private capital into the market. we are trying to bring capital into the market through risk transfers, through providing attainty, and we are looking setting out a transparent and rational basis for setting g-fees. which is part of our ongoing process. they have a role in this process and we are trying to look at every single one of them in a responsible, deliberative way. you know, hat one, raising g fees is going to bring private capital flocking

back into the space i think is probably a gross exaggeration. >> that does seem that they recommended? they've recommended that for that purpose. it seems while there are definitely other steps that are important, i agree necessary to bring private capital in if the government guaranteed -- systematically underpriced, then whatever you do you won't get private capital in in that context. i think the g fee piece is an important part of that. >> i don't think you and i are saying different things, senator. i agree with you that it is one factor. and i agree with fsoc that is a factor. to approach that in a way that than the way we approached other things would be inconsistent.

we're looking at the impact that increasing g fees will have on bringing back private capital. providing ing at certainty through the representation and warrants framework. we're looking at all kinds of options that hopefully will bring private capital into the process. but to say that we should ithout -- without a thorough analysis just increase g fees without having evaluated i think was inconsistent with my responsibilities and so we're getting to it. we're going to get there. >> that's my follow-up question. i have to say i don't believe that fsoc was suggesting that this be the only mechanism and other things should be ignored. i think the fsoc is aware of

the steps that need to be taken. in any case, it's been almost a year since you suspended the plan, the increases that were planned by your predecessor. how long will it take to do this analysis? when do you think it will come to a conclusion? >> in response to an earlier estion, we expect to provide a framework and the rationale for it sometime during the first quarter of this coming year. >> first quarter of next year we'll -- >> a phone. -- 2015. >> ok. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator brown. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's been a real honor to several on this committee with you and thank you for the public service for more or less three decades to the people of south dakota and to our country. mr. watt, nice to see you. echo the words of senator

menendez, thank you for the work you're doing at fhfa. we talked to you about putback. you announced a third round of changes negotiated with the mortgage industry to further restrictive fhfa's ability to put back defaulted loans to the lenders that improperly certified they complied with fannie and freddie guidelines. these changes are intended to give a greater certainty to mortgage lenders, at least in theory, that they will in turn facilitate loans to a broader range of credit-worthy borrowers. but some contend that it lets irresponsible lenders off the hook, leaving both taxpayers and borrowers picking up the tab. my question, since the crisis, fannie and freddie have put back billions in defaulted mortgages for purchases by g.s.e.'s. under these new putback policies, do you -- does fhfa still have the tools it needs

to hold lenders accountable if they don't follow the rules? very , we have been careful about retaining authority the putback when this fraud or misrepresentation, but some of these elements were so certain about the conditions it was paralyzing the lender community and that was stifling the availability of credit and it was increasing the cost of credit because they were imposing credit overlays to take into account that uncertainty. so what we tried to do is move some of the review of the loans that fannie and freddie guarantee, move more of that up to the front end, don't wait

until there is a default and then put it back. if we -- if we know that we are getting good loans and we've done our due diligence at the front end, then we can -- we've got more control over that process. if assure you that there's fraud or misrepresentation in the process, we will retain the ability to put back loans throughout the life of the loan. >> i hope that means you're vigilant that this tendency here that this gives banks the benefit of the doubt that homeowners don't get, but i know your values and i know what you're doing in that job and i know you'll be vigilant about that. speaking of potential fraudulent activity that you mentioned just a second ago, "the new york times" recently

highlighted freddie and fannie -- debt collectors -- for any debt that was covered by the value of their home as it was underwater. homeowner starting to get back on their feet a year, two years or any longer can find themselves with tens of thousands of dollars of new debt, depending on their state's laws for collecting these deficiency judgments. simply, your agency has a duty to protect taxpayers but demanding payment from borrowers who already documented they can't repay seems both expensive for fhfa who must pay the collectors and obviously harmful to the borrowers who can't escape debt on a home they don't even now own. how do you ensure that deficiency judgment cases are only brought when borrowers can truly repay? >> well, we are in the middle of a insureo review of fannie nd freddie's practices and

policies related to deficiency judgment. there may be, as a result of that analysis, an indication that we were spending more on that process than we were getting out of it. and that there need to be different criteria, but we haven't reached that conclusion yet but we are evaluating it carefully and we're doing it as we do with every other decision based on actual information and esearch and documentation that we have access to. it's a more recent evaluationry didn't start in january or may. we became aware of the problem -- evaluation didn't start in january or may. we became aware of the problem or situation before the article came out recently.

>> what does that mean you're doing for to make sure that third-party collectors are following state and federal law in these situations? had >> well, we always expect our counterparties to follow state and federal law. that's part of the contract and we're enforcing that contract. we are real estate always doing that. -- we're always doing that. that's a given. i'm talking about a deeper analysis of whether and to what extent there is value in pursuing a deficiency judgment in various kinds of cases. 've already eliminated borrowers age 65 or older, active military borrowers, bankrupt borrowers, borrowers pursuing short sales, deeds in lieu of foreclosure and we're

looking at the value of what's left. are we really doing more -- getting more benefit or doing more harm out of pursuing deficiency judgments in the states that allow it? i mean, a lot of states don't allow it in the first place. >> thank you. >> senator warner. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm going to add my voice to the colleagues thanking you for your service and also thanking ranking member crapo for your great work on housing financial reform. i would remind my colleagues that those who raised the housing trust fund, it's a bipartisan reform that we advanced to move forward for housing trust fund that would have generated $3 billion to $5 billion a year that would have been extraordinarily valuable on a project and program that we all vad could he indicate but has zero money in it. i have one question. i'd to make one quick comment

on the front end. as somebody that believes we do need housing financial reform, and senator warner and i wrote you a letter on several points. hopefully you'll be able to get back to me. fannie mae is in the process of entering into a long-term lease on what appears to be very expensive real estate. we've tried to press for some level of cost-benefit analysis. it's kind of a little bit they're acting like a private entity. yet, they're under your control. no g.a.o. review. i really question the entity's move. they seem to be acting as if they assume the status quo is going to be 30 years going at ard, and i think that is best an uncertain assumption and one that i'm not sure that taxpayers are getting full value on. i hope you can get back to me.

>> we regularly are in consultation with them. actually, our expectation is that it will provide much, much greater flexibility for them to -- >> we've gotten nothing. >> i thought we had provided a number of things to your staff, but if not, i'll certainly follow-up. >> we're very unsatisfied what we got. i have three or four areas. we are concerned about access to credit. in effect, we've become -- fikeo scores have become the -- fico scores have become the de facto standard. especially folks with student loans and others, becomes a real hurdle. have you thought at all about looking at standards other than fico and how we might bring a little more competition in the space?

>> we are thinking of it on an ongoing basis. not only whether it would be advantageousous to have competition in the credit score rea but whether fannie and freddie, through their own processees, could evaluate , edit worthiness, and they do using things other than credit scores. so it's a part of our regular process, and it's a daily part. it's an hourly part of our regular process because if you can't accurately evaluate the ability of a borrower or perspective borrower to repay, we have real trouble. >> i'd love to get an update on it. the other is -- and i think a number of us have probably dealt with this. this is kind of the first look program. ow to make sure owner occupied

that may be -- in financial straits, it's tough for them to go against these outside purchasers and buy up areas and the owner occupied and individual in terms of a bit more flexibility to keep that owner occupied, that owner in that home on ability to dig their way out, we have enormous problems with this in prince william county, one of our suburban areas, that was one of the hardest hit with the financial crisis. i hope you take a look at this as well. >> we are on an ongoing basis. i got the letter that you and senator warner -- you and senator warren sent yesterday afternoon and we will respond to it and be available to meet with you on each one of these specific issues that you raised. >> that would be great. let me move to another area. this kind of other end of the

spectrum and that is around mortgage insurance. obviously a lot of us raised concerns that when the financial crisis happened, a lot of the mortgage insurance -- insurers weren't there and we do have to get the capital standards right. i applaud you on moving forward in that area. one of the areas that i think bears some consideration in terms of considering within the mortgage insurance industry premiums that are paid, in the process being paid, at least applying those within the capital standards. that is a revenue stream that i believe ought to be counted. do you want to make -- i know my time has run out, but could you make a comment on that? >> it is something that we're looking at very carefully because a number of people have

said that our proposed rule does not take into account and that it should take it into account. it's a difficult issue because capital and having the capital to survive in a stress , income generally is not considered capital, right? g.s.e.'s e like the having capital but then allowing the g-fee income that they get to produce income be onsidered as part of the capital, right? so there are arguments on both sides of this issue, and it is a very complicated issue. and interestingly enough, i have people internally who have

different perspectives on it which is why i think we will get to the best possible result because we're -- >> and i appreciate that and my time has expired. and we do need to make sure in the event of another crisis the mortgage insurers have some backing, but i do think this is an area, at least on my review, that merits some further scrutiny. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator warren. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and, again, thank you for your service. it has been a real pleasure to serve with you and with ranking member crapo. thank you for being here, chairman watt. i want to return to an issue that senator menendez raised and that is, as you know, five million families lost their homes during the financial crisis, and millions more are still struggling. according to the latest data from core logic, a leading housing market research firm, another 5.3 million homeowners

remain underwater on their homes. and people are continuing to lose their homes every day in foreclosure. now we talk a little bit about the law here. one of your duties under the law is to preserve and conserve the assets of fannie and freddie, but another duty given equal importance by congress -- and i'm reading from the law here -- is to implement a plan that seeks to maximize assistance for homeowners and take advantage of available programs to minimize foreclosures. congress explicitly included reduction of loan principal as an option for your agency to pursue. principal reduction is often a win-win that both helps fannie and freddie and helps the family. 2013 c.b.o. study, for example, found that even a modest principal reduction plan for fannie and freddie mortgages could help 1.2 million

underwater homeowners, prevent 43,000 defaults and save fannie and freddie about $2.8 billion. the treasury department has found that principal reductions could save fannie and freddie nearly $4 billion and help half a million homeowners stay in their home. it has been six years since congress created fhfa, and in ll that t agency has never, not once permitted a family to reduce its principal mortgage through fannie or freddie. i've asked about this repeatedly and you said you'd look into allowing fannie and freddie to engage in principal reduction. you said it again today. you've been in office for nearly a year now and you haven't helped a single family, not even one by agreeing to a principal reduction.

so i want to know why this has not been a priority for you. the data are there. >> it's probably an overstatement, senator warren, to say it's not been a priority. it has been a priority. it's just a very difficult issue. the reason it's difficult is because we are looking for exactly what you said which is a win-win situation. >> forgive me, though. >> we have to do this in a way that is responsible. otherwise we just reduce principal for everybody across the board is not what anybody, i think, is advocating for, so then we have to decide, ok, what is a responsible -- >> chairman watt, you have had a year to do that. you've known for five years before that what the problem was. we have two studies coming out

showing that fannie and freddie could make money by doing this. one from the treasury department and one from the c.b.o. i'm not even talking about all the private studies on this. in the meantime during this year, you've done the reps and warrants policy. you've done the buyback policy. you've done private mortgage insurance rules. you've done a whole list of really tough technical things and i applaud you for doing that, but people have lost their homes in the last year. and every day that you delay, more families lose their homes. there are 5.4 million families out there underwater. so i want to know, when are you going to have an answer on this one? >> we're going -- we're going to have the answer sooner. it won't be as long as it has been, let me put it that way. you know -- >> how many more people have to lose their home before we -- >> i can't take responsibility for the decisions that was made

in the first five years. i can take responsibility for the decisiones that were made in the last year. it's not a year yet. i think we're getting closer, and we are doing some things that really may not call themselves principal reduction but we are giving a lot more flexibility through the neighborhood stabilization initiative. >> but they are not principal reductions. so let's just be -- >> they are principal reduction. if we facilitate the transfer other entities that allow principal reduction, it is principal reduction. it is not across-the-board principal reduction. >> how many families has it affected? >> it's affected a number of families. >> we have 5.4 million families outstanding with underwater loans and we have two principle studies showing what would happen if fab fannie and

freddie would engage in principal reduction. i want to follow-up on senator brown's concerns about pursuing people for deficiency judgments when they can't pay. and you said this is something you are looking at. again, i'm glad to hear that, but there's already been a study on that. according to an fhfa inspector general report from october of 2012, in 2011, fannie and freddie pursued about 35,000 borrowers who collectively had an unpaid balance of $2.1 billion. do you know how much they recovered? do you know? >> i know what the inspector general said, but i think you're not looking at the bottom line of what the inspector general said. the inspector general says we should be pursuing more of these rather than less of them. >> well, what he says is that -- >> that's the dilemma we are in. we're trying to figure out which ones make sense and which ones don't make sense.

that's the evaluation that we are doing. >> but let's just look at his numbers. his numbers are out of net 2.1 billion. you managed to collect $4.7 million. that's less than one quarter of 1% of the amount you went after families and hammered on them for. and that's before you account for the expenses of the collection. this is not a program that is producing money for fannie and freddie, but it's certainly imposing a lot of pain on families that have already lost their homes, that families that have already been caught in bad mortgages, caught with robeo signing. this is -- robo signing. this looks like a program to me that you don't need to spend another year on. it's a program that needs to be severely cut back. thank you, mr. chairman. sorry for going over. >> senator merkley. >> thank you, mr. chair. thank you for your service as chairman of this banking committee. it's been a pleasure to serve on it. i wish you well in the next

hapter of your life. director watt, the fico score system that's used by fannie and freddie now uses the 2004 classic model, and it weighs medical debt in a way that doesn't accurately reflect the role of medical -- it takes folks a lot of time to figure out what they actually owe in our complicated medical system. fico has recognized this in their modeling so they have produced fico aid and nine which more fairly treat consumers in this regard. why do the seller guidelines still require the 2004 model that doesn't take into this account this improvement in analyzing medical debt? >> because the cost of changing from a -- from one fico model

to another fico model or from fico to an alternative credit heavy. model are and the systems that have to be are complicated. what we are trying to do now is get through an analysis of not but an o eight and nine alternative scoring -- credit scoring model and try to come with a system that is a better system. nd then adjust the operational things that it would take to -- >> let me cut you off there becausery only have a little bit of time.

-- because i only have a little bit of time. i encourage you to put peddle to the metal. >> we are at it, i guarantee you. >> i am not quite persuaded of that. but thank you for pursuing it. because a lot of people would be more fairly treated with it an appropriate credit model. i wanted to turn to force place insurance. there's been reports from n.p.r. and from a.p. recently, but these issues go back a long way to something i've been pointing out for a long time, kickbacks that go to mortgage servicers to place insurance at many times the market rate, actually often drive people into foreclosure. of course that has an impact on your agency. i understand that in june you all did issue a requirement that these kickbacks, whether they are direct financial or in discounted services, and i applaud you for that.

can you comment a little bit about these recent articles that seem to indicate there are -- this still is a challenging issue and how you're taking to on? >> well, force place insurance is a big and challenging issue, and we've taken some of the issuing t of it by guidelines. i don't think i could represent to you that we've taken every concern that we have about how it's done out of the process, and we are continuing to work on methods of trying to improve the way we handle force placed insurance. somebody is , if in default or somebody has already moved out of the house, they've put insurers into a different situation.

and so -- and there's really no good effective market out there yet that takes that into account. >> let's -- >> we're looking at it aggressively and trying to continue to improve it, but it's a tough area. >> so both fannie and freddie at various points have looked at directly contracting for replacement insurance so it would be at the market rate which is fundamentally fair to the homeowner, that would eliminate the middle men and the kickbacks and are you willing to aggressively pursue a model which would be fundamentally fair to homeowners? >> well, i'm willing to pursue a model that is fundamentally fair to homeowners, but i don't -- i'm not sure you would want fannie and freddie to be in the insurance business themselves. >> no. they'd be contracting.

>> and that's -- and when you say fair market value, then the risk associated with vacant properties are higher than the risk associated with -- >> these are occupied properties. >> you got to make those differentials. >> are we providing a list of excuses here? >> no. i'm just explaining the reality of the difficulty of the process that we're facing, senator. i'm not providing excuses. these are difficult issues, and we try to deal with them and give them the kind of consideration that -- >> well, i'd like you to keep dealing with it. i'm not satisfied yet that homeowners have gotten the fair shake when we've been through this for time and time again for a long period of time and homeowners are still being saddled with insurance that are two to three times on average by various studies. some cases four to 10 times the market rate. that's predatory practices. you're in a position to help stop it.

i'm asking you to do so. >> i think you and i have exactly the same objective and we'll -- we're moving in the direction that you would like us to do. >> thank you very much. >> probably not at the pace you want us to do it. senator. warren -- >> thank you, mr. chairman. if i want to thank you for your leadership on this committee and your time spent, i do appreciate it as i do most members of this committee do. i want to thank, also, the ranking member. in fact, director watt, i'd like to continue with some of the questioning that he had, beginning earlier. but thank you very much for being here, for taking time and spending -- being here available to answer some of our questions. as you're probably well aware, there's quite a few members here on this committee that are pretty passionate about housing finance reform. i'm included in that group. i think most have recognized

that the current models of fannie and freddie mac cannot remain and we must reduce the risk that currently american taxpayers face. just recently i heard from the secretary -- h.u.d. secretary castro when he was calling for housing finance reform. but i haven't heard anything on this subject from you. in fact, when we had the ommittee vote on the johnson-crapo housing bill, we didn't hear any word from you. i guess my question for you today is, given your position -- of course the importance of this issue, are you going to continue your handsoff approach when it comes to housing finance reform or will you start engaging with congress and work with us to end this current fannie and freddie model? > i'm going to continue to say that it is -- that our role at

hfa is in the here and the now of -- and that's what the statute gives us. it is congress' role to tell us what the future of g.s.e. reform is, and we have cooperated fully in terms of being a resource to the committees, all proposals, both the house and the senate. but if the committee is expecting me to have a position on what the future of housing g.s.e. reform should be, they will be southerly disappointed -- sorely disappointed. when i left congress -- i know this is counterintuitive -- but if t that role behind and

i get embroiled in what is good and what is bad in the future of g.s.e. reform, it's going to make it more difficult to do the job in the present of -- >> what you're saying -- >> beg your pardon. >> ask for your opinion on g.s.e. reform, is that what you're saying? >> well, i expressed my opinion before i became director, but i don't have an independent now because anytime i express an opinion now, people take it as the fhfa opinion. >> let me ask you for an opinion. let me ask you for your opinion. [laughter] do you support eliminating fannie and freddie as they currently are today? >> i don't have an opinion on whether there is a fannie and freddie. i think there are roles that somebody will have to play in

his -- in the process. trillion you got $5 of outstanding obligations now that somebody has to deal with and that's in the current of housing finance. that's not in the future. so somebody's got to deal with that, and whether it's fannie or freddie or somebody else, i mean, that's i think a decision that congress has to make. >> all right. >> not -- not fhfa. >> all right. let me switch topics here for just a minute. that has to due with the mortgage debt relief act. director watt, i don't think any state has felt the impact of falling home values more than the state of nevada. congress passed the mortgage debt relief act to ensure those who owe more on their mortgages than they do on their homes now worth would not be hit with additional income taxes. i'm not going to ask your

opinion on the i.r.s. or -- >> thank you. >> or income taxes. but i think it's unfortunate. no one gets hit more than lower income, middle-income families and i think it's unfair. i think most would concur that it's unfair, that individuals would have to pay taxes on income that they have never received. so i guess quickly, do you have any picture in your mind what the consequences would be if we did not extend the mortgage debt relief act and retroactively for this year or extend it into next year? >> it would certainly have severe consequences for a number of decisions, but, again, that's a decision that congress has to make. i can't make it. what i've realized is that sometimes expressing my opinion on things that i can't

influence have more negative impacts than they have positive impacts. >> well, we look to you from time to time, director watt. we do look to you for -- >> i appreciate everybody looking to me but it's just -- you know, i'm in a difficult position, and i don't want to as a negative outcome result of something that i say. so i think i try to stay in my lane doing the things that fhfa real her perceived or control over and trying to do those well and effectively. >> director, thank you for being here today. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, thank you. >> i'd like to thank director watt for his testimony and for his ongoing service to our country. this hearing is adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> if you missed any of the testimony of director watt, you can find it at c-span.org. u.s. house gavels back in in 20 minutes. they'll take up a number of bills, including what's call the stella re-authorizing for five years the ability of satellite operators to transmit broadcast signals from distant affiliate stations to rural markets. also a measure that requires the e.p.a. to base any regulations on publicly disseminated information. follow the house live when they return here on c-span. over on c-span 2, it's the u.s. senate. they're under way with general debate and also consideration of a number of judicial nominations after yesterday failing to move forward, failing to pass the keystone x.l. pipeline measure. they needed 60 votes and fell one vote short. vote 59-41. we get more from a capitol hill reporter. race. the reporter, elizabeth, what do

you think this means for her runoff bid. >> guest: you know, i think, here, we're watching this all week, and wondering, is there really that much to gain here? the way the vote went, there's probably more to lose, and i don't think it will have that much of a race, it might hurt her chances, just in the fact that it does diminish this argument, that she's making. >> host: what do you think this does for bill cassidy, what is he saying, that, if he wins, and he is the senator? >> guest: you know, congressman cassidy, has been with the senate majority, and he's already been promised a seat on

the energy committee. and he is fighting for keystone. and so, i don't know that with them taking the same position, on this issue. i don't know that this has ever been one of those situations, where one has the upper hand. >> host: how is the run off looking. >> guest: the polls definitely show cassidy with a significant lead right now. part of that is because, just under louisiana primary setup, she took 40%. and those are tea party, and, it would be over 55%, and you don't see a lot of the tea party jump into the democrat side.

what is the effort like by republicans, to get bill cassidy elected, and, what are the efforts by democrats? >> host: they're, especially, the primary, a couple weeks ago, national leaders, on both sides have come, and, there's still a lot of republican television ads, and, the democrats have come in, and backed away, from her campaign, she still has some ads, and didn't have the national support that she has. you have a piece on the ad vote cats, marco rubio to stusm u stump forecast sidney.

yes,. and that's been one of the things, is just how many marquee names, are drawn up, rand paul was down, and, john mccain was in before the primary, and then on the democrat side, they are having a fundraiser, and, the clinton's have been here. and it has drawn a lot of big names. >> host: okay. thank >> the u.s. house gavels in in about 15 minutes to begin their legislative day at noon eastern. live coverage here on c-span. more from today's "washington journal." o 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 pass 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 i understand we should just take all the undocumented persons that are here and just take them back since they're illegal here, regardless of who they may be and deport them back to their country. if they want to come back then they should come back through means that are legal. as far as isis, isil, isis is concerned, in the beheadings that have been going on, we have to understand as well that the culture, which i heard yesterday, this evil culture that the gentleman was talking about yesterday, that these people, that part of the world

s been in effect for millennium. they have been chopping heads off as far as david and goliath. hoes: do you disagree with this strat -- host: do you disagree with this strategy to destroy and degrade them? caller: we can't destroy and degrade them because they've 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 and society. 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 >> "washington journal" live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern and always available at c-span.org. we'll leave this as the house gavels in for legislative work, including the satellite transmission re-authorization bill. another bill dealing with the e.p.a. in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. haplain conroy: let us pray. loving god, we give thaw thanks. as we meditate on all the