Skip to main content

  President Trump Meets with Members of Congress on Immigration  CSPAN  January 9, 2018 4:03pm-5:01pm EST

4:03 pm
later today the international spy museum here in washington, d.c. and the "the new york times" will host a discussion on media coverage of the investigations into russia's interference in the 2016 election. it gets underway at 6:45 p.m. eastern. you'll be able to watch it live here on c-span3. the cspan bus continues its 50 capitols tour this month with stops in raleigh, columbia,
4:04 pm
atlanta and montgomery. on each visit will speak with state officials during our live washington journal program, follow the tour and join us on tuesday, january 16th at 9:30 a.m. eastern for our stop in raleigh, north carolina, when our washington journal guest is josh stein. earlier today president trump hosted a bipartisan group of congressional leaders at the white house to negotiate a deal on border security and immigration enforcement, including protections for so-called daca recipients ahead of a march deadline. here's a look at some of that meeting. thank you very much everyone for being here. i'm thrilled to be with a distinguished group of republican and democratic lawmakers from both the house and the senate. we have something in common we'd like to see this get done and you know what this means. we're here today to advance
4:05 pm
bipartisan immigration reform that serves the needs of the american families, workers and taxpayers. it's daca. we've been talking about daca for a long time. i've been hearing about it for years, long before i decided to go into this particular line of work and maybe we can do something. we have a lot of good people in this room. a lot of people that have a great spirit for taking care of people we represent. we all represent. for that reason, any legislation on daca, we feel, at least a strong part of this group feels has to accomplish three vital goals and chairman will be submitting a bill over the next two to three days that will cover many of the things and obviously that -- if it gets passed it'll go to the senate and they can negotiate it. we'll see how it all turns out. i feel having the democrats in with us is absolutely vital because this should be a
4:06 pm
bipartisan bill. this should be a bill of love, truly. it should be a bill of love and we can do that. but it also has to be a bill where we're able to secure our border. drugs are pouring into our country at a record pace. a lot of people coming in that we can't have. we've greatly stiffened as you know and fewer people are trying to come in but we have tremendous numbers of people and drugs pouring into our country. so in order to secure, we need a wall, we need closing, enforcement. we have to close enforcement loopholes, give immigration officers and these are tremendous people the border security agents, the i.c.e. agents, we have to give them the equipment they need, we have to close loopholes and this does include a very strong amount of different things for border security. i think everybody in the room would agree to that.
4:07 pm
it's a question of amounts but i think everyone agrees we have to have border security. i don't think anybody that says no. second, it has to be a bill to end chain migration. chain migration is bringing in many, many people with want and often it doesn't work out very well. those many people are not doing us right and i think a lot of people in the room and i'm not sure i can speak for everybody but a lot of people in this room want it see chain migration ended and we have a recent case along the west side highway having to do with chain migration where a man ran over, killed eight people and many people injured badly, loss of arms, loss of legs, horrible thing happened and then you look at the chain and all the people that came in because of him. terrible situation and the other is cancel the lottery program. they call it visa lottery. i just call it lottery, where countries come in and they put names in a hopper. they're not giving you their
4:08 pm
best names. common sense means they're not giving you their best names. they're giving you people that they don't want and we take them out of the lottery, where they put the hand in a bowl, i probably what's in their hand or the worst of the worst. they put people that they don't want into a lottery and the united states takes those people and again, going back to that same person, he came in through the lottery program. they visited his neighborhood and the people in the neighborhood said, oh, my god, we suffered with this man, the rudeness and horribleness of the way he treated us right from the beginning. we don't want the lottery system or the visa lottery system. so those three things are paramount. and they're being requested by law enforcement officers. i had the big meeting with
4:09 pm
i.c.e. last week. i had a big meeting with the border patrol agents last week. nobody knows it better than them. sir, we desperately need the wall and we don't need a 2,000 mile wall. we don't need a wall where you have rivers and mountains protecting but we do need a wall for a fairly good portion. we also, as you know, it was passed in 2006 a similar thing, a fence, very substantial fence was passed but unfortunately, i don't know, they never got it done but they need it. so i'm appealing to everyone in the room to put the country before a party and to sit down and negotiate and to compromise and let's see if we can get something done. i really think that we have a chance to do it. i think it's very important. you're talking about 800,000 people and you're talking about lots of other people are also affected including people that live in our country that's from the security standpoint. so maybe the press can stay for a little while and a couple of
4:10 pm
folks can make statements and i don't mind the statements. we want to have this as a very open forum. i will say, though, that i really do believe democrat and republican, the people sitting around this table want to get something done in good faith and i think we're on our way to do it. this was an idea we had last week. i was sitting with some of our great republican senators and we all agreed on everything. it was a great meeting, david, right? we had a great meeting. i said it was perfect. but we'd like to get some democrat support, what do they say? let's have the same meeting but let's add the democrats and that's what we've done and i think we're going to come up with an answer. i hope we'll come up with an answer for daca and we go further than that for later on down the road. nick, perhaps you'd like to say a few words. >> thanks, mr. president for inviting us. september the 5th you challenged us. you challenged congress. you said we're going to end daca, not replace it. as of today we've not done that.
4:11 pm
we face a deadline of march 5th which you created which your elimination of daca and we know that in the meantime there have been efforts underway. senator graham and i sat down with a bipartisan group of senators. we have worked long and hard, many hours have been put in to it and we feel that we can put together a combination of the future of daca as well as border security, that there are elements you'll find that democrats support when it comes to border security. we want a safe border in america, period, both when it comes to the issues of illegal migration put also when it comes to drugs and all these other areas. now i will say that there is a sense of urgency that's felt by many of us when it comes to this issue. there are many of these young people who are losing the protection of daca on a daily basis as a march 5th, 1,000 a day will lose daca protection. 900 of them are members of the u.s. military, 20,000 of them
4:12 pm
are school teachers. in my state of illinois and city of chicago, there are 25 of them in medical school who can't apply for a residency if they lose their daca status. so lives are hanging in the balance of our getting the job done. we've got the time to do it in a matter of days, literally of days. we can come together and reach an agreement and when that happens, i think good things will happen in other places and we'll see some progress here in washington. >> i agree with that. tom wourks like to say something tom cotton. >> thank you for inviting us all here and i'm glad to be here with democrats and house members as well. i think on this issue there's a lack of trust and has been for many years, lack of trust between republicans and democrats, lack of trust among republicans, most fundamentally a lack of trust between the american people and our elected leaders on not delivering a solution for many, many years about some of these problems and i hope that this meeting can be the beginning of building trusts
4:13 pm
between our parties, between chambers because i know for a fact all the republicans around the table are committed to finding a solution and i believe all the democrats are as well. so i think this is a good first step in building the trust we need for a good bill, mr. president, that will be objective. providing daca protection and securing our border. thank you for the invitation. >> thank you. >> mr. president, thank you very much for having us down here. i agree with tom cotton that the american public is very frustrated with us. one of the reasons they're frustrated with us because we continue to couple things on which we have large agreement with things on which we do not agree. this is a perfect example of that. 86% of the american people in the most recent poll are for insuring as you have said not
4:14 pm
providing for daca protected kids to go to a place that they don't know, they didn't grow up in and it's not their home. they're americans. they don't have a piece of paper that says they're americans but they're americans and it seems to me, mr. president, if we're going to move ahead in a constructive way that we take that on which we agree passively. just as in september you recall we did the extension of a cr, no drama. we were all for it. you, foreign leaders, we came to an agreement and we passed that cr. in my view we can pass -- we can pass the protection in the -- what i understand your position is, procedurally it was not done
4:15 pm
correctly. you then as dick had said challenge us, pass it correctly. if it's put on the floor, mr. president, i believe it will have the overwhelming majority in woej the house and senator graham thinks it will have a substantial majority in the united states senate as well. that i think is the first step, tom, to creating some degree of confidence. democrats are for security at the borders. i want to state that emphatically. there's not a democrat that is not for having secure borders. there are obviously differences however, mr. president, on how you affect that. you just indicated that yourself and you indicated this would be a first step and then we continue to talk as we're talking today about how we best secure the border. there are differences of opinion and within your party and within our party. so i would urge that we move
4:16 pm
forward on protecting the daca protected individuals, young people, young adults as you pointed out in one of your statements who are productive parts of our community, that we protect them and get that done and then because i think everybody around the table will as you pointed out is for security, and then the issue is going to be out do we best affect that border security. i would urge us to move as senator durbin has urged us to move on the daca students. as a matter of fact, the speaker i think today but maybe yesterday said we need to solve the daca issue and we need to solve it in a way that is permanent, not temporary and i agree with him on that issue. >> interestingly, when you say that, president obama when he signed the executive order actually said he doesn't have the right to do this and so you do have to go through congress and you do have to make it permanent, whether he does it or doesn't, let's assume he does
4:17 pm
it, you said that was a temporary stop gap. we don't want that. we want to have a permanent solution to that and i think everybody in this room feels that way. >> what happened, mr. president, i think is that the senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill as you know. we did not consider it in the house so we didn't reach those issues. very frankly on border security, mr. mccaul the chairman of the committee reported out a unanimous security solution which we then included in the bill that we filed on comprehensive immigration reform. i think we can reach an agreement. >> after we do daca and i believe we should be able to be successful, i think we should look in terms of your permanent solution and to the whole situation with immigration. i think a lot of people in this room would agree to that also. we'll do it in steps and most people agree with that, i think. even you said, let's do this and then we go phase two. kevin, what would you like to say? >> first, i want to thank you
4:18 pm
for bringing everybody together. you got the senate and the house and both parties. i like the exchange of ideas and i think everybody has a point here. the one thing i don't want to have happen here is what i saw in the past. there were four bills passed on border security years ago that never got finished. immigration bills passed that were right back at the table with the same problem. let's make a commitment to each one and most importantly to the american people that when we get done and come to an agreement that we're not back at this problem, three, four years from now. that's why, yes, we've got to do daca and i agree with you 100%. but if we do not do something with the security, if we do not do something with the chain migration, we are fooling each other that we solved a problem. you know how difficult this issue is. so let's collectively -- we're here at the table together, i'll be the first one to tell you, we're all going to have to give a little and i'll be the first
4:19 pm
one willing to. but let's solve the problem but let's not tell the american public at the end that it's solved when it's not. >> i think a good starting point would be, bob good lak who has done a bill and i understand you're ready to submit it and you're going to take that and you'll submit and they'll negotiate and congress and the house and it goes to the senate, they'll negotiate, both republican and democrat but it could be a good way of starting, if anyone has an idea different than that, starting in the house might be good. you're ready. i think you're ready to go. i would like to add the words merit in to any bill that's submitted because i think we should have merit based immigration like they have in canada, like they have in australia, so we have people coming in that have a great track record as opposed to -- as opposed to what we're doing now, to be honest with you. merit based should be absolutely added to any bill even if it has to do with daca. i think it would be popular.
4:20 pm
i can tell you the american public vex wants that. bob, where are you with the bill? >> so tomorrow, chairman mccaul and congresswoman sally and we're the chairman of the subcommittees are going to introduce a bill that addresses the daca concerns. let me thank you, mr. president, both -- i was an immigration lawyer before i was elected congress. i want to thank you both for campaigning on securing our borders and the interior of our country, but also on addressing daca in a way that makes sense. don't do it ad hoc. do it through the congressional process. so you've challenged us and we should step up to that challenge and we're going to do it in a bipartisan fashion but we have to put our best foot forward and we're going to do that with this legislation. it's going to address daca in a permanent way, not a temporary short-term thing. we're going to address the border enforcement pane security
4:21 pm
and the wall. we're going to address interior enforcement but not everything that the administration had on its list. we're going to address a chain migration. we're going to end the visa lottery program. we're going to address sanctuary cities and kate's law. we think it is a good bill that will both address the two things our speaker told us right after you made your decision, which is we have to address the problem we have with the daca kids being in limbo as dick durbin described it. i agree with that. we have to make sure that this does not happen again. >> and to hear -- the democrats will have a lot of things -- you're got to talk to us about it. i just felt that this is something long overdue. you have a meeting and say this is what we want and we'd have a meeting and this would go on for years. maybe i'll just lock the doors and won't let anybody out until they come and agree.
4:22 pm
michael, do you have something to say about the bill? >> i've been in congress for seven terms. i've been trying to get this border secure for seven terms. this is a bipartisan issue. daca is a bipartisan issue. we have an opportunity before us to get this done for the american people. when it comes to chain migration and the lottery system, we saw two recent terror attacks in new york that were the result of this i think failed immigration policy. we like to see that fixed for the american people along with as bob talked about sanctuary cities. you and i talked about this extensively so we think our bill, our house bill will be a good starting ground for this negotiation and i too want to commend you for bringing everybody together. what we don't want to see happen is for the conditions for daca to occur again. we want to get security done so we don't have to deal with this problem five more years down the road. so thank you, sir.
4:23 pm
>> so many points of agreement and a lot of its common sense and i really think we'll come out very well. david, do you have something to say? >> my observation is three times in the last 11 years well intentioned people, some of whom are in this room attempted to do what we're starting to try to do today and we failed and i think the difference is they are mission ended up in an effort that became two comprehensive. my encouragement for all of us is to do what dick is trying to do and limit the scope of this and i like the idea that both sides have pressure to solve the daca issue but i think the bigger issue here is not just the daca issue but what can we do to start the path to the steps that solve this immigration problem for several reasons. social issues, political issues, economic issues about our workforce that have to be addressed. limiting this to the legal immigration side and combining the balance between various solutions on daca, d.r.e.a.m.ers
4:24 pm
if it gets in the conversation as well as border security and chain migration. therein lies the balance of a good deal that can be done and i agree with dick. i don't think it's going to take long to get it done if we lock ourselves in a room and make it happen. >> i think you're right. anybody have anything to say prior to the press leaving. >> mr. president, i just have one comment. lives are hanging in the balance. as we come up on the march deadline. those hanging in the balance are our military. we should not be playing politics on this issue to stop our military from getting the funding that they need. i think we have the right people in the room to solve this issue. the deadline is march 5th. they roll up our sleeves and work together on this. those who need us right now before the jan 19th deadline is our military and let's not play politics with that. let's give them what they need to keep us safe. >> good. i think a lot of people would agree with that. we need our military.
4:25 pm
we had wars, right, lindsey. we need our military desperately. our military's been very depleted. we're rebuilding and building it up quickly and negotiating much better deals with your pervayers and manufacturers and equipment makers, much better than it was before. i look at boats that started off at $1.5 billion and they're up to $18 billion and they're still not finished, in this case a particular aircraft carrier. i think it's outrageous. we'll very much agreeing with you. >> i want to follow-up on that. >> go ahead. >> democrats don't want to make sure that the military is funded properly and over the last four years we had an agreement between mr. ryan and senator murray, speaker ryan, that we would understand that our military's critically important but we also understand that our domestic issues, whether it's education, whether it's health care, whether it's the
4:26 pm
environment, whether it's transportation and infrastructure, they're important as well and both the defense and nondefense sides of the budget are hurt when you have a cr because they cannot plan and they cannot let contracts that they don't have any money to do so. so very frankly, i think ms. mcsally is correct. what we ought to have done over the last six months, particularly when we did the september and we gave 90 days is to reach some agreement on what the caps are going to be, the murray/ryan agreements were parody. we believe that's very important. so we can get to where we should get and want to get there, but we ought to have an agreement based upon what the last two -- >> we do have to take politics out of the military. we need that military. with all the other things we talk about, we won't be here if we don't have the right military. we need our military and we need it stronger than ever before and
4:27 pm
we're ready to do it but we have to take politics out of the military. one thing that i think we can really get along with on a bipartisan basis and maybe i'm stronger on this than a lot of the people on the republican side, we have great support from the republicans is infrastructure. i think we can do a great infrastructure bill. i think we'll have a lot of support from both sides and i'd like to get it done as quickly as possible. yes, john. >> i too want to thank you for getting us together. you will made the point last week when republicans were meeting with you why are we continuing to have of these meetings just among ourselves when what we need to do to get to a solution is to meet as we are today as you've insisted on a bipartisan basis, but part of my job is to count votes in the senate and as you know, you've hosted the leadership at camp david this weekend, i believe both the speaker and majority leader mcconnell made crystal clear that they would not -- they would not proceed with a
4:28 pm
bill on the floor of the senate or the house unless it had your support, unless you would sign it. so that's, i think, the picture that we need to be looking through, the lens we need to be looking through is not only what we can agree to among ourselves on a bipartisan basis but what will you sign into law because we all want to get to a solution here and we realize the clock is ticking but i think that for me frames the issue about as well as i can. >> thank you. very well said. one of the reasons i'm here, chuck, so importantly is exactly that. normally you wouldn't have a president coming to meeting. normally, you'd have democrats and republicans and maybe nothing would get done. our system lends itself to not getting things done and i hear so much about earmarks. the old earmark system. how there was a great friendliness when you had earmarks but, of course they had other problems with earmarks but maybe all of you should start thinking about going back to a form of earmarks because this
4:29 pm
system -- this system -- no. well, you should do it and i'm there with you, because this system really lends itself to not getting along. it lends itself to hostility and anger and they hate the republicans and they hate the democrats and in the old days of earmarks, you can say what you want about certain president's and others where they all talk about they went out to dinner at night and they all got along and they passed bills. that was an earmark system and maybe we should think about it and we have to put better controls because it got a little bit out of hand. our system right now the way it's set up will never bring people together. i think we'll get this done, daca. i hope we're going to get infrastructure done in the same way, but i think you should look at a form of earmarks. i see lindsey nodding very happily yes but a lot of the pros are saying if you want to get along and if you want to get this country really rolling
4:30 pm
again, you have to look at a different form because this is obviously out of control. the levels of hatred -- i'm not talking about trump. you go pack throughout the eight years of obama and before that, the animosity and the hatred between republicans and democrats. i remember when i used to go out in washington and i'd see democrats having dinner with republicans and they were best friends and everybody got along. you don't see that too much any more, with all due respect. you really don't see that. when's the last time you took a republican out to dinner? you don't see it, so maybe -- totally different from this meeting because we'll get daca done, i hope we'll get daca done and we'll all try very hard, but maybe you should start bringing back a concept of earmarks. it's going to bring you together. you're going to do it honestly. you'll get rid of the problems that the other system had and it did have some problems. one thing it did is it brought everyone together and this country has to be brought
4:31 pm
together. okay. thank you. yes, lindsey. >> well, at 6:40 i got to go to menendez office and he's taking me to dinner at 7:00 and he's buying. he didn't know that. he's buying. you're all welcome to come. bob's buying. >> we can get bipartisan agreement when the other guy buys. >> i think it's a very important thing because our system is designed right now that everybody should hate each other and we can't have that. we have a great country. we have a country that's doing very well in many respects. we just hitting a new high on the stock market again. and that means jobs. i look at the 401(k)s. i look at what's happening, thank you, you're making me look like a financial genius, literally, meaning about them and their wives never thought that was possible. the country -- the country is doing well in so many ways but
4:32 pm
there's such divisiveness, such division and i really believe we can solve that. i think this system is a very bad system in terms of getting together and i'm going to leave it up to you but i really believe you can do something to bring it together. >> i've been doing this for ten years. i don't think i've seen a better chance to get it done than i do right now because of you. john's right. i'm not going to support a bill if you don't support it. i've had my head vetoed out a bunch. i'm still standing. you name every name you want to give to me that's been assigned to me. i'm still standing. the people of south carolina want a result. how could i get elected? i've been for a pathway to citizenship for 11 million people because i have no animosity toward them. i don't want crooks or bad om brailles. i will want to get a merit based immigration system to make sure we can succeed in the 21st century. i'm willing to be more than fair to the 11 million. i don't want to do this every 11
4:33 pm
years. i think that's a smart decision but a hard decision. we passed three comprehensive bills out of the senate with over 65 votes. they go to the house and die and i'm not being disparaging, this is stuff politics if you're a republican house member turning on the radio, to my democratic friends, thanks for coming, the resist movement hates this guy. they don't want him to be successful at all. you turn on fox news and i can hear the drumbeat coming. right wing radio and tv talk show hosts are going to beat .crap out of us because it's going to be amnesty all over again. i don't know if the republican and democratic party can define love. what i think what we can do is do what the american people want us do. 64% of the president trump voters want a path to citizenship for daca if you have strong borders. you need to close the deal. >> thank you. it's very interesting because i
4:34 pm
do have people that are let's just to use a very common term, very far right and very far left. they're very unhappy about what we're doing but i really don't believe they have to be because i think this spells itself. when you talk about comprehensive immigration reform, which is where i would like to get to eventually, if we do the right bill here we are not very far away. we've done most of it. if you want to know the truth, if we do this properly, daca, you're not so far away from comprehensive immigration reform and if you want to take it that further step, i'll take the heat. i don't care. i don't care. i'll take all the heat you will want to give me. i'll take both the heat off democrats and republicans. my whole life has been heat. i like heat in a certain way, but i will. you are somewhat more traditional politicians than me. two and a half years ago i was never thinking in terms of politics. you've been doing it all your
4:35 pm
lives. i'll take all the heat you want. you're not that far away from comprehensive immigration reform and if you wanted to go that final step, i think you should do it. if you want to study earmarks to bring us all together so we all get together and do something, i think you should study it. chuck, did you have something to say? >> i'd like to talk about the reality of the whole situation and take off from what cornyn and graham have said of the necessity of you working with us and you're doing that by having this meeting and other meetings as well, but we've always talked in the united states senate about the necessity of getting 60 votes and that's pretty darn tough but if we would write a bill that you don't like and you veto it, we're talking about a 67 vote thresholds, two-thirds in the united states senate. so that's the reality of negotiating in good faith and getting something you can sign. the second reality is the march 5th date that's coming up, because if we don't do some good
4:36 pm
faith negotiation and make progress and get a bill on the floor of the united states senate, our leader is going to have to bring up the house bill or the bill that some of us has introduced in the united states senate and we'll have a vote on it and those people that don't want to vote to legalize daca kids are going to have to explain why that they haven't wanted to protect the vulnerable people that we're all here talking about. we're talking about everything except doing something for the daca kids. i would vote for a path to citizenship, which isn't very easy for me but i would do it just as an effort. there's certain things that we've got to guarantee that we're going to do. >> chuck, that's got to be brought up. i believe that will be brought up. it's incentive for people to do a good job. that whole path is an incentive for people and they're not all
4:37 pm
kids. they're not really kids. you have 39, 40 years old in some cases. it would be an incentive for people to work hard and do a good job. that could very well be brought up. >> talking about legalizing people here that didn't break the law because their parents who broke the law brought them here and we ought to be talking about what we can do for the people that had no-fault of their own and get the job done and not worry about a lot of other things that we're involved in and that means that we got to make sure that we tell the american people when we're taking this step that we're doing something that all the people agree to, you know. >> mr. president, let me just say i think dick and i agree with what chuck grassley just said. >> that's hard to believe. when was the last time that happened? >> we need to take care of these daca kids and we all agree on that. 86% of the american public agrees on that. with all due respect, bob and mike and lindsey, there are some things that you're proposing that are going to be very
4:38 pm
controversial and will be an impediment to agreement. >> but you're going to negotiate those things? you're going to sit down and say we can't agree here we'll give you half of that. you're going to negotiate. >> mr. president, comprehensive means comprehensive. >> now we're talking about -- >> we are talking about comprehensive -- >> if you want to go there it's okay. >> mr. president, many of the things that are mentioned ought to be a part of the negotiations regarding comprehensive immigration reform. >> take it a step further, you may. i'll have to rely on you. you may complicate it and you may delay daca somewhat. >> i don't want to do that. you said at the outset we need to phase this. the first phase is with chuck and others. we have a deadline looming and a lot of lives hanging. we can agree on some very fundamental and important things together on border security on chain, on the future of diversity visas. comprehensive, though, i worked on it for six months with michael bennett and a number of -- bob men 9-1-1 den dez.
4:39 pm
>> we don't have six months. >> you mentioned a number of factors that are going to be controversial -- >> but you're going to negotiate. maybe we'll agree and maybe we won't. it's possible we won't agree with you. there should be no reason for us not to get this done. chuck, i will say when this group comes back hopefully with an agreement, this group and others from the senate, from the house comes back with an agreement. i'm signing it. i will be signing it. i'm not going to say, oh, gee, i want this or that. i'll be signing it. i have a lot of confidence in this room that you're going to come up with something really good. senator, would you like to say something? >> i would. as you know we tried for comprehensive immigration reform in the senate. it was on the floor. there were a number of amendments. it got a lot of attention in the judiciary committee and then the house didn't take it up.
4:40 pm
i think there needs to be a willingness on both sides and i think -- i don't know how you would feel about this, but i'd like to ask the question, what about a clean daca bill now with a commitment that we go in to a comprehensive immigration reform procedure like we did back when kennedy was here. it was really a major, major effort and it was a great disappointment that it went nowhere. >> i remember that. >> i have no problem. i think that's basically what dick is saying. we'll come up with daca and then we can start immediately on the phase two which would be comprehensive. >> would you be agreeable to that? >> yeah. go ahead. i think a lot of people would like to see that but i think we have to do daca first. >> mr. president, you need to be clear, though. i think what senator feinstein's is asking here, when we talk about just daca, we don't want
4:41 pm
to be back here two years later. >> he's saying something different. >> what do you think i'm saying? >> i think you're saying daca without security. are you talking about security as well? >> well, i think if we have some meaningful comprehensive immigration reform, that's really where the security goes and if we can get the daca bill because march is coming and people are losing their status every day -- >> let's be honest. security was voted on just a few years ago and no disrespect, there's people in the room on the other side of the aisle who voted for it, if i recall. senator clinton voted for it. so i don't think that comprehensive. i think that's dealing with daca at the same time. i think that's really what the president's is making. it's kind of like three pillars. daca, because we all want to do it, border security, and chain my grace.
4:42 pm
it's just three items and everything else is comprehensive is moved to the side. i believe when the president -- >> and lottery. >> add merit if you can. add merit based. i don't know who's going to argue with merit based. who can argue with merit based. diane, go ahead? >> do you really think that there can be agreement on all of that quickly to get daca passed in time? i wanted to ask mr. mccarthy a question. do you really think there can be agreement on those three difficult subjects you raised in time to get daca passed and effective -- >> yes. you have heard from leader mcconnell and speaker ryan who said, they will put the bill on to the floor if the president agrees to it and us getting to the room. i haven't seen us be this close at having this discussion in quite a few years, so i think,
4:43 pm
yes, we can make this happen. we all know it. we've done it before. you and i spent a long time, we did one of the most difficult things in california water and i believe we can get there and we can just keep working each day on this. >> mr. president -- >> i think what we're all saying is we'll do daca and we can start comprehensive immigration reform the following afternoon, okay. we'll take an hour off and then we'll start. i do believe that. once we get daca done if it's done properly with security and everything else, if it's done properly, we have taken a big chunk of comprehensive out of the negotiation and i don't think it's going to be that complicated. >> we need to be very clear, though. in my opinion we'll be right back here either five years or 30 years. the chain migration is so insidious, it is the fundamental flaw in the immigration policy in the united states. if any, conversation about daca is being held without that conversation. i agree with border security. any conversation about that is
4:44 pm
not going to go anywhere in the united states senate. if we think we'll divide one side versus the other that's not going to happen on this issue. >> chain migration has taken a very big hit over the last six months. people, for instance, the man on the west side highway that killed the people and so badly wound wounded. they don't say that arms are off and legs are off. one person lost two legs. nobody talks about that. eight died but they don't talk about the 12 people that have no legs, no arms. i'm talking about everybody. i really believe that when you talk about the subject that we're all mentioning right now, i think they had -- how many people came in, 22 to 24 people came in through him, he was a killer. he's a guy who ran over many people. eight died. ten to 12 are really badly injured. so i really think that a lot of people are going to agree with us now on that subject.
4:45 pm
i don't see it ads a big -- >> 70% of americans want the immigration policy to be the family -- the nuclear family and the workers, 70%. >> chain migration has taken a very big hit in the last year is what's happening. you looking at these killers whether you like or not, we're looking at these killers and then you see 18 people came in, 22 people came in, 30 people came in with this one person that just killed a lot of people. i really don't believe there are a lot of democrats that are going to be supporting chain migration any more. >> mr. president, should we have the homeland security secretary -- >> i just want to try to make sure we're all linking. the reason border security is so important to have as part of this discussion is that it doesn't solve the problem if we can apprehend people but we can't remove them. we need the law system which is some physical infrastructure as the president described, personal technology but we have to close those legal loopholes because the effective of that is this incredible pull up from
4:46 pm
central america that just continues to exacerbate the problem. border security has to be part of this or we will be here again. the other point i would just make is the president asked dhs, he asked the men and women of dhs what do you need to do your job? congress and the american people have entrusted to you the security of our country. what do you need? the list we have provided is what we need to do our mission that you asked us to do? it's not less than or more than. it is what we need to close those loopholes to protect our country. i would just encourage everyone much more he will quantitily i can describe, all the reasons we are committed to helping the daca population but to truly solve the problem it's got to be in conjunction with border security. >> jeff? >> i would just echo what had been said by some here. for those of us who have been through comprehension reform
4:47 pm
that was every night negotiating with staff on weekends and a lot of people we're talking about on border security and some of the interior things have tradeoffs and we made those during that process. i don't see how we get there before march 5th. >> that's why we're making a phase two. we do a phase one which is daca and security and we do phase two which is comprehensive immigration and i think we should go right to it. i really do. we do one and we then do the other but we go right to it. yes? >> i think it's important to thank you for your flexibility and your leadership and so i think what all of us have to do is have the same willingness to have a little bit of flexibility to get this issue done and obviously i will want to do a lot more than daca but the urgent thing now for obvious reasons are these young men and women who we have to deal with first and foremost. there are two issues which we
4:48 pm
keep hearing that everybody agrees to that is dealing with these individuals on a permanent real solution, and border security. so i don't see why we shouldn't be able to do that and i'm hoping that would then lead us to centsenator cotton's point, of trust. if we can get border security and deal with these individuals, if we can get that done, then i think, my gosh, it all opens up to do a lot more things in the future for the american people. >> mr. president? >> i just want to reemphasize what secretary nielson said. it is so important to understand when you talk about border security, if you apprehend somebody at the border but then you cannot send them back outside the united states even though they're unlawfully present in the united states you have not solved this problem because they're then released into the interior of the country and the problem persists and that sends a message back to wherever they come from. >> i agree. you know what? we'll negotiate that out. i agree. i think a lot of people agree on
4:49 pm
both sides. henry? >> thank you, mr. president. i agree with my good friend in the sense that if we focus on daca and border security, i think we can address this. issues of chain migration and the other issues should be looked at. i said this with all due respect to both democrats, republicans, but being from the border i always get a kick out of people that go down spend a few hours there, they think they noknow t border better than some of us that have lived there all of our lives. for example, if you look at the latest dea, worried about drugs, looked at the latest dea report, more drugs come through the ports of entry than in between ports but we're not even talking about ports of entry, number one. >> our bill does. >> i'm just saying -- i'm just saying ports. let's finish this and some of us have been working this longer than some of the folks. number one, if you look at the 11 or 12 million undocumented
4:50 pm
aliens, 40% of them came through visa overstays. so you can put the most beautiful wall out there it's not going to stop them there. they'll come by plane, boat or vehicle itself. >> that's other thing is, the or thing that we have to look at, the wall itself, mr. president, you talk to your border patrol chief or the former border patrol chiefs. i have asked them, how much time does the wall buy you? they say a couple minutes or a few seconds. this is our own border patrol chiefs that have said that. >> not mine. >> without the wall, you can't have border security. all you have to do is ask israel. look what happened with them. >> all right, homeland appropriations, your chief was there and the former chiefs have all said that. the other thing is -- >> they didn't do a good job. >> this and where the wall, mr. president, if you look at where the walls are at right
4:51 pm
now, this is where the activity is, where the walls are at right now. >> we have massive miles of area where people are pouring through. now, one of the good things because of our rhetoric or because of the perceived, my perceived attitude, fewer people are trying to come through. that's a great thing. and therefore, i mean, our numbers have been fantastic, maybe for all the right reasons. >> let me finish my thought. i want to ask you that we're playing -- you saw the game last night. a good game last night. >> very good game. >> we're playing defense on the 1 yard line. called the u.s. border. we spend over $18 billion a year on the border. if we think about playing defense on the 20 yard line, if you look at what mexico has done, they stopped thousands of people on the southern border with guatemala. >> we stopped them. we stopped them. you know why? mexico told me, the president told me, everybody tells me, not as many people are coming
4:52 pm
through their southern border because they don't think they can get through our southern border, therefore, they don't come. that's what happened with mexico. we did mexico a tremendous favor. >> we put in appropriations. >> we always give everybody -- every other nation gets money but ours. we're always looking for money. we give the money to other nations. >> the president, instead of playing defense on the 1 yard line, if you look, this is your material. we know where the stash houses are at. we know where the hotels are at. we know where they are across the river. why stop -- why play defense on the 1 yard line? >> like never before. >> all i'm saying, if we focus on daca, we can work on the other things separately. on sensible border security, listen to the folks that are from the border. >> you folks are going to have to come up with a solution. if you do, i'm going to sign that solution. we have a lot of smart people in this room. really smart people. we have a lot of people who are good people, big hearts, they
4:53 pm
want to get it done. i think almost everybody, i can think of one or two i don't particularly like, but that's okay. no, i think everybody. everybody wants this to happen. i'm trying to figure that out. but everybody wants a solution. you want it, henry, and i want it. i think we have a great group of people to sit down and get this done. in fact, when the media leaves, which i think should be probably pretty soon, but i will tell you, i liked opening it up to the media, because i think they see more than anything else, we're all very muff on a similar page, not the same page, and henry, i think we can really get something done. why don't we ask the media to leave. we appreciate you being here. >> is there any agreement without the wall? >> no. we need it. you need the wall.
4:54 pm
you need the wall. and i will tell you this. the i.c.e. officers and border patrol agents, i had them just recently up. they say if you don't have the wall, in certain areas, obviously, that aren't protected by nature, if you don't have the wall, you can't have security. just can't have it. it doesn't work. part of the problem we have is walls and fences we currently have are in very bad shape. they're broken. we have to get them fixed or rebuilt. you know, you speak to the agents, and i spoke to all of them. i lived with them. they endorsed me for president, which they have never done before. the border patrol agents and i.c.e., they both endorsed trump. they never did that before. and i have a great relationship with them. they say, sir, without the wall, security doesn't work. we're all wasting time. that doesn't mean 2,000 miles of wall because you just don't need that because of nature, because of mountains and rivers and lots of other things. but we need a certain portion of that border to have the wall. if we don't have it, you can
4:55 pm
never have security. you can never stop that portion of drugs that comes through that area. yes, it comes through planes and lots of other ways and ships. but a lot of it comes through the southern border. you can never fix the situation without additional wall. and we have to fix existing wall that we already have. >> you would not support what senator feinstein asked you, which would be a clean daca bill? >> a clean daca bill to me is a daca bill where we take care of the 800,000 people. they're not necessarily young people. everybody talks about young. they could be 40 years old, 41 years old, but they're also 16 years old. but i think to me, a clean bill is a bill of daca, we take care of them and also take care of security. that's very important. i think the democrats want security, too. i mean, we started off with steny saying we want security also. everybody wants security. and then we can go to comprehensive later on. and maybe that is a longer
4:56 pm
subject and a bigger subject, and i think we can get that done, too, but we'll get it done at later date. >> mr. president, all the immigrants serving in the united states senate right now, i would like nothing better for us to get to comprehensive immigration reform. what i'm hearing around the table right now is a commitment to resolving the daca situation, because there is a sense of urgency. now, you have put it out there that you want $18 billion for a wall or else there will be no daca. is that still your position? >> yes. i secocould build it for less. somebody said $42 billion. this is like the aircraft carrier. started off at $1.5 billion and now at $18 million. we can do it for less. we can do a great job, a great wall, but you need the wall. and i'm now getting involved. i like to build under budget, okay. i like to build under budget, ahead of schedule. there's no reason for seven years also. i heard the other day, please,
4:57 pm
don't do that to me. seven years to build a wall. we can build a wall in one year. and we can build it for much less money than what they're talking about. and any excess funds, and we'll have a lot, whether it's -- it's still under budget and i built ahead of schedule. there's no reason to ever mention seven years again, please. i heard that, i said i wanted to come out with a major news conference, tom, yesterday. no, it can go up quickly. it can go up effectively, and we can fix a lot of the areas right now that are really satisfactory, if we renovate those walls and those fences. >> whether 17 million or -- >> there are large areas where you don't need a wall because you have a mountain and a river. you have a violent river, and you don't need it. okay. >> it seems to me not much has actually changed in terms of your position at this particular
4:58 pm
point. >> my positions are going to be what the people in this room come up with. i am very much reliant on the people in this room. i know most of the people on both sides, have a lot of respect for the people on both sides, and what i approve is going to be very much rely ntd on what the people in this room come to me with. i have great confidence in the people -- if they come to me with things i'm not in love with, i'm going to do it because i respect them. thank you all very much. thank you. thank you. >> you know, i did one of her last shows. she had donald trump, before politics, his last week. she had donald trump and my family. i like oprah. i don't think she's going to run. i don't think she's going to run. i know her very well. >> i think comprehensive will be
4:59 pm
phase two. i think, i really agree with dick. i think we get the one thing done and then we go into comprehensive the following day. >> mr. president. >> i think it will happen. >> thank you all. >> thank you all very much. i hope we gave you enough material. this should cover you for about two weeks. >> later today, the international spy museum here in washington, d.c. and "the new york times" will host a discussion on media coverage of the investigations into russia's interference in the 2016 election. it gets under way at 6:45 p.m. eastern. you'll be able to watch it live here on c-span3. >> the deadline for c-span's
5:00 pm
student cam 2018 video documentary competition is right around the corner. it's january 18th. we're asking students to choose a provision of the u.s. constitution and create a video illustrating why it's important to you. students across the country are in the final stretch, and sharing their experience with us through twitter. these students participated in a student cam film festival. this group wrapped up an interview on climate change. and this student learning a lot and having fun while editing. our competition is open to all middle school and high school students, grades 6 through 12. $100,000 will be awarded in cash prizes. and the grand prize of $5,000 will go to the student or team with the best overall entry. for more information, go to our website, >> next, the author of dreamland, the true tale of america's opiate em