Representative Pete Sessions addresses the 40-day DHS shutdown, rejecting Senate proposals to exclude ICE funding while advocating for a new Secretary to reset agency tone. He supports $200 billion in war spending against Iran's nuclear ambitions and Houthi threats but insists on transparency regarding China and Taiwan. Responding to callers, Sessions envisions a post-war Iranian coalition government akin to Lincoln's "team of rivals" rather than a monarchy or CIA puppet regime, while also defending voter ID laws and questioning the delayed implementation of e-Verify for immigrant workers. [Automatically generated summary]
Creating a District of Columbia safe and beautiful commission to enforce federal immigration laws and ensure the restoration of national monuments.
And later this week, the House plans to take up several bills to address the partial DHS shutdown.
Now in its 40th day, watch live coverage of the House when lawmakers return here on C-SPAN.
And joining us now from Capitol Hill, it's Congressman Pete Sessions, Republican from Texas, senior member of the House Oversight and Financial Services Committees.
Congressman, good morning to you.
We're now 40 days into this partial shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security.
What's the latest you're hearing about a potential deal, a potential off-ramp here?
Well, thank you, and that is a good question, John, because in fact it has emanated out of the United States Senate a group of people who are very aware that across this country are airports, people who are at spring break, hours in line to try and move their families through effectively through airports.
The commercial element for the airlines is difficult.
It causes them disruptions.
It is a disruption for the economy of the country as people are deciding not to travel and do things.
It is a mess.
And so this has driven United States Senate and senators to try and seek an impasse that exists today in the Senate.
And that essentially was a thought or an idea that fund everything at Homeland Security except ICE.
That would bring about bringing back a lot of employees, but then would prepare us for FEMA, the Coast Guard, and other very important organizations that exist to serve and help the American people.
This issue and idea evidently went to the White House.
The White House, I do not comment or speak for the White House, but evidently there was some conversation with members of the House.
I am not for this.
I believe that we need to fund the operations.
I believe that ICE is an important part of Homeland Security.
They are the part, literally, that takes care of the criminals that are in this country.
We don't ask other people to do that.
We ask ICE to do their job.
This all comes, I think, at a time when we had a change in the Secretary of Homeland Security, as we know, Christy Noam, appeared before the Senate in conversation, before a committee a couple weeks ago.
I don't think that went as well as Christie wanted.
I don't think it went as well for a lot of people.
As it turned out, the president then decided he was going to have a new Secretary of Homeland Security.
That is Mark, who is a United States Senator today or was from Oklahoma.
Mark is a friend, a dear friend of mine, and a person who I believe is going to reset the tone, the tone of probably not just DHS, but ICE in particular.
He spoke very clearly at his hearing and I think gave messaging that he's willing to work with his former colleagues that are senators.
But perhaps more importantly, he signaled that he did not believe that ICE should be the top of every day that was on every TV station about their operations.
So I believe that his review of this, Mark Wayne, is a person who, while may not be skilled in all the policy aspects, he is skilled in reading people and understanding the importance of the operation to the nation.
So that's where we are.
I do not expect that the House will be a part of this deal, but we'll see if the Senate can pass it.
Come back to not supporting this deal.
If the ICE funding is the holdup here, and as you acknowledge, people are being hurt by TSA agents calling out and the lack of funding for TSA, why not carve out the ICE funding and keep working on that and fund the rest of Homeland Security, including TSA and Coast Guard and FEMA and all those other things, and then keep working on this problem of ICE.
Well, it is a very important question, John, and you asked that to a member of Congress who's made many votes at a time when I did not necessarily agree with completely what was before me, but in the best interest of the nation I did.
And you now have two United States senators from Hawaii that will gain that political pressure because of the huge storm that impacted Hawaii, and certainly FEMA would be a part of that.
I went out to Hawaii two years ago when they had the huge fires.
Hawaii needs FEMA.
And so there were times where I had to not bite my tongue, but I was not for everything.
Perhaps it's debt limit funding, perhaps it's other things.
Politically, we need to understand we need ICE.
We need ICE in this country.
And so Republicans in the majority will stand strong.
They need to fund the Department of Homeland Security, not carve out what they do not like, because otherwise what we're doing is setting the stage where ICE just exits the federal funding.
And I will not do that.
And so I would encourage Americans to think this through.
We need to fund it and then make the changes that perhaps might be offered.
But the offer by the Democrats is simply one that I would not accept either.
And that is how they look at what the alternative would be for their vote.
Do you expect to be sticking around during the Easter recess that Congress is going to be in session to work through this?
You know, if Congress is in session, of course we will stay here.
And I think it makes perfect sense that if the American people expect us to, and I do too, to come up, we're resolved we should.
But let's just be quite blunt.
This is also a political city.
I voted yes.
The question is about the people that vote no, not the people that vote yes.
And we need several more who will vote yes, and then we could have this done.
So the onus is on them, just as I in the past have voted yes in other funding opportunities when the Democrats were in control.
I respected that for the good of the American people.
Come to the SAVE Act.
For me, we're already a month into primary voting in election 2026.
When do you expect the SAVE Act to be addressed for Congress to pass this or not before we get any closer to Election Day?
Well, I believe that the sale has already been made that people do understand you need to show proof of being an American citizen if you're going to be a voter.
So I think that that is once again part of this struggle that's going on between not just the two parties but the philosophy about whether we're going to allow people who simply come here illegally, as we know we had, as you've heard earlier in the show, some at least 13 million people who came here.
The Democratic Party H.R. 1 bill from 2017 would have made them immediately that same day eligible to vote in a federal election.
We disagree with that, and so we're attempting to counter with what we believe is reasonable and where the law should be.
Congressman Pete Sessions is our guest, Republican from Texas.
You know him well if you're a C-SPAN viewer and you can call in and talk to him this morning.
202-748-8,000 for Democrats, 202-748-8001 for Republicans.
Independents 202-748-8002.
Victory Over Iran Regime00:09:00
As folks are calling in, Congressman, we haven't had you on since the beginning of the war in Iran and hostilities there 25 days ago at this point.
What should be the U.S. goal when it comes to war with Iran?
Well, the goal of Iran is one that has been at our doorstep for a long time, and presidents have tried to work their way through it.
Each time the answer back from the Iranians was death to America and death to Americans and Israel.
We finally, based upon intelligence over the last few years, have understood how close they were to a nuclear bomb, a weapon, weapons of mass destruction, and their desire to use that.
And you've seen a number of conversations over the years with different presidents about that.
They continue on that pathway.
So the goal should have been and should be that they need to make sure that the Iranians are put back in the box with an understanding that civil conversations that need to take place by the United Nations, by all the nations of the region, is that they will not threaten other countries through the Houthis or other proxies that they have.
And they responded, no, thank you.
So I would like for there to be a lot of other things that had happened in this conversation, but war happened.
And now the United States is finding probably the frailty of playing nice.
Playing nice means that we have now faced off with the Strait of Hormuz that is closed with thousands of drones, us knowing that they had the desire and the ability to do this, to shut down economies of the world.
And so we're now going to have to figure out if this conversation between the administration is real or not and if the Iranians are serious.
Otherwise it means that more raining down of bombs on them to change their way of life rather than them changing our way of life.
Are you prepared to approve $200 billion in additional war spending?
And if so, does Congress have any say on how that is used?
Well, in fact, we would extract and want to know not only what the money is used for, and it would not take a seasoned veteran to understand that we need to resupply our stockpiles.
It does not take a seasoned veteran to understand that others are watching as we're doing this and that immediate needs to fulfill the military Department of War is necessary.
The cost of the war is an issue, but us being prepared and staying strong is more important as we know we have other adversaries and people who are rivals, if not adversaries.
We need to understand what's going on with Taiwan and Japan.
The Chinese have been very aggressive and taking advantage of this circumstance.
So I would, my vote without question would be to understand we need to pay for that which we have done and the ongoing effort is the question and I think that that's where the administration is going to have to come and say what the plan is now that we know where we are.
Let me let you chat with a few callers.
There are plenty for you sir.
This is Christopher in Ellicott City, Maryland, Republican, up first for you.
Christopher, you're on with Congressman Pete Sessions.
Yes, good morning.
Good morning.
What's your question or comment, Christopher?
Well, I wanted to say in war, the only way to finish a war is for the enemy to surrender unconditionally.
In World War II, Japan and Germany were forced to surrender unconditionally, and then the war was over.
We have to continue in Iran until they surrender to the reality that they are an evil regime, and we need to defeat them militarily first.
That's Christopher.
Congressman Pete Sessions, on unconditional surrender as a stipulation to end the war.
Well, I think what Christopher is talking about, there is a huge bit of reality, and that is to get to that point, it means that we are going to have to be able to walk ourselves in their streets and to be able to have them know that they lay down their arms.
I think that the reality is today is that unlike the other issues he's talked about, there are lots of people who are in Iran who could form a government who could change the direction of that country.
And this formation of this alliance, I think, is healthy and could be there, but it is still in a precarious state as the Iranians, by virtue of the sun, accepting this role.
It is still very dangerous.
That is why they hung the three young people for even speaking up the other day as the thuggery from this new regime.
So I would like to say that we're going to have to find a new way.
This is darn near 2026, and victory may look a little bit different, but it must be victory, and it must be a change, in my opinion, of the regime.
The people of Iran have to control their own destiny.
And I think there are lots of conditions that Christopher could find would be important for us in today, 2026, to know that victory could, should, and will be achieved.
Let me take you to the Bluegrass State, Louisville, Kentucky, Marty Democrat.
Good morning.
Don, I'd like to make a couple of quick points, and then I'll hang up and hear what the guest says.
Now, I'm not sure I'm clear on what kind of government the Republican Party wants to see in power in Iran.
Are you talking about a government that will be accountable to the people and will allow opposition leaders to be heard and will have some kind of term limit?
Are you talking about just another monarchy like they used to have that will give us what we want and therefore have to be kept in power for decades with the help of the CIA all the way until there's another anti-American revolution like there was in 1979?
And also, my other point real quick is that I just find it mind-boggling to believe that the Trump administration is expecting that after the bombing campaign ends, the Iranian people are going to say they did this for us.
They destroyed all this property and killed all those people in our country for us, the Israeli Air Force and American military, and now we owe them something.
Because if it doesn't happen, then we have to invade.
But I find that to be mind-boggling.
Thank you.
Congressman.
Well, thank you.
And this gentleman is well-versed in not only his language, but his expectations, and I respect that.
I would say first, what does it look like?
Well, I think it looks like that there is a multi-coalition.
We have been for a number of years not trying to pick who that would be.
We would want these coalitions to work together.
As you know, the Iranian people are very smart.
They're well-versed.
They know their history.
They know their frailties.
I just don't think that it has to be an American model of a constitution where Thomas Jeffersons stand up and decide what their constitution looked like.
I think the fledgling government would look like an agreement to work together in a vast country that has resources and needs.
I would remind us back having going back to Lincoln, a team of rivals.
I think that they believe that their ability to see a brighter future is more important than what Khomeini had, and that would be where you don't kill your own people, you don't become belligerent, you turn yourself inward and help the Iranian people.
I think that is victory to where we rid themselves of a danger to other nations that are other Muslim nations that are their neighbors.
They have had war ever since 1979 on their mind, and they have undermined countries.
So I think that there's plenty of room to say we know what victory would look like.
And I think the gentleman from Kentucky makes a point.
I do not think it's a monarchy.
I do not think it's one leader.
I think it's a coalition government.
Defining True Victory00:00:39
Lakeland, Florida, Armand Independent.
Good morning.
You're on with Congressman Pete Sessions.
Good morning and good morning, Pete.
And thank you for C-SPAN.
Hey, I'm just curious how we got as far as we got with this immigration thing with the ISO all around the country.
When all of a sudden, I mean, not all of a sudden, but I mean, when all these years we could have had e-Verify, and nobody votes in E-Verify to make sure that immigrants in this country are here legally working.
I'm in Florida.
I'm still seeing on all the construction sites, and I'm still seeing Verizon running cables, all illegal immigrants sitting in the holes, digging the holes for these pipes.