announcer: coming up tonight on c-span, the latest on border security negotiations, starting with nancy pelosi at her weekly legislative briefing, followed by donald trump talking about the state of negotiations from the oval office. and later, i look at efforts to combat counterfeit medicines and illegal drugs. at her weekly-- news conference, house speaker nancy pelosi told reporters that border wall funding would not be included in any border security legislation. until february 15 to reach bipartisan agreement before temporary funding expires for the homeland security department and other agencies. from capitol hill, this is 20 minutes.

>> so here we are. thank god government is open again and we can negotiate on the best way to have border security and enforce our homeland security goals. and i hopeimportant, any shutdown will be taken off the table as a reasonable approach to governance. it had terrible impacts, as you know, in the lives of the families affected by our federal employees who were not receiving their paychecks in a timely fashion by their communities.

since the paychecks were not coming, the communities suffered as well. individual economies were also impacted. there was an impact on the national economy as well in terms of the gdp growth. it was harmful to our veterans, many of whom are federal employees, a third of our federal employees are veterans. many of them have their jobs because they have security clearance, and security clearance is affected by your creditrating, and your rating is affected by your ability to pay your bills on time. it was such a negative impact and hopefully we can do something to help our they are notecause getting paid under the present formulation of things. there are some initiatives help them,ard to especially our lower paid contractors.

we know what the consequences of a shutdown are. floor,ay we had on the one of them who said that the shutdown is wrong. when under 63 republicans voted no to a resolution that said shutdowns are wrong. 163 voted no. yes on of them voted that. then there was a federal employee a raise to make their pay consistent with federal pay for the military, and only 29 voted yes on that. 161 -- 163 voted know that shutdowns are wrong, and 161 voted know that federal gettings should be

a pay increase. that is unfortunate. what is fortunate is that we have a conference committee that is working in, i think, good spirits. the opening statements yesterday i think were promising. the house and senate, democrats and republicans. again, as an appropriator, i take pride in the ability of the appropriations members to reach a consensus left to their own devices without any other interference. i look to them for guidance. they know their brief. they know the dollar amounts, they know the impact of investment and many of them have experienced this. i was very proud of our

conferees, including a relatively new member, mr. aguilar, because he is the vice chair of the appropriations committee in the house and he is therefore one of the fewer than five term members. we had every aspect of our caucus represented there. the border security, those members, those six conferees came forward in a conference about border security and put forth what they saw as the best and most cost-effective way to have border security. they talked about 1000 new customs officers, new imaging technology and critical repairs at the land ports of entry. as you know, 90% of whatever comes into our country comes in the southern border through the ports of entry, whether it is asylum-seekers, or whether it is jugs and the rest of that, so having more funding to repair and expand the ports of entry is very important. the technology that goes with that, nonintrusive scanning of cars and trucks, they can go

right through without stopping. improved technology, it's important. at mailw equipment processing facilities to stop coming in their international mail, that is a big issue for us. it's not only cutting this down but at ports of entry and other places along the border. the borderssion of patrol, air and marine operations along the border and u.s. waters. this is not the total package, but those are some of the major , i would discussion hope, as we go forward now. but i was pleased yesterday, i thought everybody was of good intention. that is the way the appropriations committee usually works. as this all goes on, we have been, since the election, preparing for the people's

agenda, lowering health care costs by lowering the cost of prescription drugs and ensuring the pre-existing condition benefits continue. also increasing the paychecks by building infrastructure of american greenways, from sea to shining sea and hr-1 which is along, to increase the voices of the american people so they know that the people's agenda will happen, and not the special interest agenda. the paycheck fairness had a hearing yesterday. -- it was we also had the 10th anniversary of president obama signing the lily ledbetter act. one of the first bills we sent as a democratic congress to our newly inaugurated democratic president of the united states. his trust bill was to sign the lily ledbetter act, which opened

the door to more fairness in the workplace. but it was not paycheck fairness completely. anniversary, any rosa delauro introduced it and times,e so a number of when we had the majority, we could not get the 60 votes in the senate, so it was never taken up. patty murray is a cosponsor. the lead sponsor in the senate on that. yesterday was the 10th anniversary. april 2 is equal pay day. that is the day in which women start to get paid for their work for the year as opposed to what men make for the year so we hope this bill would be signed into law by that day. all of part of the for the people agenda for bigger paychecks, lower health care costs, more integrity in government. any questions?

yes ma'am? you have the blue sign today. [laughter] reporter: we match. during the shutdown, we heard president trump offering to provide three years of protection for daca recipients. i am wondering if that is being discussed, or are d.r.e.a.m.e.r.s. getting lost in all of this? rep. pelosi: let me clarify what the president did. the d.r.e.a.m.e.r.s. are twice the number of the daca recipients. so in his comments, he said he wanted to protect the daca. what he did was take the projections a way that daca had, the temporary should for t.p.s. had, and took away the initiative by president obama to

facilitate amnesty. he took those away, then he said , i am going to give these back to you temporarily, if you give me a wall. he shouldn't have taken them away in the first place. these protections were there until you decided to take them away. so now you're going to come back and say, i will give them back to you for three years? that is not protection. protection is something that has certainty to it. so i was really disappointing. having said that about what the these -- did, i take these are protections that exist , i will take them away, i will give them to you temporarily, you give me a wall permanently nonstarter. and then in terms of this negotiation. it is up to the contraries to negotiate, but the point is,

what is the best way to protect our border? and you have heard some of the ideas, many of which the president talked about in that speech as well. 90% of what we are concerned about, whether it is drugs or whatever, comes through the ports of entry. let's make them stronger and go with it so we can facilitate resume, and immigration, -- commerce, security, immigration and first and foremost, security. reporter: you said the committee should be left to its own devices. are you the product is, committed to allowing a floor vote, whatever conference agreement they have? rep. pelosi: if they come out with a bipartisan consensus, of course. reporter: would that include border wall money, though? rep. pelosi: they are having a negotiation.

there will not be any wall money in the legislation. however, if they have some suggestions about certain technology,here infrastructure about the ports of entry, maybe we might need more ports of entry, that is part of the negotiation. what did he say today -- doesn't matter what congress does? i knew that he wanted it all to himself. really? a president who wants to have congress be completely irrelevant in how we meet the needs of the american people? no. come on. let them work. i am an appropriator. that is one of the places i was forged.

intelligence and appropriations. , theyey know their brief know their limitations in terms of financial resources, and they have to choose the best way to use the money for the american people. that is why i have confidence in what they can do. reporter: mr. mcconnell indicated he might be open to supporting legislation to end of a government shutdown. would you support legislation to effectively outlaw government shutdowns? yes, but there are so many possibilities on the table to i don't think that should be part of this agreement , because there is no consensus as to what that would be. if there is a consensus, maybe it could be. just so you know, in order to have a bill signed by the president by three weeks, we have to have a signed conference report when it's friday. a signedy have --

conference report by this friday. so they have to get this done, in order for them to bring it to the floor and have it on the president's desk. to the extent of it we can keep it simple -- what is this about? it is about border security, homeland security, which is a bigger issue, and it is about the six other bills that need to be passed in order to completely open up government but which are not controversial. and again, i feel confident about the ability of congress to do the right thing in that, respecting the differences of opinion. but that is what an negotiation is about. so, could there be a consensus? i know at least 30 versions of the story. he have to have consensus. people it simple is something that the be injected there, but certainly, we shouldn't have any more shutdowns.

reporter: we always talk about the diversity of viewpoints. there are pro-life democrats in your group. comments from governor north am yesterday, how does it make it harder for pro-life democrats in the party? rep. pelosi: i am sorry, i just don't know what he said yesterday. are you going to ask a new question, or is it just going to be the same old, same old? [laughter] reporter: the question is what does vladimir putin have on the president? politically, personally, or financially? do you believe someone has something compromising on the president? rep. pelosi: i think it is a question, and by the way come i have been asking the question for two years. almost as much as you have asked me if there is money for a wall in the bell. [laughter] what is it? something is wrong in this picture.

reporter: are you planning to take further action given that there are discrepancies between the president and intelligence advisers when it comes to global hotspots? rep. pelosi: law, i think what the public saw this week was that the president has not paid attention to the intelligence that has been given to him on many of these subjects. i thought it was courageous that different heads of different aspects of our intelligence community spoke truth to the country and to power. their opening statements are usually vetted by the white house. statements,e their and also, the answered the question. adam schiffoud of and the members of the

intelligence committee as to when they will have that particular presentation made to the house intelligence committee forum.n it was stunning. and as i said, as one who started in the early 1990's as an appropriator and then went on inserve as a ranking member the job that adam schiff had chairman, ande then as a annex official of the house, i track this closely. of it all isst that the president doesn't seem to have the attention span or the desire to hear what the intelligence committee has been telling him. so for him to make the statement he made yesterday, that is cause for concern.

reporter: what about their investigations of that? rep. pelosi: i think it is important for republicans in congress to recognize that they need to weigh in with the president and say, you can't act without knowledge. the intelligence community is there to be a protection for the american people. when i started all those years ago, it was about force protection -- it was about other overarching issues -- money laundering and in those kinds of things, and how the affected our security, but then, of course, the antiterrorism initiative in the 1990's emerged. and you know much of what is happened since then. it is a real protection for us, to keep us from having to go in and initiate hostilities, or if we do, to make sure that we have the intelligence to protect our men and women in uniform, and also to fight terrorism in its

many forms. ,o for the president to say almost, again, we don't need congress, and i know more about what is happening in our threats in the world, than the intelligence community, even though i haven't paid attention when people have described it to me, that is a cause for concern, and i would hope the republicans in congress would either have an intervention with the president about that, or facesize the problems he to our country, and take some congressional action. isporters shouting questions market rep. pelosi: last one. reporter: thank you, mr. speaker. do you agree with the democratic caucus when they say that enhanced spending should be on the table during these negotiations? rep. pelosi: i did not hear the

comments, but did you see the presentation yesterday of henry cuellar of texas? he is the only border person. all of california is a border represents laredo and surrounding areas in texas. and he showed the border. many places on the border, there are cliffs, there is a river, are 600 miles of something. are -- 300 miles of this. so that cars can't go by. if the president wants to call that a wall, he can call it a wall. he keeps referencing that we are to have almost 700 miles a wall. again, is a place with enhanced fencing, normandy fencing. let them have the discussion,

because it is all about two analysis.cost-benefit what is the best way, what you get for your dollar in order to protect the border? about, and this will be coming up if he takes some extra dinner action, the opportunity cost -- if he takes some extraordinary action, the opportunity cost of the money. if the money can be used to better for technology, then let us see. and by the way, when some of these fences were built, the technology was not what it is today. so you have to look at technology in a new form, just as we say that should we all just get land lines in our home, we have smart phones. well, what should we be doing on the border, like a landline versus the technology that our

personnel on the border should have? what they are talking about is more personnel, enhancement of ports of entry, which would require construction. we already had that in the bill we passed last week that went under the department of treasury appropriations bill, because it is gsa and all that stuff. let our negotiators see the there only about 30 miles left if you saw mr. henry cuellar's presentation of the -- miles, and a lot of it let's the cars go by -- it lets the cars go by. thank you all very much. [cameras shattering]