$1 million for democrats that is the figure that is very hard to anyone else to beat because nobody else does fundraising like her. . .

we want to welcome back to our table, republican of wisconsin. let me begin with

yesterday's vote or keystone pipeline. you alone, all voted yes to build this pipeline. it failed by one vote. in the 114th congress, how many votes does it get. >> guest: it's hard to say, hopefully, get 54, and need six or seven. and we had 14 democrats, and some of those individuals will no longer be in the senate, and, get the support. >> host: what do you think then? do you have enough votes to override the veto? >> guest: if president barak obama wishes to the american public, this is an issue that the american people support, because they want their energy prices lower, and that's just good economic growth, the goal here, is let's keep american energy prices low, and it's a huge economic advantage, and we

have cheap power, and what makes us uncompetitive, is the tax system, and the burden. let's not draw up the power. >> host: what evidence do you have that this will have an impact on american's costs. >> guest: when you increase it, it makes sense, it's just it. it is hardly to say, you know it will be beneficial from keeping prices reasonable, and, competitive. >> host: how much does it add to the smile, when there is already, this oil coming not a oil, and has been, and 1 50's,000 miles of pipeline that exist? how much is this adding? when you play the numbers game, the bottom-line,

regardless of whether we build the pipeline, this oil is going to be used. and i would be concerned about the environment. and this is the least impactful way of transporting it. the most environmentally friendly. and, we're going to burn, and utilize the oil, here in america, and so, if you are concerned about the environment, the pipeline is a good deal for the environment. as you know, americans, do want the pipeline, according to the usa, 60-25%, should approve it. they also, approve of the president's deal with china, on climate change. so, should republicans work with the president on that? >> guest: the deal with china,

they do nothing. at the same time, what president barak obama has committed, america, is pretty significant costs on the economy. he said, because of his cap and trade, and he's going to push it through, his regulation, he said electricity rates would skyrocket. if you fear monger about climate change. what can we do about it? how much do we want to spend and how much harm do we want to cause to our economy and, americans. how much do we want? i think if americans really take a look at what president barak obama, what his policies will do, i don't think they would support the electricity rates skyrocketing. >> host: according to a gallop

poll that was done, after the leaks were made, americans, disapprove of the surveillance program, and they want it reined in, how did you vote on doing that? i voted against it, this bill didn't go through committee, and this is the lame-duck session, these are some serious issues. i want to make sure that americans privacy is protected. but, we also face some significant threats in this nation, around the world, isis is a threat and, that threat is growing. our best line of defense, and terror, is this. we need to debate them, and we need to have all the facts and, make sure we understand, all the threats, and we know how these measures would hamstring our national security efforts to

keep america safe, and just rich it go through is, not the way to go. it never should have been rushed before, and we have plenty of time to debate this, and make sure we vike that very delicate balance. that's not easy to strike. >> host: so, on the policy, who do you agree with? senator mitch o'connell, it ties the hands of our people, and then, rand paul saying, it doesn't go far enough to protect americans. at this point in time, that balancing time always shifts, and i'm looking at the balancing points. and having to impose as many, as many as tools as they need. this is very difficult and it needs far more thoughtful

debate. did that come from your positions, on foreign positions and home land security, that you lean mortareds, don't tie it. >> guest: we need to control them, these programs are, have robust, oversight. this is one thing, particularly, if you take a look at the far right and far left they're both concerned, about civil liberties, and they'll be watching. where have we seen any americans' rights abused because of this pretty narrow program. if we stop one case of abuse, i would be far more concerned and, more on the civil liber terry case, and i think the judges are patriots, and they are trying to keep people

safe. >> host: this is a little bit of a lightning round. immigration reform. there's a headline, immigration site republicans explore alternatives, for a shutdown, what option, calls for passing his committee's broad spending bill and then rescinding fund for his executive agency. do either one of those sound appealing to you. >> guest: this is where we can use our power, get the american

people support. i don't think they support the executive amnesty action. there's nobody threatening the shutdown -- do a process, through the appropriation process, and fund the vast majority of the government, we can focus, a defund effort on those actions. and we'd be talking about a couple million dollars, that we wouldn't grant them. maybe he's assuring documents, and green cards and, we could prevent him, and the vast majority open. do you do that by december or i in the next congress? we'll see, whether or not democrats may go with that. they may try to shut the government down and, maybe we can p a c.r., and, new

congress, where we have control, and then, we can focus, this is not going to be ab overreaction and, from my standpoint, regardless of what president barak obama does, my primary focus or home land security, is to finally pass, a border security, and enforcement bill. secure the borders. most americans, believe is the first step. because, they don't believe, they have no reason to believe, that we are securing the borders. and we have do that first. >> host: so, this border security legislation has to go through your committee. >> guest: there's a number of committees, and, i'm sitting

down, with the house, and i want to coordinate the actions, with the relevant senate committees, and get them working together, and develop one bill, it's going to cut down both of those bills and, we go to the floor of the senate, and the house, and it could be amended, and if we can come up with a prett with a pred voice. >> host: as you told me, the incoming chairman for the 114th congress for home land, and let's go to phillip. >> caller: good morning, i just wanted to comment, i've been listening for several weeks, on

this well that the culture -- that i heard yesterday, the evil culture the gentleman was talking about yesterday, that

part of the world has been in effect for millennium. headsave been shopping off as far as david and goliath. phyllis, do you disagree with this strategy to destroy and degrade them? ander: we cannot destroy degrade them because they have been here for a long time. their culture has been here longer than american culture, and we ourselves have a lot of evil in our own system in society. even present day, as we look to try to support other people, we have to make sure that our own people can walk and live in this country. host: phyllis, i have to leave it there to get in more voices. guest: phyllis, you covered a lot of ground. the latest poll, american people

support the keystone pipeline. one of things i would like to add to a border security bill would be a strong and functioning guestworker program. i am a manufacturer. i always go to root cause analysis. secureit difficult to the border -- because a lot of people are coming in illegally. if we could reduce the incentives for immigration, it would make the challenge of securing the border a lot easier. what is the number one reason people come here illegally? they are coming here to find work. if we have a functioning guestworker program, they can set the wages. get the stakes involved. if we have a functioning guestworker program, you reduce the number of people coming in illegally and it would be easier to secure the border. host: what about making companies do the background check and clearance? guest: those other components --

then you need any ee-verify diligenceing the due and then we need enforcement. 40% of illegal immigrants are here because of the cell overstates. we should be -- we can track the package of ups, so we should make sure people are not overstaying visas. host: clint. republican. texas. caller: how are you doing? guest: hello, clint. caller: a pleasure to be on the show. my comments on a couple of things -- one, i voted republicans with a promise that you guys would go in and start doing the things. what you do? the first thing you do is try to pass the keystone pipeline which benefits the rich oil companies, which i assume are your backers. when you have the immigration

bill on the floor -- there is one on the floor running around somewhere. nobody wants to vote on it. also, there is a bill for infrastructure that would put millions, hundreds of thousands of people to work working on our highways, improving our infrastructure as it is. you know, it is mind-boggling that the first thing you do is go for the throat, go in and try to help the oil companies. host: ok, click, dr. point. your point.t it is something the democrats wanted to pass as well. having that supply keeps prices low. do analysis, the strength of the american economy is we are the biggest customers.

plus, we have relatively cheap power. chief -- cheapg, power is better than expensive power. or you know what to do is artificially drive up the cost of power, -- what you do not want to do is artificially drive up the cost of power. it is not just benefit oil companies. it benefits every american. darrell. bloomfield, indiana. independent,. you are on the year. -- caller. you are on the air. --ler: i have two questions one, does he think it is ok for a foreign company to take americans land away from them under imminent domain? does he think that clean water is more valuable or is loyal more

valuable than clean water? number three, does he think it is ok to break our treaties with the indian tribes. i will take his answer on the air. guest: ok, darrell. where do i start? i cannot read my writing. i have a concern about the expansion of eminent domain. i actually encourage foreign investment in america. that is all we want. we want to make america an attractive place for job expansion. the second one was clean water versus oil -- was -- host: clean water versus oil. guest: it is not either/or. third, we have a real

obligations to native americans to abide by those treaties and we have a lot of tribes in wisconsin and i'm trying to do everything we can to have good relationships with native americans. host: new london, wisconsin. jean. independent caller. know who would like to would be responsible for the cleanup if the pipe should leak -- the taxpayer or the oil and please do not talk around the subject matter. host: --guest: my wife was born in new london, wisconsin. in the past, the companies have been held responsible. maybe additional government rushing resources, but in the end it is the companies that pay dearly. bp paid $20 billion for what

happened in the gulf. in other pipeline spills, and those companies end up the full price and then some because you get sued. the companies have every incentive to maintain safe pipelines as possible because in the end they will end up paying for it. host: cori. lexington, kentucky. republican. caller: i have three questions -- the first being how can you who the board for the nsa is completely overstepping their power, and getting rid of any much, the fourth amendment, by -- pretty much, the fourth amendment. the one thing i could see being a loophole is we actually make people sign privacy agreements before they can use just about anything in this country, which

loopholes a lot of the policies that we originally settled in our country. i need you to answer that. so -- why are we spending much money on oil in other countries when i have friends who actually engineers in this whoe and in this country work in oil minds, and we have plenty of our own. going to continue with this pipeline idea, and something does happen, are we going to continue to use the same exact chemical that we used bill, and89 exxon also the bp spill, that was disapproved and continues to be used even though we know it does not dissolve the oil but sinks the heavier matters of the oil to the bottom of the flow, and it has the film on top of the

water leaving the workers to touch it sick. host: have to run. guest: i am no engineer, so i will have to we've from that question. on the nsa, local prosecutors have greater subpoena powersthe. this is not even able. it has been ruled constitutional -- you legal. it has been ruled constitutional. it has been blown out of proportion. your people on both the right and the far left are monitoring to make sure we are not accusing american civil liberties. again, we face very significant threats in this nation. we need intelligence gathering capabilities. let's not hamstring people that are trying to keep us safe. i do not have any cancer's for the others. host: bronx, new york. democratic caller. joe. caller: good morning, greta. this is joe the counselor from

the bronx, new york. guest: how about just one question. it is hard to keep track. 1 -- [laughter] -- i hearmigration people talking about the border, the border, and most of the time you hear people say the border has been secured. that is not the problem. what i am saying to you today -- why asking this question, do you think republicans do not want to see immigration? sometimes immigration -- sometimes republicans on this station without it that if immigration -- on this station will tell you that if immigration passes the democrats will have all of these people that vote democrat and the democrats will be in power. host: will take your point.

delve down into it, i do not think there is a difference in positions. republicans believe you have to secure the border first before we can really address the remaining issues. we nationalize about one million people in this country. we are a nation of immigrants. i value that point. we have a lot of immigrants in wisconsin working dairy, hard-working people, members of our community. we would be welcoming those people, but we have to do it in a legal way. you have to secure the border first, not just to stall the immigration problem, but as solve immigration problem, but as a public safety issue -- we have tuberculosis, and now ebola -- it is the timing. i have yet to have an immigrant in wisconsin asked me -- asking me for citizenship.

people say had is and dad or my young husband or wife who was brought in as a young person. host: isn't that what the president is proposing to do? guest: by not securing the onder -- deferred action emissions, that is what he is doing, but the problem is he is creating an incentive for illegal immigration, so young people are so training -- are going toward the border. i do cost/analysis. when you talk about citizenship and before you secure the border you are increasing the incentive for illegal -- immigration, so let's reduce the incentive and they will be able to him together with what we need to do with people that remain here.

host: i want to show the viewers "the fiscal times." they point to things that you have said, that federal employees are overpaid. they also say you have said are you going to go after federal workers? guest: let's set federal workers mind at ease. inave seen a high quality our federal workforce. i come from a business background. in business you have to benchmark your competitive attributes against competitors. i do not think anyone wants to underpay public-sector or federal workers, the we also cannot afford to overpay them.

there have been studies on both sides of the issues. let's get the truth, the fact and the figures. federal workers should not be immune to modification of their pay packages. in my private sector, or company, because of runaway health-care costs, we are modifying our health care plan every year. i do not think federal workers have anything to fear from me at all. we have priorities to address -- securing the border, reduce the regulatory burden. i would be happy if we could get through those top priorities, we will look at this, and it will primarily be a fact-finding, information-gathering, so we can get political demagoguery out of the way and we will address it in a forthright and her. host: what agencies are your top priority as chairman? guest: this committee is homeland security and governmental affairs. host: right. guest: on homeland security it

is border security, cyber security. i would like to see an authorization for she mining reporting requirements to congress. i want to see secretary johnson succeed because if he succeeds, america stays safe that i want to do everything we can to protect our grid. that is a big focus of mine. on the governmental affairs standpoint, one of the disadvantages we have is a regulatory burden in this country that is onerous. we need to reach out to the other side and that is the way i'm going to approach this. let's frame this as an agreement. i am not going to ask democratic senators to violate principles, but there have to be regulations in their states that are causing real harm, preventing businesses have been able to create jobs and expand businesses. let's work together to reduce the regulatory burden. the: also, what about

secret service agency -- it falls on homeland security, with the breaches at the white house, what do you want to do? guest: we have to get stronger. my preference would be to bring in someone from outside the agency. when we started to look at these reports, we found out the current inspector general was not -- did not have integrity, let's put it that way. the reports were not accurate. he has moved on to we have a good inspector general. i have a great deal of faith in secretary jeh johnson. we have a cultural problem there. that is my standpoint. this is where a new perspective, a fresh set of eyes, i think, will be very helpful. we have to restore the credibility of the secret service. we had to make sure there are procedures in place to keep the president of the united states safe and other officials can perform the duties. to go outsideme of agencies and bring home a fresh perspective.

host: after the resignation of julia pearson, a house judicial committee will hear from the -- acting director, joseph clancy, and we will have coverage. he is expected to tell the committee at 10:00 a.m. eastern time on c-span3 that the secret service has fallen short of its high standards. guest: it has. it is just obvious. again, we need to bring in a strong director, someone from the outside and that the cultural problems clicking the agency. , toledo, ohio. you are the air with ron johnson. caller: good morning. one of the things that offend me about the government is when they exempt themselves from their own laws. in relatione suit to obamacare, and even though it was written into law that congress and the administration would have to participate in

obamacare, somehow, magically, they were exempted from the mandate. is that correct that that was you? guest: right. caller: how is that lawsuit going? the office of personnel management literally changed the law and i filed suit to uphold the law. on fortunately, the district judge did not grant me standing, so dismissed the case on that legal technicality. we never heard the merits. we have appealed that to the second circuit. we have a good chance to have them overturn the dismissal and it would be reprimanded back to the district court. even the district court, when they ruled on that, a basic chord at james madison said how was because ifse we vest all power in the hands of a few, that is the definition

of tyranny. even though he dismissed my case , and we think he got it wrong on that standpoint, if we hear the case on the merits, i think we will prevail. host: florida. steve. democratic caller. caller: good morning. guest: good morning, steve. caller: yes. i am listening to the other colors, and you had a republican that was definitely recommending to invest in the american infrastructure. the keystone pipeline, that company does not pay the eight cent per barrel emergency money in case there is a spill. yes, you correctly identified that federal resources would respond to it, but that is federally supported by the taxpayers of this country. absolutely, they would be involved, but in court, when you try to recover the money spent federal-tax-supported

companies, there has to be that eight cent per barrel emergency money available, otherwise the company could claim bankruptcy, shut down. there is nothing to go after. or, you are just tied up in court for ever and ever and ever and ever, hoping it goes away. i agree that by the procedures going as it is, it is a mechanism for the republicans to prevent a democrat votes, but unless this country, the 100%ess gets absolutely investment toward american infrastructure, our economy will crumble. host: all right. senator, your reaction? republicansnk strongly support investment in infrastructure. it is one of the top priorities

in federal government. we need to look a lower priority spending items in the federal government and substitute spending in these lower priority items for the higher priority, which is national defense and infrastructure. there are proposals right now. rand paul is pushing this and a lot of us have been and have been supporting the -- let's get foreign earnings over here, and with a windfall tax from the one-time repatriation, let's apply that to infrastructure spending. dollar a 3.5 billion year budget. the shortfall from the highway trust fund is $10 billion. surely we could have found $10 billion of wasteful, duplicated suspended -- spending that we could have used for infrastructure. the whole point -- but i'm open republicans do is we go through the thoughtful appropriation process, past 12 appropriation bills, prioritize spending.

we have not been doing that, not since i've been here for four years. it is well past time that we go through the budgeting process and prioritize federal spending. if we do that -- infrastructure spending will be high on everybody's list. it will be strong, bipartisan support to support infrastructure spending. randy is watching and transport, indiana. a republican. caller:, we all this morning? host: good. guest: good. caller: i have a comment and a question. i've sit here and i listened to c-span and watch all the networks. harry reid stands up with his people behind him and the first thing he says is we are not for anything but the middle class, so what is the first thing they do? they voted down a project that to 40,000 30,000

people that obviously would be in the middle class. they could care less about them. all they want is for people to stay home and get their goodies from the government so that they can vote for them next time. have you heard about the solar plant in nevada? guest: i'm generally familiar, but not an expert. caller: they have not had enough economicallyt feasible for them to do some of the stuff they want to, so now they are asking for a $500 million grant to help pay off their loan that they got. so, you democrats, you keep talking about the skills and everything, but just think about who is going to pay for that $500 million. thank you. you all have a great day. host: ok, randy. guest: randy, i agree with you, government is a horrible

allocator of capital. i want to have a strong private sector to incentivize that type of growth. from the standpoint of people's motivations -- as americans, we all share the same goal. we want a prosperous america. we want every american to have an opportunity to build a life for themselves and their family. what you are hearing from me and leadership is we really are taking this responsibility the american people bestowed on us with a great deal of humility in trying to reach out to the other side and find those areas of agreement. that is how i approached business. i did not start the negotiation fighting off the bat like president obama is doing on it immigration. theent on the dash time on front end on everything we agreed on, developing a relation -- spent time on the front and on everything we agreed on, developing a relationship, trust. that is the approach i'm hearing

from members of our caucus, and it is up to the democrats to accept the outraged hand, work with us, let's reduce migratory bird, make a tax system more competitive, not artificially drive up the cost of power. that hurts americans, and let's take advantage of with this opportunity provides all of us. "the washington post" said recently that you enter the 2016 cycle as one of the most moldable the publicans on the map -- vulnerable republicans on the map. i am: i do not doubt that definitely a number one target, ok? hopefully, will end up happening in the state of wisconsin -- i travel the state all the time, giving a powerpoint presentation. i lay out the facts. they are not pretty to look at.

hopefully in the end, the voters and the citizens will value someone serving them in the united states senate not afraid to tell them the truth, works really hard to get the truth out, not afraid to be the messenger even when the message is not fun to look at, and promises to carry through on the promise that i will never vote on a reelection line. i am not doing this to get reelected. i will focus on the next couple of years, tried to find the areas of common ground for commonsense solutions, reduce the regulatory burden, get the economy moving. that is how you build a strong middle class. that is how you increase wages. i am not going to change. i have been very focused and direct in what my mission is in getting americans and wisconsin the information they need so that we admit we have a problem, and then find it, those are the first two steps. host: what about fundraising -- it is a necessity to win reelection. what is your position right now?

not done a lot of fund raising the first four years in wisconsin. there have been higher priorities. we had to survive a recall against our governor and we had a 2012 election were governor walker had to be reelected again. ofave been fully supportive efforts. i am in cycle the next two years. you have to do that. it is not a fun part. i do not like it, but if you're going to get a message out -- if i am going to be able to defend myself against the onslaught of just negative, nasty ads that are going to paint me, you are not going to recognize the person they are going to portray over the next couple of years. they tried it already. spent half a million dollars on a targeted ad campaign against me already. see how i putting nasty pictures

of me up, how that drives down my approval rating. reasons why the good people are sometimes pretty reluctant to get into the political fray. it is not typically present -- pleasant process. i traveled around the country are supporting candidates, and i listen to the ads. the people i was supporting were not the people being portrayed in these ads, and i'm hoping tuneamericans, they just the negative advertising, negative campaign ads out, and look at the substance of who people are and on that basis, i will be the calmest guy on my election night. either get my old life back, which i love and i miss, or i will appreciate the wisconsin values someone that tells them the truth and not doing is to get reelected but here to solve problems. edu use yourst: personal wealth the first time

around and will you use it this time? guest: i use a lot my first time and i will not. host: why not? guest: i do not believe i have to. -- if peoplecord want to support me, it should not be an issue. we have seen how much money was raised in the last election cycle. i made a $9 million investment want and i do not think i should have to do it again. host: a couple more phone calls. patty is first in new orleans. caller: thank you for c-span. senator johnson, the concern is that i have regarding the keystone xl pipeline -- the biggest thing is we talk about approval ratings -- 60% of americans approve of this, but the problem i have is it is not based on fact.

i was listening earlier to randy who called from trees for and these numbers get called -- thrown out there -- -- from support,r, -- shreves louisiana, and the numbers get thrown out -- 30,000 to 40,000 jobs, and that is not true. most of the jobs will be temporary. i know they were throwing a lot of questions at you. guest: i am getting old. caller: the question with the peoplee domain, and skirt around it, but i think is being improperly used. i would like to hear you address that issue. you had said that was a concern. host: i will leave it there because we are getting short on our time with the senator. guest: my concern about the apansion of eminent domain is

local government could say we want to tear down this house up ane if we put apartment complex, we will get more taxes as opposed to all of us need this highway, and we want to have a go relatively straight, or we want a pipeline because we need oil, energy -- there are certain things that are common goods that the public doesn't need to impart -- does need to impose eminent domain so we can build infrastructure paraguay have problems is where it is for economic purposes and it has nothing to do --