members return at noon eastern here on c-span. >> independent review commission who are honest brokers to decide which offenders should be eligible and which programs should be eligible to -- >> today is the first of two days of confirmation hearings for attorney general nominee william barr. a live look at the hearing which got under way at about 9:30 eastern. we are live with it all day on our companion network c-span3. they are close to taking a break now which will last until about 12:15 eastern. when they continue you will be able to watch all of the proceedings on c-span3, and we will reair the proceedings tonight on the c-span networks. s a republican from pennsylvania and serves on the homeland security foreign affairs committee here to talk about the government shutdown and related matters. good morning to you. as far as the efforts to reopen the federal government. where are we? guest: it is frustrating for

rank-and-file members because we are not involved in the discussion. this is between the leadership of the legislature and the house and senate minority -- minority and majority side and the executive branch of the president. it seems the house keeps coming up with different measures whether it is from the minority or majority, both republicans and democrats and remove that through and the president keeps offering different things, throwing things out there that maybe we would include this or discuss that and we don't see a lot of activity out of the senate and that is frustrating to me and frustrating when you feel like you are negotiating with yourself. i think something will have to be done to break the impasse. both sides see their position as they cannot walk into that middle space and something has to be put under the -- onto the table to allow both sides to see a victory and walk into that middle space.

host: were you a supporter of the shutdown? guest: nobody wants a shutdown, especially when you have people working that are not being paid. private businesses, you cannot do that. why should the federal government be able to have their folks working without being paid? unfortunately, and washington, the only thing that seems to move big issues is tension and controversy and this is a big issue many people have desired some change on and this is what it, unfortunately takes some time to get the -- move the ball down the field. host: did you support the president using a shutdown to get what he wants on border security? securitysupport border being addressed. i prefer it not be done this way. i think congress should have stepped up last session when republicans were in charge of the house. we got 193 votes on a bill i think advanced the interest of the american people on border

security and i went to the speaker and said we are 20 votes away, we ought to get everybody in a room and figured the edges and get it to the senate. back up.not take it no one supports a shutdown that i know of as a means to get things done. it is an unfortunate reality of leverage. host: our guest with us and if you want to ask questions it is 202-748-8000 for democrats. republicans, 202-748-8001. and independents, 202-748-8002. if you are a federal employee and want to give input, 202-748-8003. what do you think of the term national emergency being applied to this? guest: national emergency has been applied 58 or 60 times after the 1970's. a lot of people see this as a national emergency and to a certain -- certain extent, i agree. i am not thrilled with the fact the executive what take it under his purview completely and deal with it, but if we have some

thing happening and cannot get congress to find some way to deal with it, do we say the problem doesn't exist? while it is not the best range of options, i think it is an option and i certainly think the president has the authority based on the law as i read it. i think there will be challenges regarding the funding. that seems to be the question because the border is the purview of homeland security and using military money to do construction will be a question i think it probably have to be decided of course if the president does declare. there is a situation where we have to find some solution, we cannot continue to ignore. we heard overnight another caravan is leaving honduras, san pedro sulu last night or this morning. this will continue and that is one of the caravans -- we hear from border patrol agents the caravan while it focuses attention on the numbers and

where they are coming from -- they deal with that range of infiltration on the border of illegal immigration -- that amount at least every single week. we cannot just continue with the situation we had. host: you spoke to the idea of compromise to resolve these issues. what is acceptable in your mind as far as what the president might be able to offer? guest: we are waiting for democrat offers. when the president said, let's agree to the spending package that reopens the government -- will you then work with us on border security and she said no, absolutely not. i am not sure what can be offered. i have been loza to vote for spending bills that continue to bankrupt our country and that is what both republicans and democrats have done. if we are going to say we will add border security to that.

that is an issue that is pressing and worthy of the suffering, so to speak of overspending you get with that and we have been willing to do that. the president has changed the numbers he has been willing to accept and i have been willing to go there waiting on an offer from the majority party, nancy pelosi, waiting on that offer to see what she will offer and make an evaluation. i haven't seen an offer yet. host: if that included an offer orresolve the issue for daca asylum-seekers, would that be acceptable? guest: it would depend on the details, but that would deserve a close look or consideration. any offer that is made, you have to consider carefully because this is an issue that needs to be resolved and we have two different parties with two different ideas. we have to be willing to have a discussion and so far there doesn't seem to be much of a discussion. host: our first call comes from

st. petersburg, florida. you are on with our guest, representative kustoff of pennsylvania. caller: why do you guys keep saying the democrats don't want border security? that is a lie. stop saying that. of course democrats want border security. and the other thing, what if obama was doing what president trump is doing, would you support this? you are hypocritical. it is disgusting. guest: let me answer the last question first and then i will go to the first one. i already said the favored is not the emergency declaration. my preferred option would be that congress work this out whether president obama or president trump is the president. i have been clear about that. it's not personal for me and i

don't think it is for much members. as far as democrats being for border security, i think they are, but you cannot vote for the policy and not a fund the policy. if you are for border security, the funding comes next and you cannot go out and say we are for it because we voted for the policy and not fund it. the policy without the funding is bankrupt and empty. with that being said, i know we have differences of opinion on what border security means, but i think what the president and many americans are talking about is we have this couple thousand mile border and looking at places according to border patrol -- the top 10 worst places for entry where we want to put some kind of a barrier so we can better use the human capital we have, border patrol at the other places and make sure people that want to come to the united states legally are channeled through the ports of entry as opposed to crossing where there is difficulty and maintaining surveillance and a

presence along that -- vast stretches of open areas. host: our republican line from new york. hello. caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. the democrats just wanted to keep the border open so they can get all these illegals in here and get more votes. they don't want to take over, it's about power. they are a bunch of hypocrites and i think trump should go ahead and build the wall. the hell with them, let them sue him. they will like him more if he doesn't. hillary lost the election and this is all about that. she is never going to be president and that is the name of that game. they are trying to get him back and it will not work. cindy and this caller are indicative of the two sides and there is not a lot of

middle ground. while the president did win the election and that was an issue, i agree we have to do something with the southern border and i support the wall, the barrier, a fence or something where it is needed per border patrol and homeland security. they are the experts and telling us where they's should be done -- this should be done. i don't think the president has the authority to just go and build it and to hell with them, so to speak. this is where congress is supposed to do its work and unfortunately, this is a town about leverage and this is where we are because we are at this impasse. it would be great if we could find something the democrats were interested in as much as republicans or conservatives or people that want to secure that border that way are as interested in to sweeten the deal and i think this is a search for that common ground. what is that thing that brings them to the table and only they know. we keep asking, but they really

know. host: the president talked about the caravan coming in from honduras, saying tell jack and nancy drone flying will not stop them, only a wall will work, only a wall or steel barrier to keep our country safe. one of these ideas is drone technology. what role do they play and could they surpass the need for a physical barrier? guest: they play an important role because it is the eyes and information for the commander, homeland security as a military officer and cavalry officer. this is similar to what we do in the military. just like in the military where airpower cannot hold terrain, it is a force multiplier, it helps you see and helps your advantage. the only thing that holds terrain as is the ash is individuals on the ground or some kind of physical retention. while it is a force multiplier and helps us do better and make decisions faster about where to

move resources and assets, it is not going to -- nobody is going to stop for a drone. nobody is going to stop moving because a drone is watching them. we will know they are there, but somebody has to physically be there to stop them. we have thousands of mile of border and a lot of it is wide open, which is why a barrier is important to make sure it impedes them from crossing without obstruction, but it sends them to points of entry where they can be vetted and we can determine their situation, are they criminal or not or do we have a medical issue important to the united states? evaluate that situation and know who is coming for what purpose and what their estate is. it is not that we don't want immigration. migrate grandmother came here with their shirts off their back from columbia. they came through ellis island and went through the process. a country is not really a

country if it doesn't control who comes and goes for what purposes. host: harrisburg, pennsylvania. democrats line. a barb, hello. caller: good morning. step inthe very next this entire ordeal with immigration -- comprehensive immigration and the border and everything, explain to me. i am retired, i am a former schoolteacher. i watched the senate every day. notdoes mitch mcconnell bring the bill to the floor? how he canerstand dictate the opinions of all the other -- excuse me, senators. i am extremely frustrated. why does mitch mcconnell not simply allow the bill to come to the floor for a vote?

i need a clear explanation from you. guest: okay. we have a frustration with that as well. we passed a bill that had border security funding and it passed closure, but it remains there. we wish he would bring that bill to the floor as well. the other issue is he said he is not bringing anything to the floor that the president will not accept, he will not bring something to the floor without the president's approval and so it requires border security funding at the level the president would sign. that is what he said. i am not running the senate. it is frustration for us because we are working hard in the house with bills being passed. we think there should be hearings and votes in the senate as well. those are the parameters he laid out. host: what would you say to a federal employee affected by the

shutdown, especially those in your state? guest: we lament their situation. we were happy to passed a bill last week that ensures when the shutdown is over they will get back pay, which provides no help in the interim, and we get that, but it provides certainty that once the shutdown is over, they will be paid because in the passed, -- past, it took another vote from congress and signature from the president to make sure they were paid. it is an unfortunate circumstance that comes as coming -- working as a federal employee. it is not appropriate and the federal government should be no different than any other private employer where people are working and you have to pay your people that are working, but this is the circumstance where these things happen. statementsou make about preparedness going into the shutdown? guest: it was a long conversation and it is taken out of context that way, we lament every single employee not being

paid, but it is just like working -- i think about a company close to home where the controller was stealing from the company in about a span of a couple days, the whole company was out of business. all those employees were gone. it is hard to prepare for those things, but it is an eventuality for everybody whether you work in the private sector or the public sector. host: there are members of congress who said they won't take salaries. where do you fall on that? guest: i have had my salary withheld because i stand with -- in solidarity with the folks working and not being paid. host: the house and senate are supposed to take next week off for the martin luther king jr. holiday. will that still take place? mlk day itably on will. i suggest we come back in. the optics are really horrific that you are out.

to be clear, members are working in their district during that time. it is not that they are on vacation. this is a critical time where federal employees are on the job not being paid and we should be here trying to solve that impasse as quickly as possible. any sense of have whether that whole week will take place or partial week? ? guest: i have heard some rumors and we should be here. i have heard some rumors we might be coming back early, right after the holiday itself. i cannot be sure. host: independent line from virginia. ed, hello. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would like to make a couple comments, first about the shutdown and the children that cause the shutdown, the children that occupy the building behind you. let's say this goes three or four weeks, the next time one of

the children, be it the one at 1600 pennsylvania avenue or whatever child decides they want to close the government -- if this is a four week shutdown, we pay our government employees four weeks in advance and say go sit home while we argue over something as simple as building a structure to protect our country. i don't support donald trump read i did not vote for him and did not vote for the other clown that ran either. it seems like we can take one issue. one issue, this border that runs san brownsville, texas, to diego, california and figure out how to do this. caller: we will let our -- host: we will let our guest respond. guest: to a certain extent, i agree. it seems crazy we are negotiating over our security. security is what it is.

i guess we are arguing over the subtleties of how we get this done. right now what we seem to be fussing over is due we continue with the status quo or change something? withide wants to continue the status quo and the other wants to change something. we should be able to work these things out. this didn't just occur today. this has been years in the making of this discord and disagreement and this president has said this is vital enough, critical enough, and emergency enough that he is not going to walk away from the table without some kind of solution set. we need both sides to come to the table and not just him offering what other -- whatever solutions he might offer and try to work toward the middle. it seems to me we are not seeing many offers on the security itself. we are seeing offers to open the government, but we don't see

offers on differences in securing the border and that is what the discussion is all about. host: from iowa, democrats line. caller: i would like to ask mr. perry if he knows what reagan is famous for saying to gorbachev. guest: mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall. sure. the difference is that wall was meant to keep people in because you had an oppressive government. it is wholly different when you are securing your border from things like fentanyl abuse and the counties in pennsylvania, we have two people overdosing a week in two or three counties. we've got the human trafficking issue and the fact that these cartels -- they don't just traffic in drugs, they trafficking humans and the story -- stories we hear about the people who pay, the rape trees and murders and the fact one of the most powerful nations on the planet cannot secure their

-- literally trafficking humans in the 21st century, we should be on the side. mexico is a great country that has many of the same resources america has. it has two notions on either side, a prosperous nation to its north and prosperous nations to it south, it should be in a great position except for crime and cartel. we should help them solve that problem and i think that would help solve our problem. we cannot say we are not going to have control on the border, which in many cases is nothing, just a line on the map people come across and say that is any kind of control of crime, drugs, trafficking and we cannot turn our face to that. host: from leo in illinois, republican line. caller: yes, good morning. this is very important. i have two points to make.

our -- the statue of liberty. we still need better border .ecurity oftrust american soldiers security. why can't we establish a 24 hour border watch system. we can build outposts all along the border and add technologies like security drone cameras, people detecting border crossing contrabands, detection technologies and extra border security personnel. all of these things -- put some tv's there and cd players and microwave ovens and a bath and a shower so they can work three

shifts so that solves the problem for both democrats and republicans. host: thank you, caller. guest: the border package includes physical structures on as 10 worst crossing points described by border security and also provides medical support for migrants coming to the morer, also provides border patrol agents and asylum judges to adjudicate the situation. the circumstance remains we have a couple thousand mile border and we have finite resources like everyone else. we are trying to optimize the resources we have by making sure when people come, they go to the right places. if they seek to come illegally, they will avoid the right place and go where there is a minimum of eyes watching and people there to interdict them. what we are trying to do is maximize our resource by making those off limit places where people are crossing illegally

then to goivation is to the place where you can be adjudicated properly and also to stop the cartels from exploiting these weaknesses in the american border and exploiting the people. they exploit those people. this trip is not an easy trip and the things that happen to a lot of these people, 30% of the women suffer sexual assault. that is from the cartels and the people along this route. those things don't generally happen at the ports of entry, they have been people are crossing illegally. we are trying to maximize the resources we have by encouraging people to go to the right place and discouraging cartels from trafficking humans across these other places. host: what did you make of the decision by house minority leadership to remove committee assignments from stephen king? guest: these statements are troubling and not statements i would make and i think the

majority leader is taking the right step. this is not who we are as american people and these statements are very troubling and there have to be consequences for those things. host: there are two democrats planning a center vote. if that comes to light, how should -- would you vote? guest: mr. king should have his day to explain, but he has to be sensitive to the circumstances and the times and people's feelings. he should have his day, but we will look at the facts and vote accordingly. host: >> and the u.s. house is just moments away from returning for legislative work today. there are eight bills on the agenda, including measures to open the federal government and another rebuking iowa republican congressman steve king for his recent remarks. live coverage continuing in a few moments at noon eastern here on c-span. elsewhere, attorney general nominee william barr is being questioned by the senate

judiciary committee as they seek to confirm him. they are in a short break right now. you can watch live coverage on c-span3 in about 15 minutes when they return. if you miss any of it, it will reair at 9:00 eastern on c-span. here's a brief portion from earlier today. >> now, let me address a few matters i know are on the minds of some of the members of this committee. first, i believe it is vitally important that the special counsel be allowed to complete his investigation. i have known bob mueller for 30 years. we worked closely together throughout my previous tenure at the department of justice. we've been friends since, and i have the utmost respect for bob and his distinguished record of public service. and when he was named special counsel i said his selection was good news and that knowing him, i had confidence he would handle the matter properly, and i still have that confidence today.

given his public actions to date, i expect the special counsel is well along in his investigation. at the same time the president has been steadfast that he was not involved in any conclusion with russian attempts to interfere in the election. i believe it is in the best interest of everyone, the president, congress, and the american people that this matter be resolved by allowing the special counsel to complete his work. the country needs a credible resolution to these issues, and if confirmed, i will not permit partisan politician, personal interests, or any other improper consideration to interfere with this or any other investigation. i will follow the special counsel regulation scrupulously and in good faith and on my watch, bob will be allowed to finish his work. second, i also believe it is

very important that the public and congress be informed of the results of the special counsel's work. my goal will be to provide as much transparency as i can consistent with the law. i can assure you that where judgments were to be made, i would make those judgments based solely on the law, and i will not let personal, political, or other improper interests influence my decision. third, i would like to briefly address the memorandum that i wrote last june. i wrote the memo as a former attorney general who has often weighed in on legal issues of public importance, and i distributed it broadly so that other lawyers would have the benefit of my views. my memo was narrow, explaining my thinking on a specific obstruction of justice theory under a single statute that i thought, based on media reports, the special counsel might be considering. the memo did not address or in

any other way question the special counsel's core investigation into russian efforts to interfere in the election. nor did it address other potential obstruction of justice theories or argue that some have wrongly suggested that a president can never obstruct justice. i wrote it myself on my own initiative without any assistance and based solely on public information. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies, and today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c., and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. >> the house is about to gavel

in to debate a bill that would open the federal government through february 1 and another condemning white nationalism and white supremacy following iowa republican steve king's latest remarks. live now to the floor of the house on c-span.