with all of the arms in the world. they are even training in basis. they are getting their information off the internet. i hear people freaking out about the lone wolf. that's it. host: we will he the conversation there for now. coming up we are going to talk about the congressional agenda on capitol hill. we will be talking with ed o'keefe. but first, last week the council on foreign relations held a discussion focusing on global conflicts and instability. we covered that and i want to show you a little bit of the conversation. we will be right back area >> it's the return of competition and hostility among the great powers.

it is an exacerbation of competition leading to less predictable world. it's upset the post cold war paradigm in dangerous ways. we have seen unsettling risk-taking. between china and japan and china and southeast asian countries, particularly the philippines. we can go into why. no one knows why there is any effective early warning mechanism. the second trend is the jihad he group is growing. they are reinforcing one another and producing brutal acts of terrorism. i think it's important to

recognize we have not been able to deal with one of the scariest aspects of their ability to recruit new members from large disenfranchised, disenchanted youth populations around the world. that partly refract -- reflects government's failure to provide an adequate sense of opportunity. the international community continues to accept imperfect peace processes and to be accessories to failed transitions in which the u.s. --

you can look at sudan, south sudan. hopefully the current secretary-general mandated examination of you in peacekeeping will do that. will those nations who establish those peacekeeping operations do more to contribute to financing in the future. weak and corrupt states continue to set the stage for internal wars. while this is per trade as a lack of capacity it's much more frequently a question of political will. you have the list in front of you. i'm just going to talk about one because i think it's crucial to

our national security that is ukraine and russia. it's one of the most dangerous situations in the world and it's coming to a head this spring. host: the council on foreign relations, if you missed it, you can go to our website. you can watch it there. joining us is ed o'keefe of "the washington post." what is going to happen on the senate floor? guest: they are going to take up the keystone pipeline. this was done in haste last year. it was done in behalf of mary landrieu. it failed to advance. they have at least 63 votes in support which gets it beyond and

allows it to be debated. what we expect to happen is there will be several days of debate. this is a truncated week because republicans go up to pennsylvania for their policy retreat. tonight, you will see debate beginning on various amendments. it will continue next week while the president comes to the state of the union. in the house, they are dealing with funding for the department of homeland security. house republicans are expected to bring a bill to the floor that would fund the department but it would have amendments that would put restrictions on various parts they can do regarding the executive orders.

it will head to the senate. we have until february 27 to see if they can create a plan. republicans will get concessions and make it harder for the department to implement what the president would like to do. >> are the republicans on board? guest: we will have to see. there is a sense to do something and respond to what the president did. there are enough republicans in this new majority, they have to be careful about how they proceed on immigration. they come from swing districts with large immigrant populations. you saw last week only a few hours after the attacks in paris, peter king from york city said how can we be holding up

funding for the department of homeland security when there are threats against the country? i think that brought a lot of pause to republicans. there is only so much they can do to be seen with fiddling with security funding. if it fails to advance in the senate, the house will come back and try to do something watered down. that is why they are starting early. they have a month to do this. they are out to days this weekend. they know they've got to get the ball rolling now. host: you saw on the sunday talk shows dianne feinstein who used to chair the intelligence committee and the chairman and the homeland security chair say there is a real threat of these

lone wolf attacks. does this legislation become a vehicle for addressing what happened in paris? it might be too soon. i think you saw them say that this is something they are conscious of and they expect the administration to focus on. certain countries can have their citizens come to this country for 90 days without a visa. the concern is 70 who is or is not on the no-fly list being tracked by us could slip through the cracks. they could be from one of the waiver countries. the concern is we need to reconsidering that or be more vigilant. do you legislate that? do you tell the intelligence agencies to be wary of that? we will see.

what it does more than anything is allowed democrats sort of remind republicans that the longer this goes on the more uncertainty you are creating for our security agencies. do you want to be doing that at this time? host: we are talking about the congressional agenda with ed o'keefe. lawmakers are in town this week. we will talk about more of the issues. we are taking your calls as well. what are the big debates for this congress question mark the phone lines are open so start dialing a now. on friday, the keystone pipeline was passed. how much help will democrats in the senate health? host: there are 54 senate republicans.

they say they've got 63. there must be nine democrats are willing to vote for this. the magic number is 60 in the senate. eventually, if they want to override the veto, they have to get to 67. i've been told that they think through the natural ebbs and flows of horse trading that they might be able to get to 67. there might be enough people who are holding on not because they are worried about the project they may have concerns and if things change, they might come along. they will resist this because the oil that comes to the pipeline could be exported. they would prefer that it not be exported, that it only be used here.

democrats will offer amendments that every single piece of material used be american-made. 100% american-made. many people will agree with that. it might be impossible. making sure that everybody who is employed is a u.s. citizen or living in the united states. they will try to put all sorts of restrictions on it. the president is going to stand in the way. there probably will not be enough votes to override the veto. if you talk to joe manchin who supported, we might be of the fine more democrats to make it happen. host: what could make a few more democrats get on board? the president said just sign it? do some deals or work at a deal and get some environmental regulations. guest: that is what we will see

them focus on. there will be restrictions added and limitations on where the oil would know and how it would be used. there could be some sort of ultimatum that says no more pipeline projects after this. there are all sorts of things that could be proposed. we will have to wait and see. host: tim is in naples, florida. caller: i have a question of the pipeline. why are the republicans pushing for this pipeline so much? they turned down all of the presidents jobs bills. the oil is not staying in this country. i can't figure out what the point was until i read somewhere that the coat others stand to make $90 billion on this

pipeline because of the land they own in canada and the rights of the oil companies have to bring the line. how come nobody ever talks about that? guest: this is much bigger than a pipeline. this is much bigger than moving oil out of alberta to the gulf of mexico. this is a political instrument to draw contrast between democrats and republicans. they want to spark debate about energy and reform in this country. you will see that this is the start of a broader energy conversation in the senate. i think both parties would agree that it's been delayed for years amid real demand for some conversation.

the underlying bill may be authorizing the pipeline. if democrats and republicans can't work together and add enough things to it that would authorize and spark broader reforms regarding natural gas oil, wind energy, and other sorts of energy use, congress and the white house could put it together. they say that this is not just about moving oil. it's about constitutional powers of the president and his ability to stand in the way of something that americans want. it's a conversation about job creation. is it just a construction job that will be there for a little bit? it's a conversation about oil exports and whether we should be exporting oil or keep it here?

it's not just about this pipeline. it's important to remember as this and can use. it's a symbol of what hasn't been done on energy reform and how republicans criticize the president and how the president distances himself from the things that republicans would like to do. host: jim you are next. caller: these liberals need to get a grip. we do need it. that is the way i feel about it. host: coming from the state where the judge just ruled __ explain that. guest: it essentially allows the project to continue. it was a barrier to the state department finally giving authorization to this.

host: david from ohio. caller: i am currently on social security disability. i understand that in the next couple of years that fund may run out of money. i want to know what congress will do in the next couple of years to restore it. guest: social security will run dry. i think we have had that conversation for the last 40 years. it is on the agenda, there's no specific proposal on the agenda yet. i think it is something that both parties understand it needs to be done. their proposals out there to deal with this.

i think we will see more on it this spring when the republicans roll out their budget plans, and when the president rolls out his. it is an odd_numbered year, which means there's no one up for reelection this year. host: what are some other ambitious goals for this congress? guest: tax reforms. there is an ambitious plan laid out in the pages of the post today. republicans are proposing an idea to give tax breaks to middle_class families. it is a lofty idea. it is another example of how the parties are talking about things that they could

conceivably be done if party control were different, or if we were in a time of more bipartisan projects. the affordable care act. in social security reform always is a big concern. again, there is no real aggressive or current plan. host: back to crisp __ chris van hollen's speech, and that will be taking place this morning at 9:30 am on c_span 2. he was also our "newsmakers" guest yesterday on c_span, if you miss that, go to c_span.org. our next caller is up next.

caller: talking about the keystone pipeline __ it feeds our water supply. [indiscernible] guest: you make a good point. pipeline security, and the security of oral across the country remains a big concern. it will likely factor into the debate in the senate over the next few weeks. host: the debate on the senate floor has already started taking place.

if you missed it, go to c_span.org to see some of the arguments that have been made for and against the pipeline. thomas from new york. good morning. caller: i just have a question. i was at an event this weekend attended by my congresswoman, and she talked a lot about keystone. she was very for it, saying that it will create something like 42,000 jobs. i just wanted to hear what your thoughts were on permanent jobs that you still will actually create. i've heard democrats say that it will not create they may jobs at all __ less than 1000. then republican saying 42,000. whereas each side getting the numbers and what is a realistic estimate? guest: i would refer you to a

fact checker that was done by my colleague at the "washington post." he looked at the two sides to try and see how may jobs would be created. 10,000s of jobs would be created and would last as long as the construction of the pipeline lasts. as far as permanent jobs, it is believed to be just a few dozen __ close to 40. i would refer you to that piece. you nailed it, thomas. it is somewhere just between a few dozen and tens of thousands. i think 42,000 is on the high end. 35,000 is on the low end, as far as construction jobs.

but to manage the pipeline, it is just a few dozen. these types of facts are the ones that have been thrown around in this debate. it behooves you to find out for yourself what is the truth. my colleague did an exhaustive job to try and find out exactly how may people would be employed by the pipeline. host: he also recently did a piece on republican claims on the keystone pipeline. if you google washington fact checker, you can see the different aspects of this debate. caller: hello.

i have been listening to this issue. i do not know why the keystone pipeline is necessary. it is not really helping the american people. are their biggest issues that congress could bring up rather than the keystone pipeline? it is not really helping american people. guest: it is a small part of the bigger debate on energy, also about the reach of the presidency. the hope here from mitch mcconnell and his staff is to get this over with as quick as possible and move on to other things. there's also understanding that there is a lot of agreement on this, and an ability to present bipartisan support.

the jobs, we just talked about that, anywhere from a few dozen to thousands. host: what are some of those other items that congress could get to? guest: we will see potential tougher sanctions on iran. you will see at some point conversations on tax reform. there will be proposed changes to the affordable care act __ coming up with a different way to fund parts of the law. perhaps changes to the 40 hour workweek rule. that is a big concern to many people across the country. there will probably be a vote to fully appeal the law, though there is an understanding that that will not go anywhere. the republicans will make their point, and they go on.

there are these known show votes, that are meant to draw attention to the way the presidency is voting. both parties are hoping to move beyond this and find real solutions. host: anymore fallout from those that oppose speaker boehner for a third term? guest: we saw through members almost immediately removed from the rules committee. that makes sense, because i committee is really what decides what makes it to the floor of the house. whether we see any retribution against others who were actively pushing for this, we will have to wait and see. i believe there is a desire

amongst allies of the speaker to do something __ whether it is to shrink their budgets, or anything else. the problem is that only amplifies it more. then, they can go back to the district, to tea party backers, and say, i'm now the face of those who are embodied to the speaker. you do not necessarily want to do that. you want to ignore them and discount them as much as possible. that may be why the speaker is completely holding off. host: are there any rumblings like that over in the senate side? aagainst majority leader mitch mcconnell? guest: no. certainly not yet at least.

there may be republican senators who stand in the way of certain pieces. that would behoove mitch mcconnell to find moderate democrats as allies. no one challenged him, and there has been no talk of real concern about leadership. host: he wrote a __ you wrote a piece this morning on moderate democrats in the senate. guest: it starts with joe donnelly, joe mansion of west virginia. other democrats who may be in the mix are the independent senator from maine, and the former governor of virginia.

from there, you go to a whole host of people. they could be game to work with both sides of the aisle on certain specific issues. it will just depend on what republicans are willing to bring forward. you will see, for example, menendez will work with republicans on the president's policy on cuba. host: city have that dynamic over in the senate. you also have 2016, with several republicans thinking about running. guest: you have marco rubio coming out with a book this

week. rand paul'sbook is coming soon. ted cruz is also want to watch. whether all of them are able to advance, or some of them back off given the intentions of jeb bush, mitt romney, and others. we will see. with democrats, some are interested in what elizabeth warren thinks to do. host: mitt romney said he will not run, and now he is. we have a tweet __ after cromnibus, what evidence do you have that congress will return to regular order? guest: after thursday, asked me

again. again, senator mcconnell said that there will be at a fair process on these bills. he has said that democrats and republicans alike will be invited to introduce amendments, and they will be voted on fairly. it will be a stark departure from how things were dealt with in the past two years. we will see. we will see to what extent democrats are in engaging on this, and to what extent republicans are willing to commit to this. this is a hopeful sign that things will be getting back to order. it is kind of going back to the way things are supposed to be, if you look at the rulebook. host: we will go to south carolina next.

caller: i would like to know why you keep saying this oral __ it is not oil __ it is tar sands. it is the nasty stuff on the planet, and no one can burn it except for china. host: we will go on to phyllis. caller: thank you for taking my call. i also want to ask about the keystone pipeline in. i'm a democrat, and environmentalist. taking the land away, and forcing eminent domain on

ranchers and farmers, and especially native americans, who do not want this going through their land. there's a little sad about their rights. i think we have a treaty with the indians __ and we're just trampling on their rights. guest: that is another element of concern. all of your callers are bringing a complicated issues that are involved with this. that demonstrates the breadth of this. host: and the debate on capitol hill. it will start today in the senate. obviously a lot of colors are interested in this topic. tune in to c_span 2. eddie in massachusetts. caller: good morning. the pipeline will give you oil.

the more oil and you have to lower the prices. the better chance that you can get a carbon tax. with that, you could supplement solar paneling. that's where jobs will be. host: john in florida. caller: thanks for taking my call. i wanted to comment on one thing. i want to think c_span for giving the american people a chance to talk. fox news, or all the other news media, they would not last 10 minutes under that scrutiny. my comment is __ i get my information from doctor jim willie __ a leading economist in america. he points out that there is a massive glut of oil in the world right now. the prices could drop down to

$20 per barrel. why is congress wasting our time doing this now, with the prices dropping. you talk about 40,000 jobs gained. art oil industry, because of these prices, are collapsing. we will lose tens of thousands of jobs in the oil industry. guest: another argument that democrats are making. host: all of those questions will be asked when we talk to the present and ceo of the american petroleum institute. jack gerard will be here. please, by all means, call in with those questions and comments for him about the keystone xl pipeline.

we're talking about the congressional agenda, not just keystone, but what the republicans will do in this 114th congress. let's talk about the minority party as well. senator harry reid was unable to make it to the congress, will he be on the floor this week? guest: we have not been told yet. it sounds like from an interview that he did with npr, he will not be back this week either. it sounds like his right eye is forever damaged by this accident. he said that surgeons have not been able to look at it just yet, and determine to what extent his site has been damaged. he said there is too much blood in it, he was very explicit __ to his credit, he has talked about transparency. he said he had at least three, four red __ ribs broken.

he was using some sort of exercise band, it snaps, he fell back. democrats will have a retreat this weekend, doctors said that he will not attend. we will see. he remains engaged. i think his staff is going to great lengths to know that he remains active and in tune, aand will heal and recover, and get back to work. he also made clear in the interview that this has no affect on his intention to run in 2016. he intends to come back as soon as he can.

host: what about other democrats in 2016? senate democrats about 2016. the field looks good for democrats to take back the senate in 2016. you have a retirement announcement by california senator. guest: on paper, i think democrats have about 10 seats that they need to defend, mostly in blue states. the problem with going back to the issue in might article in the paper, some of the democrats in the mix are considering gubernatorial races in 2016. a number of them have gubernatorial ambitions. they have flirted with the idea of going back and running for those jobs in 2016 __ in a

presidential year when they think they could do well. that is a bigger problem for democrats. either that year, or 2018, when somebody new could get on the ballot. there could be some real concern for democrats in the next 4 to 6 years about their ability to hold onto seats, if they cannot find candidates who can appeal in these purple or red states. barbara boxer retiring. there are enough republicans in california that could raise enough money and now a serious campaign. i think if the gop operative is hoping, you vote for someone like condoleezza rice, or arnold schwarzenegger.

you have to be able to raise at least $20 million to start. host: the democrats you mentioned, gathering in baltimore for their retreat. republicans holding their retreat in hershey, pennsylvania. what's on the agenda? guest: jay leno. tony blair. every year, the different caucuses get together and plan out the year ahead.

john boehner saying needing to have a family conversation to talk with house republicans. this roughly 50 to our retreat will focus on a number of issues. i think having the house and senate republicans work on this __ is saying, if the senate do something quickly, we will get over to the house, and vice versa. the bigger question is __ to what extent does the president work with these folks. there is a meeting tomorrow where the president and top leaders will talk about a number of these issues. guest: who pays __ host: wwho pays for these retreats? guest: the parties pay for it.

transportation wise, they usually go together. they chartered buses to take them up to her she. usually it will be a series of buses that will take them from the back door of the capital to the retreat center. host: lease __ lisa is up next. caller: the coalition in this area got together. we did an extensive research on the affect of drilling to the aquifer. we decided against it. in the meantime, when the economy went south __ we still

have citizens in outlying areas that signed leases many years prior. they are senior citizens, poor people, middle income people, that are still to this day living on bottled water. of course, the oil companies are providing the bottled water. we do not want that to happen. also, there was an article in the paper and on tv about pollution from the tar sands. i think the main conversation needs to be about our environment. once your water is gone, it is god. i think the main argument needs to be about the purity of water. thank you.

host: lisette sounds like you are watching this debate pretty closely. caller: like i said, we were part of the coalition back in 2008. we did get a lease that was similar to the one they have in fort worth, texas. it was a pretty big lease. in september 2008, it is when we pulled back, and the money was gone. i'm glad it happened. host: you can hear from our callers __ keystone sounds like a good rallying cry for both sides. guest: absolutely. there is money to be raised, support to be had. people are aware that this resonates in all sorts of ways

__ economic arguments, environmental arguments, party arguments. that is why there is such great interest. it is known that it could reap great benefits for both parties in many ways. if a deal is extracted between the present and congress, that could be great for both sides __ to see them working on something serious. yes, callers are right. the pipeline itself is not that great of a deal in the scheme of things. but the debate is on environmental concerns and energy. there's a lot of hope that this will happen in a responsible way. host: would environmentalist be okay with this being passed

with some reforms. guest: some may, others are entirely opposed to it. host: are using it up on capitol hill __ in the hallways? not just the debates are happy on the floor, are you seeing the lobbying efforts going on? guest: it has been going on for years. i think you'll really ramp up in the next two weeks. there will be a lot of intense interest in this. my colleagues who covered this a little more closely __ they are up there. there is great interest from their perspective. we know that their meetings underway, there calls. we expect that it will continue as long as the debate continues. host: rob from florida, your next. caller: thank you very much.

i am a republican turned independent. my situation is this __ i hear a lot of these arguments. the canadian oil is not going to disappear if we do not bring it into the united states. nor would be handled any better. the whole world will suffer as much, or even more, because in this country there are standards as to how the oil is put back out to be used. many other countries __ china __ will probably do it however it takes __ it would be dirtier. therefore, the environmental argument should be in favor of keystone.

also, as far as jobs __ the fact is that most jobs in this country are temporary. these temporary jobs are monies for people in the united states __ whether they are temporary or not. host: arguments that we will probably hear coming up. i hope that all of you who have called will continue to watch. we'll take more phone calls and talk about whaling gas coming up. ed o'keefe, before we let you go __ let's recap the agenda of the coming weeks in the 114 congress. also, who to watch. guest: mitch mcconnell has promised an open debate process. we'll see how that plays out.

the house is planning to talk about funding up for the department of homeland security. how to respond, or punish, the president for his actions on immigration. the president has been rolling out parts of his action across the country. there is a meeting on tuesday between him and congressional leaders about the year ahead, and even next few weeks ahead. people to watch __ look at the moderate democrats that i mentioned today in my piece in the posts __ especially those who are thinking about 2016 and jobs back home. in the house, you have to keep an eye on those new republicans. those who are just taking their seats. to gauge how much they are with leadership, or those rebellious

representatives. boehner did a great amount of travel around the country to support them, with the expectation that they would support him and his priorities. in the senate, the same thing. watch the 10 or 11 new senators and who they side with. guest: thank you very much host: talk to you again soon. coming up next, jack gerard will continue this conversation on keystone xl. later, our weekly your money series continues. we'll be right back. ♪

>> tonight, on "the communicators." the inventor of the cell phone. >> the ultimate in the specter of efficient technology includes a bunch of things __ i know you have heard a lot about that. it includes some new technology that is just starting to become laboratory available where we can use satellites to create a model of the world.

when it transmits, they will know if they will interfere with someone else. you put all these things together, i hesitate to tell you how much work needs to be done. we are talking not about tens of thousands but millions of time improvement. that is not as crazy as it sounds. we are 1 trillion times more spectrally efficient than we were in the past. the thought of being 1 million times more efficient in the next 20 or 30 years it is not as crazy as it sounds. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we're back with jack gerard. the present ceo of the american petroleum institute.

why do you think the keystone xl pipeline should be approved? guest: it has been under discussion for six years now. there have been five geological reviews. every one of them concluded that they are not serious environmental concerns. canada is our largest trading partner. this is really a continuation of that long_held relationship that we have had. it brings us closer to energy security in north america. from our standpoint, it is unfortunate that this one particular pipeline has been elevated to this role. it is almost a symbolic discussion. but the reality is, science and facts show that we should move forward.

host: should republicans do a deal with the president? guest: environmental regulations __ let's keep in mind that oil and gas pipelines are heavily regulated. this particular pipeline, in addition to meeting all the laws and regulations required, it has 59 additional requirements that the company transcanada agreed to impose on the pipeline. when you talk about a deal __ i think this comes more in the realm of what is good for the united states. we are seeing and american energy renaissance that we've never seen. it is an opportunity for us to become energy secure. we are the world's number one natural gas producer.

we are close to becoming the world's number one oil producer, passing saudia arabia. we will hopefully continue to benefit consumers __ as we see today with the drop in a gasoline prices. host: you say this will bring us one step closer to energy independence __ guest: energy security. host: explain a bit more. guest: if you look at energy history of our country __ let's go back three or four decades. our resources in the united states are limited. we need to act accordingly with public policy. what we've seen recently, in the past five or six years, is increased innovation. we're rich in abundance with

oil and natural gas here in our own country. we have the opportunity to rely a lot less on outside sources just last week, the trade numbers were released. we are at about half of where we used to be for importation because we are making so much right here at home. that means more jobs, and putting people to work. this allows us to take care of our own energy needs. many experts in the global context would say that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity for the united states. moves like the keystone pipeline would send the message to the world that we are serious about our energy future.

we do not view this as democrats or republicans, we view this as a unique american moment. host: i want to have you respond to viewers on what the president had to say before he left for holiday break. he said, i guess, the most that he has said on the xl pipeline. [video clip] >> sometimes the way it is sold is __ let's get this oil, and it will come here. the implication is that this will lower gas prices here in the united states. it will not. there is a global oil market. it is very good for canadian oil companies, and that canadian oil industry, but it

will not be of huge benefit to the u. s. consumers. it will not even be a nominal benefit. it will probably create a couple thousand jobs __ those are temporary jobs until construction happens. there are other jobs that could probably be created in the refinery process down in the gulf. those are not completely insignificant. it is just like any other project. host: your thoughts. guest: let me clarify a few things. some of the statements that were made our insignificant with what the state department has concluded. after five environmental reviews, the state department has concluded that there are no

significant environmental harms. they concluded that this oil will not go from canada into the global marketplace. it will go to the gulf coast. that is why the pipeline was billed to the gulf coast. the benefit does go to the american consumers. talking about the price of gasoline __ crude oil is the number one determinant in determining the price of gasoline. the reason that the price of gasoline has dropped the way it has is because the price of crude oil has dropped. the more supply you put in that marketplace, the more downward pressure it puts on the price of gasoline. the president talks about it not having impact to the domestic consumers, we have artie seen a significant impact

__ the price of gasoline has already dropped in more than 40 states. here in the u. s., and with our friends in canada, we are producing more energy than we have ever had. we are bringing it to the global marketplace. all experts will tell you, that results in lower gasoline prices. that is why you need to clarify what the president said a bit. if you look away is happening around the world __ it is a very interesting phenomenon. longer_term, we will need more oil and gas. all indicators show that the demand will continue to grow. if projections for growth around the world, particularly in europe and asia, were

revised downward, at the same time, production in the united states is going up. you have this greater supply in the marketplace, at the same time, demand has been tempered. accounts have decided to not invest as much __ they want to see what is happening longer_term. for us, volatility needs to be worked out. we should not have government intervention in the market. the worst thing was for the government to get in and predict, and try to manage it. let the market play out. we should also let the market play out on the keystone xl pipeline. his industry and the broader economy says this makes sense. let the private sector invest

in this. that benefits all of us. the more we export from this country, the better it is for the mexican consumers. that goes back to the point that i made earlier. host: but get to the calls. stephen, good morning. caller: the sioux nation in montana said that they will stop this pipeline at their land. i'm telling them, i will go out there. communist china is already expanding the with of the panama canal for super carriers.

your main papers to get u. s. oil and gas in the markets __ that is only reason. the other __ iindependent domain, that is treason. guest: let me respond. regarding the sioux nation __ i'm not sure about the specifics out there. there have been a number of attempts to slow the process. some of them have been tried to stop the keystone xl pipeline. i know a few weeks ago there was activity in south dakota. the courts overturn that. look at the state of nebraska __ just last week, the courts overturn an earlier decision to say that everything has been approved through private process.

the process to permit a pipeline like this is very exhausting. you consult with a lot of people, you look in digit species, you look at environmental laws. these comprehensive reviews __ of which there have been five __ on the keystone xl pipeline have been very significant. these reviews have been done by the obama administration's department of state. what we look at this, he comes to the fundamental question, do we believe the science or don't we? the science has concluded that we can do this right and protect the environment. we think that that is a sort of decision process that should be allowed to move forward. that is why we are frustrated, just like 72% of the country saying, get on with it, let's

put our people to work, let's bring energy for the benefit of all. host: democratic caller is next. we will move on to susan. caller: my question is __ is what we are doing not a matter of oil? we have plenty of oil. we have more than we need. the problem is greed. also, they are bringing everyone's economy down, and they can barely make their bills. russia is having trouble. this is a control thing. it has to do with power. host: what evidence you have of

that? caller: they want to make the american dollar alive. canada does not want to put the pay and cleaning up the pipeline. they are afraid that we will have a terrorist attack. host: hobby other canadian companies have pipelines they go to the united states like transcanada? how long has the united states been importing tar sands oil from canada? how much of keystone is already built at this point? guest: as far as pipelines __ many have been there for many years. one is called the alberta clipper. it was actually approved by

this president. all the arguments that were being made about it are the same ones about keystone. we find it a bit ironic that we have all of a sudden picked one pipeline, and are taking great issue with it, yet the same people a few years ago approved a similar pipeline. the key to this is to do analysis, comprehensive reviews. unfortunately, during the delay of this pipeline __ six years __ we have done five reviews of this pipeline. each one has concluded the same thing, there is no significant impact on the environment. like i said, we need to move away from the politics conversation. in the global context __ this is a unique american moment.

for the first time, we have the opportunity to change this energy dynamic, and become more energy secure. hopefully, we can produce enough for our marketplace that we can capture other markets around the world __ just like many of our competitors from the middle east and russia. russia was the number one natural gas supplier until we surpassed them recently. if we can concentrate economic activity here home, we will worry a lot less about volatile costs around the world, and lack of stability. we can take the future in our own hands, and decide as a nation what we will do. this is a big deal for the country.

we hope we can get the politics out. host: do you think what you just outline means that we will not see $100 gasoline ever again? that is what a saudi prince has said __ that $100 oil is history. guest: it is difficult to predict where that price will be. let me say it this way __ experts in the united states will say that the price of oil would have probably gone to $150 per barrel. there has been a lot of writing in newspapers, and elsewhere, saying that what has really made the difference is u. s. domestic production. the more supply we bring to the marketplace, the more we

counter the outside producers. this is a big deal for us. what stay below 100 forever, i cannot predict that. i can tell you, we have seen, the more supply we make, the better off we are as a nation. a unique opportunity. again, we need to get beyond the partisanship. host: week will go __ we will go to beth next. caller: i'm not sure how much money you make per year __ you're probably able to retire at any time. i was listing in last week, and i agreed that your focus needs to change.

the problem is, digging into workers, using dirty oil, there are other alternatives. climate change affects the whole world. you talk about affecting the world. i would like some people who are involved in the oil industry to take a sabbatical and study the environmental affects of this. and look at how we can use wind and solar to make things better. if you study that, we could have cleaner energy. to me, one more comment __ yes, it has become a political issue. you say that legally you can justify things. i have not heard you talk about the morality of it. guest: good question. i appreciate the question. when you look at technologies

to get us to a carbon controlled world __ the oil and natural gas industries are the key industries investing in those technologies. if you go back to 2000, we have invested more than the federal government to find zero carbon emitting technologies. we take second seat to no one. carbon emissions are at a 20 year low __ and the reason is because natural gas is a cleaner carbon fuel. we're reducing the amount of carbon that we are putting in the atmosphere. when we talk about a moral issue __ let me say, that is a great discussion that we should have.

if we look around the world, there are over 1 billion people who do not have electricity. half the world has intermittent electricity __ it is not reliable. when you think about the opportunity to educate people, bring people out of poverty, we have to think of energy. we think that low_cost energy is the key for all the world. this is a good debate, we need to have this debate. we are striving hard, as i mentioned earlier, the lead as investors in finding technologies. after spending billions of dollars doing so, we've not found it. we are investors in wind, solar

__ that is great, but what is the reality to every citizen, not just in the united states, but around the world. this debate will continue. it is an important one. let me suggest __ going back to senator sanders comments __ i understand he wants to make an amendment on climate deniers __ i could not agree more, the science of the xl pipeline shows that there is no significant impact to the environment, including carbon emissions. the keystone __ we need to move

away from the extreme polar, and come back to the center. host: leroy. caller: thank you. regarding the keystone xl __ how can we credibly use the word security or sustainable as a descriptive term for a nonrenewable resource. the no impact on environmental __ it is correct, only if, as studies assume that we would be shipping it by rail and not pipe. guest: what we see happening today __

production in canada is moving. it is moving by truck and rail. experts will that it adds two dollars to three dollars per barrel that they move from canada to move it by rail and to move the by truck as opposed to moving at five pipeline. those are important considerations. to answer the fundamental question, what does this mean for efficiencies? if we want to provide reliable energy to the public, we have to find a means to move the product. that is why the keystone xl pipeline was proposed, to take production down to the gulf of mexico to a world-class state-of-the-art refinery system. those are important considerations, but we need to look at the economics. there is no need to drive the costs up to consumers. you see with the free market

does when given the chance to function. it is a great benefit to american consumers because the price of crude has dropped so much. host: what about the pressure with the price of gas coming down in the price of oil coming down but the pipeline does not exist. they're having to use the railroads and these other more expensive measures to transport oil from canada. what is happening as they are losing profit? guest: this is where we would make the point that it is important we do not get the government into deciding we ought to do this project over that project. let's protect the environment and the workforce and do with the environmental workforce laws require as we scrutinize these projects. the government should not be deciding let's build keystone and not this one.

that is why the private marketplace works so well and is more efficient. what we see today, the private sector dollars will have to make a decision in the current environment if they go forward with the keystone xl pipeline. they are saying they are moving forward because there is a need. it makes a need. it makes the market efficient, the pipeline fully subscribed. all of this does not come from canada. a bunch of the production is coming out of north dakota and montana. about 20 to 25% of it. this is good for u.s. production, but we are trying to take to the refineries in the gulf coast. we are with needing to protect the workers, but let the private

dollars or the private sector put their dollars at risk, so when these prices move, it is the private sector that assumes the risk, not the american public. >>host: color, go ahead. -- caller, cgo ahead. caller: it shows going across missouri. is that the actual route? is it close to the missouri river? guest: it comes down through canada, into the dakotas, it cuts across and finds a way to the gulf coast. i have been working with the governor of missouri, who are supportive of the pipeline

because a lot of those jobs go to missouri and others out there looking for work. this is the largest infrastructure projects we have on the books today. and has been waiting over six years to be approved to be built. there is a lot of talk about jobs, no jobs, temporary jobs. the obama administration has concluded this pipeline will create 42,000 jobs. those are jobs in the usa well-paying jobs, and some will say they are temporary. >> as we know, construction is generally temporary. we are working with organized labor who will have these jobs once they are created. they are offended when they say

their jobs are not meaningful because they are temporary. everything they do in the construction world is temporary. these are well-paying jobs. we need to pay this pipeline -- we need to build this pipeline and others to put our people to work. host: fort lauderdale, florida melvin, go ahead. caller: didn't he indicate that there was no significant impact on the land where the pipeline was going? guest: one of the frustrating things in this process is because the process has been interrupted and now we have gone back. there have been five comprehensive reviews, the largest ever on this pipeline.

every one of them done by the obama administration, everyone has concluded no significant impact to the environment. host: do you have a follow-up? caller: i do. they had to change the route of the pipeline in the initial diagram. there was a significant impact and they had to change the direction where the pipeline was going. they had to change the initial direction of the pipeline. he was giving misinformation when he made that statement. guest: that is not true. the original route of the pipeline had reviews and the original route was concluded not to have significant impact on the environment. there was some concern expressed in nebraska. transcanada said they can all turn -- they can alter the route

if they had concerns. they made changes and realignments to the pop line at the request of the president and reapplied for a change route pipeline. that pipeline also has had comprehensive environmental reviews which have also concluded there is no significant impact to the environment. let me comment about the water aquifer and issues. we have over 20,000 miles of pipeline across areas of water resources, etc.. it is rare when you hear of adverse impact. we take this seriously. a lot of money goes into developing these pipelines. keystone xl pipeline has 59 additional conditions that the company agreed to to protect the

environment beyond what the law requires. this is state-of-the-art, first in class. host: how long will building the pipeline take to complete? guest: construction time is estimated to be a year or a little over a year. the president approved the leg of the pipeline that employed about 4800 americans over to the gulf coast. that took about a year to build. we expect the northern leg will take about a year. they can get to work and they do it in sections. these are the great jobs. host: rick, democratic caller.

caller: thanks for having me on. why did it take us so far to get on it, why hasn't canada turned around and gone the other way? they said they would not allow the dirty oil to come through canada because they have had a lot of oil spills. host: when we talk about dirty oil, you say since 1990, it has been reduced by over 26%. this oil is competitive with other oil from places like

venezuela. it is akin to other oil. we should not think of this as a big aberration taking place in canada. this is consistent with global energy markets. when we talk about what canada is going to do they determine the most efficient way was to bring itself to the united states. they have been good partners for many years. they concluded that would be the best market for them to pursue but talking with senior officials, they are getting frustrated with the process. there are proposals to take this oil and move it to the east and the west and export it to places like china.

instead of having direct benefit , bring it to the gulf coast to be refined here canadians are becoming more frustrated and will start building the pipeline to the west coast or east coast and they will put it in the global marketplace. we need to think long and hard about our relationship with canada, particularly our energy relationship, how we handle that, and what we are doing to this relationship as a result of this exercise that is taking 6.5 years to approve a single pipeline. host: if landowners do not want pipeline on their land, what happens? guest: it allows them to raise concerns and consideration. the process is, they can cite

the pipelines and work with landowners to make sure they are protected. this particular pipeline, the route was change to accommodate some of those concerns. these are not like other infrastructure that we need in the country today. we talk about a highway bill as one of those opportunities to build bridges and roads and bring jobs to the united states. it is projected that the investment in the oil and natural gas infrastructure was larger than what the highway bill would be in the united states. let's think about it from a job creation perspective. we take this unique american energy opportunity put those two together, we have hundreds of thousands of jobs that pay well that we can bring to our economy. a great opportunity for us.

we are all frustrated and we hope we can get by it. let's move on. let's do what is best for the country. they identified keystone pipeline as one of those issues that has bipartisan support. we can work together and show them the american people we get it, we understand what they are saying. host: are there enough democratic votes to override a veto? guest: there are 63 votes in the senate that we expect will show support for the pipeline. that is a lot of democrats and a lot of republicans. probably one of the few bills we see that has such bipartisan support. whether there are enough votes to override the veto it is too

early to predict. there are other ways to get this done. it does not have to be done through veto. we were frustrated last friday when nebraska, the president said he was waiting for the nebraska court decision. on friday we had it. the court included it was not a problem. we removed the limitation as viewed by the president and yet the president's people say he was still veto the pipeline. we are a little frustrated with the process and we are hopeful cooler heads will prevail. we can do this for the american public. home of another tweet for you.

let's assume there is passage of the keystone xl. what effect would that have on the price war between american show companies and opec? guest: we thought we were going to make ourselves energy secure as a nation and 40 years later what will give us that opportunity is the free marketplace. we are able to compete with anyone in the world in the production of oil and natural gas. we need to take that advantage at home and put it to good use for our people. you can clearly see the concern they are expressing. things we have topped about --

things we have talked about for 40 years are coming to. we have a rich abundance here at home that we can produce, making us less reliant on unstable parts of the world. host: gem, stillwater, oklahoma. that is close to cushion oklahoma. caller: right near it. the pipeline has been under construction, going to the gulf coast and i believe up north. it has impacted stillwater including cushioning -- including cushing, oklahoma.

it has been a benefit to us. what has not been brought up is by train, it is more dangerous than a spill. they have cut off suppan down the pipeline -- they have cut offs up and down the pipeline. if it comes down by train, going through these communities and a wreck occurs, it kills all the people, it has happened in various parts of the continent. environmentally, they were having a bigger argument north of us by one of the american indian tribes over the grassland being invaded by the windmills. the result is it is killing off american eagles. it takes away the last of the grassland preserves that we have.

there are environmental questions anywhere you want to go. guest: from the oil and gas perspective, we believe we should have and all of the above energy strategy. the president has articulated this. that is the vision we should have. we need windmills. we need to become more energy efficient. we should never forget, we rely on oil and natural gas to feel the economy and to feel the economy around the world. experts will to you 25 years from now oil and natural gas will still be the dow at forms of energy in the global marketplace. i could not agree more. there are energies associated with all forms of energy. it is the nature of energy that we have to produce it,

transported and the associated impacts with that. we should think longer-term. we should think, how do we become energy secure and take advantage of this renaissance we see through modern techniques and technologies and our rich abundance of oil and natural gas while figuring out how do we make wind energy more efficient to make it more competitive so we do not drive up the cost to consumers? we believe in all of the above. we believe it should happen and it is good for the country. one of the things we have not talked about is due to the affordable and reliable oil and gas, a lot of manufacturing jobs come home. that was at a time when we saw a lot of our jobs going to places like china. a lot of those jobs are coming

home to the united states, primarily because of affordable, reliable energy. looking beyond the production issues we need to look to the other added opportunities that benefit all consumers. prices go down because we produce here at home. that is a big deal for all of us. that is a broadvision that is captured in an all of the above strategy here home. host: thank you for joining us. coming up, we will continue with the weekly your money series. the latest report found the border to program is not effective. we will be right back.

>> tonight on the communicators, the inventor of the cell phone on spectrum issues. >> the ultimate in the spectrum technology is what is called dynamic spectrum access. that includes a bunch of things. it includes cognitive radio. you have heard a lot about that. it includes new technology that is just starting to become laboratory available, where we can use satellites to create a model of the world so that when

someone transmits, they will know whether they will interfere with someone else. you put these things together, i hesitate to tell you how much more efficient we are going to be because you would laugh me out of this room. we are talking, not about tens of times of improvement, or hundreds or thousands, but millions of time improvement. that is not as crazy as it sounds. we are more efficient than we were in marconi times. the thought of being a million times more efficient and the next 20 or 30 years is not as crazy as it sounds. >> tonight, at 8:00 eastern. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we take a look at how taxpayer dollars are being spent.

we are looking at a report questioning the effectiveness of the use of drones on the border. john ross is here with us. how much money is being spent on this program? guest: it costs about $62 million a year. it has cost approximately $360 million. host: what goes into the cost of this program? guest: that is of some dispute. it is the cost of the drones themselves. there are nine drones. there used to be 11, but two of them have crashed. there is the cost of the pilots, the maintenance, the overhead the satellite linkup, the things

you imagine it would cost to operate a drone program. host: you did a report that says it is costing $12,000 per hour. guest: we took the number of flight hours that cbp said they were flying, little over 5000 hours a year and divided that by the entire cost of the program. contract costs, depreciation overhead, the kind of things you would expect. we came up with a number of $12,000 per hour. is about six times as much as what cbp told us it cost to operate. host: you say the program is not effective. guest: we did what we did in many audits, we looked at what they thought they were going to do

by purchasing these programs and what we found was there was a lot of deficiencies in the program. what we found was it was about 5000 hours a year, 20% of what they said they were going to do. that was of concern. they were going to patrol the southwest border, but they are only patrolling about 170 miles of that border. that was a concern for us. we looked at the effect of the drug program had on apprehensions. that is one of seed bp -- that is one of cbp's primary jobs. in that narrow span of border

that they do patrol, there is only about 2200 apprehensions over the course of 2013. that is less than 2% of the total apprehensions in that sector. host: how much money was set aside for it? guest: there was the purchase of the drones, it is an eight-year-old program. the difficulty we saws when they

initiated the program, they did not put performance measurements and waste. we think about good government and efficient government you want to ask the managers what to expect to receive as a result of this investment of taxpayer money. the difficulty we had with this program is they never established any performance measures. you can tell if the program is a success or not. host: we are talking about this headline on the report that they did. it cost over 12,000 per hour. our phone lines are open for you . democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002.

let's just look at how cvp responded. they defend the technology is an important addition to its toolbox. the agency said the drones do a good job of spawning incursion and should not be judged based on how many of those illegal crossers are eventually caught. host: the difficulty is there never put forth performance measures and it predicted what the investment this kind of money will get for the american people, how it contributes to border security. that is a fundamental cornerstone of any program. these folks are program managers. they believe in their program. i have sympathy for them. they have a heckuva job. it is a difficult job to control that border. we looked at this objectively.

this might be a good time to talk about what we do we are an independent body within the department of homeland security and our job is to be objective with regard to these things. we step back and look of these things and on at them according to what is known as an effective government accounting standard. these are standards we are required to use and we have a rigorous control process by which our audits are done. auditors will conduct investigations and right thought it, but it goes through a strict series of checks to ensure that it is accurate. to make sure that our results are correct. our program is then inspected by another inspector general to ensure we are following a kinds of scanners that we are supposed to be. scott, our first caller.

gucaller: have there been alternative time ranges for the flight of these drugs instead of consistent time ranges where people can spot them on the ground oh, they're coming over at what, everybody stay put and then went passes, they come over. the thought of alternative time ranges or when these things could be flown? host: that is a good question. the drone program as part of an entire range of tools that customs and border protection has. they use helicopters and airplanes and ground sensors and the boots on the ground, the folks on the border patrol to

patrol the border. my understanding is they fly sufficiently high, where it is difficult to detect them. ultimately, we tried to prod cvp -- a cbp and to understanding what they're are trying to do and put forth measures that can see whether or not they are successful in apprehensions. that was the focus of our audit. host: are they doing it because of the audit? guest: one of the most important recommendations they made was to sit back and figure out what it is they want to accomplish with the program and said that forth in a public way and they have agreed to do that. host: wire the drones operating at only five hours? was there a decision by someone to only utilize the drones for three hours a day russian mark

doesn't that alter your figure? host: those are very good points. the fewer hours shoofly, the higher the cost per hours going to be cbp told us they had difficulties with maintenance and personnel and of course whether related issues in getting the drones up. those points are good ones. it is going to be used as much as a possibly can to get the best return on the investment. host: we are talking with john ross. he was figure questions and comments about this latest report. take a look at what the id put together. that is the cost of his boardroom program, estimated 12,000 cost per hour. no verifiable performance

measures established. christopher, georgia host: how are you caller: you are supposed to be the man when it comes to making sure things get done that are supposed to. the drone program is completely unaffected. it is garbage. 170 miles of the border and that is it? host: is a garbage? were not saying it is garbage good will we have tried to do is say the program managers, the folks at cbp are the ones who have the obligation to protect the border. so far, we have said that they have not made their case, that the apprehensions are miniscule.

the costs are very high for what it is we get. host: sarah, an independent. caller: my comment is that it is just like the nuclear regulatory commission and how they had to retrain people. these people need re-training on how to work with these drones. to only use them three hours a day is a bad decision, i think in my opinion. i think you could use them for eight hours a day. to employ people to sit there and work a stick is a hard job.

it takes concentration. you have to have a slew of people to do that. if you are not willing to spend the money, the program will fail. guest: thank you for that question. that is one of the issues we had, we have done this audit in 2014 and 2012. one of the things we said in that audit was that you need to make sure you invest in the kinds of things that will keep these things aloft for a longer. -- for a longer period of time. host: what is the maintenance cost? guest: the $12,000 an hour is the total cost, so as you operate a car, you do not necessarily divide out the maintenance cost.

you figure out the total cost of operation is. that is what we're asking them to do have realistic accounting to understand what the cost of the program is. host: why didn't they include maintenance cost and other costs? guest: they did not put the cost of the pilots and because that is a different funding stream. it is appropriated differently. our way of thinking, the entire cost of the operation has to be taken into consideration, so decisions can be made as to whether or not this is a worthwhile investing -- worthwhile investment. caller: we have free enterprise

coming in doing the job our military should do. i have ceos doing this and some scientist making a thousand dollars a minute, while the president builds walls around the country as a red herring to show us we cannot protect our country. free enterprise is not the way to run the military. guest: is this drone being built and operated by contractors? guest: yes, significant contract support for this program. these were built by a company and purchased by the government, but it is a cbp program. host: are contractors involved with operating the drones? guest: i do not have that information. host: santa maria, california,

republican. caller: good morning. they do not take into consideration the number of people employed and want salaries and all that. the g.i. that went to school and paid more money and pay more taxes, i ought to take that into their audit things. guest: that is a fair point and one of the things we look at is what else could you get for this money? if you spend 62 point $5 million a year on these programs, could it be better used? would there be other aircraft that is cost effective.

host: other than border enforcement, what is being done to de-incentivize illegal immigration? guest: cvp is responsible for securing the border. the folks doing this, a number of individuals are doing the resources they have. it is a linear problem. going back to whether you are getting the best bank for the buck here, we have serious questions about this multimillion dollar investment. host: what else goes into enforcing border security?

guest: there is a border patrol and security that has to occur by the customs and border protection agents at the ports of entry. they have a heckuva job. please folks have to be able to manage this. and they have to manage things. we have done a number of audits looking at various sports. unbalanced, they are doing a good job with what they have. host: what goes into running a port of entry? guest: you have to inspect railcars and have the ability to do targeting to ensure the highest risk things get the most attention, whereas the lower things get less attention.

it is a significant job to be able to do with the kind of commerce we are talking about. they have their work cut out for them. host: peter, next. caller: part of my question, the cost-benefit of doing the drones versus what else could be used along the border, i could see this is necessary. you have to see what is happening all along, you need to have it. there are various areas and routes and hot zones, arizona and texas are the big places, they should employ double fencing.

we should mind the border. the benefit is amp pertinent to -- the benefit is important to make the drones efficient. hello defense question, that is something our viewers are bringing up a lot. guest: it is a diverse border. in some places, it is practical to build a fence and in other places, it is not old to build a fence.

we looked at sbi net, which was supposed to be high-tech and sophisticated. it was going to be stretched across the 2000 mile border. it was a disappointing program. the money spent was not spent well. they secured about 17 miles of the 2000 mile border. these solutions are difficult and require the federal government and the secretary of dhs to look at these things in a holistic way and make sure we are spending the money in a way that makes sense. host: the impact of republican withholding because of the president's action on immigration. does that have an impact on the drone program? guest: i will leave it to the secretary. that is not my job. the effective continuing

resolution, not having a budget resolution, everyone is operating at last year's levels. we have to pay people more. it creates challenges. host: steve, california, independent. caller: how is this going to affect the american public and the public in the world at large? the thing about the drone program, the money spent, the technology has been around, just not readily available. how is this going to conceptualize that program that is not necessary?

guest: it is either beyond what we were trying to look at or the cost of the jerome -- or the cost of the drone project. we were unable to find evidence of effectiveness. host: diana, wisconsin and caller, you are next. caller: who decides what contractors are hired for this is it the president, congress? why is it when contractors are hired that rules are not in place so that the american people who pay taxes get their

money's worth? are they being taxed or is it tax-free? host: iwatch you to hang up and listen through your tv. guest: we did not look at the contract process. they are purchased through a single company. those are a higher risk of vehicle than repetitive contracts. unfortunately, because of the requirements, it is something that should always be a concern. any u.s. person needs to pay

taxes on income. host: thomas, florida. you are on the air. caller: why does in the military takeover of the border patrol? i have friends -- hello? host: we will take your question. yesterday that was beyond the scope of our audit. we did not really take a look at that. host: did you look at what happens with these drones? just eat they are regulated by

the faa. they are responsible for the safety of those drones. we did not look at that. we would leave that to the faa. host: where are these being flown? guest: on the southwest border, out of texas, the rio grande valley outside of tucson arizona, and north dakota. host: what is the goal? guest: the goal is to increase the security of the border by gaining intelligence and increasing apprehensions of illegal contraband. host: how do they alert officials? guest: they have a number of packages on them.

they take photographs or live television or radar that alerts border patrol. one measure of a thought they were going to do was have these remote sensors cross the border. the difficulty is there are not a lot of -- of those. if a sensor goes off, we will look and see if it is individuals or a cow, or the wind. we looked at how often this happen. it only happened six times in which a german was able to look out one of the sensors and determine whether or not it was a false alarm. host: why weren't they able to do it more often? guest: a variety of reasons, including whether or not the drone is a loft in the place in which there is this false alert.

it is difficult because there is supposed to be coordination between the folks in the air as well as the border patrol on the ground, who will have to respond to a sighting of aliens or contraband. host: hartford, iowa. caller: i appreciate you being on. this is really interesting. my question is, who is the contractor and are they donors to any political persons or parties, and if you do not know that, how can we find out? host: what are you talking about? that created the drones or build them?

caller: yes, that created the drones. the company got a bid and i would like to know, it sounds like a cylindrical type thing to me. host: we will have john ross answer. guest: i do not know who the maintenance contracts or let two. we did not do work with the regard to that. that is publicly available information. host: will the agency be ordering more drones? guest: they say they do not have current plans to order more drones. there are a number of documents they have submitted to dhs as well as contracting documents in

which they announced their intent to increase the drone program up to 24, an additional 10 or 14 drones at a cost of $442 million. the paperwork is in place. they can purchase the drones without further approvals necessary. we want to make sure that is one of our recommendations. if they decide this is what they want to do to do the kinds of things we suggested, have performance measures and study whether or not this is the best investment of taxpayer money. what they have done is they have had approvals in the department of homeland security, but they have not done acquisition or contracting to purchase those. host: john ross is our guest

with the latest report that shows the program is not effective. dennis, south carolina, independent caller. caller: when we get these people crossing the border, they commit an act of terror and they have citizens who are not born in america, why don't we deport the whole family as a deterrent? guest: that is beyond the scope of what we were looking at. we did not look at some of the issues you are talking about. i do not have any answers for you today. host: what is the most cost-effective way of managing the southern borders? guest: it is one of the things we're asking cbp to determine. it is fundamental and operating

a government program like this. you need a plan as to what are your needs and how the meet those needs and how do you know if you are being affect it? at is a major criticism we have had for these programs. they have not done the kind of measurement expected in these kinds of programs. host: mississippi, gary, a republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. i was going to suggest to use our taxpayer money wisely. you can contract it out to security guard service, cheaper than what you are spending now or you could start developing the border itself and a good idea for that is to put military bases on it and train our

troops. i do not know how many military bases you can put on them border, but it would be the perfect place to train our troops. host: chuck, i. -- chuck, hi. caller: you said you used radar. with that product you can look at footprints on the ground and see what people collect. do you have an analysis that looks at the product of when you have new footprints and do you have an analysis area that has a response to address the people that are going to come across the border? guest: there are a number of packages on these drones. one is something to look at

footprints photographically or a radar image that can look at animals and people and things and vehicles on the ground and they do intelligence analysis. we would like them to measure with the effectiveness of doing that what kind of banger they getting for the millions of dollars they are spending? we have not gotten that in that is the reason we wrote the report. host: bill, democratic caller. caller: my name is joe. we know the drones are not working. they are being paid. the drones that crashed, are they were placed -- they were

replaced by insurance. it cost hundreds of millions of dollars and it is not working but you keep funding it. guest: that was the point behind a on it, take a look at this, ask the hard questions that we need to ask. only cbp can answer that question. we are asking them to take a look at it and determine whether or not be $62.5 million is worth it. host: what happens next? guest: we wrote the report and they have responded. as a result, we have modified it slightly. we appreciate their feedback. from here, we have recommendations. they have agreed in principle to

all of the recommendations. we are going to the what performance measures they have. we think it is a positive development. we will look at the send make sure they do this in a way that makes sense for the american taxpayer. we report to the secretary of homeland security that has jurisdiction over these things. host: john ross is the inspector general. thank you for your time. that does it for today's "washington journal." [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]

>> john kerry is in pakistan to eliminate safe havens for terror groups along the afghan border. he will travel to paris this week to show solidarity with the french people. congress returns for a short work week. legislative work will start at 2:00 this afternoon. members will consider a bill to -- heard a measure saying local governments do not have to provide health insurance coverage for volunteer first responders. live coverage of that debate.

the heritage foundation begins a conservative policy summit today and washington d.c. speakers will include ted cruz and do some new members of congress. >> later this week, the house will determine what amendments will be allowed for the homeland security and immigration spending bill. >>here are a few of the comments that we have recently received on the 114th congress. >> the thing that really needs to happen is going back to what the incoming majority said __ they need to get back to regular order. if they go back and pass the 13 bills they need to fund the government, then