sarah sanders explains. >> the flake/graham/durbin agreement doesn't meet the benchmarks. in short, it is totally unacceptable to the president and should be declared dead on arrival. >> melissa: now president trump says without the wall there is no deal on daca. peter doocy joining me from capitol hill. peter, where do we go from here

, graham/durbin. we'll call it durbin/graham because you're here. you say you handled all of this, all of the assets the president has but i want to get to chain migration and family migration. it seems to me the real dispute does it apply just to the daca population or does it apply to all immigration overall? are you at all open to having larger changes to the immigration law in the daca negotiations? >> the president made it clear on the january 9th meeting, he agreed with us there should be two phases. let's deal with the problem which he created on september 5th by eliminating daca, deadline march 5th. just a few weeks away. let's sol that have problem now and not all the problems of immigration. and, yes, we did include a provision related to family reunification which breaks my heart. we have said -- >> only applying to this population. >> that's right. >> they say it should apply entire immigration system. >> you're going do have senator cotton wants to reduce legal immigration into the united

i put the wall on the table in exchange for strong daca protections in the graham-durbin compromise. it was a generous offer, and i believe president trump was inclined to accept it and was willing to do a very short-term c.r. he suggested tuesday night in order to get the deal finalized. hours later i got a phone call telling me this is not good enough, first from the president saying i hear it's three weeks. i said no one told me about that. that's not what we discussed. and then a few hours later, well, we want what you offered and four or five more things which they knew were unpalatable to democrats but appeased the hard-right anti-immigration wing of the republican party. the bottom line is simple, president trump just can't take yes for an answer. he's rejected not one, but two viable bipartisan deals, including one in which i put his most prominent campaign pledge on the table. what's even more frustrating than president trump's intransigence is the way he seems amenable to these compromises before completely switching positions and backing off. negotiating with president tru

graham and durbin know it, and now they are going off and everyone sees them for what they are. >> laura: i want to play a sound bite for you. we will get back to lindsey graham because he's driving the bus on this. i want to talk more about that. they are blaming stephen miller. that's their new target. first it was bannon and then it goes to the list and out stephen miller. let's watch. >> stephen miller is the reasoned that the president backed away from that decision. >> they will not get thereby allowing essentially stephen miller and tom cotton to charge all the policies in the united states. >> the reason we yank these things back is because mr. miller has never been in the mainstream senate. >> laura: trump rocks the baseball cap. i'm sorry. doesn't work for graham. now stephen miller is the big bogeyman and shifting. it stephen miller running policy and all the immigration policy? the president just doesn't know what's going on, that's the other thing they are saying. >> laura: lindsey graham has said this repeatedly about miller, about cots and come about purdue, he's attacking

so actually i think the belief, in my view, the unrealistic belief that somehow the graham-durbin bill was going to be the path forward without the president's signature, with a doubtful future in the house of representatives, hopefully that's been set aside. i say that with great respect because i'm not, i don't want to indicate or send any signal that i don't appreciate their concern or their passion or their effort to try to come up with a solution here. it's just that i think it should be clear to everyone that that is not going to be the path forward because of the circumstances i mentioned. the president doesn't support it, and it won't pass in the house of representatives and even get to the pr*edz -- president's tkefbgt. so we find ourselves here in a completely unnecessary situation. our democratic colleagues were pretty unanimous with, i guess, four or five exceptions in voting down a four-week continuing resolution and causing the government to shut down. the majority leader, senator mcconnell, has offered them another proposal which is a three-week continuing resolution whi

but the graham-durbin bill ensures that we will be right back here in a few short years. when we want is to give the solution on the daca side and protect america from repeating this mistake again and again and again. let me be very clear. if we do what's on table today in the graham-durbin bill, it would allowed the parents of daca recipients legal. it would put other children at risk as they come across the border illegally. thank god most of us have never had to deal with that. imagine putting your children at risk and coming across the border illegally. but according to this precedent, they will be given legal status and be able to sponsor their parents. here we go reigniting another way. we have not done anything to being right back here a few short years from now. i believe times for action. my colleagues, last night, talked about, welshing nobody else has offered up any sliewghtses. with, that's not true. there are three republican senate bills that relate to this issue, active bills, that have been filed. the language is out there. you can read them. there is one

you got durbin, graham, the president's golf partner.hey come back with a deal and two days later he goes back on his promise. >> they do the photo ops like joe donnelly and heidi heitcamp, they want to say they'll support tax cuts and then don't vote for it. we'll see what they do in the end with keeping the government funded. they came to the white house. that's the right thing to do. we'll need nine democrats to vote on it on behalf of the american people. >> another sticking point in terms of the comedy, the working together of the two parties is what happened in that second meeting when durbin and graham presented this plan and the president got ugly about his preference for who we wants in this country. part of the fallout wound up being the senate panel interviewing homeland secretary nielsen and her saying she doesn't recall. she got into it with cory booker. you accused booker of mansplainig. why did you call it that? >> i think it would have been covered differently if it were a republican senator yelling or lecturing a woman c

i accept senator graham's and senator durbin's comments immediately after the meeting that this is whatsident said. i think senator's graham and durbin deserve a lot of credit for coming up with a good bill that could pass the senate and the house right now. how is it going to affect that agreement and more broadly speaking, i have been to africa on several occasions and the people of sub sahara and africa have a good view of the united states. i am afraid this will set us back all because of these unfortunate comments. after all the good work we have done on hiv aids, and all of that i am worried that we will be in danger because of these very unfortunate remarks. >> yeah. senator graham spoke about daca saying quote we are no the going to get there by the president tweeting and by him trying to blame democrats. that's not going to work. do you think this has derailed the plan? >> i don't believe it has. you know, this whole notion of accommodating the d.r.e.a.m.ers, along with responsible border security measures, cleaning up the diversity lottery program even dealing with family migr

that was part of the bipartisan that graham and durbin presented to the president just last thursday and the president was the one that decided to walk away from the deal. >> adam, lindsey graham saying tonight that he does not expect the graham durbin deal to ever become law. e we see some movement with lindsey graham on the possible dates of a cr. you've worked closer to mitch mcconnell than any of the rest of us. how do you read the situation tonight? >> i read it as a giant mess for mitch mcconnell that's entirely of his own manufacture. if the shutdown happens, it happens with a whimper not a bang. mitch mcconnell has had ample time to negotiate with democrats, reach a deal. he could put the graham/durbin deal on the floor right away, it would pass. this is entirely of his own making, it's a mess, republicans will get blamed and i think he's going to regret it. >> you've been on the senate floor as the clock has been ticking down, how do you see i unfold tonight? >> they need a pn m, that's to deal with the moron president. the problem here is as wb as you said, president trump m

the president is going to get graham durbin not going to be law. i think it was a good proposal. it could be made better. we are going to get hopefully more things for the president and more relief coming on the other side. the idea of letting this continue to fester is unacceptable to most americans and i think now to the congress as a whole. >> reporter: where is the president? quite literally he is in washington. he had been scheduled to go to south florida to celebrate his one year anniversary. that anniversary falls today of his inauguration here in the u.s. capitol. he stayed overnight and had chuck schumer one-on-one in the oval office yesterday. schumer emerged making hopeful sounds and telling people that there was progress in negotiations. the rug pulled out from under him and phone calls with the president and chief of staff john kelly later on friday. here we are with an impasse, government shutdown now seven hours old. >> thank you for that from capitol hill. >>> let's bring in deputy news editor and sean sullivan. good morning to you both. ladies first, start with y

>> let me address the durbin-graham piece for a moment. that's not true. tor zbram senator durbin called the president and said they have a bipartisan bill. they come together with a meeting of the minds to prepare a piece of completion would address terg president outlined. the president was ecstatic. here's the problem. they were completory dishonest. when they brought the plan to the president, it did not do anything to address chain migration. in fact it blew it up and made it bigger. it gave amnesty and then it didn't touch but .1 what dhs demanded this country needs. not what it wants but what it needs. it was 10%. woefully underfunded. so the idea, and back to graham and durbin, to pretend they had to get together and have a meeting of the minds so they could come together in immigration. they've been in lock step for decades. they want open borders. they want amnesty. i'm from south carolina. i've known man for a long time. and it is fine. he can take position. to pretend he is anything other than someone who wants open borders and amnesty is dising

reporter: do you support the graham-durbin proposal, even though it has this down payment on the border wall? ms. pelosi: right now our position is that we want the dream act and we're willing to -- we know our responsibility to secure our borders, north and south, and that's where our conversation is. so thank you all very much. to be continued. we may be seeing each other further today. one thing i have to say , is i'm so glad chuck schumer is the one who is over there. \[laughter] thank you all very much. \[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] \[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018]

either he said it like dick durbin and lindsey graham acknowledge, or he didn't say it like sort of the president acknowledges what tom cotton and david perdue said. you heard dick durbin talk about trust with the president, and lindsey graham talked about it. we need certainty. i don't know how you get it when the very root of the story remains in dispute. >> both lindsey graham and senator durbin, they both made the point that earlier in the week in that meeting that the president had with bipartisan members, 55 minutes of which were seen on television, that the president specifically said bring me a compromise, bring me a bipartisan deal. i will support it, i will take the heat, don't worry about it, just bring me the deal. so that's what they did, they brought him the deal and he rejected it, he wasn't willing, apparently, to take the heat from some of these republicans who showed up at that meeting hating that compromise. >> absolutely, and i think this whole flap that we're seeing right now, wolf, over the comments that the president made during that meeting is certainly going to

. >> martha: graham and durbin thought they were gross to a deal last week. the way dick durbin described it, he said when he saw you in the room he knew something changed. did you pull the president away from the deal that durbin and graham thought they had with them? >> the president realized that senates graham and durbin had sold him a bill of goods. >> martha: did you help him realize that? >> no, i didn't speak to donald trump until we walked into the oval office. the president campaigned on a number of issues. there is no issue that was more fundamental to his victory than immigration and getting an immigration policy that helps the americans who are working. it's one thing to get a bill pitched on the telephone and another thing to look at the particulars. the president realized he was being sold a bill of good. he won't have amnesty for illegal immigrants without securing our borders and stop future illegal immigrants. >> martha: i understand that. but he made it clear he loves the dreamers and think they will are great kids and wants to find a solut

last week president trump applauded the deal and invited senators graham and durbin to the white house to finalize it. when they got there, they were shocked to find that the president had completely reversed himself. this morning senator graham said we do not have the reliable partner in the white house. let the president veto it if he doesn't d like it. the majority mcconnell said, and i quote, as soon as he figures out what he's for them i will be convinced we are not just spending our wheels. well, again we have a bipartisan deal so let us vote on it. there are very real consequences to the chaos, turmoil and policy reversals have become the new normal under this president. we must commit ourselves on a bipartisan basis to restore order to the appropriations process and as we work to address the current fiscal impact, any agreement should include a number of basic provisions. we should fund government for the remainder of this year. that is enough. we need to stop that. the majority ofgr the members ad the chamber into congress understand that we cannot keep doing this. any deal sh

i put the wall on the table in exchange for strong daca protections in the graham/durbin compromise. it was a generous offer. and i believe president trump was inclined to accept it and was willing to do a very short term cr, he suggested tuesday night, in order to get the deal finalized. hours later, i got a phone call telling me this is not good enough. first from the president, saying, i hear it's three weeks. i said, no one told me about that, that's not what we discussed. and then a few hours later, well, we want what you've offered and four or five more things which they knew were unpalatable to democrats but appeased the hard right anti-immigration wing of the republican party. the bottom line is simple. president trump just can't take yes for an answer. he's rejected not one but two viable bipartisan deals, including one in which i put his most prominent campaign pledge on the table. what's even more frustrating than president trump's intransigence is the way he seems amenable to these compromises before completely switching positions and backing off. negotiating with preside

. >> durbin and graham weren't saying move the visa lottery to norway.said underrepresented countries. that usually means third world countries. i wouldn't speak that way about those countries. i don't think the president of the united states should speak that way, but i think you to interpret his remarks in the context of the underlying policy which is an emphasis on merit. >> anna, is it in the context of the underlying policy or is this clearly people from people are who are black, less people who are black and more people white from norway? >> the context of the conversation was that graham and durbin were offering an alternative to protect people with temporary protective service. that haitians and people from elel salvador who have lost it. they are a large part of communities, including the one i live in. really, anderson, this is a silly discussion whether it was shit house or shit hole. what matters is not the second syllable. it's the first syllable. he could have had a discussion on the merits of immigration. he chose to insert racism, inject

>> it's not really that graham-durbin is a bill that will be presented.the concept not because i agree with the legislation. it was starting point to bring people together to talk. i said, it needs more border security. it needs tighter reign in term of how we handle daca. from that point, we've continued to move on. what we do have are series of working group. republican and democrats trying to find a solution. i like we're making some progress. we know what the critical issues are. a border security system is going to be a part of any final product. >> senator rounds, when you look at the calendar, the legislative calendar, not the call dear that we all live by, the days that you guys are working are very short. it's only like a hand full of days. how are you going to get this done? will you be willing to work through weekends? >> we worked through the last weekend. we actually spent one heck lot of time just face to face with democrats letting them express their feelings. at the same time, we were able to get to them they've got to come to some real so

the durbin graham provided 1 year of funding.re testing new propertotypesr the wall -- >> here's the problem, the simple majority i expect you can get it in the house. but in the senate you need 60, you have 51 republicans, you need a bunch of democrats to support it. chuck schumer said there's revulsion to agreeing to short term spending. >> it would be hard for a few senators to say i'm not going to fund our troops because i want to make sure we do something for illegal aliens and daca. >> you think they have 60 votes. >> we share the frustration that congress should be doing their job and have not done their job and given us a spending bill, the fiscal year ends in september here we are in january. >> it's a republican majority in the house and senate. >> we need ten votes in the senate and the democrats have been unwilling to allow a motion to move forward on the appropriations bill. >> lindsey graham said he's not voting for the continuing resolution. you have a lot of work to do over the next 48 hours. >> we always do. >> m

it is the best window to where lindsey graham and dick durbin's plan was derailed. they had a bipartisan agreement on immigration issues. this is a document -- this is trump world scathing assessment of the immigration proposal as pitched to the president by lindsey graham and dick durbin. this is what homeland security and justice officials drafted for the president. they said that their compromise failed to secure the border and increases illegal immigration and guarantees a.m.ness advertise, increases chain migration and fails to end the visa lottery. i think at least four of those things which on their face false. how is the president so easily manipulated by the hard liners on his own policy staff? how does he not know this issue at least by now? >> the president knows that the only people he has left at this point are his hard core supporters, his base. it's anywhere from 30 to 38% of the electorate at this point and it's not getting any bigger. so, when he goes out there and agrees with dianne feinstein and agrees with steny hoyer and says, maybe we'd be open

are we to understand that we'll have something more substantial than that and that graham durbin is aatic perspective? >> i'm not sure it's a non-starter. i think for some republicans it's -- it may be a non-starter but i'm one of the folks that said i'm going to support this path moving forward but i disagree with some of the concepts of the bill itself but i'm willing to work on it. with regard to the wall or the border security system that we talk about, we know that this is not a one-year process but there's got to be some be some assurances to the president that we're going to set enough resources aside to where we can actually not just start it, but get a long way down to getting it finished. once we do the daca fix, we still have to have the incentive for democrats to help finish the rest of the border security. those are the nuances that we're going to have to work our way through. >> so just so i understand, graham/durbin is still the template from which we're working here. >> we're trying to move away from that as being the template and talking about the different conception

senator durbin and senator graham came very close to an agreement and talk to the president, hour and a half before that white house meeting and then when they went, everything changed. so republicans have to realize that the time is now. they want to fund the government, deal with the other host of issues including daca or just going to stand there and see the government shut down and this is a problem of their own making. >> can i just say one thing on that? >> please. >> as you know, we've been debating daca now for 15 or 20 years. i remember in the bush administration, we debated this year after year with immigration reform. remember when barack obama was elected for the first two years, democrats had control of every lever of power in washington, why didn't they get this done then and then now to say, with the backs against the wall where the government may shut down, we have to get this done in the next 72 hours is irresponsible. i want the see a resolution as you do but to shut down the government and use it as a weapon, i just think it's wrong. >> i think republicans put us in

the point is, this group led by lindsey graham and senator dick durbin is the only bipartisan senate group that has emerged. so i say to cornyn, where is the other groups that could bring in democrats? it's not hard to count to 60, john and poppy. that's what it takes to get something through the senate. so form your own coalition, make a deal, do other negotiations. just telling someone to go back to the drawing board is not as good as saying i'm going to create the group. so whether or not you agree with the things in the durbin/graham gang of six could be a starting point to discussion. the senate has done this. they had an even harder immigration package. while this package doesn't seem to be the spirit of true negotiation which is what the senate is wrestling with right now but of everything else we're talking about, remember this. if the senate leader mitch mcconnell doesn't want to call a measure, it won't get a vote. >> attorney general sessions spoke last night and this is quite telling where the administration stands at this point. >> what good does it do to bring in somebo

importantly, the flake-graham-durbin agreement did not reach these benchmarks. in fact, it will not secure our border, encourage more illegal immigration, increase chain migration, and retain the visa lottery system. in short, is totally unacceptable to the president should be click declared dead on arrival. >> laura: i love hearing dead on arrival when it comes to a bad immigration bill. it's what the american people want. member that new harvard harris poll we told you about last night? a lot of people haven't focused on this. 61% of those surveyed feel border security today is inadequate. 54% have responded, want a wall or other barrier built across the u.s. mexican border? while they do want to help the daca people and give some kind of protection to them, they don't want to be left defenseless to do it. that makes sense. chuck schumer is under enormous pressure. a host of left-wing interest groups are insisting that he resist the president and fight him on everything, including immigration. why are they doing this? because they want to see the dawn of a new

that is not even addressed by the graham/durbin proposal. let's be clear as a matter of fact checking here -- >> hold on, raj. i'm good with that. but kate steinle, you know -- look, it is such a god-awful situation that that family had to live through. publicized as it was, lose i katie steinle. all understood. but you guys have a pretty intentional effort to mak them monsters. you put out this report today that fictionalizes the risk of terror that is represented by people who come into this country illegally. we understand that that's against the law. we understand that it has to stop. but why make them all into villains? why inflate statistics and cherry-pick to make americans afraid of these people? why do that? >> we're not trying to say that everybody should be afraid of, you know -- >> then why would you put out a report, raj, that says base tli three out of four of them may be terrorists? that was the point of that report that taxpayers paid for. >> chris, let's be accurate. the report said that three out of four people that have be

we've heard from dick durbin, lindsey graham spoke up and confirmed he has spoken up.nators who say they didn't remember him saying this. that's not possible. it's not possible the president of the united states talking about immigration policy could have used the word shit hole and two american senators -- >> right. unless he says it so often. >> that you wouldn't know. this is a little weird. i'm with bernice king on this one. the president said outrageous thing as long time. a long history saying racist and troubling things. what about the other seven in the room? >> i was writing an article on those very lines before coming on the air. absolutely right. we all know who donald trump is right now. archie bunker in the oval office, have known it since day one when mexican immigrants. so nobody can pretend to be surprised by this. what is shocking, what is shameful and just unbelievable is the way that the rest of the republican party has normalized this behavior. refused to condemn it. turned away from it and it's time after time. when he says the white supremacists i

>> you mean the account of dick durbin and lindsey graham? because i think if the president uses a word like shithole i think you would remember. i am saddened that cotton and purdue are evolving in their recollections and they are enablers to the president's what he said. >> when you say evolving their recollections -- >> i'm using lindsey graham's term that you just referred to that his recollection is not evolving. he heard what he heard. >> what do you think senators cotton and purdue are doing? >> they are enabling the president to go on with his denials. doesn't serve our country at all. you should ask them. i'm saddened by their changed position. we need to get on with a bill that would create a safety for the daca participants. need to ask homeland secretary what she plans to do with regard to testing the emergency systems throughout our country because a missile strike from korea can hit not just hawaii and guam but they are working on hitting the rest of our country. so she should be very concerned about what every state's systems a

that's where dick durbin and lindsey graham really shined.hatever language was used, we know the spirit it reflected and how it informs donald trump's immigration policy. when lindsey graham said he doesn't know what happened to that guy last tuesday, i would say i don't know where that guy last tuesday came from because donald trump last tuesday was the exception. what we saw in the thursday meeting is the reality of his immigration policy. >> yes, you heard the reference to steven miller. and we've heard "the post" article. they said that he and a few others were behind what happened and what led to that white house meeting. i want to remind people what the president said just a week ago. let's play that. >> you're not so far away from comprehensive immigration reform. if you want to take that further step, i'll take the heat, i don't care. i don't care. i'll take all the heat you want to give me. i'll take the heat off both the democrats and the republicans. >> does the base stay, david, or do they finally say, look, we put this guy in the

>> i'm accepting what durbin and graham confirmed. that's my understanding. i wasn't in the meeting. i'm just making these comments based on what's being reported in the media. >> i hear you. let's talk about the deal. when i'm talking to democrats about this i've been chasing after them because there's such widespread approval in both parties for helping the d.r.e.a.m.ers and i keep asking them why are you in such a hurry to give the president whatever he wants to make a deal here when you finally have some leverage. what are you picking up in terms of the readiness of democrats to get something done on this and what the big pillars are? >> truthfully, i believe members of both parties are ready to deal on this issue. there's the graham/durbin proposal. it's pretty good. it deals with family reunification. it deals with a number of issues that many of my republican colleagues have expressed concerns over. it's a very good start. you've also heard about the goodlatte proposal. i believe that this d.r.e.a.m.er proposal should be tied to the budget agreement. t

we have not seen text of a graham-durbin compromise. >> interestingly the two senators that are there when senators graham and durbin showed up at the white house last week, senators cotton and purdue were both having lunch at the white house. search everyone is trying to figure out what the president wants. who has the influence? is it safe to say that steven miller or chief of staff john kelly have more influence than anyone might have suspected with this president? >> that is a key question right now on the topic of immigration specifically, they absolutely do. in talking to people in the white house and reporting at the steven miller profile we did, even people whose immigration views aren't as restrictionist as steven millers acknowledge he's the go-to person on immigration. he's the policy expert. and he's the one when they have any question who everyone in the white house turns to. i want to be clear. there is a sense that steven miller is this kind of darth vader evil character on immigration, a master puppet tear. they are at a visceral level much more hard line than a lot of

graham thought he had an opportunity to come in here and present his approval, i think the -- his proposal. the president wanted to make sure it had bipartisan, bicameral support. that was not case when senator durbin and senator graham came over here. here is the deal. the president wants a permanent fix. he wants to insure that we get the daca part solved but it has to include the border security measures is. this proposal that durbin and graham presented, it had 1/10th of funding for border secure security. it would lead to a second daca situation. it would recreate the situation. which is not what we need. we need to secure our borders. why the president in good faith wants a deal that works but it has to come from the -- trish: time is running out. you have till friday or the government shuts down. are we looking at a potential government shutdown, are you okay with that? >> the president does not ban the government to shut down. the president wants to insure that the democrats don't play shutdown politics. we don't want daca attached to a spending bill. we need to insure the democrats stop playing this game, if you shut down the government, it impacts our troops first and foremost. it impacts

and then lindsey graham, dick durbin and others came up with a deal strong bipartisan support, then theat meeting where he used those repulsive racist remarks, he blew the whole thing up. my view is the senate should exercise its constitutional responsibilities. we should not be contracting that out to the white house, which has been incredibly dysfunctional. i hope the president can help us here. after all, he said obama should have prevented the last government shutdown. but even if we can't get the white house on board as hours go down, i hope we can, mitch mcconnell should put forward what we have here in the senate, which is a bipartisan agreement. let's do our job. and by the way the president said he would sign it. at least he said that originally. >> three of your democrat colleagues say they are yes on short-term continuing resolution. does that worry you? >> no. i think everybody is looking at this legislation and deciding what's to do best. also republicans, like lindsey graham, and some others, who are going to vote with the democrats. because they think it's crazy that we a

people like lindsey graham and dick durbin took him at his word. they came back and the meeting blew up and triggered the shut down. we tried to get opioid funding, tried to deal with community health centers and a commitment from mitch mcconnell to have a vote on a bipartisan daca bill. we will have to negotiate what does in that bill. everyone is in favor of border security. we need border security. the issue is smart use of taxpayer dollars. you know many of experts have said it's a waste of money to build a huge wall, one that the president said mexico is going to pay for. border -- >> neil: he seems to dial back the wall and some areas there wouldn't be a wall. what prompted that reversal -- i wasn't there. you probably know more than i -- that if there was no provision for that in this measure that was submitted to him -- we'll never know for sure, but is it your sense that we could re-visit this whole potential shut down talk in a few weeks? >> well, i hope we don't have another shut down talk. i hope that mitch mcconnell lives up to the com

the graham/durbin proposal is not a proposal the president can sign. i just outlined four issues. the only issue that proposal deals with is the daca population in any meaningful way. on the issue of border security, it provides a fraction of the funding that we actually need to build the border wall. it doesn't provide removal authority that we need, it doesn't provide the resources we need for more border patrol on issues. it doesn't reform the lottery system and it doesn't reform the chain migration system. it is one proposal. it is not one that we embrace as a white house. we want meaningful immigration. our test on any bill is, if we pass this bill, are we going to have a new group of illegal immigrants that come across our southern border and create new problems a few years from now where new individuals are asking for more protected status? our southern border isn't secure and the flow of illegal drugs is still coming across our southern border along with a legal immigration system that needs reform. if we take a step in the right direction, the president is open to signing

reporter: do you support the graham-durbin proposal, even though it has this down payment on the border wall? ms. pelosi: right now our position is that we want the dream act and we're willing to -- we know our responsibility to secure our borders, north and south, and that's where our conversation is. so thank you all very much. to be continued. we may be seeing each other further today. one thing i have to say , is i'm so glad chuck schumer is the one who is over there. \[laughter] thank you all very much. \[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] \[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [inaudible] there meeting earlier today on the hill. about 2.5 hours away eastern time friday. p.m., there will be a vote. you could also watch the action there on the senate over there on c-span2. froma look here at a tweet the congressman from tennessee. trumps this is the first shut down. so unfortunate but no give by republicans so no take. has the vice president mike pence been in all

when you have a john kelly and lindsey graham. a durbin.eople who know the issues and have been studying them for years delegate. this is not your thing. what you have to do is make a deal. in the same way with the tax bill. look at the victory lap he's taking on the tax bill. he had an opportunity to stand there during the state of the union and announce he had been able to accomplish a legislative victory that eluded obama and george w. bush despite them wanting to do it. he was able to do it. >> don't give up hope. >> now we have been completely derailed in a weeks time. we have gone from love to. >> honesty. >> listen. let's do it differently tonight. please stay. we only heard from half. we heard from ellieson. now i want to talk to jim jordan on the right. we'll have more information. >> listen big. >> all right. so jim jordan. always smiling. he's been huddling be gop leadership this evening. is there hope for a deal? we'll get word from the congressman right after this. we got married after college. and had twin boys. but then one n

reporter: do you support the graham-durbin proposal, even though it has this down payment on the border wall? ms. pelosi: right now our position is that we want the dream act and we're willing to -- we know our responsibility to secure our borders, north and south, and that's where our conversation is. so thank you all very much. to be continued. we may be seeing each other further today. one thing i have to say , is i'm so glad chuck schumer is the one who is over there. [laughter] thank you all very much. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [indiscernible] ♪ "washington journal" is like everyday. -- live everyday. watch live at 7:00 eastern saturday morning. sunday to join us on a as we look back on the one-year anniversary of the women's watch on washington -- women's march on washington. day, harvard law professor and his book. madison'sstitution is monument. in that way, the constitution is all around you when you come to wash

if i knew i wouldn't be spinning myheel w durbin and graham do exactly what when he ask theyome with a compromise bill. two days after he asks. and jack, he sandbags them according to to durbin. or gets bad advise and says no way. this is no good for me in a room of hard liners. >> what he's trying to do is say get your head in the game. if you want to negotiate get people like the hispanic caucus. who kelly met with yesterday. sitting down with people like cotton. and purdue. that's real negotiation. there moderate democrats and republicans. their willingness to sign a bill. you got six votes unfortunately you need 60. it's not a real negotiation. graham and durbin worked closely with each other on immigration over the years. they know you have a lot more democrat and republicans who need to be@room in order to move forward. the president was saying that's not going to happen. i want to point out something. i served on the appropriation committee i want a chairman of three subcommittees. the house passed its appropriation bill i believe in september. it has been sitting in the senate

as you just mentioned with durbin and graham. and he -- he blew it up. he rejected it.e didn't want that. he basically said i want to make america white again. that is when he talked about white -- wanting immigrants from white countries. he was very clear. i don't ever think there he -- he ever wanted a deal to happen. now to the point of the bipartisan bill, it has been -- has been reported and shown that there is a -- a -- there is a belief that democrats and republicans both want a fix to daca. they would -- they would pass a clean d.r.e.a.m. act. and i think one of the problems that has happened here is paul ryan and mitch mcconnell, the two leaders of these two chambers, they just refuse to put that to the floor. so we can see if that will happen. on the house side, there is about 40 house republicans who said, we would vote for a d.r.e.a.m. act but paul ryan refused to put that on the floor because he knows what will happen. he put this c.r. and put c.h.i.p. on there as hostage. something they could have reauthorized months ago. and said, oh, yeah, you guys have

. >> like i said, i think a number of conservatives will have an issue with that, but graham durbin is looking at the number that the president is talking about, but do little on border security which is opposite of what people elected us to do. i always say we make this job too difficult. our job should be basic. what did we tell the american people what we were going to do? it was clear in the election, the focus would be securing the border and do things to make the country safe and adhering to the rule of law. let's make sure whatever legislation we come up with is closer to than than what graham durbin had and what the chairman introduced in the house worked on congressman labrador and others, i know that's a good piece of legislation, that is consistent with what the american people sent us to accomplish. neil: a lot of your colleagues say they never get a consistent read from the president on this issue, that, in fact, it was his 180, lindsey graham said on the daca thing and seemed like an agreement that propelled this. so people are confused where the president stands. are you

i can't help but remember senator graham's description in our judiciary committee of president trump's reversal on the durbin-graham proposal, and he described it in two hours. he described the 10:00 trump and then the 12:00 trump. and within two hours he completely reversed his position. as senator graham said, i want that guy back about 10:00 trump. it is really hard to negotiate with someone who doesn't know what his position is so i do have sympathy here, and i hope that the white house perhaps sits down and has a negotiation with itself so that it can decide what it wants. the other problem over at the white house is that the president has surrounded himself with extremists, and that means that nobody knows how to negotiate and the advice he is getting doesn't serve him. you really don't do deals, i think virtually everybody in politics knows, by bringing in the most extreme elements to shout at each other. you do deals by bringing people who have good faith and a common interest in solving the problem together. and if all you have around you is extremists, you have dramatically crippled and shrunk your

durbin and graham, those senators thought they could bring the president along. but the right wing of the republican party was watching all of this closely. they kept telling him privately, senator perdue, senator cotton, white house chief of staff john kelly, steven miller telling him your base may desert you if you cut this kind of immigration deal. so the president had warring sides inside of the oval office telling him to go in a different direction. so far he has sided with them. >> the dark side won this fight. thank you. great reporting as always. that same "washington post" article in that article, donald trump is quoted dismissing concerns by the congressional black caucus. when is senator durbin told trump the caucus would be more likely to go along with the deal if certain countries were included he was kurt and dismissive saying he was not catering to the black caucus and did not particularly care about that block's depend according to people briefed on the meeting. i'm joined by james clyburn of south carolina, a member of the congressional black cau