently he is not have the support within his own party and kudos to them for not falling for unrealistic but reallyloys

taking the time to make smart decisions as it pertains to the people they represent. if you asked secretary nielsen this morning what perfect border security looks like, what do you think she would tell you? guest: secretary nielsen would have a list. i have heard her talk about utilizing technology. --ave heard her talk about there are some natural man-made barriers where would be impractical to look at building a wall in those areas. i have heard her talk about staffing and the important role that the men and women who definitely have a tough job, but it is tougher when they are used as political pawns, how effective they are and they should be allowed to do their job. secretary nielsen, based on her knowledge, training and experience, would have some great recommendations for security at the border. host: those are the types of

questions she is likely to be asked this morning before the house judiciary committee at 10:15 this morning. our coverage on c-span three or on our website. you can also listen with the free c-span radio app. charles is in alabama, independent. question or comment? caller: question. what does the democratic party inc. about connecting -- about enacting -- party think about enacting e-verify so that employers more easily know who is legal and who is not? guest: thank you so much for your question and i really wish we could not look at solving our nations problems based on political parties because it does not really matter so much what the democrats think.

it is what is best for american people. having worked in local government for almost three decades, i am very supportive of e-verify. we are a nation of laws and we need to hold people accountable. the mess at the border deals with not having an effective process for asylum-seekers. using blanket zero-tolerance. you have to be prepared to properly process and assess the situation at the border. i believe we are not able to do that. employees should have a system that works. e-verify is a system that works. nothing is perfect but they should be able to verify the people that they are hiring. i am very supportive of systems like that as a local government official as well. host: in north carolina, terry is watching on our line for democrats. caller: good morning.

i got it will more invested in this than most. born at six months and one day because my sister is a drug addict. you mentioned you had been in law enforcement for 27 years. somebody like you ought to know chicago areroes in fighting and dying. i can take you to -- and the children step across duty -- .irty needles to get to the bus

[indiscernible] you want to protect them over the children of this country. you want to be ashamed of yourself. guest: you might know a lot about it and i have seen the devastating effects that drugs do in our communities. i spent 27 years focusing on the reduction of violent crimes and one of the things i learned, that usually violent crime, frequently in drugs involved drugs and guns and i spent a significantper -- significant period of my life trying to -- guns andnd drugs drugs, keeping them out of the hands of people who want to sell them and dying as a result of them. i do believe that you are right,

drugs are sold on our streets every day. there are thousands of people who overdose or die as a result of them. we have seen what the opioid crisis has done to our community. thatnd i don't disagree on significant problem, we just disagree on how to solve it. i focus on the problems on our streets and in our communities for a long time and i will continue to do that. host: let's go to jordan in north carolina, democratic caller. our last one for the congresswoman. caller: how are you doing? host: good morning. caller: i am only 18 and my ,uestion to the congresswoman how do you think democrats feel if we have a shutdown? guest: let me just tell you how

proud i am of you because we really need to have people in your age group involved in our democratic process. here to keep the government running, to make sure there are proper funding -- there is proper funding, for programs that the american people depend on every day. democrats do not, and i think leadership has made that quite clear, we do not want a government shutdown. hundreds of thousands of federal workers will go without pay, particularly in the holiday season. a government shutdown is not a good thing and we are going to to preventng we can

it. the president of the united states said he would be proud to shut the government down. it there he did not mean way it sounded but i assure you i will do everything i can to keep the government working and i know that there are republicans and democrats who share that sentiment. thank you. host: congresswoman representative val demings from florida. talked about her law enforcement career and also was appointed the first female chief of police in 2007. thank you for the conversation. guest: thank you. host: when we come back, we will continue to talk about a possible government shutdown and the mueller investigation with texas republican jodey arrington. ♪

>> we have a technical issue with washington journal. >> conversations with three retired members of congress. -- both defeated in the midterms and -- who is retiring after 18 years on the house. >> i think we could've gotten a bipartisan tax bill passed. i don't think there was any interest in doing a bipartisan tax bill. we could have done some reforms to the health care bill. there was no interest in doing health care reforms because it was all about winning politically and not governing in a sustainable way. those are regrets i have. >> ideas matter to me and you try to get ideas out and they don't care.

they don't care and they are against your idea and they put them down. they cannot name a substitute that is better. they don't have an alternative hypothesis. fraud and illectual think that is what the press is engaged in. >> was people think term limits sound like a good idea. leadership has no term limits. nancy pelosi will probably be over 100 by the time she finances -- finishes her last time as speaker if nothing changes. the challenge is that all of leadership has no term limits. have term limits. we took a strong chairman system and we turned it into a strong speaker and majority leader system -- minority leader system. >> saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span and c-span.org.

"> "washington journal continues. back at our table, congressman jodey arrington, republican from texas and member of the budget committee. let's start with this stopgap measure that fund the government until february 8. how will you vote? guest: i was hoping you would start with an easier question. to this veryown which is issue for me a national security issue. i am with the president on the fact that we need physical barriers as a critical component to secure the border. this is not like other policy issues that are important. for the safetyry of our communities and families. i am from a border state and

people are very concerned and things don't seem to be getting better and i think the president is doing everything he can with the tools and resources he has, but they are inadequate. congress has not done anything substantively to help them. issue thatany other was not of great import and national security interest, i would be loath to shut the government down because i think that is disruptive, costly. a recent study said it costs our economy $6 billion for every week that the government is shut down. i am very aware of the cost to taxpayers and our economy. at the same time, what cost the you put on a human life, your daughter or your son or your family, when it comes to this wave upon wave of immigrants coming here.

not all are criminals, but there are lots of criminal activities, gang activities, lots of bad 's like i the president have called the military down to help and i am doing everything i can. this was a centerpiece for his election. was a mandate from the people and i think we ought to be doing a lot more to help him as republicans and democrats. because that is not in their in terms of wall funding -- in there in terms of wall funding, i am loath to support it. i will go to a conference meeting and listen. there are pros and cons to every decision. there is no perfect decision, at least since i have been here. i will listen and right now, i am reluctant to support it. host: should the president veto it, make the congress start over and shut down the government?

guest: he has taken a pretty strong stance about vetoing it. i want to hear from my colleagues and i want to take all the information. to signobably reluctant something that does not at least meet him halfway. are onow, the democrats this $1.6 billion which they agreed to fund for physical barriers in the last budget. they are on record supporting iis and he is just saying want to be able to do this in a meaningful way. $1.6 billion is not going to cut it. if we could see some compromise which is central to governing, and i am a far right conservative from west texas and i believe we have to be able to come together and find common ground, there has been no

movement on their side. i hope things change. i don't know that they will. i think the president is reluctant at best. i am reluctant at best. and you it gets passed have to start negotiations over in january to get past february 8, or the president insists that there is border security wall funding in any sort of infrastructure bill, would you agree to a compromise where it is less than $5 billion? guest: sure i would. if i felt like there was enough where we got more than the $1.6 billion and in good faith, democrats were willing to meet him somewhere in the middle , that is better than $1.6 billion. any improvement is better than the current state of affairs, but we have seen zero.

the first time this happened to me, this recent past several months ago when we voted on immigration reform. that was offered up to fix daca which is what the democrats were saying was their priority. we were saying our priority was border security but we put them together, i voted on one of them. it would have given the full $25 billion for the wall but would have also given the daca recipients peace of mind. we got zero democrats. they did not even get out of the house or the driveway, let alone meet us somewhere. i know this is a partisan i know this is a partisan statement, it is not going to

shock your viewers, but i feel like chuck schumer and the democrats are not working with the president on an issue of national security. that is a problem for me and that is why i am where i am. host: another headline to bounce off of you. usda moves to tighten restrictions on food stamps. what is it that the agricultural department is doing and do you support it? guest: i support it 100%. theimplementation of tightening of the work requirements in food stamps was in the house republican version of the farm bill. we could not get the senate to work with us on that. we have provisions to shore up the work requirements and accountability and oversight on the food stamp program, which is and thehe farm bill farm bill is $800 billion, that is the 10 year horizon. on farmers safety

nets and support for rural america. the bolt of the farm bill is on the food stamp program. -- the bulk of the farm bill is on the food stamp program. we are basically closing the gap on what we couldn't do from a lawmaking perspective during the farm bill debate and they are trying to incentivize people to work who are work capable adults. this does not apply to pregnant women, the disabled, the elderly. if you are able to work and you -- and you are receiving government assistance, you want to work -- you ought to work. you can work, volunteer or be trained. i think that is positive for our economy and good for the people on food stamps. too many have been trapped in a cycle of dependence.

aidedk our government has and abetted in that because they have not provided the proper incentives for people to make the most of their talents and their time. to me, the current status is -- ed and host: let's get to some calls. silver springs, maryland -- silver spring, maryland, democrat. caller: the united states government has a lot of responsibility for the destruction of the governments in central america, by invading or overthrowing governments and sending mercenaries. it disrupts the whole civility -- stability of central america. they are responsible and have to accommodate these people. everybody comes here to work.

months out ofee the year and get paid $180,000. i. -- thank you. guest: this nation is a nation of immigrants and i love the fact that this country has been open and welcome to people all over the world who are hungry for freedom and opportunity. that is the american way, the american dream. it is who we are, but we are also a nation of laws. you don't just get to come in here because you think you are entitled to a job in the united states. we have 7 million surplus jobs and we have a shortage of labor and i think it is smart policy to fix some of the broken components of legal immigration. i come from west texas where we definitely have a shortage of .gworer -- ag workers

i do believe that the majority of people coming here are coming for a job. that is not asylum. that is not fear for their life. that is why we need to close loopholes that are being exploited by people who are coming here and because we don't the the capacity because president does not have the resources, we cannot detain people. it takes too long to have deportation hearings. they are released into the interior of this country, rarely to show up for the deportation hearing because nine out of 10 times, the judge rules that they don't have credible asylum claims. i hear what this gentleman is saying. there are people coming here for opportunity, probably many also for a better life for their family and for freedom. tose are all great reasons become american citizens or to come here legally and work, but

you have -- a million people are approved to be in this country legally every year. several -- some of them are waiting in line for years. it is not right to circumvent that. it is not right for us to not vet people coming into this country. we have to uphold the rule of law. long as they respect our sovereignty and play by the rules, i don't think any american has any problem with that. republicans like democrats support immigration, we just want legal immigration and what we have right now is chaos. host: let's get to more calls. bill in georgia, democrat. arlington -- mr. arrington, i have no support for you when you fail to shake the hand of the representative earlier. host: he did. guest: we actually hugged.

we are friends. caller: you keep hollering about being from west texas. guest: we hug in west texas. you guys need to try to work together instead of being more political and controversial with each other. host: i will confirm that they hugged and that was after we went to a break. guest: if the sheriff came back on, she would tell you. i don't think any of my colleagues you would talk to would say anything except respectful to them and again, being from west texas, we are taught to love our neighbor, we are taught to treat everybody with mutual respect. whether you are a democrat or an independent or socialist, you were elected by the people in

the united states congress and that is how i conduct my business. i was part of leading the effort in our freshman class to make restoring civility in our political discourse our theme because i believe if you have a climate of civility, it will create friendships and friendships will breed bipartisan solutions to some of the problems our country faces. that is why seven of the eight bills i introduced were introduced with a democrat. i have the only term limit bill that was introduced with a democrat who is a progressive liberal from california, a dear friend and i love him and his wife. we celebrated the birth of their new child. pickw the caller did not

up and misperceived what was going on, but i take that very seriously because my positions are very conservative and i don't make any bones about it and i don't apologize for it but i am here to fight for the future of this country. i am here to do battle for hearts and minds. i am not here to tear people down. that is not how i was raised. host: does the president matched that style? guest: he has his own style. i wish he would not tweet as often as he does. is not myhis style style but i think people elected him because they were tired of the bs of washington on both sides. they were tired of the established culture here and they wanted to shake it up and i think you have to take the good and i think if you ull to shake a b

things up, you will have some broken china and i am ok with that, but i think my focus is on accomplishing things, on advancing the agenda. it is on results and this president on results has done a great job. i would focus more on results and achieving those results than the back-and-forth that goes on in washington. host: joe is up in maryland, republican. caller: good morning. these immigrants stuck at our youhern border right now, say they want opportunities for freedom and things like that, and i was wondering, has it ever been proposed of offering them a way into our country through military enlistment?

it could be my young age or what have you but in my opinion, enlistment into the military for at least two years, for one is going to give a break on taxpayers because the individuals that are coming in that are capable are going to be putting back into our country . it will provide cultural after they and integrate and move out into society as citizens, they will be able to contribute to the economy. i was curious to see if that had ever been proposed at any point in time or if there is anything in the books? is a very thoughtful comment and suggestion for policymakers to consider. opposed the shotgun approach to immigration. i oppose chain migration. i think we ought to have people here based on merit, based on

the needs of this country. we have tremendous needs. i mention agriculture but there are many sectors of our economy where it is tough to find american workers to do the job. the ones who want to work by the rules, i think the line is quite long and i have always said i am whoing to consider those would join the military, moving them to the front of the line. i think it is a great suggestion. we still need to have a vetting partss and it needs to be -- i don't think you would disagree, it has to be part of the legal immigration process. i do think your idea of military service to expedite that or give preference, all things being considered, being vetted for , id character and loyal

think that is a great idea and something that i have kicked around with. in illinois, independent. he did not answer that question previously from the individual in maryland when he talked about the united states being involved in central america and as a latino who grew up in california and law enforcement, i can tell you your historically inaccurate. we could have stopped immigration 60 years ago. is legalize now but back then he worked in the fields and they had him working in the fields like animals, boarded up in old stables. i saw it. what the united states initially wanted to do was have those folks stay in the fields and be content with that. , as happened in california

it is going to happen in texas, the mexican people got tired of doing that and if you go there and talk to your colleagues, you will see that the mexican people are no longer in the fields. they are from guatemala, nicaragua and other places. nose into their politics and so the mexicans virtually have taken over all of california, the trades. what is happening, we are going to be moving east, meaning as a race and texas is next. arizona, new mexico. that is the fear. not of you necessarily but in general. why can't these people do it right? they need to read history. the accurate because -- be accurate because we did not just come here. i was born here. they're not coming here just because. they were invited by big ag businesses. guest: i appreciate my friend

from the salad bowl as they call it. i am from the cotton belt of west texas. there is some truth to what the gentleman is saying and i appreciate his thoughtful comments. i heard the question earlier about e-verify. a big reason that people are because we illegally are attracting them through matt gertz -- through magnets in employment. we need to fix that so we know who is here. here, pay know who is them commence rick with people being paid in our economy so they are not displacing american workers. we need to make sure that that , that we can get americans to do the job. it is a win-win if you do it legally. if you do it in the shadows,

they are all sorts of abuses that can occur. i would agree with the caller. that is why we need to make sure off forturn the magnets illegal immigration. that is not just employment, it is also social services. we spend over $150 billion as a nation on the illegal population in this country. etc.. care, education, incarceration. $12 billion in texas alone. it is not just public safety. there is an economic cost. if we do it right, we can find where we have needs. it should be based on merit and the people who come here should be treated respectfully and they should be cost -- compensated accordingly. host: we will go to larry in indiana, republican. caller: i have a question about why you don't question these representatives, the democratic representative who was on here

before on how the democrats that were for border security like obama, alllosi, these democrats, they were all for border security and now all of a sudden they are not. these democrats on here asked these questions, but their party was all for that when they were in power now and now that we have a president that wants to do something about it, now they don't want to do anything about it. host: i don't think president obama proposed spending -- it is the amount of money the president trump is proposing to spend, specifically on a border wall. may, and iif i appreciate the question, but when you say i wonder why you are not questioning the democrat who was on before, i was not

here to question her. host: i think he was speaking to why i wasn't. guest: and not to be defensive about it, i do question the democrats like chuck schumer, the leader of the democrats in the senate, where we have the primary problem in getting deals done because of that 60 vote rule that requires that in this case, when you have 51 republicans, you have to get the balance of nine democrats which means you have to have something bipartisan or you will not get anything done. that is something that is lost a lot on american people is that rule imposed by the senate, but i do question chuck schumer and the fact that he supported 700 miles of physical barrier in 2006 and many democrats including senator schumer supported the $1.6 billion for the border wall in the last budget. my point is, if we

philosophically can get there on physical barriers as a component part. all be all wall guy. off, yourn the magnets will solve 90% of the problem because people are coming over for, the majority of them those services, for those jobs, but i do think a physical barrier is an important part. , give the president the resources to do it right. host: representative jodey arrington from texas, thank you for the conversation. we will have to leave it there because you have to get back up to capitol hill. they are about to gavel in. we are expecting votes on this short-term spending bill. thank you very much for the conversation. guest: thank you very much and merry christmas.

always appreciate being on the show. host: the house gaveling in early this morning for their legislative session. they are trying to conquer this short-term spending bill as well as tax extenders and criminal justice reform, also on the table before they head out for their holiday session. we are expecting the house any minute to come through those doors and gavel in. representative jodey arrington, republican of texas, you can follow him. he serves on the budget committee. we want to thank our viewers for watching this morning. we will be back tomorrow morning with more of your phone calls from 7:00 to 10:00 a.m. eastern time. theill be here through weekend, christmas eve, christmas day and new year's day as well.

here is live coverage of the house. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. gracious and merciful god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. as the 115th congress draws near a close, we're reminded by scripture that for everything there is an aa pointed time. a time to