The Ed Show for Friday, February 27th, 2015

Date: February 27, 2015
Guest: Bob Shrum, John Nichols, Jean Ross, Chris Van Hollen, Laicie
Heeley, Tim Ryan

ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Good evening Americans and welcome to the Ed Show
live from New York.

Let`s get to work.


SCHULTZ: Tonight, the latest on the DHS funding fight.

inside the beltway political jousting.

REP. NANCY PELOSI, (D) CALIFORNIA: House Republicans have a plan that is a
staggering failure of leadership.

REP. JOHN BOEHNER, (R-OH) HOUSE SPEAKER: We have passed the bill to fund
the department.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Skip the drama and pass our bill now.

JOHNSON: A failure to fund the Department of Homeland Security fully has
real impacts on public safety.

SCHULTZ: Later, rising environmental concerns in the Arctic.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Melt at the polar ice stocks.

They`re going on a pace faster than what the models projected and faster
than even the present day models.

that balance, nature who doesn`t like an imbalance.

RIGNOT: We have passed the point of the return.

SCHULTZ: But climate change still gets an icy reception in Congress.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s very, very cold (inaudible), very unseasoned so

SCHULTZ: Plus, Scott Walker`s protester parallel as workers worked up.

GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R) WISCONSIN: They made me their number one target.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: With a baseball bat.

WALKER: Get a slugger with my name on it. If can I tale on 100,000
protesters, I can do the same across the world.

FRM. GOV. RICK PERRY, (R) TEXAS: Just try to make the relationship between
him and the unions isn`t appropriate.


SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us tonight, folks. Thanks for watching.
We start with what is unfolding on the House floor.

House Republicans are putting on a clean DHS bill. The House is currently
tallying the votes on a three-week extension of DHS funding, three weeks,
so that means it can comeback and bicker some more.

The resolution does not defund President Obama`s immigration action which
is good news. And if this passes the short-term fix, will head to the
Senate, Senators have said that they would support a three-week deal and
the White House said that President Obama would go ahead and sign it.

So if it passes the mess will happen again in three weeks and you can think
House Republicans for all of this. They are divided House is causing this.

Earlier today, the Senate did the job. They voted 68 to 31 on approving a
long-term clean DHS funding bill a standalone bill.

House Speaker John Boehner, well, apparently he`s not his doing. He can`t
get everybody onboard. He bound to the Tea Party pressure again and
refused to bring the long-term Senate bill even up for a vote. Whatever
happen to this up or down votes that the Republicans have always been
squealing about.

So earlier today, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi slammed the House Speaker.


PELOSI: The security of our country is our first responsibility to protect
and defend. There`s enough uncertainty in the world without injecting more
uncertainty as to when and how we`re going to fund our Homeland Security.
I`m just saying to the Speaker, get a grip. Get a grip Mr. Speaker. Get a
grip on the responsibility that we have. Get a grip on the legislative
possibilities that are here. He can bring his three-week bill to the floor
and the Senate bill to the floor. Let Members vote on both, send them both


SCHULTZ: Also easy to get done, isn`t it?

Now, if this bill fails tonight, may stick around and do some more work and
come up with something different. So who knows where this is all going to
end up but a shutdown is looming.

Let`s talk about that for just a moment. I`m sure at one time or another,
you bet on the commercial airline and you had to go through the TSA. Where
the TSA come from?

The TSA came from the basically Republican Party that wanted to make sure
that we were going to protect the country because we were afraid about
bombs getting on airplanes. I do play a commercial quite a bit and when I
go through the lines, I do pay attention to what they say.

These people do what they`re supposed to do. They pay attention. They ask
a lot of questions. They`re about particulars. They`re about security.

Now, keep in mind folks that if we stop funding, the Department of Homeland
Security, all of these TSA agents still have to go to work and they`re not
going to get paid and you may ask, "Well, why would they do that", because
they want to keep their job.

Now, the irony in this is this is the party that has been asking President
Obama, where are the jobs?

Sure. I guess they want jobs so they want to pay anybody. All because
this President is trying to do something on immigration and the Tea Party
doesn`t want to see him have the victory.

This is paralleling and really the kind of fight that`s taking place on
fast-track. There`s a number of Republicans on the House that do not want
to give the President a fast-track because they don`t like him, and I`m
sure this is the case as well.

We documented on this program last night the numbers. When it comes to
border security -- I was watching some of the CPAC stuff today which is
entertainment at its best. And they`re all talking about border security.
But not once that any of them say, this is how we have enhanced border
security over the last six years and we`re even going to do more. They
don`t have numbers. All they have is a target and the target is the Obama

So it`s very clear that Boehner has zero credibility and he has zero
control of the radical friends-righties (ph) in the House. And as I said
earlier this week, this all goes back to gerrymandering.

These Republicans who are Tea Partiers, they have socially engineered the
House that makes it possible for them to do things like this. Because they
know they`re going to be able to go home and they`re so socially engineered
and ideologically cut these boundaries that they`re going to be praised
when they go home because why they stopped Obama and they stopped the
Democrats. That`s what this is. They all connect.

Now, I think the only reason that Boehner is caving right now is because
he`s worried about his speakership. This guy loves being the boss. He
don`t want to give up the gobble. He is the man.

He spent all those years in Congress doing all those deals to get to this
point and damn it, he is not going to give it up. And it`s just a little
or bit of (ph) issue they have over there on immigration and he is knows
damn well that the Republicans don`t want to do anything about immigration

He knows if he doesn`t support the Tea Partiers, he`s history. And he is
going to be known as the political doctor know because they arched (ph) up
the guy that was the king of obstruction.

Now, think about this three-week decision, this bill that they`re voting on
right now. I have a hunch that they`re not going to have enough votes,
that they`re going to have to go back to the drawing table if they care
about security for the country.

But get your cellphones out, I do want to ask you. Put yourself in
Congress right now. Tonight`s question, "Would you vote for a three-week
extension to DHS funding? Text A for Yes, text B for No to 67622, leave a
comment on our blog at and also at And we`ll
bring you the results later.

Nobody better on this subject than Bob Shrum with the political analysis
and he is a Democratic Strategist and Warsaw Professor of Politics at USC.
Bob, good to have you with us tonight.


SCHULTZ: All right. Is this about Boehner? What is this? What is the
dichotomy of the House that`s holding this up as you see you it?

SHRUM: You know, first, it is about Boehner. He is more concerned about
saving his speakership, defending his speakership than he is about
defending the country. There is structural problem here as well.

In the House, as you`ve suggested because of gerrymandering, we have a lot
of folks who are more worried about being primary from the right than they
are about the general election. Why did the Senate act more responsibly
Republicans in the Senate, because you have a whole lot of Republicans who
have to run in 2016, many of them in blue states?

So someone like Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois says, Republicans have to
stop putting bow blank (ph) in the central (ph) bills. But I think that
we`re going to see a real crisis here when this three-week extension fails
which is apparently is going to fail. And if it does fail, they`re going
to have to go back to the drawing boards because they`re going to be held
responsible if the DHS is defunded.

SCHULTZ: Yes. You know the Republicans have made a political living on
saying, "hey we`re the folks that protect the country?" Let`s play
politics right now. Is this, the Democratic Party, saying this is
important, it needs to be standalone, you`re not going to get away, get the
(inaudible) anything else get in the way because the three weeks are going
to come back with another issue and to horse trade this thing off. What
about that?

SHRUM: Well, look, first of all, Mitch McConnell knows that the
President`s immigration rules are not going to be repealed in this process
or any other legislatively. And Boehner knows that too.

But Boehner is so afraid that that he is going to be deposed that he has to
keep doing this broken field running. This is incredibly embarrassing.
It`s amazing to see Speaker of the House who can`t deliver his own caucus
on a vote like this.

Now, what do I think to this three-week thing? I think it`s jerry-rigged.
I think you just comeback as you suggested in three weeks, have the same
fight all over again. But it`s all Boehner`s thought he could do and when
he looks at this, he has to be worried very much about the fights that are
coming down the road like raising the debt limit and whether or not the Tea
Party members that he is trying to corral will try to push the country off
the economic cliff.

SCHULTZ: OK. This is just coming to me. The reason for the delay on the
House floor right now is that they are trying to wrangle the votes to get
this to pass and they apparently can`t get it done and they are nervous
about that obviously the fact is there is no plan B. Bob, your take.

SHRUM: Well, there has to be a plan B and I don`t know what he`s going to
do. I mean the right thing to do, as Nancy Pelosi said, he has to put the
Senate bill on the floor of the House. It will pass, it will get enough
Republican votes, it will get almost all the Democratic votes and then the
Department of Homeland Security is funded through September.

The difficulty with people like Steve King, the anti-immigration
Congressman from Iowa is that, he just won`t give in. He insists on a kind
of purely ideological approach to this.

Look in the Senate, Ted Cruz even step back. He didn`t try his (inaudible)
this. There`s an understanding on the part of the some of these folks that
if they want to be competitive in a presidential election in 2016, they
have to stop playing this kind of games. I think what...

SCHULTZ: OK. Let`s play with this angle here. Let`s see in the next few
minutes, they do get the votes and it does pass. What`s your call on what
unfolds in the next three weeks? Is it the continuing pounding on
immigration and the executive order or is it another issue, maybe corporate
tax reductions.

SHRUM: No. I think Boehner will then play out it to pass. So I think
Boehner would play out this kabuki theater where he`d say, we want to go to
conference with the senate. We want to compromise with the senate. At the
end, that`s not going to happen...


SHRUM: ... and Boehner has going to have to figure out how to pass a clean
funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security.

These guys came to office saying, they were going to shutdown the
government. They weren`t going to shutdown part of the government.

They`re on the verge of doing it. They were blameworthy (ph) in 1995.
They were blameworthy (ph) in 2013 then only save by the mis-launch (ph) of
Obamacare website. All the polling shows voters don`t want these issues to
be yoked together.

You know, Charlie Dent who`s a Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania
said it pretty well earlier today. He said a lot of his colleagues in the
House are deluded. They just don`t recognize, they can`t have their way.

SCHULTZ: OK. Folks, you were looking live right now on the House floor in
Washington D.C. and that the word is, that they are keeping this open as
long as they want to because they are trying to get enough votes to pass a
three-week extension on funding of the Department of Homeland Security.

Earlier today, the Senate voted 68 to 31 on the long-term bill, the long-
term funding. Boehner would not even bring that to the floor so he agreed
to bring this to the floor. And even on three-week funding bill, the
Republicans can`t get enough votes to pass this which underscores that
Boehner just -- he -- I mean, he can`t throw enough promises to the Tea
Party to get them to move on this.

This is how stuck in the ideological (inaudible) country these republicans
are when it comes to defeating the President or making sure that they get
their way on immigration. Bob Shrum, which is it or both?

SHRUM: Well, eventually, they have to fund DHS. If they close it down or
shutoff the payments, there will be a tremendous reaction against them.

McConnell knows this, the smart Republican consultants all know this, but
Boehner is very worried, as I`ve said earlier, about losing his
speakership. So he`s going to have to maneuver very hard in the next three
weeks if they succeed in passing this thing.


SHRUM: Look Ed, it so far behind right now. They`re going to have to go
out there with a hammer and really see if they can get people to switch
their votes. Because right now, I think he`s -- I`m looking at the screen,
it`s about 20 votes behind.


SHRUM: 20 more people voting no than yeah.


SHRUM: It`s going to be very, very tough to do this.

It says zero at the bottom of the screen. I think that`s where Boehner is
right now. He`s at 0.0 and he`s going to have to come up with a new

SCHULTZ: I mean how serious is it? I mean, it`s 5:00 on Friday, they`re
cutting the cocktail hour and they can`t get the vote done. That`s how
serious it is.

Bob Shrum, always good to visit with you. Thank you so much.

SHRUM: Thank you.

SCHULTZ: We`ll do it again.

Remember to answer tonight`s question there at the bottom of the screen and
that is, "If you were there, would you vote for a three-week extension?"
All right.

Share your thoughts with us on Twitter @edshow, like us on Facebook and we
are posting a lot of videos on -- that they spoke as well, you can check
them out.

Coming up, Scott Walker thinks he has the background to defeat ISIS. The
Wisconsin Governor is for rude awakening -- John Nichols of the Nation
Magazine with that latest.

Plus, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will speak to Congress next
week. It`s already causing loads of political drama in Washington. We`ll
bring you all the details and analysis.

Stay with us. We`ll be right back on the Ed Show.


SCHULTZ: And we are back.

Breaking news at this hour, the House three-week extension on the
Department of Homeland Security has failed by a vote of 203 to 224.

So, there is no plan B, we`re going to get reaction before we leave you
this hour here on the Ed Show. 203 to 224, there will be no three-week

Now, we`re not told -- we`re told that there is not a plan B but the
funding for the Department of Homeland Security will expire tonight at
12:01 a.m.

Turning now to Scott Walker, he needs to rework his resume.

During a Q&A at CPAC, the Wisconsin Governor told the crowd, his union
busting skills are transferable to combating global terrorism.


WALKER: I want a commander-in-chief who will do everything in their power
to ensure that the threat from radical Islamic terrorists do not washed up
on American soil. We will have someone who leads and ultimately we`ll send
the message not only that we will protect the American soil but do not take
this upon freedom-loving people anywhere else in the world. We need a
leader with that kind of confidence. If I can take on 100,000 protesters,
I can do the same across the world.


SCHULTZ: Those 100,000 protesters he`s talking about are working families
in Wisconsin. Walker came up with a different ISIS analogy for Hannity


WALKER: They`re like a in your computer that takes out your whole
computer. If you don`t weed it out, you`re going to be back at it again
more and more.


SCHULTZ: Working families of virus. The Wisconsin Governor tried to
backtrack on his union comments.

He told the reporters, "You will all misconstrue thing the way you see it.
But I think it`s pretty clear, that`s the closest thing I have in terms of
handling a difficult situation, not that there is any parallel between the
two." end of quote.

Back in his home state, Walker`s push for a union-busting measure is
gaining traction with his party. A public hearing on right-to-work was cut
short by state Republicans.

Now, Walker is taking his propose budget. He wants to cut $300 million out
of the states public university system. This is a very specific bombshell
and there is a very specific bombshell in his budget proposal. It`s known
as "Item-25" with states (ph), universities would no longer have to report
the number of sexual assaults that take place on a campus to the Department
of Justice.

Joining me tonight on all of these, John Nichols, Washington Correspondent
of "The Nation", and also with us tonight, Jean Ross, a registered nurse
for 40 years and an elected leader of the National Nurses United.

Well, Ms. Ross, lets go to you first if we can tonight. Our unions like
militant groups?

JEAN ROSS, NATIONAL NURSES UNITED: Well, we have 185,000 registered nurses
across the country. I don`t that they would call us like militant army,
but we certainly do stand up for ourselves, our patience and the health of
the country. If that make us militant then I guess we are.

SCHULTZ: Are you offended by those comments and do you accept his analogy
in any way?

ROSS: No. Of course, I don`t accept the analogy and yes it is very
offensive. But, you know, he`s being quite honest and unfortunately he`s
not alone.

People aren`t used to standing up for our rights anymore in this country.
We`ve been trying (inaudible) along. And when the decrease in union
membership some of which is he trying to increase, this is bound to happen.
So it`s very important that we be able to stand up protest and protect our

SCHULTZ: All right. John, DNC spokesman said this, "If Scott Walker
thinks that it`s appropriate to compare working people speaking up for
their rights to brutal terrorist, then he is even less qualified to be
president that I though he was". Your thoughts on that.

ROSS: Absolutely.

for very long time. And, you know, I genuinely think that presidential
politics has brought up the (inaudible). Although, the true to this, going
back to 2011, you saw some incredibly belligerent in extreme statements.

SCHULTZ: Does he not have a compass on what to say or what plays?

NICHOLS: Well, I want to -- and he has said stuff like this before. He`s
book "Unintimidated", you know, was filled with, you know, sort of rubato
(ph) about, I didn`t listen to those folks. I don`t let him to push me

Now, I don`t understand how he can miss this basic reality. He`s a
political junkie. He watches all the news shows. He read the papers. He
has to know that the people who are out there in Wisconsin were nurses and
librarians, and teachers, children who would come with their parents,
seniors who were worried about senior care people with serious illnesses,
who would come because their were worried about Medicaid or Medicare, cut
backs or threat of BadgerCare.

And I want to emphasize, everybody think this was just a workers`
demonstration. We`ll you get up to 100,000 to 150,000 people in the

You have a broad plan for the small business owners, farmers. And for
Scott Walker to casually suggest that taking them on gave him the
experience to work on the global stage. I mean, if he think that
experience he needs, then he ought to rethink who he is, and he also audit
study up a little bit on what the real threats are.

SCHULTZ: Jean, as to the President Lee Saunders` issue to statement saying
that the nation deserves an apology. What your reaction to that?

ROSS: I think that that`s accurate and I agreed totally with what John
just said. You can`t -- it so difficult nowadays to get people to stand up
for what they believe and it protect our right. When you are fortunate
enough or good enough to get a strong grassroots movement where isn`t just
union members but it is all the people that John just mentioned. All
standing up together and saying, you can`t do this to us anymore. And to
have that like into terrorism it does deserve an apology.

SCHULTZ: And, Jean, does this really underscore his -- how vehement in his
hatred for unions? How -- I mean he despises collective bargaining. He
despises strength in the workplace and he compares them to people who are -
- or cutting people heads off.

ROSS: I know. Well, it sadly he`s not alone. Sometimes this antiunion
become what I think is sort of a religion to people. So it defies our
logic, it defies sense. One of the places where you lose many of the
rights that we have a citizen in this country is in the workplace. You are
subjected to things that just should not be done to you. And the only way
we have being to stand up for ourselves, and in our case our patient, is
that we have a union contract to protect us.

He saying that those kinds of things should be abolished and that employers
should be able to run roughshod over employees and it doesn`t make for
safety for us. And it certainly doesn`t make.


ROSS: . for citizenly.

SCHULTZ: And, John Nichols, what`s the political down side? It`s already
been, you know, cast dispersions from Rick Perry saying he shouldn`t gone
that far.

NICHOLS: It not just Rick Perry, a number of leading conservative writers
and other have said this is really bad.

SCHULTZ: Does it hurt him?

NICHOLS: I think it does hurt him because.

SCHULTZ: Not ready from prime time?

NICHOLS: Well, I think that conversation will begin. And remember he`s
running against tough players, the Bush is looking for sign of weakness. I
think what they can say here is, do you really want somebody saying
something like that on -- October debate.


NOCHOLS: I don`t think so.

SCHULTZ: John Nichols, Jean Ross, great to have both of you with us

We`re going to get fresh reaction to the Homeland Security funding of bill
which just failed on the house for, Congressman Chris Van Hollen join us
next. What`s plan B?

Stay with us. We`ll be right back.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show.

The House has three-week extension of DHS funding has failed by a vote of
203 to 224. DHS funding is still set to expire at midnight tonight.

Senator Chuck Schumer released a statement moments ago saying that the DHS
funding fight is the first test of the new Republican Congress and so far
they`re failing.

For more, let`s go live now to Congressman Chris Van Hollen of Maryland.

Congressman earlier today, Steny Hoyer asked all Democrats to vote no on
this. Obviously, that`s pretty much how it came down. The clean bill
never came to the floor for full funding on this over the long, Hollen.
Now, the short-term bill has failed. Where do you go from here? The House
is in recess right now. Where do you go from here, what`s plan B?

REP. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D) MARYLAND: Well, Ed, as of right now the speaker
has totally run out of excuses for not bringing that bipartisan Senate bill
that provides full funding for the Department of Homeland Security, not for
one week, not for two weeks, not for three weeks but to whole fiscal year.

That bipartisan Senate bill is right here in the House of Representatives.
All the speaker has to do is bring it up -- for a vote and it would past
tonight. And it could go the President`s desk for the President`s
signature. It`s that simple.

SCHULTZ: Why he didn`t do it? Why didn`t he bring up that clean bill?

HOLLEN: Well, he didn`t do it because he wants to -- can keep this
uncertainly going with respect to the Department of Homeland Security.
He`s got a lot of members in the Republican Caucus who still want to play
games in politics with the Department of Homeland Security funding. And he
once again was catering to his most extreme wing.

Now is the moment. Now that that didn`t work and as you pointed out the
funding expires at midnight. All the Speaker have to do, very simple,
bring up that Senate bill for a vote. We could have the Department of
Homeland Security fully funded for the rest of the fiscal year, no
nonsense, no games, get it done, protect the homeland and protect our

SCHULTZ: Congressman, is John Boehner joining the Tea Party?

HOLLEN: Well, what we have seen once again is he`s been led around by the
nose by the most extreme elements of his party. And he went down that --
get in path again. And, you know, at some point the Speaker`s got to
learn, he`s got to lead the whole House not be led...


HOLLEN: ... by small extreme Tea Party faction of the House.

SCHULTZ: So this emboldens the Tea Party if we understand where they came
from and how arrogant they are when it comes to government and this really
strips the Senate of power in a sense. He has still got those damn Tea
Partiers over there in the House he got to deal with. They`re running the
country right now. That`s what it looks like.

HOLLEN: Well, they are. Again, there`s a simple way out of that dilemma
right now which is if the Speaker decides to put the security of the
country and the Homeland above the extreme ideology of the Tea Party
members of the House, then we can get it done, right.

He just has to make that decision. This is all up to the Speaker.


HOLLEN: He puts it up for a vote and we will pass it tonight, full funding
to the rest of the fiscal year, no more nonsense.

SCHULTZ: So is the only issue that`s going to move the Tea Party

HOLLEN: Well, that appears to be the issue. They`ve decided to, again,
threaten to shutdown the Department, the funding for the Department until
they get their way on immigration reform in the President`s executive

You know, we all disagree, at least I surely disagree with the decision by
the federal district court judge but you would have thought Republicans
would see that as an opportunity now to do the right thing in funding the
Department Homeland Security. They haven`t taken advantage of that.

SCHULTZ: OK. So is Boehner worried about his speakership? Is this -- in
anyway stretch of imagination personal that he knows that if it goes up for
a vote then the political naives come out and he has no chance and he has
to do this?

HOLLEN: Well, this maybe the moment the Speaker is got to decide to do
what`s right for the country not just for keeping his seat warm.

I don`t know all the dynamics, Ed...


HOLLEN: ... in the Republican Caucus right now but what I do know is
what`s clear to everybody, you know...


HOLLEN: ... most Republicans in the Senate, Democrats are like, this is a
moment for the Speaker do the right thing for the country.

SCHULTZ: Congressman, is there any thing short of full funding that the
Democrats would agree to? OK. You didn`t vote for the three-week fix.
Give me a number.

HOLLEN: The number is the full year. Why should we do for the Department
of Homeland Security anything less than we do for any other agency of the
federal government? All the other agencies in the federal government are
funded through the remaining of this fiscal year, to the end of September.

The Republicans held up only funding for the Department of Homeland
Security despite the threats we saw in Paris, despite the threats we saw in
Denmark, despite of what we saw in the rest of New York. Despite of all of
that, they have decided to hold funding for the Department of Homeland
Security, one of the main departments since, of course, essential to try to
protect us from those terrorist threats. They decided to hold that hostage
and play games with that.

So let`s just do for the Department of Homeland Security what we do for the
other agencies of the federal government to make sure that we can continue
to operate as a functioning federal government.

SCHULTZ: How do you think Mitch McConnell feels tonight?

HOLLEN: Well, I think that he`s actually -- what it shows him in a way is
that he has made the right call in the sense that the Senate is not the one
-- is not the body, you know, responsible for preventing the funding from
flow into Department of Homeland Security.


HOLLEN: I mean, in a sense, he -- at the end of the day, he took him a
long time to get there but at the end of the day he did his job and on the
bipartisan basis the Senate voted to fund the Department of Homeland

That bill, again, is right here. I mean its right here on the House of
Representatives, we can get it done right away and move on to talk about
other important issues for the country.

SCHULTZ: And finally, it sounds like the Democrats have done their
business, you`ve said what you`re going to vote on. It`s either this or
nothing. There is no negotiation tonight. You want the full funding. You
don`t want it to immigration. Now it`s up to Boehner. It`s the end of the
day for the Democrats.

HOLLEN: Well, and just to be clear, Ed, I mean, that`s exactly what`s in
the bill thus before the House, the Senate Bill...

SCHULTZ: Yeah, yeah. Here we go. It`s 68 to 31 -- yeah.

HOLLEN: It`s simply. It`s clean. It`s bipartisan. Let`s vote in a
bipartisan way in the House of Representatives. I know the votes are here
to pass and you`ve got every single Democrat, everyone that wants to vote
for a full funding for Department of Homeland Security through the end of
the fiscal year, 100 percent and I know (inaudible)...


HOLLEN: ... and I know Republicans to get a majority of the vote if only
the Speaker would put democracy and the ability of democracy to work its
will in front of this small fraction, they continuous to lead the country
down this dead end path.

SCHULTZ: All right. Congressman Van Hollen, thanks for joining us
tonight. And incase who just joined this, the vote was 203 to 224. The
three-week extension did not pass. There is no plan B and the House is in
recess. The funding expires tonight at midnight. Maybe there`ll be a
development later on in the House and maybe Boehner will change his mind.
We`ll see. I don`t think he will.

There`s more coming up on the Ed Show. Stay with us, we`ll be right back.

KATE ROGERS, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Kate Rogers with your CNBC Market

Stock end the month higher but lower on the day. The Dow falls 81, the S&P
shed six and the NASDAQ is off 24.

One of the reasons for today`s fallback, a report showing economic growth
slowed to 2.2 percent annual rate last quarter. That`s down from a
previous estimate and third quarter of growth of 5 percent.

And Apple CEO Tim Cook has told a British paper the Apple Watch may replace
the need for car keys and we`ll have battery that last all day ending
speculation about its battery life.

That`s it from CNBC, first in business world wide.



BOEHNER: The President`s National Security Advisor has said it`s
destructive for the Prime Minister of Israel to address the United States
Congress next week. I couldn`t disagree more. But what is destructive, in
my view, is making a bad deal (ph) the paves the way for a nuclear Iran.

That`s destructive. And that`s why it`s so important for the American
people to hear what Prime Minister Netanyahu has to say about the grave
threats that they`re facing.


SCHULTZ: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu`s visit next week is
already stirred up a world of controversy.

Boehner broke President when he invited the Prime Minister without
consulting the White House or Democratic lawmakers. Now, we`re watching
partisan politics pollute the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

The White House sees it as a deliberate attempt to undermine ongoing
nuclear negotiations with Iran. Republicans see it as just another
opportunity to pip themselves against the President.

When it comes to Iran`s nuclear program, there`s important common ground.
No one wants Iran to have the capacity to build nuclear weapons. They
double obviously in the details.

Netanhayu wants Iran`s capacity to produce high levels of enriched uranium
the to be shutdown. The White House would allow Iran to maintain a limited
capacity under strict guidelines. Netanyahu isn`t buying it and says, no
deal is better than a bad deal.

Now, Republicans are giving them center stage to vast President Obama`s
policies on the House floor. The Senate has until at least March 24th to
vote on additional sanctions on Iran which of course, the President doesn`t
want and which means Congress could still be playing a critical role in all
of these negotiations.

Joining me tonight in our Rapid Response Panel Laicie Heeley from the
Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, Steve Clemons with us
tonight, MSNBC Contributor and Editor-at-Large for The Atlantic.

Well, there`s a lot of things flowing around John Boehner`s office at this
hour. There`s no question about that.

Laicie, why not allow Benjamin Netanyahu come and speak his piece? How do
we know that this would trash negotiations with the Iranians?

the important thing here and really the bottom line is that we`re only two
weeks out from Netanyahu`s election.

And so, this is breaching protocol. This is why the administration -- why
the President disagrees with the speech. This is why the President is not
meeting with Netanhayu while he is in Washington. And this is why really
ultimately regardless of the Prime Minister`s thoughts on the ongoing
Iranian negotiations. This is not the right time for him to be addressing

SCHULTZ: Steve, is this is sour a possibility of a deal as you see it.

STEVE CLEMONS, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Well, it may strengthen a deal because
of course that, you know, the prospect in Netanhayu speaking actually run
enough (inaudible) members of Congress the other direction that that
sanctions bill was delayed. And so, it backfired on Netanhayu.

But in the end, it`s a very bad thing with the United States in this Israel
have a strategic breach which they seem to have right now because it makes
everyone worry. You need the region to sort of stand whole and understand
that if you do got deal with Iran, you -- that the region is behind that
that Europe is with us, that Israel is with us and that Iran needs to know
that its track forward is to normalize and to become a healthy nation down
the road not one that can separate allies. And I think that`s where we`re
at right.

So, that itself could wreck things with Iran.

SCHULTZ: But Laicie, doesn`t this speech by Netanhayu to the Congress give
the Iranians all the ammunition they need when it comes to souring a deal,
giving them an out, giving them an excuse, saying the Americans can`t be
trust. And they`re going to be too close to Israeli. It`s never --
they`re never going to be an honest broker. What about that?

HEELEY: Well, it certainly has been helpful for the Prime Minister to be
giving the speech (inaudible) Congress right now. But where we`re really
get ran into trouble is, there are two pieces of legislation in Congress
right now, one that would require an upper down vote on this final deal if
we`re actually able to get one.

And that`s really where we`re going to provide the Iranians with in excuse
to walk away from the table if they want to and ultimately, where we`re
going to endanger our relationship with our international allies as well.
We depend on them to uphold the sanctions that are keeping around (ph) at
the table right now. So we can`t do anything.

SCHULTZ: And Steve, what about more sanctions, so the Democrats going to
go right with the President on this?

CLEMONS: Well, I think that, you know, the question is if you`re applying
more sanctions now, it will kill the deal. And Iran can have any number of
reasons for walking away and they maybe even attempted to do that now.
They don`t trust United States. That`s fundamentally what this is about.

But in the end, I think if things come apart not only will more democrats
come on board for sanctions. But the bigger thing is, this likely -- and
I`ve heard John Kerry and others say, if this doesn`t work, this could trip
us into a war. It just not just sanctions over Iran Nuclear Program, this
is looking at what our eventual railroad track with Iran is going to be
down the road.

Are we going to find a way to seduce Iran back into responsible stake
holding with other nations or are we going to be on a track that takes us
directly into conflict over what will be a nuclear program...

SCHULTZ: Yeah...

CLEMONS: ... that Iran has. And I think that`s the real stakes in this.

SCHULTZ: All right. Laicie Heeley and Steve Clemons, always a pleasure.
Good to have you with us tonight.

Coming up, we`ll have more over the failure of the DHS funding extension of
the House. Keep it here. We`ll be right back.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show.

The House`s three-week extension of DHS funding failed earlier in this hour
by a vote of 203 to 224. Funding for the Department of Homeland Security
will expire at 12:01 a.m. tonight.

This means that over 200,000 DHS workers will be working without pay
starting tonight.

Earlier today, the Senate voted 68 to 31 on a clean bill to fund the agency
through the end of September. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, of
Democratic leadership team released a statement pushing the House vote on
the bill.

We will, of course, continue to follow this story and bring you any new

Stay with us, we`ll be right back.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show.

We`re following this hour`s breaking news. We`re just about to get some
reaction from Capitol Hill on this.

The three-week extension of the Department of Homeland Security funding,
that bill has failed in the House in a very dramatic fashion.

They kept the vote open as long as they could, they could not wrestle
enough votes and it failed 203 to 224.

After Speaker Boehner trying to get more votes from the Tea Party which of
course would not budge. Homeland Security funding expired at 12:01 a.m.
tonight and there was no plan B at this moment for the funding.

So right now the House is recess, everybody standing around in the office
wondering OK, what`s next. It`s in that man`s court right there, Speaker
John Boehner from Ohio.

Now earlier today, the Senate voted 68 to 31 on a clean funding bill.
Meaning, that there was nothing attach to it and it nothing to do with
immigration or anything else. They passed at 68 to 31, Senate over the
House and John Boehner would not bring it to the floor. What he did bring
to the floor was a three-week extension of funding for the Department of
Homeland Security.

Steny Hoyer, "The whip (ph) of the Democrats", went to the floor and asked
all Democrats and people of this party not to support it. The Democrats
are holding the line when it comes to making sure that this is going to be
a standalone fully funded effort by the Congress to protect the country.

This of course means that over 200,000 employees now are going to be going
to work and they`re not going to be getting paid.

So you`re probably going to rerunning into a lot of good attitudes at the
airport around the country from TSA personnel.

Let`s go now from more reaction to what is unfolded in the last hour on
Capitol Hill. Let`s speak with Congressman Tim Ryan of Ohio.

Congressman, good to have you with us.

REP. TIM RYAN (D) OHIO: Good to be with you, Ed.

SCHULTZ: Do you think this is what the people of Ohio want?

RYAN: No. They want stable government and we just can`t seem to get it
from the Republicans. I mean we`ve got a group of extremists, Ed that are
really running the shop down here. We can`t get a bill just to fund the
Homeland Security, we have the Prime Minister of Israel coming next week,
there`s going to be a lot of diplomats here and we`re going to shutdown the
Homeland Security.

And we were in this, you know, rat race here where its two weeks, three
weeks, three weeks more. You can`t run an operation like this. It`s

SCHULTZ: How committed were the Democrats not to move on this bill
tonight? Were there some in Caucus that said "All right. Let`s do the
three week." was there much of argument amongst the Democrats to go down
this road?

RYAN: Not a whole lot. There were some who obviously represent a lot of
the people in Homeland Security in Northern Virginia or other little
pockets throughout the country, who voted the other way. But for the most
part I think we got stand our ground and say "Hey, we need a functioning
government here. We can`t govern three weeks at time." There are budgets,
there are people working, there are families like get your act together and
let`s make sure we fund the government. There`s a bill out there a clean
bill till September 30th.

This is about arithmetic. Ed. John Boehner does not have the votes in his
own Caucus. They aren`t the votes in the Senate to do what the Tea Party
people want. There`s a Democratic President in the White House. There not
going to get everything they want. This is about arithmetic and figure
out, you know, what you can get done, get as much as you can and make a
deal that moves the ball down the field.

SCHULTZ: So who are these people in the House? Who are the ringleaders in
the House that simply would not budge on this bill?

RYAN: There are about 50 members. It`s the Republican study committee.
It`s your most extreme conservative members of the Republican Caucus.
Ideological have said things in their Congressional district against
President Obama. So therefore they can agree with anything that he wants
even when we said give me three-week bill. It`s better than nothing.

SCHULTZ: So this is still -- not to interrupt you but this is still about
Obama. I mean this -- right down to this Tea Partiers in the House, these
hard-line conservatives, it`s about not giving this President what he needs
to protect the country.

RYAN: Right. It`s about Obama. It`s about immigration. It`s about the
CPAC Conference that`s going on up the street, cranking everybody up to be
the most extreme conservative they can possibly be. And if they somehow
tied this to the constitution, I`m telling you Ed, we`re dealing with the
tail wagging the dog here.

We have a small of extremist that are running the entire United States
Congress. This is why we can`t get...


RYAN: ... a transportation bill.


RYAN: This is why can`t invest on education, research and development.
This is why we can`t get tax deal. All because of this group of 50 members
who have -- if Boehner doesn`t do every single thing that they want, they
threaten to take him out as Speaker and that`s what we`re dealing with
right now.

SCHULTZ: So it is the survival of the Speaker. That`s part of the
equation as you see it?

RYAN: No doubt about it. I think there`s probably meetings happening
right now in the -- on Capitol Hill plotting how to takeout Speaker Boehner
from the Republican Caucus. There`s no question in my mind right now.

SCHULTZ: So you think that there are moderate Republicans if there`s any
left. So certainly that not the Tea Partiers, they`re thinking, you know,
maybe Boehner is not our guy, but where else would they go?

I mean, would they come up -- well, of course they would probably come up
with more of a moderate guy than Boehner who wouldn`t countdown to the Tea
Party that would have brought that Senate bill to the floor. Is that what
you`re talking about?

RYAN: Well, yeah. I think Boehner needs to stand up to him.


RYAN: I think Speaker Boehner has the votes of the moderate and the
majority of the people in his Caucus. He can withstand the coup (ph).

Stand strong bring these moderate bills to the floor and maybe we could
actually get some legislation, maybe you can pull 30, 40, 50 Democrat votes
for transportation bill. I mean.


RYAN: . let`s move the ball, lets invest in the country.

SCHULTZ: So quickly, Tim, is Boehner a Tea Partier tonight?

RYAN: We`re going to find out. The clock is ticking.

SCHULTZ: All right. Congressman Tim Ryan with us here on the Ed Show
tonight. The drama unfolds on Capitol Hill.

That`s the Ed Show, I`m Ed Schultz.

PoliticsNation with Reverend Al Sharpton starts now.


Copyright 2015 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>