from martha washington to emotional obama -- michelle obama. >> our guest is representative michael mccaul of texas. the homeland security committee chair. thank you for being with us this week. let me introduce our two reporters will be questioning the chairman. the reporter on homeland security and intelligence issues politico." we will start with immigration. we'll start with you. >> i want to ask you the broad question and also a specific question. the broader question is speaker boehner has said he is not going

to move legislation through the house. if it does not have a majority of the republican conference, i wonder how you can get an immigration bill that does the majority of republicans on board in the house every the second rushion is, what is the for border security for certifying the border is secure so we have all of the pieces of an immigration bill to go through? tothe speaker is committed getting something passed. in the house, it will look different from the senate version. it really hinges on the security measures. 1986, we see the mistake that was made granting amnesty to not providing the security measures. we do not want to make a mistake and 10 years down the road, have the mistake we are talking about today. i lot is going to hinge on what security pieces.

was you are going to see is really in the middle of that a border security bill that i passed. .ith bipartisan support it is a very tough measure, but it is realistic. it is tougher than the senate version. it has a 90% apprehension rate accountability. it defines operational control and has metrics defined by -- it also has checks and balances. is not madefication solely by the secretary and administration rather an outside party to certify. it calls for a national strategy which we do not have area it calls for an implementation plan which we do not have. we think the mistake of what the senate did was throwing dollars at the border which is what we did the last decade without any measurable results. we want a planet to be put forward that comes back to

to bess -- we want a plan put forth that comes back to congress. that is more responsible than throwing assets ad hoc. >> if i could get you to elaborate on that. the are looking at doubling size of the border patrol. how much border security is too much border security? is our diminishing return when you double that control was work do you get more security -- -- control? do you get more security? >> and that is the point. where do they get that number? i do not see how you can get some arbitrary number of border patrol agents and dollars and technology to throw down there. that is what our bill calls for. a plan. it's a more responsible way of

doing it. the $30 billion, i do not know where they get it. we do not want to waste taxpayer posit dollars. our approach is more responsible. with all my democrats voting on it, it is a powerful statement that we are going to hold the department feet's to the fire. with today are doing in the senate is really putting the cart before the horse. know what assets are needed down there. you cannot establish that factor until you know what the plan is. >> does that mean it you inc. border security -- think board security could be had for the $30 billion? >> it possibly could be. later, they have to come forward with their implementation plan. they come to the congress. we look at it. what the national defense look at the metrics.

we have the certifying this plan. from there, we can see what the capability is. we can determine which dod assets with the put down there. towers but what about the border patrol agents? how many more do we need? you cannot make those assessments until you know really what the plan is and put forward. approachre commonsense . and with respect to any triggers, we cannot trigger reform until it is certified by the government accountability office that we do have control over the border. our plan calls for a two-year period after the plan is submitted to get to that submitted not only of our southwest and canadian borders. >> mr. chairman, let me ask you a larger political russian. texas has been dealing with it

in the republican party. very well atma did the polls with hispanic voters. what is the consequence for the republican party if there is not an immigration reform with so many hispanic voters in the number in the community has been pressing for and by their votes last election showed they really want? >> you mentioned my home state. majorityshifting to hispanic. there would be consequence. and there will be. our leadership is committed to this. we want to be the party of solutions. to anythinging no and call and get and killing get. lotbill is going to be a tougher. that is the only way the speaker can achieve what he has mentioned in terms of getting the majority of our conference in supporting that. the political backdrop if you

will that the president has a strategy in some respects that would like to see it felt -- back thehey could take house which is the grand design at the end of the day and they would have free reign of the entire congress and pass whatever they want. we couldairman, if turn to nsa which has been in the news a lot, with the news of the surveillance program's first, you sound a little skeptical about what the demonstration was doing. over thateen won those were good and effective programs? there are a lot of republicans include mistresses of brenner -- mr. since the renner who senseb wrote the patriot act. what you would like to see to change those programs? >> they are lawful programs

approved by the fisa courts. it stopped terrorist plots. from that extent, they are worthwhile. by theants oversight congress to determine how broad is the sculpture, is it really -- in theent was work scope, is it really in the intent? what to do records from the phone companies and allowing them to manipulate the data, so it is a big shift in policy. it warrants a second look. amountsay at tremendous of damage has done by mr. snowden just like with bin laden heard one richard cell phones, -- when he heard we monitor cell phones, he stopped using them. as if escape terrorists will not

be using cell phones or the internet. oversee non- american purses oversee is beneficial. you will see a lot of the terrorists 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 is with the chinese and the russians on the russians are probably extracting all the information he has right now. it makes me wonder where is loyalty. when he took an oath of loyalty to the unit states of america and now he is siding with our enemies especially when it comes to cyber espionage area these are two really bad actors. including venezuela and ecuador. >> you mentioned congressional oversight of these programs. saidmembers of congress they were surprised that these programs exist and what they did. the american public to have some

ing in of monitoring communication of american , dozens and other people the american public have some right to have some idea of what is being collected? >> i think so. heart of the problem is the intelligence committee. -- part of the problem is intelligence committee. they are the only one that knows what is going on in this area. they said they have these documents for review for members of congress. otherwith a lot of doctrines. it is not made well known. there needs to be more transparency about what the nsa is doing to all members of congress sold the american people will have a better understanding of this. know him in intelligence authorization bill comes to the floor, you are going to see a healthy debate about the future

of these two programs and where the nsa should be heading. >> do you plan to offer an amendment or will somebody to the authorization that would expand the availability of information to other members of congress beyond the house intelligence committee must mark -- committee? >> also, who controls this data? what contractors are we letting get access to this kind of information? mr. snowden was not a stellar student, a very intelligent men but did not do well in school. he was given tremendous access to these programs. i kind of question who are we giving access to and should we take a second look at that as well? you are going to see of ideas. i am meeting with some of those very people involved to see if there's a better way to do this where it does not like the government owns every person's phone records. that is what makes -- it was

give most people heart burn. mentioned espionage. you've made a big priority. he talk about where your bill is at? what is the main thrust of -- kate about where your can you tell us where your bill is that? and what you intend for it to do? >> we are moving forward with it. with the fallout of the nsa, there is caution. methodically. we want to get it done right. with that over 200 meetings with private stakeholders. i met with the telecom people yesterday to talk about their issues. the top sectors are i.t., finance,gy here's the bottom line.

with the information out there. nsa has a little bit of it. it is foreign intelligence. dhs has a little bit and so does the fbi. most of it in the private sector with the critical infrastructure. what we're trying to do is create a safe harbor for the sectors can come together with the federal government with a civilian interface. a civilian interface with the private sector which is groups like that so they can come together with protection and antitrust protection and share this information across sector lines. currently, they cannot shared the information with each other in the private sector. it has to be a shared relationship, industry driven. we are moving forward. we are looking at how the executive is being implemented. impetus toive us

have oversight hearings of what they are doing wrong and how to rein in the executive order. and ultimately, how we can fix the system. every day that goes by that we do not pass the bill, we put americans at risk. i do not want to be the member who did not get it done with something bad happened. and it is too late. there's a lot of momentum in the congress. more than i have seen. i've been involved for over a decade. i have never seen this type of momentum before. this'll be the time. >> one of your state of objectives is to to clarify homeland security's role in cybersecurity. what does not working about it right now? >> what is not working is the inability to fully participate with the private sector and vice versa. because of the liability protections, the executive order cannot to do. we do not have the ability to share information across 16

sectors in the critical infrastructure. a complete inability to share information right now. that is why we need the legislation. providement that did for the civilian interface as opposed to nsa and military interface. it's got 60 additional votes on the bill. because the privacy people as they testified before my committee preferred the average to the critical infrastructure. leak fiasco on it to demonstrate the need that much more area >> you mentioned at the beginning the bill had been somewhat delayed because the issues that happened with the nsa. the privacy groups that are raising the most said this shows how much -- how bad coronation is between the private sector

and the government. they have also said there's a reason we should take a little slower on information sharing between the private sector and the government on cybersecurity. you think as has affected the appetite in congress at all? has that damaged in any way the momentum for cybersecurity legislation? >> there is no question the affect the league has had, it does slow down -- the of fact the leak had, it it has slowed down everything. interfacecivilian within the department of homeland security, given the aclu testimony how they would prefer the interface to be a civilian agency. again, it makes it that much more important that we do pass this bill.

>> we have eight minutes left. >> if we can switch topics. you are working with a congressman in florida to stop the administration from arming syrian rebels without congressional authorization. where are you in that effort? whether you thought the libyan intervention was a parallel was a mistake? >> look at what happened in libya and egypt. the arab spring has taken place. it is a bit of a winner. the safe havens popping up all throughout the region in northern africa. my point with syria is we need to take a hard look before we start throwing our resource in their, our weapons, and no-fly zones which syrian air force has great anti-aircraft capabilities and much greater than libya.

our men and women on the ground, my concern is who are these rebel forces must mark when i asked that question, i cannot get a straight answer. 60% extremists. he guarantee if we give them the arms -- can you guarantee it will give them the arms, it will not go to the jihadists? we cannot. they are supposed to be our enemy. we sigh history play out where they turned that back at u i experienced that in afghanistan. with to be careful before we dive into something like this -- we have to be careful before we dive into something like this. i am not saying maybe we should not at some point back moderate forces, congress has a role

the process. it is what our bill calls for. congress should be looking at this before we go to another ward this time in syria. but setting aside the issue of what congress role should be him -- settingng the us aside the issue of what congress's role should be, what is your point was part -- point? >> right now, there is not a good outcome. you have a rebel forces comprised largely by jihadist. it is a sunni war. it is a new rock war. -- an iraq war. it is hard to pick sides. only possible scenario i can see being would be moderate forces if assad is thrown out which i believe he eventually will be

and they are put in the position of governing the country rather than the most extremists. these jihadist are pouring in every day and it is a method now. it is one the biggest threats now. they are coming from all over the world. they are training their area from syria, they can launch. it's a bit of a mess with no easy answer. indo they play a role protecting reformers who claim to want a democracy is the leading nation in the free world and with all the rhetoric you hear from both the democrats and republicans about reporting democracy? >> we do support to democracy. we are seeing these countries of being taken over by extremists. think we are looking at syria

at how can these moderate forces prevail at the end of the day? all of our bill says is that congress has a role here and the president needs to get our approval before he sent in weapons. there are a lot of members of congress who have grave concerns and a lot of americans about what extent are we going to get involved in another war with mark -- war? again, there is no good outcome there. we have to be very careful in our policy before we launch anything. bombing, boston shortly after you had a hearing you said you're concerned we are not connecting the dots even after all of the reform. have you come to any conclusion about that? and and if so, what can be done about it? fridaynt to boston last and met with fbi.

we walked down the streets. the boston police chief is a bit of a hero. my take away was this. he said the boston police, we know the streets. the fbi does a great job. we know the streets. thisnever taught us about case. they never told us about the that he willng radicalize and come back. it would not briefed on the fbi investigation. they did not know about anything about the case. he was embarrassed by that. the local police, state police can play a role. in getting good intelligence from the ground. the fbi will say they do not have the resources. why not leverage? have a multiplier with state and local? that was a failure here.

they felt to discuss this with the local police. talked to the local police. they would come to interviews. there's a a way to fix this process. let's face it, after 9/11, the ideal cannot corneille effectively -- we cannot corneille effectively can lead to this. inate effectively can lead to this. they did not do anything about it. within the context of the russian letter which warned exactly what he did, when he came back we would've taken a second look. if they did they would've seen his youtube website of all of this jihadist material and clearly he came back radicalize. we possibly could've stopped it. >> final question? >> i want to ask you about a texas state legislature, wendy

davis who did a filibuster in austin the i want to get your thoughts on her and what is going on down there? veryhave not followed that closely. it is more of a state matter. it was over the abortion issue. it looks to me the supreme court maying over the doma issue be a trend of putting it back to the states at letting the states decide. it is highly emotional and highly volatile. it galvanized the probe portion groups to convert in austin. there are about 30,000 of them. it caused quite a scene for the state house down there. >> and that's it for our time. thank you for being on "newsmakers." we hope you will come back soon. >> thank you.

conversationthis and larger contents. we started with immigration. the scent has been working with a gang of eight. 70rsday of this week, the threshold is starting to slip away. what does it mean for the passage? he said the house versions going to look different. >> it is the hope of the bipartisan group pushing this legislation would put pressure on the house with as big of a felt as possible. they got two 70 votes which includes 15 republicans and that number. the house would fill pressured to act quickly -- feel pressured to act quickly on it. monther the number is a there is no indication that speaker boehner would move in that direction -- whatever that number is, there is no indication that speaker boehner would move in that direction.

--'ve heard chairman mackall mccaul talk about it. when they go to conference with the senate on it, they want to be as strong as possible so there is a middle ground that is something boehner might be able to get. we are a long way of seeing immigration reform. >> i was counting. strategyion about the becauseis interesting the dallas morning news is 's work isthat mccaul a tactic to delay immigration reform. what do you see? >> at that has been a criticism of republicans. every time we seem to get the

board a little bit more secure, even after the 9/11 commission recommended increases in border security, there were a lot of people who thought it will go a long way to getting us more secure. that the goal of what the security gets further and further away. doublinglking about what we did after 9/11 on the senate side. it is issue that he said they were looking to go in a different direction. what i think is happening with the republicans is they have to drive the political motivation to really secure the borders. at the same time, if you look at what the senate is doing, it will cost a lot of money. they probably have conflicting issues of their corporate goals that are less government spending as possible. after juggle these puzzles that will make it fairly hard -- juggle beast things that will make it fairly hard.

>> let's follow up on your conversation about party politics and the changing demographics of america. what did you learn about the parties realization? >> it speaks to the motivations you askman mccaul when him about the metrics. he said he believes there are consequences if they do not get something done. it is in the political interest of the republicans get karen to immigration reform -- to get comprehensive migration reform done. for the democrats, it'll get immigration. there's mistrust from the republicans of the democrat's motive. hispanic voters. this is a situation where both ands have to join hands

jump off a cliff of trust. in 2006, they did not doing. 2007, the last time it was going through the senate and then the house talking about and not doing it. the debate has not changed much. the bill was essentially the same. you've seen political momentum. the question is, is it enough to get republicans in the house to move on it? to move to the cybersecurity bill and the emphasis on the coalition between the privacy community and business being the guardians. would you decoded that for us? >> the privacy groups have been on the opposite side for a couple of reads. the business groups want to share information about threats with the government. the privacy groups are worried about if they do that, a lot of

personal information will end up in the hands of the government particularly the military as they are word about that barrier of constitutional issues about who should be having access to our information and how much information they should be receiving. it starts to mix and mingle a little bit. the nsa story that the circulating is you are seeing a similar dynamic but different in a fundamental way there. >> as we close here, republic interest. how will republican attention turned the legislative process? >> when i was interviewing a lot of these groups and people programs, these everybody was saying we are still not quite there yet. this was about a week ago. yetre not sure year -- where it is going. the polling is everywhere.