she'll be with us in a minute. peter alexander is at the white house. chris matthews, host of "hardball," he's with us as well. and msnbc contributor robert costa. they are all set up to go with us for the next hour as this vote gets ready. we're going to start with chris matthews, my colleague here. chris, you know capitol hill very well. you've seen consequential votes before. in the next few minutes, we saw on friday night they were nine votes short of having the government reopen. we've just had the democrats and republicans meet. what do you think is going to happen? >> well, you know, it's all about daca. it's about the dreamers. the democrats have committed to these young people. they want them to stay in the country. they want the law to leave them alone and give them a path to citizenship. and the republicans don't agree. you know, i was up at a big football game in philadelphia last night. little bit of conversation there was about politics was about that. i think that it's about choosing

sides. the democrats are going to stick to this fight. they're going to try to get a commitment from mcconnell, the republican leader. they give them a vote in the next couple weeks on daca. they want to get a commitment from him. can they trust him? can chuck schumer trust him? can enough democrats trust him that there will be a vote that they can move on with the government. i think that's the key question tonight. steve, will they get a commitment from mcconnell that's enough for them to stop the fight. >> yeah, and chris, obviously please stay with us throughout the vote, throughout the hour. let me set up for folks at home exactly what's about to play out on the senate floor and what we're looking for. on friday night, the vote to keep the government open that failed, that caused this shutdown, the number there was 51. there were 51 votes to open the government on friday night. they need 60. so they were nine short for passage on friday night. what we are going to be looking for in the next few minutes when this vote comes in are two things. number one, how many more democrats. there were five on friday night who crossed o every and voted with the republicans.

how many more are going to vote yes today, are going to feel, as chris said, they have those assurances on daca. these are the ones we're keeping a close eye on. coons in delaware. heitkamp from north dakota. she was there voting yes on friday. you have tim kaine from virginia. tester from montana. he's up for re-election in a red state. we're going to see how many can the republicans peel off to vote for that. also, the other question was there were four republicans on friday noo igt who voted to shut down the government. it looks like lindsey graham, jeff flake, they may be switching. that could add two more. the other two, lee from utah, paul from kentucky, maybe a different story there. so again, nine additional votes is what it would take to get the government open here. there were 51 on friday. that's what we're going to see happen on the senate floor in the next few minutes, if they hit that number. my colleague kasie hunt has been hustling up there on capitol hill, trying to figure out how

this is going to go. what do you have? >> reporter: forgive me, steve p i'm not exactly sure where you are as far as what you've told our viewers about the latest here. we can say nbc news has confirmed that democrats at this point are going to give republicans enough votes to reopen the government today. they have 60 votes. democrats were huddling inside the caucus room over in the capitol. i came straight over from there. i've talked to one source who was inside that room, another who has been in constant touch with those who were meeting inside the room. again, this was a senators only meeting. and while chuck schumer went right by all of us reporters and said, look, you're going to find out pretty soon what we're going to do, at this point we do have what i would say is a pretty seismic shift from just a couple of hours ago. this morning as we were on the air, the thinking was, no way, this vote was going to fail again. we were going to be at the stalemate again. but over the course of the

morning, there were bipartisan talks from members, both parties, mostly what i would describe as to the extent we still have a moderate middle in the u.s. senate these days, those were the people that were in the room. i think the increasing sense kind of hour to hour here is that this is bad for everybody. everybody was losing this. and everybody wanted to get to a point where they could vote to say, okay, we're going to reopen the government. so what did that take? we're still waiting to kind of report out some of the details of exactly what was discussed in that meeting, what it was the democrats felt they heard from senator mitch mcconnell that was different from what they were hearing last night. i think there was a lot of focus on the word intend. mitch mcconnell saying i intend to put an immigration bill on the floor after february 8th if we don't have a deal, a broad deal that includes support from the president. there were some democrats that were interpreting that as a little too squishy, not firm enough, and potentially opening

the door for mcconnell to put something on the floor they could not support. there seems to be a shift in the conversation around what mcconnell said on the floor this morning where he committed to a neutral process with open amendments and said that he would make no commitments on the base text of the bill. so that's essentially code for, okay, i will be open to adjusting that text in a way that will fulfill this promise that i am making instead of saying -- it was framed to me by one source as just forcing a bill from tom cotton, he's become something of a villain in democratic eyes throughout the process. it's not just going to be a cotton bill with a closed amendment process that goes through the senate. they're actually going to get a bill that potentially democrats could sign on to. the reality is they're going to need 60 votes for an immigration bill. so one question i have going forward, another demand from democrats was, hey, we really want to see you attach the immigration provisions, a fix for the dreamers, to a bill that absolutely has to pass. so a spending bill, in theory,

that we saw held up in in close government. that would potentially protect these immigration provisions from the hardline conservatives in the house. there's still a pretty significant and important line of thinking that the house potentially will sink anything that the senate sends their way and that the president will have to be bought into whatever is going on on the house side. otherwise, people like mark meadows, jim jordan, that will snowball and potentially sink legislation there. so again, steve, i want to take a step back and refocus on what has caused this, what are the stakes for those dreamers, those kids who on march 5th are potentially losing their status. this is why democrats brought us to this point. this has been why the conversation that they've been trying to force. at this point, they're still in limbo. we don't exactly know how the process is going to play out, but we do know mitch mcconnell has made a very public statement

that is good enough for at least enough democrats. we're going to be watching that vote count pretty closely. my bet here is you will probably see some democrats continuing to hold out or at least that was my latest reporting as i came over here. certainly potential things have evolved in the minutes since i've been standing here at this camera instead of over -- we're not allowed, unfortunately, to have our cameras right outside of the senate floor. but i do think it's going to be a relatively overwhelming vote from people who i would describe as being, you know, maybe lifelong or at least very committed members of the senate as an institution. there are many here, as i know you and i have talked about on the haair previously, who have 2020 presidential ambitions. there are others who, quite frankly, have either been in this body for a long time or plan to be here for a long time. i think there's an interest from everybody that this place get working again. i have to tell you, just being up here the last couple of days, i don't remember the last time i stood outside of a bipartisan

meeting where something was getting hashed out. that was the story, you know, a few years ago when i was first covering capitol hill. that was how things happened here, and they would come out and say, hey, we've cracked a deal. but it hasn't been how business has been operating lately. it's all been conversations among republicans or among democrats. so a real breakthrough here, steve. we'll see what the house is going to do later on today. i would say assuming that, you know, this moves as quickly as we think it's going to, the house could vote later on this afternoon, and we could see government reopen. >> okay. kasie hunt with the latest on capitol hill . again, waiting for this vote on the senate floor. we'll keep monitoring the senate floor. let's find out more about the contours of this deal, about what would come next if, in fact, this vote does reopen the government in the next few minutes. sounds like the government would then be open at least through february 8th. there's some sort of assurance for democrats that mitch mcconnell and the senate republicans would have the process in place there to have legislation considered on the status of the dreamers. but again, that raises lots of questions. what exactly would that process

produce in the senate? and what would happen in the house? the house would still have to pass that. that raises the question of president trump's role in all this. peter alexander is at the white house. peter, look, this weekend as th this shutdown played out, the president was active on twitter, not on television, not at public events. if those terms emerge from the senate ultimately, a big question here is can you get a daca plan through the conservative republican house? the president would have to play a role there. do we know if the white house is on board with that? >> yeah, steve, that's a good question. that is the outstanding question, assuming, as kasie reports, that the democrats will give republicans enough votes to reopen the government. to give you a little color behind the scenes, the marine guard is standing in front of the west wing, which means the president is in the oval office, the first time we've seen that guard out there. the president is at work right now. behind the scenes upstairs in the west wing, in the press

seco secretary's office, there are advisers and aides gathered, keeping a close eye on what's happening. one white house official telling us, in effect, that they're not yet spiking the football. they want to see the way this plays out. the bottom line and real challenge for republicans and democrats is where the president stands on this. we, as you know, the president has in effect been missing in action since late last week when he had chuck schumer come over to the office. we didn't see him publicly at all this weekend, no public statements. there are a couple photos released by the white house. we're told that he spoke exclusively to republicans and members of his cabinet to discuss the exact on their agencies over the course of this. is he going to speak to house leadership as well and say, hey, effectively what he said in that meeting that took place in the roosevelt room, the cabinet meeting a week ago, saying if you put something good in front of me, a bill, i'm going to support that bill.

i want you guys to come to terms on it. the challenge for those conservatives in the house right now is they've obviously pushed back on these immigration reform efforts in the past, and if the president's not going to support it, why are they going to put their name behind a yes on that. that's really where it stands. that's what we're going to be pressing them on over the course of this afternoon. the president today on twitter again going after the democrats the same way the public comment line at the white house accuses democrats of holding the government effectively hostage. and frankly, not too dissimilarly from a new incendiary ad out that accuses democrats, saying they would be complicit for murders committed by illegal immigrants if they do not act on this in some form and be tougher on border security going forward. so there has consistently been tough talk on immigration. the question, will the president be more conciliatory moving forward. >> all right, peter alexander at the white house. again, those scenes you're seeing on the left-hand side of your screen there, live on the senate floor. buzzing with activity. word here of a deal that would

reopen the government. if that deal does hold up, that'll happen in the next few minutes. a vote will take place there on the senate floor to reopen the government. at least it sounds like through february 8th, about a three-week extension. that vote is imminent. we're going to continue to keep a very close eye, obviously bring it to you live as it happens. as we wait for that, let me bring in robert costa. he's spent the weekend probably without sleep there on capitol hill monitoring all of this. if what we're hearing from kasie hunt is what plays out, that there's a vote to reopen the government, that there's some sort of process to have daca legislation put in place in the senate, is that something democrats feel confident they're going to get to their end game on daca on, or is this a democratic party that maybe looked around over the weekend and say it's not everything we want, but the politics are tricky, it's the best we're going to get? >> one battle may end in the next few minutes in the sense that the government could move towards reopening. this bill would come over to the house.

at the same time, the war has not ended. the political war between republicans and democrats is expected to continue. democrats see an opening here to really press leader mcconnell to bring up an immigration vote. if he does not, they'll say you pledged that you would move in some way and maybe we could have another shutdown impasse in february. >> but robert, quickly, is the pledge here, as you understand is from mcconnell, to do the vote before february 8th, or is it just to do the vote at some point that could be after february 8th? >> there's an understanding that maybe the vote could move sometime before february 8th, but mcconnell continues to insist that the government must remain open if that kind of process is going to begin. so it's really a question of nuance here, but democrats feel a lot of pressure. that's why you see movement today. >> chris, you set this up at the top. the question for democrats is on this issue of daca, the big sticking point here, are they getting what they wanted. what you're hearing in terms of

a deal, we don't know if it could get through the house. we don't know the timetable in the senate. we don't even know what the final product will be in the senate. is that enough for democrats to reopen the government based on what you were saying earlier? >> the more progressive side of the party, bernie sanders, et cetera, they're not going to be happy until they get daca passed into law. all these commitments are risky on the part of chuck schumer and the moderates. if the moderates are facing re-election challenges and going along with this, they have it be hopeful at least they're going to get legislation. how a bill becomes law. this time it's going to have to go from leader mcconnell to the president and then to the house and then to law. this is a tricky road they have to go. and they don't go that road, the people on the democratic left, if you will, the progressive side of the party will say we told you so. you moderates sold us out. so i think this is a division within the democratic party we're going to see today and maybe within the vote itself, where a lot of the democrats, no matter what deal schumer went along with or the moderates went

along with, the people in the very progressive side are going to say, no way, i'm not going to vote for this because i want a guarantee of daca, and if they're not trekkeprotected, i'g to say i told you so. >> let me bring in andy card, former chief of staff under president bush. thank you for joining us. the politics of the republican party become very important here in terms of daca and the house, specifically the house. we saw this a few years ago on this idea of comprehensive immigration reform. about five years ago it passed the senate with bipartisan support, but the republican house then decided they wanted nothing to do with it, and it died right there. so if the government reopens here and some legislation on daca does emerge from the senate, what about those republicans in the house? what about those hard liners? can they be moved to vote for a daca fix? >> well, first of all, the democrats are the ones that gave us a shutdown. the democrats have to be part of the solution to move on. i'm glad they're appeased to be

some recognition among the democrats that they cannot afford to keep the government shut down. i'm glad they're going that. i hope they'll do it in the vote in the next few minutes and get it done. then the channllenge will be to work on daca legislation. there is no bill. they've got to work on a bill. that is something that has to be done. it should take time. it's an important issue that i think leader mcconnell is appropriate in saying we're going to give you time to get a bill. we'll give you a commitment that there will be a vote and a bill. of course, there was always going to be a bill because daca doesn't expire until march. so the pressure is on. i think the pleasure is on to do it in a timely fashion and get it done. obviously i think it would be best if it's done around february 8th at the latest so that we don't have to play this game again. but let's legislate, and i think that's what's happening right now. both sides are recognizing that they have a duty on the hill, capitol hill, to work and get government reopened. i think they're going to do that. the president has been a big player, not a major player, over

the course of the last few hours, i would suspect. i think this has all been an effort on capitol hill, recognizing its responsibility, specific on the senate side, to try to get something done. i give credit to leader mcconnell. >> all right. and we again are keeping an eye on the scene o n that senate floor. we are expecting a vote in the next few minutes to reopen the government. chuck schumer is now apparently on the senate floor. let's take a listen. >> now, today we drink seltzer. today we enter the third day of the trump shutdown, the first ever real shutdown to occur when one party controls the entire legislative process. the republican party controls the house, the senate, the presidency, and yet they were unable to keep the government open for the american people.

leader mcconnell knows it takes 60 votes to win passage of a spending bill, and yet he moved forward with a last-minute extension that he knew lacked the votes. both democrats and republicans voted against that bill. the reason the republican majority had such difficulty finding consensus is they could never get a firm grip on what the president of their party wanted to do. these days you never know who to deal with when it comes to the republicans. the republican leaders told me to work out a deal with the white house. the white house said work it out with republican leaders on the hill. separately, president trump turned away from not one but two bipartisan compromises. each would have averted this shutdown. each would have led to a deal on

the budget. and health care and disaster aid and things like opioids and veterans and pensions and on immigration. my recent offer to the president was a generous one. i put his signature campaign issue on the table in exchange for daca, and still he turned away. president trump's unwillingness to compromise caused the trump shutdown and brought us to this moment. the facts are well known. now i wish to update the senate on where things stand after this weekend. since our meeting in the oval office on friday, the president and i have not spoken. and the white house refused to engage in negotiations over the weekend. the great deal-making president sat on the sidelines. despite and because of this frustration, i've been having

conversations with the republican leader over the weekend about a path forward. after several discussions, offers, counteroffers, the republican leader and i have come to an arrangement. we will vote today to reopen the government to continue negotiating a global agreement with the commitment that if an agreement isn't reached by february the 8th, the senate will immediately proceed to consideration of legislation dealing with daca. the process will be neutral and fair to all sides. we expect that a bipartisan bill on daca will receive fair consideration and an up or down vote on the floor. now, it's a shame, mr. president, that the american people and the senate have had to endure such hand wringing,

finger pointing tstridency. it is something the majority could have avoided entirely, a concern the president could have obviated if he were only willing to take yes for an answer. while this procedure will not satisfy everyone on both sides, it's a way forward. i'm confident we can get the 60 votes in the senate for a daca bill. and now there is a real pathway to get a bill on the floor and through the senate. it is a good solution, and i will vote for it. i'm incredibly grateful to the bipartisan group that has come together in recent days to renew the immigration debate with a sense of urgency. there you are. i believe that this group has

the potential to return the senate to the kind of place it should be on the issue of immigration, a place for bipartisanship, a place for action, a place for achievement. the bipartisan group, in a very fine way, filled the glaring absence of the president in these talks. i expect the majority leader to fulfill his commitment to the senate, to me and to the bipartisan group, and abide by this agreement. if he does not, of course, and i expect he will, he will have breached the trust of not only the democratic senators but members of his own party as well. through these complicated and lengthy negotiations, democrats have always sought to be reasonable, to act in good

faith, and get something real done. despite all of our treaties, the president was obstinate. the senate has muddled along for too long, content to delay action on our most pressing challenges until the very last moment. that ends today. the republican majority now has 17 days to prevent the dreamers from being deported. mr. president, we have a way to address the fate of the dreamers starting right now, instead of waiting until march, with the minority and the moderate middle in power to bring a bill to the floor, instead of being held by the most strident anti-immigration voices in the republican caucus.

and we, on our side of the aisle, will continue to fight as strongly as we can for the dreamers in the weeks ahead. i say to all americans, urge your senators to vote yes on the bipartisan compromise when it comes forward. write, tweet, e-mail, phone, visit, do everything you can so we can finally pass this bill. in a few hours, the government will reopen. we have a lot to do. the issue of the dreamers demands resolution. a budget must be written. health care has to be addressed. relief provided to disaster-stricken parts of our country, pensions and opioids, veterans, childcare all have to be taken care of. the trump shutdown will soon end. but the work must go on.

and it will. thank you and i yield the floor. >> well, that was senate democratic leader schumer of new york. what a dramatic moment for him to say there will be a deal. he will deliver 60 senators to end the closing of government, bring government back to life this afternoon. let's go to mcconnell to hear the response from the republicans. >> i think if we've learned anything during this process, it's that a strategy to shut down the government over the issue of illegal immigration is something american people didn't understand and would not have understood in the future. so i'm glad we've gotten past that and we have a chance to get back to work and therefore, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory de r

decorum call be waived. >> is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. >> cloture motion. we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to concur with a further amendment in the house amendment to the senate amendment to hr-195 signed by 17 senators. >> by unanimous consent, the mandato mandatory decorum call has been waived. the house amendment to the senate amendment to hr-195 with a further amendment shall be brought to a close. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. president, before we call the roll, i ask unanimous consent that the democratic whip be allowed to address the chamber for three minutes with

the gracious approval of the majority leader. >> is there objection? without objection. >> mr. president, let me thank you very much and thank the majority leader for this opportunity. and let me thank my friend, my colleague, and our leader on the democratic side for his passionate personal commitment to this issue involving the dreamers and daca. he has been by my side, and i've been inspired by his leadership from the start. and let me thank my colleagues. so many of you cast a vote that was very hard and very difficult because you believed as i did that the issue of immigration, the issue of the dreamers is a civil rights issue of our time. you stuck your necks out and said i'm willing to go on record, even if it's going to be hard to explain back home, and i will never forget that. the question now is how we move forward. what i have seen here on the floor of the senate in the last few days is something we have not seen for years.

constructive bipartisan conversations and dialogue on the floor, not just about this issue, which is obviously front and center, but about the future of this institution and what the senate will be from this point forward. that, to me, has been encouraging because it says to me that we do have an opportunity to work together. my special thanks to senator susan collins, my friend, and senator lisa murkowski, for joining with jeff flake and joining with lindsey graham and joining with cory gardner and others who have been working on this issue for so long to try to make a positive impact on this debate so we can move forward. i cannot tell my colleagues how many have come up to me from the other side of the aisle and said we're with you on this issue. we want to help you get this done. each of them has a little different take on what that means, but i do believe them. and i do believe we have this opportunity to move together. now comes the test, the real test, as to whether we can get

this done. whether we can return to regular order on the floor and constructively have a debate. for some of you, it will be the first time you've ever seen it, but believe me, it's worth the price of admission. all it took for you to come to the united states senate. so now we have to stand together. my last word is this. we have gathered the largest bipartisan group of senators to ever committing to move forward on the dreamers act. we have a process. i want to thank senator mcconnell for explicitly saying today that we'll be a level playing field, open to both sides. we will move to the issue as you characterized this morning of daca and immigration. thank you for doing that. i believe that sets the stage for us to work together. for the first time in five years, we will have a debate on the floor of the senate on the dream act and immigration. to all the dreamers who are watching today, don't give up. i know that your lives are hanging in the balance on what we do here on capitol hill and with the white house. three weeks from now, i hope to

be joining you in celebrating the passage with you and your families and communities of a measure which will strengthen america and give you an opportunity to be part of our future. mr. president, i yield. >> well, that is a dramatic statement as well by dick durbin of illinois. it seemed to be a great partnership over this weekend between the two of those leaders. the big question right now, the country has to see there's something missing in this commitment from mcconnell, something in the commitment that chuck schumer got from him and dick durbin got from mcconnell. nothing is promised from the president. the president is not playing the role in this making of this bill for the dreamers. if the senate passes today action to say there will be a commitment to a vote sometime around february 9th and there will be a level playing field,

when you'll actually have a chance to get the dreamer act passed isn't the senate. without the president's help, it's agreed there will be no action in the house, which still operates under the hastert rule. you don't get anything to the floor unless a majority of the republican members in the house support it, which to me has nothing to do with the constitution, but it is how part of the republican leadership in the congress has behaved for years. so you really have a question here, is the senate content to get a daca bill, a dreamer bill passed through the senate sometime in early february, or content to actually have it enacted into law. so that is the tricky question. i want to go to one of the house leaders about that. congressman, do you think there's a chance the republican leaders are going to allow a dreamer bill, even if it's passed the senate in something like a majority vote, a super majority of 60 votes with a lot of republicans, would they let that come to a vote as you see

it, sir? >> well, first of all, thank you so much for having me, chris. i'm not just sure what the house will do. but i want to say to the leadership of the senate, democrats and republicans, thank you. thank you very much for demonstrating this bipartisan leadership that the country is crying out for. now, in a few minutes, this bill will be voted on. it will come down this corridor behind me and will go into these doors in front of me, and it will be the house's turn. the question is whether or not the speaker of the house will make similar commitments in a bipartisan way so that we can move forward. this is not about illegal immigration. this is about whether or not we will fund our government. we have passed this massive tax increase, and now we don't know how we're going to pay for health care for our children, for taking care of our veterans,

for funding our military. now all of a sudden, we wanted to get out of kilter, increase the military budget, but don't increase the budget for children's health care, for veterans' benefits, for -- how do you give us c.h.i.p. and then -- which is a health care program -- that's insurance. but you don't give us the money to fund the disproportionate share of hospitals, mostly in rural areas, don't fund community health centers, don't fund veterans benefits. we want to see the same commitment to domestic spending for all of the children of these military people as we see for everything else. chris, as you know, i am from a military state, ft. jackson. i live within the shadows of ft. jackson. the headquarters of the third army. i believe in taking care of our

military. i represent them. i live among them. but when they go off to fight the wars, they leave their children, their spouses, and they want their children to have health care, education, and their spouses to have the same. that's what this battle is about, and the american people need to tune in to what the debate really is. illegal immigration is a camouflage. it's got absolutely very little to do with what we want to see done here on the floor of the house of representatives. so i'm waiting to see whether speaker ryan will be as bipartisan as leader mcconnell has been and we can vote to hear this. democrats and republicans, and move this agenda and country forward. >> thank you, congressman. we bring in my colleague nicole wallace. steve kornacki is back. and nbc news correspondent kasie hunt. i want to go to nicole. i haven't heard from you today. it's interesting to me.

i thought it was like seems old times when dick durbin was talking about the old senate where they had bipartisan agreement. i worked there for ed musky and those guys. they had the same national budget. i thought it was interesting you're going to see chuck schumer voting with the republicans come this roll call. he's going to stick with it. we're getting word that pelosi and hoyer are not going to vote with majority. so there is still this split on the left of the democratic party, not that hoyer is on the left, but he's concerned with it. a lot of democrats on the left don't want to look like they're in bed with republicans on any occasion. so it isn't just a hard right. there's a hard left out there that doesn't want to be seen as too cozy with republicans, especially in the era of trump. your thinking? >> well, i think you hit the nail on the head. it isn't just right, left that divides the senate. it's the old schoolers and the new schoolers. if you think of the way john mccain used his return to the

senate, it wasn't to make a speech about policy. it wasn't to make a jeff flake-like speech against trump. it was about returning to regular order. there is a caucus of the brokenhearted in the u.s. senate. they're the institutionalists. they're the men and women who harken back to a better time for that body, when it was a place where bipartisanship broke out more than once every 22 months. it was sort of viewed as -- i mean, you've also referenced the hastert rule. you know, we're old enough to know what that metropolitan aan big deal it was. that's not the way business was always done in congress. i think when we look at how broken things are and look at someone who likes to smash the furniture just for kicks like donald trump, you've got just this toxic situation where you've got a china breaker for a president and you've got a senate that is structurally impaired by the lack of regular order. then you've got a house that's

hobbled by the hastert rule. it's actually a miracle this didn't happen sooner than the one-year anniversary of trump's presidency. >> what do you think about the fact that pelosi sent out word, and steny hoyer as well, that they're not going to vote with the majority, even though they think the majority is going to win. so it seems like there's this posturing that's going on where chuck schumer's a tough negotiator. he's saying i'm voting with the majority today. i'm going to help reopen the government. still, democrats, some would like to be seen on the progressive side of any issue and are willing to say, i don't care if the government is opening or not, i'm going to vote against it opening. and that's the leader of the democratic party talking. >> yeah, you'd love to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, that they're doing what they believe in. i think we're about ten train stops past that. i think schumer is trying to give cover to some red state governments who don't want to be seen as shutting down the government. pelosi and hoyer are trying to give cover to the progressives if their caucus who don't want to be seen as giving an inch on

dreamers. there are craven and well-intentioned political passions driving the decision making, but it does result in a dysfunction that is at now normal levels for washington, d.c. what's epic about it is that one party controls the white house and the senate and the house. republicans will say, oh, that's the dnc talking point. no, that's the reality. and the reason we got to this point is because it took mcconnell a beat to figure out where the white house stood. so when you go around and you go back, try to unpack how we got here, part of the dysfunction was in donald trump after diane feinstein spoke at that televised meeting which was televised to display donald trump's governing prowess, where diane feinstein said let's do a clean daca and he said, yeah, that sounds great. the white house has cast confusion, but the body is hobbled by dysfunction. >> that was a great article about you in the "new york times" yesterday. by the way, nicole, you're as

good as that article, which is one hell of a statement. >> thank you. >> let me go to kasie hunt to answer the question. this idea that the president has been waiting out there, that he's not quite -- has he committed to pushing the house to do what the senate's doing? >> to my knowledge, chris, my reporting does not indicate that the president has done anything of the sort. now, obviously this is an unfolding story minute to minute, so it's entirely possible that, you know, we've not yet gotten word of something that happened at the white house. but i can tell you what the thinking has been behind the scenes among the republicans who have been negotiating this. that is to rely on the president's instincts to make a deal. and if they can actually deliver 60, 70, 80 votes for an immigration deal, 80 may be a little high, but if they can send an overwhelming signal to the white house that this is something, this is a big deal that they can they can take credit for, that will move the

president, that the president will ultimately say, okay, i want a deal more than i want anything else. i also want to pick up on a couple of the threads you guys were just talking about. one thing that is unfolding now on the senate floor that i think is noteworthy, we're hearing that senator warren plans to vote no, elizabeth warren. she may have already voted no. i'm getting sort of realtime updates from my colleagues who are sitting over in the senate gallery. also potentially camila harris of california, bernie sanders. what do these people have in common? they're people we think are likely running for president in 2020. to nicole's point, that's a very different set of interests than those who are interested in the day-to-day institutional, you know, keeping the senate working over the long term, and forgive me if i'm turning around. i'm anticipating they're going to start walking back from the capitol, potentially, once this vote concludes. but finally, chris, looking ahead, i think the most

interesting person in washington -- if mitch mcconnell says what he's going to do and the senate passes a bill, paul ryan is going to be under so much pressure. he's going to face a defining, potentially, test of his speakership. he could decide to put -- if an immigration bill comes out of the senate with an overwhelming amount of support, he could, as a potentially last act as speaker, put that on the floor of the house and say, look at this, this is something that, you know, i'm going to accomplish, potentially without a majority of the majority. i'm skeptical that will happen, but he's the one that's going to be in the crucible. >> you're so right. what a hot spot. thank you, kasie. let's go to steve kornacki on that point. you know, it is about numbers. we're going to see 60 or not today in the senate. the big question is 218 in the house coming up. if the president doesn't help, what makes anybody think that speaker ryan will say, wait a minute, i don't care about my majority, i care about the jefr all majority. this is what stopped immigration reform years ago when you had that very strong bipartisan bill

coming out of the senate with ted kennedy, lindsey graham behind it, all kinds of people. lamar alexander behind it. and it didn't get to the house because the house refused to vote. it could happen the same way later in february. >> yeah, i mean, and look, the scope of this when you're talking about daca versus that comprehensive program five years ago, it is a narrower scope. again, you saw the patrolling on th -- polling on this the other day. 84% of the public -- this cuts across all political parties -- they want daca to be a permanent fix. the trouble that democrats were running into here was when you said what about priorities, do you want the government to stay open as the number one priority, or do you want this daca fix as the number one priority? on that one, keeping the government open outrated fixing daca by more than 20 points. so i think in this instance over the weekend, to the extent democrats were starting to feel some heat here politically, it was that. do they look like they're choosing the wrong priority. but now, look, if you reopen the government, if you take that

issue of prioritization away, you're looking at a pretty narrow, as it relates to the scope of immigration, you're looking at something pretty narrow. i know five years ago, eyou wer able to see this revolt on the right that kept comprehensive immigration reform from coming to a vote in the house. i'm not sure in an election year where control of the house is at stake and republicans know it, i'm not sure that can hold again this time. >> isn't it also true, steve, that it looks like mcconnell -- knowing mcconnell, and he's a republican down to his core, he's going to have to put something into that bill besides just the dreamers act. i think he'll have to put something on border protection just to give cover. in fact, balance to the bill. you think he'll get a clean bill? >> i suspect that's right because again, you heard chuck schumer there talking about the 60 votes, the idea of hey, this is probably whatever we come up with is going to need 60 votes. that means you can't just do it with democrats and a few

republicans. you're going to need a fair number of republicans along with democrats. then you start getting into, okay, one of the philosophical differences between the parties when you start looking at this is a lot of -- there are republicans who have an issue with daca in general, but a lot of republicans say, look, at the end of the day we should do daca. but they view it as a concession. they view it as a significant concession, and they want something for it. i think the default democratic position is just do it. no strings attached. so i think the more republican votes you need for this, the more you're going to get into that concession area. >> i think we have those debates at home. anyway, andrea mitchell is traveling with the vice president in the middle east. she joins us now from the holy city, jerusalem. thank you so much, andrea. what do you make of this politics back at home here? it continues without you. >> reporter: well, the fact is it actually followed us here because the vice president from the minute we were refueling on the way out in shannon was meeting with troops who were transferring there on their way to kuwait and talking to them

about their military pay. it was very clear from then and also his meeting with troops over the weekend at an air base, a forward air base near the syrian border, that they thought national security and the hold up on military pay was the best issue that they had to try to slam the democrats. and he was criticized for using it and criticizing the democrats in an unprecedented way at a military installation overseas and in fact one that's involved in a conflict zone. that said, how that actually played out still remains to be seen because the blame game was going from the first minute that they started this, both sides jockeying for position. the vice president clearly leading the way on the military issue as well as, of course, the republican leaders back home. i'm really struck by what nicole and you were talking about. i covered the senate back in the days of moynahan and danforth and other leaders.

al gore, john kerry, others who went on to political careers and diplomatic careers. the fact is we have never seen the senate this dysfunctional in my memory. the last shutdown we covered, it was gingrich -- aside from the obama one, it was gingrich versus bill clinton. this is a shutdown involving the senate with the republican leaders unable to deal with their own republican white house. i asked the vice president about it in our interview and how can you have a shutdown for the first time when you control both houses and the white house and can't agree, and he said it was because of the minority democrats because they need 60 votes for anything they come back with that's going to be attached to a money bill. >> what about the chance that durbin offered? did you hear durbin really seemed almost romantic about where he sees the senate coming back to, the experience this weekend and coming across the aisle has recharged his hope

that we'll go back to an actually functioning u.s. senate. >> reporter: well, durbin, of course, was the one -- one of the leaders, as well as the republicans on the other side, who had the gang that tried to come up with a budget deal. he was supportive, in fact, of simpson-bowles. those were the last cries, the last whimpers of bipartisanship. dick durbin has been there all along as well as some of his republican colleagues. john mccain. you talk about simpson was old if you want to go back on immigration bills that died because they couldn't get out of one house or the other. the fact is this senate now, they've exercised the muscles, these newer senators, of working together. you saw susan collins and amy klobuchar and dick durbin working in amy klobuchar's office and susan collins' office earlier in the day, trying to work this out and trying to do it without the white house.

i think that's the most significant thing. it could be that mitchell mcconnell has finally realized he has to come up with the votes and ignore the tweets and ignore the interference from a white house clearly not able, as chuck schumer said, to give a straight answer, an answer that lindsey graham and other republicans say kept changing every day, within hours of agreements being reached. >> andrea, so great to see you over there, over in the middle east. i wish i could ask you all about king abdullah, but we can't get to that tonight. great stuff. >> we'll get to that. >> you're on top of it all. thank very much. let's go right now to andy carter, former chief of staff under president george w. bush. it's not a million years ago. ronald reagan passed a tax reform bill with bipartisan support. remember, the democrats got it through for him. we had immigration bills passed

as recently as '86 where you had bipartisan support. they didn't get enforced. they never really did the job. but there was the ability to work together. is that coming back, do you think, or not? >> well, i'm glad that the senate at least has demonstrated the capacity to move forward and start to deal with things in a more bipartisan invitation way. i'm not sure the philosophical differences will be bridged as much as they need to be. when i grew up, when you were working on capitol hill, the rug of american politics had more rug than fringe. today the rug of american politics seems to have more fringe than rug. but the truth is you can't govern unless you find a way to stand on the rug. and i think the senate today is demonstrating that they can find a way to the rug. can they create a climate where that's the way we'll want to function? because the world watches how our democracy works. and really, that's the challenge. you want the democracy of america to be the beacon of

success so that others will want to follow it around the world. so yes, this is an example of how government can work. it's not done. look, closing down government was stupid. the democrats should not have not have allowed it to happen and they're the ones that let it happen. it wasn't the president. it was the democrats who did it. hopefully they recognize that wasn't the way to go and they want to get a bill done. now the sausage machine is going to have to start working, and that's tough work that will be done in the senate and in the house and they have to find a way to reconcile their differences and address the white house concerns in the process. and hopefully that's the way because that's the way our democracy works, and we want to see it happen. >> what do you think of the rules? we have the checks and balances among the three branches of government. there's a lot of checks and balances and you have the 60 vote requirement, the super majority and the senate requirement. so a lot of hurdles to get anything done. on top of all of it is the hastert rule implemented by speaker hastert, no vote in the

house of representatives unless a majority of the majority supports it. is that good for this country to have a rule like that that holds up legislation against the will of the overall majority, in this case for immigration? >> personally i don't think it's the right rule to have, but it is the rule that paul ryan has to function with until they change the rule. i think that's the challenge for speaker ryan. he has been getting the caucus to do things they might not do without his leadership. so i think the test is really his leadership and how it can impact the ability of the house to get its job done and, remember, the speaker is the speaker of the house. he's not just the leader of the republican party. and so the democrats often give him a little support every once in a while, too, and i don't see leader pelosi demonstrating much of a compassionate interest in having to help paul ryan get the job done. i think she should step up and

be more inclusive in finding solutions to some of the problems in the house. the democrats are very partisan. hey, the house is much more tribal than any other aspect of government today and that tribalism isn't just among democrats and republicans. it's about the caucuses in both parties. and i hope to see those tribal legislative process be mitigated to recognize their role to govern and governing from a level playing field is always better than governing from a tilted one. >> well, the republican party has its tea party, its freedom caucus as you well know, andy, and the democrats have very activist part of the party that has to be satisfied the leadership represents them. i think that's what nancy pelosi, the leader is up to. thank you. you know your stuff. andy card. that wonderful new england accent reminds me of ed muskie and some of the old guys. let's bring in steve kornacki -- just kidding.

steve, this numbers game, it's interesting. it seems like if you want democrats to vote for a majority position, a compromise position, look to those not running for president because the democratic party begins its process of picking a president in a way that helps progressives. you go to iowa. you know how it starts. you get in through nevada. there are some exceptions but basically -- and if you get to california soon enough now you're better off seeing on that left ward part of the track position that on the more centrist part, does that explain why all the candidates for president with the exception of joe biden who doesn't have a vote seem to realize the name of the game is get over to the left whether it's cory booker, get over on the progressive side of things. if there's a vote for trump's appointee to anything, vote against it. >> yeah, i mean, look, the split you're seeing, you saw this friday night in the vote to shut down in the first place, five democrats on friday night said they were going to go with the republicans, were going to vote

to keep the government open under those republican terms friday night. every single one of them comes from a state donald trump won. doug jones in alabama, joe manchin in west virginia. the other thing about those five democrats is four of them, four of the democrats who voted with the republicans on friday night are not just in trump states, they're in trump states and running for re-election in 2018. you have that tension on the democratic side here. you have this year ten senate democrats in total, ten, who are running for re-election in states donald trump carried. and you see a little bit of that tension spilling over. claire mccaskill is one of those democrats who voted to keep the government open friday night. she spoke publicly about that tension between where she sort of stands politically and the interest she faces as a democrat in missouri in 2018 versus what a cory booker or elizabeth warren or any of the dozens of others, it seems, interested in running for president face. there's a real tension on the democratic side. >> so chuck schumer has to keep them together, keep together the presidential wing of the party, now in this case the progressive

wing and he has to help people get re-elected. if he doesn't hold those democratic seats you mentioned like even ohio, pennsylvania, they look pretty good but montana, the others, certainly missouri, missouri, steve, you know the numbers before i do, trump is running 50%. he has support today with all that's gone on in the last year. he's riding high in missouri which makes claire mccaskill, i would think, worrisome. >> the other consideration that claire mccaskill has, this would be her third election, her third term if she wins this november. look at the past two and she got lucky. in 2006 it was a great democratic year nationally. she was part of that. in 2012 it was a more neutral year in missouri and looked like she was going to lose re-election. a red state. she drew that opponent in the general election who talked about legitimate, it went from what looked like an almost

certain defeat into an easy win for mccaskill. she sort of got a bonus term here in some ways. >> luck is an important part of politics. let's go to the floor and hear the voting. >> mr. president -- >> the senator from maryland. >> thank you, mr. president. first, let me tell you how pleased i am, the people of maryland, we are now in the process of ending this government shutdown. the government shutdown does not benefit anyone. it doesn't benefit the federal workers who live in maryland and those who live in the nation. the uncertainty that the shutdown brings, those that are exempted or asked to work without knowing when they would get a paycheck, those that are on furlough, don't know whether they'll ever get a paycheck or not, it's not in the interest of our federal workforce and certainly not in the interest of

federal contractors put on suspension. it's not in the interest of the public. >> why don't we bring in casey hunt right now and get a sense of how the votes break. casey, are the progressives and the presidential hopefuls voting against? is that the pattern? >> reporter: it's entirely the pattern. cory booker, harris, bernie sanders, elizabeth warren, what do these people have in common? one thing exactly and quite frankly the list of the rest of them who voted yes is pretty overwhelming and is much more along the lines of the institutionalists but also those who are potentially facing tough races. tammy baldwin voted yes. she's considered a very progressive voice here in the senate but is potentially facing a difficult re-election. and that i think is what it comes down to here in the senate. and if you think about how president trump's race shook out in 2016, there are a lot of

states, quite frankly, democrats have a lot of ground to make up and senators who decided that they wanted to cut this deal come from places that were unexpectedly trump states in 2016. >> sure. >> that's kind of the dynamic here. i think those who decided they weren't going to go along with this are people who want to run on the progressive side in 2020 or at least that's what i would hypothesize, chris. >> i think you're right on this. let me ask you about do what you want to do, boys and girls. you're grown-ups. if you're running for president, it doesn't hurt you at all to vote no right now because you're not part of the majority. you're not holding anything up. you're not stopping any parks being protected or the liberty bell being opened up. you're expressing a negative point of view which helps with you the progressive left. if you're willing to vote with me and help get this thing done we can get the government operating and not take any more flak for this. it does make sense. to me it's shrewd by schumer.

>> reporter: it does make sense and it is. i have to tell you this is a very rare situation where we are seeing schumer break his caucus up. he's been incredibly effective at holding the line on a lot of -- some of these votes have been tough for some of his moderate members. he has kept them together. we've been talking a lot about the trust deficit on capitol hill between the two leaders, between congress and the president. there is an incredibly high amount of trust in chuck schumer on the part of his democratic colleagues. he has -- >> let me go to garrett right now. i want to get a sense of the house side. we have a report from the democratic leader's office, pelosi's office and steny hoyer that they're not going to vote with the majority when it comes to opening the government. what's that politics about? >> they'd like to get more out of this.

the house has been the heavier lift for democrats trying to get an immigration bill through, trying to get funding for things like community health centers. they don't feel this compromise offers them any of what they want. in that sense they're not wrong. this is a senate deal. from where democrats sit they don't see any reason to put their votes on the line for a deal they had no part in negotiating. and to which they have nothing promised on the back end. republicans have enough votes to move this through the house. the freedom caucus will be with paul ryan. this is not their shutdown. they don't want to be party to the fight on this. they want to get it back open. potentially they'll fight for an immigration deal if and when one happens later. the senate will drive the bus on that, too. something to get 60 votes out of the senate and many come to the