volunteer first responders. over in the senate, a vote this afternoon on moving forward with the keystone xl pipeline bill. you can watch that today on c_span 2. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united stat hf repseives any usethclecaiod coverage of the house proceengs for political or coeral purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms washington, d.c. january 12, 2015. i hereby appoint the honorable dianne black to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed john a. boehner,

speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 6, 2015, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties, each party limited to one hour, and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and minority whip limited to five minutes but in no event shall the debate continue past 1:50 p.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney, for five minutes. mr. courtney: madam speaker, today i rise to remember one of eastern connecticut's most generous caring, and devoted citizens, stanley israeliite. he patched away this past december at age 89 and leaves behind an enduring legacy in his native nor witch and throughout connecticut. i asked the u.s. house to join me in expressing condoences to his wife and children, michael,

wendy, and john. after his passing a memorial service was held at the synagogue which was the seen of a lot of people. lieutenant governor nancy wyman, small business owners, labor union leaders, and neighbors and friends from the city he loved were all in attendance. senator dodd delivered a stirring eulogy describing his amazing life of service. as senator dodd related, stanley dedicated his life to helping others. after starting his career in his family owned jewelry store, he uncovered his true passion assisting members of his community with any problem any time after intervening in a family -- with a family in crisis. he left the business and after holding a variety of human service and business advocacy positions in norwich and earning citizen of the year and citizen of the decade award in the 1960's went on to work for

chris dodd. he ran his constituent service programs beginning in 1974 with dodd's election as second district congressman, the seat i have the honor to hold, and later as state director to senator dodd after his election to the senate in 1980. stanley remained a fixture in connecticut politics known for his consummate dedication to helping constituents get the help they needed. he spent decades ensuring that connecticut citizens received help from the v.a., medicare, and social security, immigration problems, helped small business owners get their feet under them, and then doggedly pushed forward projects to improve local communities. today one of the projects he spearheaded, an industrial park in norwich that never would have been realized without his efforts now bears his name. renamed in his honor in 2005. in 1995 stanley was recognized as u.s. news and reports 12 indispensable americans. for all the awards and honors that his community rightly bestowed on him throughout his career, stanley himself valued

the thank you notes he received from grateful constituents above everything. in 1995, he explained to a reporter from the new london day that the highest honor in the dodd office was to post a constituent thank you letter on the office refrigerator. that's our glory he said. if you're on the refrigerator you have done a good jofpblet stanley's personal mantra, which he instilled in his colleagues and friends and family was, don't forget the people. after a lifetime of service to his community, the people he helped and everyone who had the privilege to know him will certainly never forget him. madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama, mr. byrne for five minutes. mr. byrne: thank you, madam speaker. just last month we made a promise to the american people we promised our constituents that we would fight the obama administration's decision to give executive amnesty to many of those in this country

illegally. i am pleased to announce that this week the house will fulfill that promise and act to defund the illegal executive action. alt last year we strongly urged the president not to act alone and the american people spoke clearly in last november's election. but the president forged ahead anyway. and now in order to preserve our nation's long-standing system of checks and balances to preserve the very order of our constitution, the house will act to rein in prom's plans for executive am necessary tifment we'll vote on legislation which i was proud to co-sponsor written by my alabama colleague, congressman robert aderholt, which would prevent the president from carrying out his plans for executive amnesty. let me be clear, this is tough legislation. which completely eliminates all funds for implementation of the president's illegal actions.

the bill has the support of many leading voices in the immigration debate, including my home state senator, jeff sessions. just as important, the legislation makes clear that no federal benefits can be granted to any alien as a result of the policies defunded and also eliminates funds to consider new renewal, or previously denied applications for executive amnesty. and the legislation doesn't just defund the president's executive action. the legislation paves the way for stronger border security by increasing funds for border agents, detention beds, and enforcement activities. in order to halt illegal immigration in this country, we must stop encouraging illegal immigration by offering amnesty and instead put more attention on actually securing our borders. i wish this legislation wasn't necessary. i wish president obama had listened to the american people and enforced our current laws

instead of continuing his my way or the highway style of governing. instead, he moved ahead with action that clearly violates our constitution and has poisoned the well for serious conversation on immigration reform. so madam speaker, i must ask a simple question that has very serious consequences. when will it stop? when will president obama stop issuing shortsighted executive action and instead work together with this congress to find long-term solutions to the real issues plaguing our country. i fear that the answer to that question is not promising. given that while we were on this floor taking our oath of office, the white house was busy issuing veto threats. i understand that the legislative process may not be convenient for the president, but the process exists for a reason. the congress makes the laws and

the president should enforce them. this president just doesn't get that. so this week the house will act to rein in the president ones again. we will -- once again. we will attempt to right the scales of power and restore our constitutional system of checks and balances. we cannot and we will not sit back idly and allow the president to act alone. we promised the american people we would respond, and this week we will hold true to our word. thank you madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett, for five minutes. mr. doggett: thank you, madam speaker. well, today is a special day for san antonio because our san antonio spurs are being recognized at the white house for their victorious season. we of course already had many celebration in san antonio, but it's good to see this

celebration reaching now 1600 pennsylvania avenue. congratulations to the san antonio spurs on this fifth amazing championship ring. serving here in congress as a representative for much of san antonio including the very place in the alamo city where the spurs have scored so many of these victories, i know that nothing defines the spurs or san antonio like the teamwork, the determination, and the positive attitude that was displayed in this trail to the 2014 championship victory. these values are shown through the spurs' silver and black give back, a community and outreach program which has benefited over 250,000 children and coaches in the past couple of decades. all this in a city that is literally overflowing with spurs enthusiasm and spurs fans. i would have to say that all of

san antonio knows that the spurs are certainly no mavericks at basketball. they are well seasoned team players. they were able to literally rain down thunder on all of their 2014 opponents with a regular season record of 62 wins out of 82 games. and that's not all that set the spurs apart. they are the true trail blazers hiring the first female assistant coach in the nba, becky ham mon. overall, when it came down to that fifth ring, the spurs, a team that lives in our texas temperatures were able to beat the heat with a cool 4-1 season blowout. like san antonio itself, the spurs have attracted literally the best and brightest from all over the world. there never has been and there never will be a team quite like the spoin spurs -- san antonio spurs in a city like no other place congratulations to a dine

estimate like so many of -- dynasty. like so many of my constituents i'm ready for the race. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas mr. poe, for five minutes. mr. poe: madam speaker, around 11:00 a.m. on january 7, on a cold winter day in paris france, two men armed with ak-47's forced a woman entering the offices of a french newspaper to let them in. after murdering the security guard in the lobby, they ran up to the second floor shouted, "where's shash? that's the nickname for the newspaper's editor. over the next five minutes the two men would seek out and execute mr. sharbonet and 10 other people in the newspaper. they left the building shouting islamic phase, god is greatest.

they then murdered a policeman, ran back to their car shouting we have revenged the profit prophet muhammad. you see madam speaker, the killers murdered because the paper exercised the human right of free speech and free press. the brothers were on the run for two days, on january 9, the police cornered them at a standoff near the paris airport. the police rescued a hostage and the brothers were killed. going out just like they wanted to in a massive firefight as martyrs. on the same day, another gunman but an accomplice of the two brothers took hostages at a kosher grocery store on the east side of paris. police stormed the grocery store and killed the terrorist, but not before he had murdered jewish hostages. you see madam speaker, these three killed because people disagreed with them. they killed the jews because they were jews. he they killed the people at the newspaper because they the audacity to print things that these folks, these terrorists did not approve of.

the french authorities did a superb job hunting down and killing these terrorists. the two brothers responsible for the nish attack have a history of terrorist activity. one brother said he even dreamed of killing jews in france. hours before one of them met his maker, they called a french tv station saying, we are telling you that we are defenders of the prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. and that i was sent al qaeda in yemen and i went there and ask the iman that financed me. yes madam speaker, we have heard this before. young people traveling overseas where they meet radical islamic jihadists who preach hate and murder in the name of religion. they are indoctrinated and infected with the can'ter of radical islam and sent back to the home country to inflict terror and kill men, women, and children. they kill in the name of the radical religious beliefs. we are even seeing this in the

united states. groups like isis are encouraging americans to join their reign of terror. americans who travel overseas to fight with isis are not coming back home to america to open coffee shops. the they are coming back to do mischief and kill us. that's why i have introduced and reintroduced the passport ref vation act that would authorize the revocation or denial of passports to individuals affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations. the benedict arnold traitors who turn against america and join the ranks of radical terrorist organizations should lose their rights. this bill will help law enforcement locate these individuals by preventing them from traveling internationally so they can be captured and brought to justice. most importantly, this legislation will prevent traitor americans from entering the united states undetected. madam speaker, the french people held a solidarity rally in honor of the murdered. it was also a statement of freedom. some estimated over two million attended the rally in paris.

marching arm in arm with french president holland were 40 world leaders including cherman chancellor merkel, palestinian president abbas. unfortunately the united states president, the vice president, and the secretary of state did not choose to show up. and support this solidarity meeting. that is unfortunate. the french are our closest ally, oldest ally. we have a poffer trait of the great frenchman lafayette in this very chamber across the way from george washington. freedom sunned attack by these terrorist. they are a threat to civilization, order, and liberty. united states should be more spout spoken in our support of the french people. we should support our allies like the french and mourn when they mourn and be resolved to track terrorists down anywhere in the world where they are. they are at war with us, they are war with us madam speaker. the french president said we're fighting a war, not against

religion, civilizations but to defend our values which are universal. it's a war against terrorism and radical islam against everything that aims to shatter solidarity liberty and brotherhood. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. lamalfa, for five minutes. mr. lamalfa: thank you, madam speaker. today i once again will speak about california's high speed rail system. now, just this last week they had a symbolic groundbreaking for the system in the context of getting started. california has been, since 2008 anticipating the start of high speed rail. what do we have? instead empty promises, a lot of waste, a lot of money going down the tubes. what we see is that when the

plan was first put in place, the voters of california approved a $33 billion link from los angeles to san francisco. what they're now being given is something that's tripled in price. what they're now being given at this groundbreaking was a symbolic -- what you saw was a mound of dirt with about an eight-foot section of ties and rails on that. that's very symbolic for those doing the groundbreaking also those that were paying for it, what the high speed system will turn into is several links of rail between north and south california that aren't linked up, that have no way to power them and no trains will be running on them for several years. so instead of the $33 billion plan that they saw on the ballot in 2008, which by the way it was on the 2006 ballot and before that on the 2004 ballot, but those involved knew they would have politically hard time selling that to the people of california, that has ballooned to $100 billion plan

until they revised it unagain downwards by taking part of the high speed rail system in san francisco and l.a. where they'll use local transit to run through the central section. that's not legal under prop 1-a. what prop 1-a spells out, it has to be a high speed system that will make it from san francisco to l.a. or reverse in 2 1/2 hours at speeds at 220 miles per hour. this promise will not be upheld. now, why is this important to a national audience, to members of congress, to people in other states? it's because after the stimulus package was passed in 2009-2010, that some of that federal money is going to go for the high speed rail system in california. indeed several other states were recipients of those initial grants. after they looked at their own ideas for high speed rail and saw the costs involved, the infeasibility, they turned that money back into that pot of money. california of course, stepped forward and said, hey, give us

all of that money so they received at this point about $3.5 billion that they can spend dollar for dollar for the bond money they spend for themselves, the state money. so what does that mean for americans is that we know californians will be back at the federal well once again trying to get more money for their high speed plan. what we see is that their downsized plan will still cost $68 billion. they only have identified $13 billion for the whole system. no private sector money, which is what we were told when the ballot measure passed, has stepped forward to be part of this. the plan is $55 billion short. the federal government so far has offered by -- about $3.5 billion. do they think they'll get the other $52 billion since no private sector money has been given? will they get it out of the taxpayers? nobody knows. they said, don't worry about the money, we'll get it. well, part of their measure has

been impose a cap and trade program upon the people of california, which so far has generated about $250 million per year which is how many centuries they'll catch up and pay for high speed rail which cap and trade wasn't intended for anyway. folks, we have a giant problem here. high speed rail in california should not be the federal taxpayers' burden. it shouldn't be the people of california's burden. they barely passed it 52% to 48% on the 2008 ballot after two delays. delay after delay is what you see with this system. so what really needs to happen is the people of california need to step forward and put this back on the ballot and have a vote once again on this and the federal government doesn't need to be giving signals that they're going to send even more money for this boondoggle which has been failed flawed and deceptive since day one.

madam speaker it's a massively flawed project. at least taxpayers at all levels on the hook for many, many years to come for something that may not even run in our lifetime. so we as federal legislators need to put a stop to any idea, as my colleagues have been doing, for more money to go forward for high speed rail. and we need the people of california to wake up to that idea and demand it be placed back on the ballot, this money go instead for other projects that could be helpful for their transportation corridors, for their highway system, for the normal mode of rail which can be made to -- to be enhanced to drive 125 miles an hour which would be beneficial. madam speaker, we need to get on the ball and get back to reality on what high speed rail will really cost californians and the american taxpayers and urge it be placed back on the ballot and give people that choice once again. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until tk >> the house is back at 2:00 eastern. later this week, number of changes to financial regulations and authorizing spending at the homeland security department for the remainder of the budget year. in the senate today, a vote on whether to move forward with the keystone xl pipeline. you can watch debate in the senate on c-span two. house rules committee is meeting to decide debate and amendments on spending for the homeland security department. that is expected to come up later this week before the full house will stop you can watch the meeting at 5:00 eastern time. we will be taking you live to

the white house for the daily reefing with press secretary josh earnest. that is expected to start in about 40 minutes. before that, a look at gas prices and efforts to approve the keystone pipeline from today's "washington journal." 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. 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. it has impacts on our producers. you have read it is better for us to find the stability in the price. the loss of supply and demand,

that private the market, is what is benefiting consumers. we should not have government intervention in the market. the worst thing is for the government to get in and let's try to manage it. let's the market play out. we should also let the marketplace out on keystone xl pipeline if the industry and the broader economy says this makes economic sense. that's the private sector put their money at risk, let them build the infrastructure, because that benefits all of us. all the recent reports say, on issue of crude exports, the more we export from this country, the better it is for mexican consumers. we're putting more supply in the market place, putting down pressure. host: good morning to you. welcome to the conversation. guest:caller: dear guest, there is a

sioux nation in montana that said they are going to stop the pipeline at their lands. i am telling them i will help and go out there. two, communist china is already expanding the width of the panama canal for the super carriers. the united states has a glut of oil. your main purpose is to get u.s. oil and gas in the open markets. that is the open read that only reason. one other reason -- you're using eminent domain, a foreign country, a foreign land, a foreign company on our citizens? that is treason. host: ok. guest: let me respond. regarding the sioux nation, i am not sure about specific out there, that there have been a number of attempts to slow the process and some have been used

to try to stop the keystone xl pipeline. i noticed a few weeks ago there was an activity filed in the state of south dakota, and it courts have overturned that saying their interests have been representative. the state of nebraska last week, after many months of litigation there, the courts have overturned a city -- a decision saying this has been approved. the process to remit a pipeline like this is very exhausted. you consult with many people, you look at the endangered species act, you comply with all the environmental loss. the requirements by the various states to get across the various states. 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. when we look at this, it comes to the fundamental question, do we believe the science or don't we?

the science has concluded we can do this right, we can protect the environment, we can bring more and -- energy to the marketplace to benefit all americans. we think that is the sort of process that should be allowed to move forward, and that is why we are frustrated, like 72% of the people, saying, get on with it, create these jobs, let's put these people to work that the -- let's got our infrastructure and great energy for the benefit of all. host: democratic color. caller: my question was answered already. host: ok, we will move on. susan, north carolina, a republican. caller: my question is, what we are doing is not a matter of --it is a big bunch of crop, and they love to deceive us.

the problem is greed and they are driving everybody's coming down and they can barely make their bills and even the saudi's are having trouble and the russians are having trouble. it is a control thing. it has to do with the rothschilds and the power. our dollar was at -- host: hold on. what evidence do you have of that? caller: they want to keep the american dollar alive, and canada does not want to participate in cleaning up the highflying and all if it busts. they have always said they will have a terrorist attack. host: ok, we will let it there. how many other canadian companies have pipelines that go to the united states, and how long has the united states been importing tar sands oil from

canada, and how much of the keystone has already been built at this point? guest: azhar's pipelines, there are about four dozen of them. most of them have been there for many years. one of the great ironies in this debate is the alberta clipper, a pipeline, that was approved by this president, by this administration in 2009, and part of that approval process, the public comment that was made, all the arguments that were being made about the keystone pipeline, a time of need of job creation, energy security. this is a great opportunity. we find it is ironic that we have approved one pipeline and yet the same people of are not wanting to approve this one. the key it tos to do the analysis, the comprehensive reviews. unfortunately, the delay on this

pipeline, six years we have done five comprehensive reviews done by the obama administration state department. every one of them have concluded same thing, there is no significant impact to the environment. my hope is we start moving the politics out of the conversation, and back to susan's point, we need to look at this in the global context. we are in a unique american moment where for the first time in our recent history we have had an opportunity to change this energy dynamic, where we become more energy secure. we are able to put our people were producing our own energy, and hopefully as we produced enough for our marketplace, and we are going to be allowed to capture other markets around the world, just like many of our competitors from the middle east, russia, and elsewhere. russia what the that russia was the world's number one natural gas supplier until we cast them a few years ago, and we are now

about to pass saudi arabia as the world's number oneil producer. if we can concentrate economic activity at home, we will worry a lot less about volatile costs around the world, and i for stability. we can take our future in our own hands and decide as a nation what we will do. this is a big deal for the country. we hope to get a politics out and think of it as americans and not as republicans and democrats. host: do you think what you just outlined means we will not seek $100 a barrel gasoline ever again? that is what a saudi prince has told --that $100 oil is history? guest: it is difficult to say where that price will be. let me say it this way, experts in the united states will tell you that but for the significant increase in the oil production

rights in the united states, the price of oil would probably have gone to $150 per barrel. it has been a lot of writing the newspapers and elsewhere saying that what has made the district is the estimate the production. we are up about 3 million barrels a day where we were a few years ago. more supply we bring to that marketplace, the more we temper those outside sources around world that have been the dominant oil producers. so is a big deal for us. will it stay below $100 forever? i cannot predict that. i can tell you what we have seen, more supply we bring to the marketplace, the more americans week to work well-paying jobs, building xl pipeline the that are often will be as a nation, a unique opportunity, and we need to get beyond the partisanship and focus on what is best for the country. host: best, democratic color,

illinois. caller: hi. i was thinking and i do not know how much money you make a year. i'm sure you're able to retire at any time. i was listening to bernie sanders last week, and i agree with him that your focus needs to change. you keep justifying reasons why we should have oil, but the problem is that digging into our earth and using dirty oil and whatever, there are other alternatives, because of climate change. climate change is affecting the whole world. you talk about affecting the world. i would like some of the people like yourself who are involved in the oil industry to take a year hot sabbatical and study the environmental effects of this and change worse -- change your thinking it is not how we can make will more productive, and how we can use the wind and solar to make things better. if used that he -- if you use

energy on that, we will have more clean energy. to me, one more comment, yes, it has become a political issue. and you say legally you can justify things. that i have not heard you talk about the morality of it. host: ok, beth. guest: i appreciate the question. when you look at technologies to get us to a carbon-controlled world, the oil and natural gas are the key leaders in investing in those technologies. if you go back to 2000, we as the will and gas industry have invested more than the federal government to 50 carbon-emitting and low-carbon emitting technologies. we take second seat to no one in trying to figure out the next step to the energy future. look at today's environment. you might be aware that carbon emissions in the united states

are at a 20-year note, and the reason is because of expanded natural gas production in the united states, which is a cleaner fossil fuel. we have reduced the amount of carbon putting into our atmosphere. we leave the world about that, but when we talk about it as a moral issue, let me say that is a great discussion we should have. you look around world today there's over one billion people who do not have electricity. close to half the world has intermittent electricity, or it is not reliable. when we think about the ability to lift people from poverty, to educate people, to bring women into the workforce around world, you have to focus on energy customers is the lifeblood of everything we do. we believe a low cost for affordable, reliable energy is the key to that opportunity for all the world possible people. when we have this debate in the united states, it is good one to have, we need a robust debate.

we have to look at the practical reality of the science and the marketplace. we are striving hard, as i mentioned, as key leaders and investors in finding those great new technologies. after spending billions of dollars doing so, we have not yet found it. we are investors in wind solar algae and energy efficiency. that's great, but we need to do with the reality, what does it mean to every citizens not only in the united states, but around the world as we seek to provide the foundation of energy to allow us to enjoy our standard of living? this debate will continue. it is an important one. that may suggest and going back to senator sanders' comments, i understand he was opera and amendment to talk about with the deniers are of climate, etc. the reality is if we are going to pay for this debate in science, which he strongly suggests, and i could not agree more, the side of the keystone xl pipeline shows that it will

not have significant impact to the environment, including the carbon emissions. the head of the international energy agency stopped the idea that bringing these oilsands from canada to the ninth is going to be a big trigger to carbon emissions. she went on to say it is probably less than two hours of what the chinese do. i think we have to put it all in context. we need to move away from the kind of extreme polarization that has occurred and have a thoughtful dialogue and discourse on all the issues you raise. i appreciate your question. host: heleory, missouri, democratic caller. caller: thank you. regarding keystone xl, how can we incredibly use the word open " sustainable" as a descriptive term for renewable -- for a nonrenewable resource?

and the no impact on environmental assessment, it is correct only if as the studies assume we would be shipping it by rail or truck instead of type. that has nothing to do at all with the dirtiness of the fuel. thank you. guest: thank you. let me respond. what is taking place today because the keystone xl pipeline has been delayed, the production in canada is moving. it is moving by truck and rail. me get back to the impact to consumers experts will tell you that it adds $2 to $3 per barrel that they move from canada to move it by rail and to move it 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. today it is through the pipeline, and 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, 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 and the price of oil coming down, but the pipeline does not exist so 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 profits?

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 what the environmental workforce laws require as we scrutinize these projects. the government should not be deciding let's build keystone but not this one. that is why the private marketplace works so well and is far more more efficient than governmental decision. 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 or not. they are saying they are moving forward because there is 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, that 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. that is the way we believe the market should work. host: caller, go ahead. caller: thanks for taking my call. you showed a map, and it shows going across missouri. is that the actual route? what is that about?

is it close to the missouri river? guest: the pipeline route comes down through canada, through the dakotas, it cuts across and finds a way to the gulf coast. i have been working with the governor of missouri, governor nixon, and others 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 project we have on the books today. it is shovel ready. unfortunately, it has been waiting over six years to be approved to be built. let me make one other comment about that about jobs creation. 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 u.s.a. well-paying jobs, and some will say they are temporary jobs. as we know, construction is generally temporary. things we build, those we are working with in the construction industry 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 jobs. everything they do in the construction world is temporary. but these are well-paying jobs. we need to build this pipeline and others to put our people to work. host: fort lauderdale, florida melvin, go ahead. caller: yes, i want to ask a question of the guests.

didn't he indicate that there was no significant impact on the land where the pipeline was going? i just wanted an inter-to that question first, if he would. 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, every one has concluded no significant impact to the environment. host: melvin, 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. there was one because they had to get away from aquifers, so

they had to change the initial direction of the pipeline. he was giving misinformation when he made that statement. guest: that is not true. let me tell you why. 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. they got together in nebraska, and the company, transcanada, said 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 aquifers and water issues. in the united states today we have over 20,000 miles of

pipeline that cross areas of water resources, etc. it is rare when you hear of adverse impact. we take this seriously. there is a lot of money goes into developing these pipelines. keystone xl pipeline has 59 additional conditions that the company agreed to to further protect the environment beyond what the law requires. this is state of the art, first in class. host: a person on twitters asks, 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 a leg of the pipeline that employed about 4800 americans over to the gulf coast. that took about a year to build.

we expect that northern leg will take about a year. it depends on when you start. obviously, in the cold regions you want to wait until it warms up a bit. they can get to work and they do it in sections. they are simultaneously building it all at once. these are the great jobs. host: rick, democratic caller. good morning to you. caller: good morning. thanks for having me on. i would like to ask the guest why did it take us so far to get so far on it now, why hasn't canada turned around and gone the other way? the people in canada said they would not allow the dirty oil to

come through canada because they have had a lot of oil spills. some of them had been over a year and they still have not been cleaned up. host: when we talk about dirty oil, you say since 1990, carbon emissions have been reduced by over 26%. this oil is competitive with other oil from places like venezuela. this oil 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 specifically the type of crude oil being produced. when we talk about what canada is going to do, they determine the most efficient way was to bring it south to the united

states. canada has 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 this process. there are proposals to take this oil and move it to the east and the west and export it to places like china. so instead of having direct benefit in the u.s., where we could 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. so we as a nation, the united states, need to think long and hard about our relationship with canada, particularly our energy

relationship with canada, how we handle that, and what we are doing to this relationship as a result of this exercise that is taking 6 1/2 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. generally, the process is, they can cite the pipelines and work with landowners to make sure they are protected. this particular pipeline, the route was changed to accommodate some of those concerns. you see sensitivities on the part of the companies. these are not like other infrastructure that we need in the country today. we talk about a highway bill as one of those big opportunities to build bridges and roads and bring jobs to the united states. it is projected that the investment in oil and

natural gas infrastructure is 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, you put those two together, we have hundreds of thousands of jobs that pay well, that we can bring to our economy at a time when we need it most. 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. the leadership in the house i said that house and senate did the right thing when they identified keystone pipeline as one of those issues that has bipartisan support. we can work together and show the american people, we get it, we understand what they are saying. we are hopeful this is going to get done. host: are there enough

democratic votes to override a veto in the senate? guest: there are 63 votes in the senate that we expect will show support for the pipeline. let me also say 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. i will say there are other ways to get this done. it does not have to be done through the veto process. we were frustrated last friday when nebraska, the president said he was waiting for the nebraska court decision. on friday we had the nebraska court decision. 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.

it appears to be a moving target. every time an issue is raised, and issue is addressed, then a new issue is raised. we are a little frustrated with the process, and we are hopeful cooler heads will prevail. adult will sit in the room and say we can do this for the american public. host: 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 shale companies and opec? who will cave first? guest: we thought we were going to make ourselves energy secure as a nation, and now 40 years later, what will give us that opportunity is the free marketplace. to detect ecological advances we have made, like fracking, we are

now 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 own people. what eventually happens in opec, russia, i cannot predict, but you can clearly see the concern they are expressing. so the things we have talked about for 40 years are coming to pass. we have a rich abundance here at home that we can produce, making us less reliant on unstable parts of the world. host: jim is in stillwater oklahoma. that is close to cushing oklahoma. caller: right near it. the pipeline has been under

the president bragged on the pipeline that was going in and the pipeline has been under construction, going to the gulf coast and i believe up north. it has impacted stillwater including cushing. as far as the construction going on, it has been a benefit to us. what has not been brought up is it comes by train, it is more dangerous than a spill. they have cutoffs up and down the pipeline. the protections are there. if it comes down by train going through these communities and a wreck occurs, it kills all the people, which has happened in various parts of the continent.

so 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. and the result is it is killing off american eagles. in addition to taking away the last of the grassland preserves that we have got here. 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 wind. we need solar. we need to become more energy efficient. but we should never forget, we

rely most heavily on oil and natural gas to fuel the economy and to feel the -- and to fuel 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, transport it, and the associated impacts longer term. 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? so we believe in all of the above.

we believe that 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, we see a lot of manufacturing jobs come home. i used to be in the manufacturing business. 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. that is the key driver. looking beyond the production issues, we need to look to the other added opportunities that benefit all consumers. when our consumer products' prices go down, because we produce here at home, that is a big deal for all of us. that is a broad vision that is captured in an all of the above strategy here home. host: thank you for joining us.

>> senator claire mccaskill has a note will not be running for governor of her stay in 2016 when the current governor will be prevented from running because of term limits. her decision clears the path for fellow democrat and missouri attorney general -=-- who has already started his campaign. we will take you to the white house for the white house press briefing with josh earnest. we will take you here live as soon as the briefing begins. until then, information about a new report on use of drones by customs and border protection from today's "washington journal care." host: every monday we take a look at a report questioning the

effectiveness of the use of drones on the border, the southern 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. >> obviously, a lot has happened since we convened in this room six days ago. most importantly, the terrible terror attacks we saw last week. i expect we will have ample opportunity to talk about that today. let me also note something else important that happened. house republicans put forward funding legislation through the end of fiscal year 2015. unfortunately, republicans have

unveiled plans to muck around with that legislation. it detects our borders and ports. it provides aviation security bolster cyber security coordinates with local authorities, and enforces immigration laws. there is never a good time for republicans to do something like this, but right now seems like a particularly bad time to do so he read republicans have said they were doing this because they have a political objection to the president's executive action on immigration. let me repeat what you heard me say before. the president's plan brings badly needed accountability to the system by requiring undocumented workers -- i'm sorry, undocumented immigrants who have been here more than five years to commodity the shadows, get right with the wall -- law, and pay taxes. the republicans claim they will undo that and send the country in the direction of doing nothing, which is something that

marco rubio has said. i guess that means there are probably a lot of reasons to think that what republicans are planning on the dhs funding bill is a bad idea. with that, jim, do you want to get questions -- get started with questions? >> the president would veto this legislation? >> we have made clear dating back to last fall that the president would oppose any legislative efforts to undermine the executive action he took to add greater accountability to the immigration system. >> can you tell us anything about this hacking? do you have any information on it? >> i don't have a lot of information on this. it occurred within the last hour or so. i can tell you it is something we are obviously looking into in something we take seriously. however, a note of caution to

folks covering the story -- there is a significant difference between what is a large data breach and the hacking of a twitter account. we are still examining and investigating the extent of this incident but i don't have information beyond that for you. >> on the topic du jour, why didn't president obama or vice president biden attend the march? >> people across this country and even across the globe -- it was a remarkable display of unity by the french people in the face of these terrible terror attacks. the way that country has come together, i do think struck a chord and inspired people all across the world and trout this

country. it was a remarkable display. there was a number of other world leaders who were there to participate and show support as well. some have asked whether or not the united states should have sent someone with a higher profile than the ambassador to france. i think it is fair to say we should have sent someone with a higher profile to be there. that's that, there is no doubt that the american people and this administration stand behind our allies in france as they face down the stretch. that was evident throughout last week when you saw the president's top counterterrorism advisor at the white house was intent -- in touch with the french counterpart minutes after reports of this terror attack first emerged. you saw later in the day the president telephoned president hollande to not just expressed condolences on behalf of the american people to the people of france, but to pledge any

cooperation and assistance to conduct the investigation and to bring to justice those responsible for the terror attacks. i can tell you that kind of coordination that is the backbone of the strong relationship between the strong relationship -- between france and the united states continues today. the french ambassador to the united states will be here at the white house later to meet with the president's top counterterrorism advisor. >> how much higher profile do you think should have been there? eric holder was in the city doing a television talk show that morning. should he have been the person representing the u.s.? >> i can tell you that had the circumstances been a little different, i think the president himself would have taken the opportunity to be there. the fact is that this is obviously a march, the planning

of which only began friday night. 36 hours later, it had begun. what is also clear is that the security requirements around a presidential visit our onerous and significant. in a situation like this, they typically have a pretty significant impact on the other citizens who are trying to participate in a large public events like this. we talk about this a lot when it comes to the president attending a basketball game. the fact of the matter is there were millions of people at the event. it was not just an arena that needed to be secured, but a large outdoor area that poses security challenges. i am confident that the professionals at the secret service could overcome those challenges, but it would have been difficult to do so without significantly impacting the ability of common citizens to participate in this march.

after all, what i think was so impressive about this display is it demonstrated the unity of the french people. that is something that we are always mindful of in situations like this, of interfering with those who are trying to attend an event, particularly when the purpose of the event is to demonstrate the unity of spirit and purpose of the people who are coming together. >> this is consideration of, perhaps, -- is that something you consider doing friday? >> i am not going to unpack all the planning and discussions that went into this. suffice it to say there should not be an there is not any doubt in the minds of the people in france or people around the world, or among our enemies

about how committed to a strong relationship that the united states is with france, and committed to the same kind of values they are. in some ways, most importantly the people who understand this best of all are the french people themselves. the french ambassador was on television earlier today and described the french people is overwhelmed by the expression of solidarity and grief from all corners of the american people including the highest levels of the administration. >> did you consider having the president go? was it something that was developing too late to pull together in time? >> i am not going to be in a position to unpack the schedule planning discussions that we have here. what i can tell you is that there are some groups who suggested the u.s. presence at the march, represented by some

but he with a higher profile than the ambassador to france -- i guess what i am saying is that we at the white house agree that someone with a higher profile should have been included. >> did france ask you to come? >> i am not aware of the conversations that may have occurred between french officials and american officials. >> there is criticism about this. is this criticism fair? >> criticism from who? >> a wide variety. >> anybody comes to mind? >> [inaudible] >> jake did have some criticism. i saw that, too. >> is this criticism fair? >> it is a free country and people have the opportunity to subject their elected officials

to criticism and make it clear when they disagree with a decision or action that has been taken by the administration. i would not quibble with the right to do so. there are those out there saying , i think the administration should have sent someone with a higher profile to participate in the march, i guess what i'm a is that we should have sent someone with a higher profile, in addition to the ambassador to france. >> one last thing, president hollande has called the attacks an act of war. how does this change your strategy toward going after the islamic state? will the french now be stronger partners? >> there is an importantly made in the question there. there is still an investigation ongoing to determine exactly what the links were between these individuals who were responsible for these terror attacks in france and their

communications and support from extremists in other locations around the globe. public reporting i'm referring to indicates these individuals may have had links to or traveled to yemen. there is a video that has emerged today that we are still reviewing here in which one of the terrorists indicate some sympathy and support from isil. we are reviewing all of this and trying to assist the french as they take the lead on the investigation, as they should about who is responsible, what kind of support they had, and what links they had two other extremist groups around the world. laura? >> thank you. [indiscernible] he was looking at all those americans airing demonstrations. >> i don't know how much of the

march the president watched on television, but i can tell you that the comments that i have reiterated today about the rather impressive display of unity and solidarity from the french people is something the president made note of as well. these are messages that were most importantly sent by the citizens of france. they were echoing by people all across the globe. in many ways, people could demonstrate those expressions of support, everything from an op-ed, to a tweet, to a speech at the golden globes last night. that is indicative of the solidarity the american people feel with our allies in france, not just because of the terrible tragedy they have endured, but also because of the kind of values they fight for. these are the same values we hold dear in our country here it i think that is why the bond between the united states and france is so strong today. >> the demonstrations began at

10:00 in paris. the white house sent a message at 7:00 here. [indiscernible] what do you expect? >> let me say a couple of things about that. this effort to counter the extremism is something we talked quite a bit about over the years. it is a focal point of our planning when it comes to the counterterrorism strategy. i would anticipate we would expect to discuss it in the context of the summit, to invite leaders from the private sector and technology communities to discuss how extremists are using social media platforms to try to inspire acts of violence, inspi extremismre -- inspired extremism by other people. we can talk about strategies we

can employ to better promote inclusion and resilience across the country. one of the other things we would expect we would talk about in a summit like this would be to highlight the experience of some pilot programs in cities like boston, los angeles, the minneapolis-st. paul area, where local officials have really employed some pioneering techniques to try to work very closely in their communities to root out efforts to inspire and recruit extremists, or to propagate extremist ideology, in a way that is not good for the country or the community where it might be occurring. there are some very interesting techniques that have been employed. we will share those best practices with other local authorities who participate. >> you speak about extremism. >> all forms of violent extremism would be discussed in

the context of the summit. what we see from the violent extremism in which individuals invoke the name of islam in an otherwise peaceful religion as they carry out these attacks would certainly be, obviously, a priority in the discussion. >> why wouldn't you use that, right there? you said, all forms of violent extremism. >> all forms of violent extremism would be discussed in the most potent and, certainly the most graphic we have seen in recent days, is motivated by individuals who carry out these attacks. we have a strategy we have been discussing for some time. >> why isn't this summit on

countering islamic extremism? >> it is not just islamic violent extremism that we want to counter. >> australia canada. isn't that violent extremism? >> individuals have citing islamic -- individuals have cited it. >> you said you should have sent someone higher than the ambassador. >> correct. >> why didn't you? >> i tried to describe to you exactly the situation here. we are talking about a march that came together in 36 hours and a march that occurred outdoors with a very large number of people who participated. we are mindful, anytime the

president goes to a public place, or the vice president that we don't want -- we want to try to mitigate the impact the security precautions would have on those attending the public event. had the president or vice president in this short time frame gone to participate in this event that took place outdoors with more than one million people in attendance that would have significantly impacted the ability of those attending the march to participate in the way they did yesterday. >> of course, security is important. you don't want to distract. how do you explain that netanyahu attended? >> i would allow the israelis to discuss the security measures. >> they are very important. they are not america. >> you should talk to them about the security precautions they have in place. you have been to enough events where the president has been at a conference or summit with other world leaders and i think

you have seen firsthand that the security precautions in place for the president of the united states are sometimes more onerous than the precautions put in place for other world leaders. >> there are dozens of leaders. american security might be more. it comes up with short notice. how did that come together? >> president mandela there have been discussions ongoing for a number of years about the assembling that would take place. there was a much clearer plan that could be followed for executing that in a short timeframe. there was nothing in place. no one anticipated the kind of attack we saw in paris and >> you said the president personally wishes -- he would have liked to have gone. what did the president do sunday?

>> i have not spoken to the president about what he did yesterday. >> what was the president doing? >> i am not prepared for that question today. >> eric holder was in paris. his office put out a statement that he had important meetings. the counterterror meetings were very important. one would assume that the defense officials went to the rally. the attorney general said he had to get act to washington sunday afternoon. why couldn't the attorney general -- he was in that city. security was already in place. >> i am not aware of the details of the attorney general's schedule for yesterday. if you are asking whether or not somebody like the attorney general should have attended or should have been asked by the white house to attend, what i'm telling you, yes, we believe someone with a higher profile should have been asked to attend. >> there was a rally to the french embassy.

he signed a condolence book. i understand the president is not going to marching through the streets of d.c. the vice president, the cabinet secretary, how come you didn't have someone in d.c. at the rally? >> there were a number of officials who did participate in that rally. a lot of them were in the march and a lot of them participated, and would have done so even if they were not members of the at and missed ration -- the administration. there is no doubt about standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies in france as they continue to fight for the values we hold so dear. justin? >> i want to talk about -- anti-extremism summit.

it was supposed to be in october and it seems it was delayed a couple times. can you talk about why that was delayed? >> there are -- there had been a number of discussions about how exactly -- about how this would come together, and trying to schedule among state and local leaders, leaders in the private sector, community leaders from other places across the country. it is difficult. what i am saying is this is something we have been focused on for quite sometime. this notion of countering violent extremism has been a focal point of our counterterrorism strategy for a long time, dating back to february of 2010 when current cia director john brennan gave a speech at nyu. they discussed the need to counter efforts to recruit

people in the name of violent extremism, and the need to work closely with local law enforcement and with community leaders to try to counter that message. >> incidental? was paris an image is that enabled you to bring people in for this meeting next month -- an impetus that enabled you to bring people in for this meeting next month? >> the attacks from last week are a reminder of how important it is. this summit, as i described earlier, will be an opportunity for us to talk about some of the strategies that we have in place to mitigate the messages that are emanating in social media to try to recruit people in the name of violent extremism. we look forward to the opportunity to hear from leaders

about how they have worked together, in a way, to mitigate those messages and to counter them. it should be an opportunity for those best practices to be shared with local officials from all around the country that would participate. >> [inaudible] they will announce legislation to encourage collaboration between companies and the government on cyber security practices. it sounds a lot like the legislation that has been languishing on capitol hill a couple years. you have had concerns about that before. has that changed? will we hear a different version tomorrow? >> we will save tomorrow's news for tomorrow. we have been disappointed congress has not fulfilled the responsibility they have deal with this critically important issue. that is why you heard the president talk a little bit today about the legislative proposals he will hold up in the name of strengthening consumer

protections and making sure consumers and students get the kind of protection they deserve when it comes to their privacy. we would hope that would not be something that would get bogged down in partisan debate. this is something we should all be able to agree on. we will see. the same description could apply to this kind of cyber security legislation the president will be talking about tomorrow. we will have more on that for you. >> the president has gone kind of absence on the cyber security measures. i asked you a couple weeks ago if you were people -- if you were bringing people into briefings. one of the proposals is a rehash of the 2011 proposal. 30 days instead of 60 days to trigger -- what would you do differently this time?

>> i do think that in the aftermath of some of the more recent cyberattacks that we have seen that have been carried out against a number of private companies, including sony, hopefully they have the attention of people on capitol hill. they need to fulfill their responsibilities to make progress on this issue. the proposal we have sent up, or was sent up, is one that does have the strong support of consumer groups. they recognize how important it is for companies to fulfill their obligation to communicate clearly with customers to make sure customers can take appropriate steps to protect their privacy and protect against identity theft. at the same time, this is also welcome news to industry. this clarity associated with one specific national standard would make it clear to them the

obligations they need to fulfill for their customers. now, there is a hodgepodge of requirements that vary by state. by putting in place a tough national standard, it will add clarity to businesses and make them more effective in their response, more effective in communicating with their customers, in a timeline that is appropriate to keep their privacy safe. john? >> will the united states take part in retaliation once it is established who was responsible? aqap. isis proves to have been behind it, will there be a response from the united states? >> that is -- a possible response is not something i am in a position to talk about at this point. the two you cite are under intense pressure from the united

states and our allies already. i would anticipate that pressure will continue. that would have been the case even if we had not seen these terrible terror attacks carried out last week. we are going to work closely with the french as they investigate exactly what happened. i know there is some information about two of the individuals that the united states has been aware of and shared with our french counterparts, including some information about their travel history. at this point i am not in a position to speculate about what sort of response the french may decide is appropriate, and what role the united states would play in that response. >> we obviously had this terrible attack in paris last week about what has happened with bo boko haram in nigeria. they have taken over in military base.

obviously, we have the ongoing efforts in syria and in iraq. it looks a lot messier out there than it did when the president was talking just a euro below -- just a year ago. give me a status report on the war on terror. >> there are experts who are better position to do that then i -- than i, but let me take a run at this. our counterterrorism officials said that the biggest challenge one of the most difficult things to detect and disrupt, are attacks that are carried out by loan offenders -- lone offenders or foreign fighters. there is a wide range of steps we can take. i spoke about some of them earlier in terms of trying to counter the extremist ideology

propagated on social media. there are steps this administration takes with people who have traveled to places like syria. they might have sought training with militants in that region of the world. the president, as you recall, last fall, convened a united nation security council meeting where he discussed with other world leaders the need to coordinate activities as we counter the threat from foreign fighters. these are individuals with western passports who traveled to syria or iraq. they do post a threat when they return from that region that they could carry out violence. that is something we are very aware of and it requires a high level of coordination to monitor these individuals. we are going to continue to be engaged in a very high level of coordination with the french, not just as they investigate this attack, but also as we assess the threat from other individuals and other entities

that might be operating and might aspire to carry out acts of violence against westerners or against american interests. >> when you look at developments over the past year -- and to the house now. they will be in for a short week considering suicide prevention programs. also another measure that prevents -- ayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. dear god we give you thanks for giving us another day. as a parent encourages a child or mentor calls forth the hidden potential of an intern lord, our god may you bless all who work as the 114th congress, especially new