voting right act. first from -- first-time ncaa -- naacp leaders. likes our guest this week is congressman michael mccaul of texas. this puts him at the intersection of some of the big issues this country is discussing. including government surveillance. thank you for being with us. let me introduce our to report to. tim stark is the reporter on intelligence issues and jonathan allen. we're going to speak of immigrat issues and jonathan allen. we're going to speak of immigration as the senate is

working their way to some sort of closure. we will start with you. >> i want to ask you a broad question. the broader question is speaker john boehner has said that he is not going to move legislation through the house that does not have a majority of the republican conference on board. i wonder how you can get a one that passes. i hope you also think about this as well. where'd you think the threshold is for border security for certifying that the border is secure? >> the speaker is committed to getting something passed. in the house it will look different from the senate. it hinges on the security measures. in 1986 we see the mistake that was made not providing the measures. they have the same problem we

are talking about today. for a while it will work on how -- what security measures we can pass. this is going to be the security bill that i passed out of the homeland security committee. it is a very tough measure. it is realistic. -- it holdes accountability. .t defines operation control it also has checks or allen says. the certification is not made solely by the secretary and by the administration and outside party. it calls for a national strategy which we do not have. it calls for an implementation plan which we do not have. we think what the senate did was throwing dollars ad hoc without

needing measure of results. we want a plan to get forward that then they come back to the congress and we can look at the resource issue. that is more of a responsible way to go about this rather than throwing assets ad hoc and a calling for a trigger for immigration reform. orthe senate bill has this they are looking at doubling the size of the border patrol. i am wondering how much is too much border security? ?s there too much return there are already a number of such others that are near at or over the 90% effectiveness rate. >> where do they get that number -- wherewithout a plan did they get that number? without that plan i do not see how you can get an arbitrary number to throw down there.

that is what our bill calls for. i think it is a more responsible way to do this. i do not know where they come up with this $30 billion. we do not want to waste taxpayer dollars. our think our group -- i think our report is more responsible. this was a very powerful statement. we're all going to hold their feet to to the fire and come up with a plan. what they are doing in the senate is putting the cart before the horse. it is before they know what assets are really needed down there. you cannot establish that factor until you know what the plan is. >> does that mean you think border security can be had for the 30 billion dollars the senate is putting in? >> it possibly could. 90 days later they have to come forward with their

implementation plan. once they come up, they come to the congress. we have the national defense looking at the metrics. gao certifyinge the plan. we can see where these are. we can see which ones we put down there. what integrates this. what about border patrol agent? you cannot make those assessments. it is unwise to make those until you know what the plan is that has been put forward. that is a more commonsense approach. we cannot trigger reform until it has commonsense approach. we cannot trigger reform until it has been certified by the government accountability office that we finally have operation control over the border. this calls for a two-year time frame to get that control. not only of southwest but our

canadian borders. >> let me ask you a larger political question. texas has been dealing with the larger republican party. -- president obama did very well at the pool with hispanic voters. what is the consequence for the republican party if there are so many hispanic voters that are processing for an show that they really want it? >> he mentions my home state of texas. it is shifting toward the majority hispanic. i think there would be consequences. there would be. our leadership is committed to this. think we want to be the party of solutions and not just saying no to anything. this will be a lot tougher than the senate bill.

get is the only way he can the conference supporting that. there is this political backdrop where i do believe the president has a strategy where they would in some respects like to see this fail in the house so they can possibly take act the house which i think is the current design. then they have free reign over the entire congress. >> with return -- concern to the nsa, when the news of these programs first broke, he sounded a little skeptical about what the administration was doing. i wonder if you had been won over by the fact that those are good programs. he wants to go back and revisit this. oft is the broader sense where this is in the house on this program?

what might happen? >> these unlawful programs. they had judicial review. stopping led us to terrorist lots. i think they are worth while. i think it once every spite by the congress to determine how broad is the scope. federal prosecutor here who has worked counterterrorism cases, we would take all the record and nsa.ouse them under the it is a big shift in policy. it is a second look. amount of damage has been done by mr. snowden. just like when bin laden heard we monitor cell phones and stop using them. now we have a situation where

most sophisticated terrorists will not be using cell phones but also the internet. this program where we can monitor non-us persons overseas was extremely valuable now you'll see them not using the internet at all to get around our law enforcement techniques. i do believe a lot of people say he is a hero. when he coddles with the chinese and the russians, i know the russians are probably extracting everything he has right now. where is his low of see? loyalty? now he is siding with our enemies especially when it comes to cyber espionage. these are two really bad act yours. not to mention venezuela and ecuador. congressional oversight. some members of congress have

been surprised to find out that these programs existed and what they did. what does the american public have to have some idea of what the government is doing in terms of monitoring communications of american citizens? have the american people to have some idea of what information is being collected? >> i think so. they are the only committee that knows about most of what is going on in this area. they will tell you they have these documents available for view for members of congress. it is buried in a lots of other documents. it is not made well known. the nice to be a little more transparent -- transparency about what they are doing so the american people will have a better understanding about this. >> i think it is confined. i know when the bill comes to

the floor, i think you will see a very healthy debate about the future of these to these programs. >> do you plan to offer an amendment to the authorization to expand this to other members of congress beyond the house intelligence committee? >> i am looking at not only that but who controls the data, what restrictions are placed on the persons in control. what contractors are we giving access to this information? mr. snowden is not exactly a stellar student. should we take a second look at this as well? i think you're going to see a lot of ideas. i'm meeting with some of the people involved to see if there

is a better way to do this where does not look like the government owns every person's phone records. that is what gives the people heartburn. you are warehousing everyone's phone records under the nsa. >> you mentioned cyber espionage. where yourk about bill is that? when we talked a number of weeks back, i spoke to some people who are not 100% of where you were there. can you tell us what you really intend for it to do? with the fallout there is a little bit of caution. methodically. we want to get this done right. we have had over 200 meetings with right stakeholders. i asked the telecom people to

speak of their issues. the top sectors are i.t., finance, telecom, and energy. we have this information out there. the nsa just as a little bit of it. 90% of this lies in the private sector. what we're trying to do is create safe harbor where the sectors can come together with the federal government. with a civilian interface. withcan come together liability protections and antitrust protections and share this information. currently they cannot do it with themselves in the private sector. it has to be a shared relationship. industry driven. are looking at how the

executive order is being implemented. that will give us a lots of it is to have oversight hearings on what they are doing wrong, how we can rein in the executive order. ultimately, how we can fix the system. every day that goes by we put americans at risk. i think there is a momentum in the congress. i have been involved in this for over a decade. i've never seen this kind of momentum be war. this of be the time to really get it done. what is not working about it right now? working is the inability to fully participate with the other and vice versa. because of the liability protections in the executive

order cannot do it, we do not have have the ability to share that information across the critical infrastructures. there is a complete inability to share information. we do need legislation. provide for did this interface. otes ont 60 additional v the bill. that is because the privacy outreach torred the the critical structure to be a civilian agency and not the military. i think this just demonstrates the needoutreach to the critical structure to be a civilian agency and not the military. i think this just demonstrates the need that much more. >> he mentioned the bill had been somewhat delayed because of the issues that happened with the nsa. the privacy groups that are raising the most fuss have been

how badhis shows coordination is between the private sector and the government. they said maybe that is why we should take it a little slower. do you think that has affected the appetite? do you think that damaged in any way the momentum that was building? >> there is no question the impact it has had on the progress of legislation. it has slowed down everything. that given the given privacy office, the testimony before the committee, how they would her for the interface to the private sector and are to be the agency. makes it thatk it

much more important that we to pass this bill. we have a minute flat. >> if i could switch topics a little bit. but i am not mistaken you are working with the congressman of florida to try to stop the administration from arming them without congressional authorization. i'm wondering where you are in that efforts and whether you the intervention was a mistake? >> look at what is happened in libya and egypt. this arabs ring has become a bit of a winner. we are seeing the safe havens pop up across the region. my point was syria is that we need to take a very hard look before we start throwing our weapons and resources in their. -- in there.

there are great antiaircraft capability. my concern is who are these rebel forces. i cannot get a straight answer. it is something like 60 martyr -- moderates. can you guarantee that if we give them the modern arms of the will not go to the jihadist? what are we really talking about? we're talking about using using our weapons that will eventually harm the jihadists. we saw it play out with men like jean where they turned it back on this. we have to be careful before we dive into something like this. they could really blowback on us. i am not saying that maybe we

should not at some point back the mode congress has a role. congress has been shut out. that is what our bill calls for. congress should be looking at this before we go to another war. atwhat is your personal view what point we should be going in to see. what we should be doing question there are some saying it has taken the president too long to get involved. >> right now there is not a good outcome. you get rebel forces that are comprised largely by jihadist. it is a sunni shia war. do you want to win? it is hard to pick sides. the only possible scenario

would be at the moderate forces. theye slots is thrown out, are put in the position of governing that country rather than the more extreme elements taking over syria. they are pouring in every day in syria. it is a bit of a mecca. it is becoming clinically greatest threats to our homeland. they're are coming from all over the world. from syria they can launch strikes anywhere in the world. it is a bit of a mass with no easy answer. >> does the united states have a role in protecting reformers and other countries who claim to want democracy as the leading nation in the free world? >> we do support democracy. we are seeing been taken over by

the ms. -- by the extremists. syria.looking at how can these moderate forces prevail at the end of the day? congress has a role here. the president needs to get our approval before he starts sending in weapons. have concernricans about what extent we will involve ourselves in another war where it is a ron killing sunni extremists. good outcome there. we have to be very careful before we launch anything. you had a hearing where you said you are concerned that we were not connecting the dots. i am wondering if you have come to any conclusions about that. what can be done that has not

been done already? charge with thee boston police commissioner. we walked down the streets. hero.a bit of a local my take away was this. know the streets. the fbi has a role to play. they did a great job. we know these streets. they never talked to us about this case. he never told us about the russian warning. they were not briefed on the fbi investigation. they do not know anything about the case. he was embarrassed by that. the state police can play a role. why not have a whole force

multiplier? that is the failure here. they failed to discuss this with the local police. we always talk to the local police about matters. fix thisa way to process. let's face it. 12 years after 9/11, we cannot coordinate effectively. we know either the fbi knew and did not do anything or what makes clear that they did not do anything about it. when you look at in the context of the russian letter, i think when he came back he would have taken a second look. if they did, they would have seen these websites be put up. came back radicalized.

we possibly could have stopped it. >> i want to ask you really quickly about a texas , wholator, wendy davis did a filibuster. i want to get your thoughts on her and what is going on down there for those not familiar with the legislature and rules. >> i'm not all that very closely. it would be more of a state matter. i know it was over the abortion issue. it looks to me like the supreme court's ruling may be a trend toward putting these issues back to the states and letting the state decides. it is a highly emotional, volatile issue. i think it galvanized the proportions groups to converge in austin. there are about 30,000 of them. it caused quite a scene for the state down there. >> thank you very much for being with us this week.

i hope you will come back soon. >> thanks for having me. let's turn to put this conversation in a larger context. we started with immigration. the senate has been working its way through the think of eight -- gang of 8. what does this mean for the ultimate passage of this legislation? he just said the house version with very different. >> it is the hope of the bipartisan group of senators to put pressure on the house with as big of a boat as possible. this includes 15 republicans. feel forced to act quickly on it. there has been no indication of that. there has been no indication that he was going to move in

that direction, having some knowledge of the way this has been approached for a long time. i think there has always been the belief that it would be done in a piecemeal fashion. you hear them talking about getting the border security peace. i cannot see anything else passing unless they have something that is already robust in that area. they want to be in the strongest possible position so that if there is a middle ground is a something that he might be able to sell. fs and my a lot of it answer. >> i was counting. the question about the strategy on this is interesting. that hisre saying is actually a tactic to delay comprehensive reform. what do you see it happening here? every time we seem to get

the border a little more secure, into this.ecall there was a lot of people who thought will go a long way to secure.us more that seems to get further and further away. we are not talking about what we're doing on the senate side. we heard them say they're looking to go and an entirely different direction. one thing that is happening is they have this drive and political motivation to genuinely secure the border. at the same time, if you look at what the senate is doing, it'll cost a lot of money. they will have this other conflicting issue of their core principles. they have to juggle these

things that make it fairly hard for them to come to some kind of middle ground of what the senate has push forward. clic>> let's follow up on party politics. what did you learn from the answer about the realization about demographics and the politics? wha>> it speaks to the motivatis of chairman mccall when you ask about the metrics and that is something that is a delay tax dec tactic. it is in the political interest to get a comprehensive immigration reform logged on but not necessarily in their .olicy interests for democrats, their policy is to get a comprehensive immigration reform law. there is mistrust because the longer they go without a law before they can keep their activist base to come out and

vote, this is the situation where both sides really have to join hands and jump off of a cliff up trusts. in 2006 they did not do it. last time this was going through the senate and the house. the debate has not changed much. the bill was essentially the same. you have seen political momentum reform. of immigration is it enough to get republicans in the house to move on that? >> a big question with only about a minute left. i wanted to move to the cybersecurity bill and the .mphasis on the coalition would you decode that for us? >> the privacy groups and the business groups have been on the opposite side of this for a couple of reasons. the business groups want to

share information. the privacy groups are worried that if they do it and lots of personal information will end up hands of the government, particularly the nsa or the military because they are worried about those kinds of constitutional issues about who should be having access to information. mingle a to mix and little bit with the nsa problem that has been circulating. you are seeing a similar dynamic is different in some fundamental ways. >> lots of public interest in this edward snowden story. how will this change the legislative process? i was interviewing a lot of the people who were opposed to these programs, everybody was saying we're still not quite there yet. this is about one week ago when i was doing intensive