Representative Pete Sessions argues that funding the Department of Homeland Security is vital for travelers and the economy, yet he refuses any deal excluding ICE, which he deems essential for combating drug cartels and fentanyl. While asserting that 13 million illegal entries occurred under Biden, Sessions defends masked agents against January 6 insurrectionist claims and insists Iran's threat requires regime change rather than surrender. He criticizes USPS leadership for raising stamp prices, endorses Senator John Cornyn over Ken Paxton in the Texas runoff, and warns that while 2010 was a wave election, 2026 may be evenly contested as Democrats hope to retain President Biden or Kamala Harris. [Automatically generated summary]
Get essential contact information for government officials all in one place.
The Congressional Directory costs $32.95 plus shipping and handling, and every purchase helps support C-SPAN's nonprofit operations.
Get your congressional directory by scanning the QR code or at c-span shop.org.
Stay informed.
Stay engaged.
Staying informed is essential.
The C-SPAN shop has the apparel to match your Civic Energy.
Premium t-shirts, hats, and drinkwear.
Everyday favorites for those passionate about politics through C-SPAN.
There's something for every C-SPAN fan.
And every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations.
Shop now or anytime online at C-SPANShop.org.
Gear up for engagement.
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 202748-8002.
A Multi-Coalition Vision for Iran00:11:55
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 in 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 country.
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.
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 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 to go through, these wires to go through underground.
Right by my house, none of them speak English.
I know they're all illegal.
And by the way, ICE agents, I think the reason they're masked, I mean, all these immigrants are wearing masks because they don't want to be facially identified.
But you have ICE agents, and I'll bet a majority of a bunch of the ICE agents that you're seeing, I'll bet you some of them are January 6th insurrectionists that couldn't get a job in a federal job anywhere.
And now they're being specially treated, and that's why they're wearing masks.
Now, some of them are taking their masks off, but I'll bet you the ones that are taking their masks off didn't have anything to do with January 6th.
Armand, got your point.
Congressman, give me a chance to respond.
Well, my first point would be, sir, if you have any indication that the things which you have stated, there would be some evidence, I would be willing to hear about that, about these ICE agents that were insurrectionists.
Secondly, I would say to you that the use of e-Verify is when you come to get a job.
We were under the Biden administration some at least 13 million people just walked into this nation and went to various places.
We paid billions of dollars for them.
They are in this country.
I believe, me personally, that they're a part of the drug cartels, that they were simply having drug cartels that we know control their border to come and help them with fentanyl.
The plan was that fentanyl would be not just in my town of Waco, Texas, and not just in large towns, Dallas, Houston, New York City, but it would become in smaller towns, Louisville, Kentucky, and other places.
They had then people that they knew where they were.
We had some 500,000 children still unaccounted for as of a few months ago.
The Biden administration just opened up the gate and did not even try and know who people are.
So to run them through e-Verify when you already know they are illegal would be a waste of time.
What we needed to do is to understand who has come to this country and follow the law.
Fixing the Post Office Together00:14:04
Can I just ask a quick question?
You said 13 million illegal immigrants under the Biden administration.
A caller in our first segment said 30 million, and then another caller said 20 million.
What's the best place to go for that number?
Where do you go?
Well, I would tell you that I don't know, and that's why I made the claim of less.
Generally speaking, here in Congress, we spoke about some 13 million people, which is why it's a generally accepted understanding, some 13 million people that Congress will speak about.
I'm not trying to overshoot or undershoot it.
It's generally where we believe that number is.
Let me come to your oversight committee work.
I know last week there was a hearing with the Postmaster General before the Oversight Committee on the United States Postal Service, the status, the financial status of USPS.
Where are they today?
Are they doing well right now?
Thank you very much.
The bottom line is, as Chairman of Government Operations for Oversight, I have the immediate oversight over the Post Office, over any government operations anywhere in the world.
And the operations of the Postal Service is very important to not just the energy to this country, but the commerce of this country.
It is grounded in the Constitution, the Postal Service, the Postal Service owns the mailbox.
But in doing that, the Postal Service is suffering as the country grows, as the country changes and moves around.
The new Postmaster General, Mr. Steiner, is a very nice man and I think well suited for this job.
But I believe that he believed that he was trying to, what I would say, make the Post Office great again, as opposed to taking the Post Office that has financial problems, it has problems with employees, it has problems that put pressure about the amount of revenue that comes in and they're spending.
And they, I think, saw that their outcomes would be based upon Congress or me agreeing that we would raise the debt limit for them.
They are stuck in a debt limit, some $13 billion.
They want to raise that substantially and raise the price of a stamp.
And I am opposed to both of these issues at this time until they control what they're doing.
So the Postmaster General, Mr. Steiner, who is a great manager, looked at an opportunity once again to gain more revenue.
And in doing that, found that some of the partners that provide billions of dollars to the Postal Service to provide mostly rural services for packages, they did not bite off on their desire to pay more money for these operations.
And they have the ability to do that themselves.
So it placed the Post Office in a position where they had to make a decision about what would be some $9 billion worth of revenue that did not go well in their plan.
So they're doing the same thing that any of us would do in the hearing.
I've encouraged the Postmaster General to rethink the decisions that they've made.
The postal workers are worried about what a $9 billion hole would mean.
And members of Congress have come to me.
I've given them an indication that I believe we're not critical, but that we have to have a better plan.
Mr. Steiner and I talk, our teams talk, and this is a bipartisan issue.
Mr. Infume, who is from Baltimore, Maryland, is the ranking member, and he and I look at this view of the Postal Service with the same or very close lens.
To control costs, would you ever support cutting back on Postal Service days, on making it five days a week instead of six?
Well, in many instances, postal operations are closed on Saturday today.
In many places, they have stopped that.
This needs to be the realistic viewpoint that the American people and Congress understand the reason why we would make these changes, but the answer is yes.
And the answer is that there is a huge diminishment in the amount of mail that comes through the service.
But what we've got to understand is if we all work together, meaning outside operations, there is a lot inside, including trucking, the movement of mail, things that move back and forth.
The system is complex.
And they've now found themselves at the post office where there is a good bit of oversight and questions that occur.
So what happened is that the management of the postal service decided they really don't like the oversight that they have.
So I will step in and work with the Postal Service and the governing board and make us work well and better together on a bipartisan basis out of Washington, D.C., so that we get a handle on this.
Less than 10 minutes left with Congressman Pete Sessions this morning on the Washington Journal and plenty of calls for you, sir.
This is Jack in Silver Spring, Maryland.
Line for Democrats.
Go ahead.
Your party has given the power of the presidency to an insane pedophilic serial killer.
You're evil and this whole All right.
Congressman, do you want to respond at all?
Well, I would just say that I am aware across this country that there are people who have varying views, and I would tell him that I can control myself.
And I try and work on a straightforward, honest basis with a bipartisan mission that I have with Mr. Infume and the duty and responsibility of my job on oversight.
And I would like for him to at least offer some credibility to there are people who are trying to move this nation away from anything that would be a fight to fix.
And that we believe both Mr. Infume and I in each other and our ability to do business and we're trying to teach others the same.
Rob in Ohio, Republican.
Good morning.
Hello.
Hello.
Go ahead, Rob.
You're on with Congressman Sessions.
I just want to get your opinion.
These Democrats out here trying to serve America and get these people to fight against America.
How easy do you think your job would be if you could get these Democrats to work with the Republicans and try to come up with some constitution and fix the president instead of causing more problems?
Well, I think that the question, John, that is before us is one that the American people very clearly see, and the answer is difficult.
We deeply believe in the right of the two parties or parties of people who bring their ideas.
The bottom line to me is that we saw what happened when Senator Schumer did what I think was responsible and what I think was mature a year ago when he agreed that the Democratic Party would end the government shutdown.
And his agreement to do that caused others in his party that I will just use the term his left to then oppose that because they want to shut down the government.
They do not like President Trump.
I think we have an obligation as members of Congress, as I do and others, to look at the greater good for the American people.
And there are, it's two sides against each other.
It's like two lines in a great big bag scrapping with each other.
The needs of this nation are important.
I disagreed for virtually most things that President Biden did in his administration.
His administration's secretaries did not even report to work.
Millions of government employees did not come to work.
There were $500 billion worth of misdirected payments because computers took over for self-reporting by people who wanted to fleece this government.
We are changing that, but I think the greater good can be seen when we work together, and that's what Mr. Infume, and I think other Democrats, certainly Greg Meeks from New York, is a dear friend of mine.
Greg is the kind of man who wants to be able to make progress for the American people as opposed to a policy for a party.
So I think that there are people here who can do that, and I pray for them, and they are my friends.
Just a couple minutes left with you, Congressman, and just a couple election campaign 2026 questions for you.
First, on Texas politics, where are you on John Cornyn versus Ken Paxton in the Senate Republican runoff in Texas?
Thank you very much.
I've worked with Senator Cornyn for many years while I'm the senior member of the elected people from Texas with 28 years.
I've watched John Cornyn for many years as our Attorney General and also as our junior senator, now senior senator.
I believe that John Cornyn has been attacked by people who do not want him and like him.
I believe that his truthfulness, his honesty, and his reliability is the reason why I am for Senator Cornyn in this battle and would like to see my party understand that when we fight, it becomes not only more expensive, but it puts at risk the seat.
And so I am solid for Senator Cornyn.
And then I think the first time you and I chatted was back in 2010 when you were the NRCC, the National Republican Congressional Committee chair.
In that election, you won something like 63 House seats.
It was called a wave election.
Net seats, John, not 63 seats.
We won't have to win.
63.
We need 89 seats, net 63.
And you would know the math, certainly.
On wave elections, what are the qualities of a wave election?
Are Republicans in 2026 possibly on the other side of a wave election?
What are you seeing as somebody who's watched these and studied these?
Well, in fact, the success of a rain dance does have a lot to do with timing, but also so does the plan and the desire of what you're selling.
We sold different qualities, and at that time, the Republican Party simply people saw us as the minority, but with good answers.
At that time in 2010, as you'll recall, President Obama was not popular.
They were pushing an agenda.
The Democrats simply rummer stamped every bit of that.
And we made statements like, we will read the bills before we pass them.
We will understand what's in them.
But the bottom line is, is that the Democratic Party still is out of context with, I think, the American people, not only on social issues, but the track record that they still support.
And in essence, they wish President Biden or Kamala Harris were still in office.
And those are things that cause friction for many voters who do not want to go back.
They may not be completely where President Trump is, but the party and what the party stands for, I believe it will be an even battle for us.
At this point, I do not see where we have to have a wave election.
Congressman Pete Sessions will end it there.
Republican of Texas, member of the Oversight and Financial Services Committees.
Do always appreciate your time.
Always appreciate you chatting with colleagues.
John, thank you.
I hope I did well enough to get invited back.
You will, sir.
Back at our desk this morning, it's California Democrat Congressman Ami Barra, member of the Intelligence and Foreign Affairs Committees.
Before we get to foreign affairs, start with Homeland Security.
What are you hearing about a potential deal here to end the now 40-day-long partial government shutdown?
You hear a lot of things.
It sounds like the Senate got close to the deal, the president was warmed to it and then kind of killed it.
And things are going back and forth.
I think we've got to get the TSA agents paid.
We've got to get most of Homeland Security funded.
Again, we've got real issues with how ICE is conducting itself.
So if you could carve that piece off of it and negotiate some of the reforms in ICE, I think you'd get this done.
What would it take for you to support funding ICE again?
I mean, so we do need some customs and border protection, immigration enforcement.
But even in my hometown in San Francisco, you saw how ICE conducted themselves, grabbing a woman from Sacramento.
Like, use the warrants that you have and so forth, but conduct yourselves through due process, et cetera.
And again, I think we saw what happened in Minneapolis.
So I do think ICE has to rein itself then in terms of how they're doing these rights and connecting themselves.
Do you think Congress will or should stay in session here over these next two weeks, this recess that was supposed to happen, to get this thing solved?
I think we should get this done, yeah.
What's the path to do it?
Five years ago, our nation and its democracy experienced one of its darkest days when a violent mob attacked the Capitol in an effort to overturn a free and fair election.