>> to be an american, first of all, to be a citizen of the united states is also an honor. it's a great responsibility because of the freedoms that we have to protect them, to make sure that we do all that we can. it's interesting because when 9/11 happened that was my first term as mayor and when we got together our emergency task team to work with that we felt a very keen responsibility to make sure that we did everything we could to protect the citizens and also the citizens of the state of wyoming. it's just an honor and a privilege. >> voices from the road on c-span. >> john conger is the director for the center of climate and security to talk about the national security impacts of climate change. first, what is your group? >> so, my group is the center for climate and security a small

think tank, trying to get people to take commensurate action in order to address those impacts. >> you worked at the pentagon. >> for several years. >> and you've worked on this issue. explain what you were doing then. >> sure. when i worked in the pentagon i had oversight over all of installations and environment and energy policy and so as part of my duties there and sort of overseeing all of the dod bases the climate change issues were one we had to deal with so i had responsibility within that context. >> what were you doing? >> so we did some planning. we did strategy in the context of climate change. we started pulling together guidance on how one would deal with it at the base level, how you deal with flooding, how you deal with natural resources, that sort of thing. >> so what do you think, given your experience, is the most pressing issue of climate change for national security? >> so i think that if i had to put it into a couple categories,

there are the implications of climate change for how the dod does its job today, what are the flooding issues that have operational impacts, what are the extreme weather impacts? right now i think the largest impact we've seen from climate change are when you get stronger hurricanes or wetter hurricanes or abnormal weather in such a way that it gdebilitates a base and completely takes it offline for a number of days. that has serious readiness and cost implications. >> give us an example. >> last fall hurricane michael struck the airforce base in the panhandle of florida. this was an incredibly strong hurricane and it essentially flattened the base. that's probably an over statement but they're coming back online now but it did over $3 billion worth of damage. the base was taken off line. they flew out as many aircraft as they could in advance of the storm but, still, there were some that weren't in condition to fly and those were damaged at

the base. the point is that that kind of a storm, when we see more and more of these storms with more and more impacts, that has implications. there was that example, camp lejeune in north carolina took the image from hurricane florence. that was another three plus billion dollars worth of damage. record floods of the missouri river inundated the airforce base just recently and that did another billion plus dollars worth of damage. >> how long did it take for these bases to get back up and running? >> it's hard to say that they're even all completely up and running. i think the airforce base is mostly back. tindale airforce base they said most missions are back except the primary aircraft mission. the f-22s aren't all returned. i think camp lejeune took $3.5 billion of damage but is a much larger base so they have operations that were going on already. they're going to need that money.

the marine corps is a smaller service and the financial hit is bigger for them proportionately. >> we want our viewers involved in this conversation, republicans 202-748-8001. also, a special line this morning for active military. want to hear from you. 202-748-8003. mr. conger, what about the larger impact of climate change causing conflict and strife around the world? what does -- what are the national security implications of that? >> so if you take a step back, i normally think of it in a few different categories. you've got the sort of how it impacts today's job, what kind of new jobs you'll have in the future, and we can talk about that in a little bit. that is an arc ik issue. then there is the whole sort of geo political situation. as you have climate stressors around the world, for example shortages of water, shortages of

food, sea level rise pushing people away from where they used to live, all of those impacts create stress on a country. if you have a country that has limited governance capacity they have either a government that's less competent, less able to deal with these kinds of problems, you get instability. and that can sometimes lead the conflict. >> how has the trump administration treated this issue of climate change and the impact on the military? >> it is really interesting. the current administration gets a bad rap a lot of the time for how it deals with climate change but i will say that the military has continued to look at this problem and take it seriously. i think that's because the military looks at climate change as a mission impact. their first josh and primary job is going to be accomplishment of their mission, their national defense mission, and whatever piece of the puzzle we're talking about, whether operations on a base or planning

for a conflict around the world, they are going to look at it all in the context of mission. so they've continued to do that. i think you'll see that the military looks at it as a resilience issue. how do i deal with this problem when it happens rather than how do you stop it? and so that's a mindset that is i would say the administration is more comfortable with and so that the military continues to do what it needed to do. >> let's go to david, pasadena, maryland, a republican. hi, david. >> caller: good morning. thank you for having me on. >> good morning. >> caller: mr. conger you're probably familiar with ipcc and they're the experts supposedly on global warming. we're told the settled science is that this is man made global warming and it's man made production of carbon monoxide that is causing all of this. well, i have in front of me a chart from the ipcc. it's the hadcrut data set.

instead of global warming it confirms global cooling for the past 17 years. but the interesting thing that brings a whole question about the so-called settled science is this global cooling is going on at the same time of an increase in co2 so we're told the settled science says the increase in global warming and co2 go hand in hand but the evidence from the experts say no it's the other way around. we have global cooling going on. right now in this 17-year period of time while we have an increase in co2. so we're told we have to make massive changes in our lifestyle, whether we drive cars, where we live. all these things have to change and yet the so-called settled science disagrees with what the evidence is being purported here. >> so i love that you have gone into the ipcc report and dug out charts. i think that they'll be glad to hear somebody is reading their

data. but i don't know that it's helpful for nonscientists to talk to nonscientists and hope to come to some sort of scientific revelation. the national climate assessment put together by the federal government, released by this administration and its scientists, have basically said that, yes. in fact it is settled that the preponderance of the evidence shows that, yes, there is more carbon in the atmosphere. yes, it is caused by humans and, yes, it is causing global warming and a whole range of different impacts. it's a complex system. right? the world is not just about one temperature gauge. there are sea levels rising. you can see the arctic ice is melting. there's a whole host of implications. talking about the science and how you're going to change your life and your carbon emissions is not really what the military is dealing with. the military is dealing with how they see things happening today at their bases. you go to norfolk naval base and they look at the sea level

rising. they are concerned about the impact of extreme weather. they're looking at how to deal with today's problem not necessarily some projection into the future. the navy is looking at how do they change their operations and plan for an arctic with no ice as the ice is receding even now? and russia and china are moving forces north. china has more ice breakers than we do. and so they are looking at these geo political implications that they see today. this isn't a science debate anymore. it's a real world debate. >> alex in brooklyn, new york, question or comment? >> caller: hi. just a comment. it seems like, well first of all obviously climate change is one of the greatest threats to our future and national security. i feel like it seems like more work and effort has to be done to find a persuasive message that approaches climate change from a national security and free market perspective. it seems like that might unify more of the nation around the

science which obviously is complex. but undoubtedly points to grave costs and security concerns to the country. >> so we certainly see the costs coming forward and the implications. i talked about the impacts of extreme weather and we're seeing more and more billion dollar weather events, billion dollar cost weather events. and the dod is seeing those, too. so it is starting to think about how do i make my bases more resilient to these impacts? and as the sea level rises it takes less and less of a storm to have that kind of a financial impact to their bases and an operational impact to their bases. and so they -- i don't know that the military needs to be convinced anymore. they are continuing -- their budget reflects this. their policies and their guidance reflects this already. and they've just taken this into account as they move forward.

>> john, tysons corner, a democrat. >> caller: yes, good morning. >> good morning. >> caller: this is all a hoax. i work for the department of defense. i have been for 20 years now. i was at the pentagon. i was in virginia. i was at various installations all over the country. bad weather is going to happen in the florida panhandle and on the east coast and north carolina periodically. it's just going to happen. it's been that way for centuries. it's not going to stop because we're using electric cars. i mean, the whole thing is just a mess. >> let's get a reaction to that. john conger. >> so i work at the pentagon, too. >> what years did you work at the pentagon? >> i worked at the pentagon 2009 to 2017 and in the '90s as well. i understand your perspective.

yeah, there is bad weather. what we're seeing though is an increased precedence of larger impact storms, larger dollars storms. and what we're also noting is that with warmer waters you get either more energy in the storm, which can be a higher wind or more water. and when you have record storms over and over and over again you start to wonder if there is something different going on. that's fine. i don't think it takes a science degree to see that the arctic ice is melting and that there's more trade going through the arctic along the russian north coast. the russians are certainly reacting to that. the chinese are certainly reacting to that. we have to be prepared to deal with that, too. the navy in norfolk is seeing that the sea level is rising and that they have to do something about it. they are raising their piers because they're having impacts. this year's budget alone they're asking for a $49 million project to raise flood walls around

their dry docks. why? they are concerned that when they cut open a ship like a submarine to do maintenance and it's open to the air and the sea. if they get a big storm that oefrms their current flood walls that is going to do damage to a multi billion dollar piece of equipment and so they are expecting that to happen and they're planning for it and looking to protect themselves. this is about resilience and not about electric cars or your emissions or anything like that. this is about how do you deal with the impacts that are happening today and how are they going to be able to be resilience -- resilient to the impacts in the near term. >> john is active. are you active or retired? >> caller: active soon to be retired. >> okay. what are your thoughts? >> caller: well, you do not have to believe in the science at all but the laws of science are going to dictate what happens. whether the people believe the

sea levels are rising, they'll rise. they'll flood places. people will die. enough people die in the world over time the carbon emissions will be lowered. it'll fix itself. it'll come to homeostasis. so regardless of whether you believe it or not it's going to happen. >> i think that's fair enough. what we see is dod is trying to start to prepare for this sort of thing. whether it involves getting their bases ready to deal with flooding or more extreme weather events, if it means they're making investments in the right places. i'll give you an example. the strategic command headquarters just flooded, had lots and lots of buildings damaged, over a billion dollars worth of damage, but they built their new billion dollar strategic command headquarters up on a hill. and so it didn't take the same

damage as the rest of the base. that's just smart planning. you know, some of this is how do you not -- how do you take the money you're already going to spend and spend it in such a way that you don't lose your investment? >> bob in bethlehem, pennsylvania, democrat. >> caller: good morning, john. i have a question. i'm a nurse and when i studied the body, the body produces co2, sends it to the lungs, and the lungs transform it into oxygen. okay? now, how do the lungs take co2 and transform that into oxygen? is there something we can learn in cutting down pollution by studying the lungs? thank you for taking the call. >> any thoughts on that? >> well, thanks for the

question, i mean, innovation and science is clearly part of the formula that we're going to be dealing with here as we go forward. i'm talking about mostly problems the military sees today but obviously if you are going to stop the pattern from happening you're going to think about how do i have cleaner emissions, you're going to have to innovate out of this problem. the projections and the path we're on is relatively unsustainable when you think about what the results are going to be in the long run. >> i want to show our viewers and get your reaction to senator elizabeth warren at a recent senate armed services committee hearing questioning out going air force secretary heather wilson about how prepared that branch is for climate change. >> and how would you rank air force installations as a whole in terms of their climate resilience? >> senator, it probably varies a lot. i couldn't give you a red,

yellow, or green chart on that at this point but i know that overall we've got significant infrastructure challenges. but from a number of factors. >> well, i see that the air force is requesting nearly $5 billion in emergency funds to rebuild airforce bases in florida and nebraska, alone, that were damaged by natural disasters. so i think it's very important that the air force and the other military services continue to incorporate climate change in their planning so that when disaster strikes the impact on the operations is minimal. this, clearly, is a readiness issue. thank you for your work on this. >> john conger? >> i think that's absolutely right. secretary wilson characterized it correctly. they want to be resilient. the air force fights from their bases. how do you make sure the impacts are minimized? the air force has a very smart strategy when a hurricane is coming. they fly their planes out.

unfortunately, during the recent events at tindale airforce base when the hurricane struck they could only fly 60% of the f-22s in condition to fly so they had to store the other 40% in hangers and most were damaged. so that is a challenge they're going to run into and think about how they can for future events minimize the damage to expensive assets and infrastructure. >> there is bipartisan legislation to deal with protecting military bases. it's the readiness act. what will this legislation do? >> so the readiness act was recently introduced. it would tell the military base by base to assess their vulnerability to climate change and come up with ways to mitigate that vulnerability holistically. but every base is different. there is not one problem and one answer. every base has a different

elevation, different vulnerability to flooding, different proximity to the coast or rivers. different issues with drought or proximity to wildfire threats. then they have to figure out what do we have to do? the example with the navy at the norfolk ship yard is an example. when they are right now asking for money to lift their flood walls up, that is a local project based on a local risk and vulnerability. you'll have projects like that at various bases and the goal is going to be to make the military more resilient and protected from these impacts. >> remind viewers what the trump administration's presidential committee on climate security is doing. >> so that committee doesn't exist yet. it was a proposal inside the national security council. they wanted to take an adversarial review of dod and intelligence community assessments of the implications of climate change.

"the washington post" reported that there was some pushback on that. now they're talking about assessing the national climate assessments. we've got concerns about political drivers toward undermining the science that dod is using to make their assessments. in general, if you want to change where the peer review science is you should do more peer reviewed science and add it to the body of knowledge. i think that's helpful, but i don't know that this committee is going to accomplish that. >> kevin, upper marlboro, maryland, independent. >> caller: yes, this is kevin. so as i -- my statement is just basically in support and saying, yeah. climate change is a serious issue for not only the military but the general population as well. i view it as an issue that should have top priority in political circles. just going back to the gentleman

that called a few calls ago saying he worked for dod and the pentagon, i worked for dod and the pentagon as well. for him to say that it's a hoax or anything like that, we can all have our political views, but there is a lot of science to back up the fact that the climate change is a real thing that really impacts the military and the military is taking it very seriously. whether or not our politicians are or the political discussion around it is very serious, our military happens to be taking it very seriously. so that was my statement. >> thanks. i would make a couple points on that context. one, think about it from the military perspective. if they had 97% of their intelligence analysts say there is a mine field in front of you and 3% said, no. that's a hoax. would you walk through the field? you know, you probably go around it. you'd prepare for that kind of a threat. right now we've got preponderance of the scientists

saying this is happening and it is something we have to get ready for and the military takes that seriously. i will sail this. that the politicians within this space have actually been pretty good. in the last congress when the republicans were in the majority, there were a whole host of climate resilience measures passed within the armed services space, within the national defense authorization act. and i think they did that in the context of trying to help out the military and protect the military from these threats going forward. >> john conger is the director of the center for climate and security. thank you very much for the conversation this morning. >> absolutely. my pleasure. >> in primetime tonight here on c-span 3 a discussion about the rise of domestic terrorism. tracking lone terrorists and balancing free speech with extremist views. that's at 8:00 eastern. then a new report intended to guide the usair and missile defense strategy through 2028. >> tonight on "the

communicators" -- >> it's amazing the push back by our closest ally is probably the uk but germany, other countries in europe and around the world that are basically saying, you have not given us evidence of cyber security wrongdoing. >> the chief security officer andy purdy on concern about u.s. efforts to convince other nations to not use his company's equipment over fears it'll be used to spy on americans. he is joined by drew fitzgerald, "the wall street journal" telecom and technology reporter. >> i was going to be able to be and have been able to be an advocate for a safer america in cyber space. i am basically saying, look. we need the best technology. we need to be able to compete. it is critically important we address the risk. we believe there are risk mitigation measures. i've never been told what to say or what i can't say and frankly when you look at the bigger picture, we don't speak through the china government and they don't speak through us. >> watch "the communicators" tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2.

the c-span bus is stopping at middle and high schools across the country to meet and award the students in our video cam competition. we met with the first prize high school west winners from william j. palmer high school. >> for us it didn't really take long in our research to find all of the disparities in voting rights especially with native americans living on reservations. that was kind of a shock to me considering that, you know, we've been co-existing for a very, very long time and they still struggle with voting rights. gerrymandering, too, seems like such an out dated thing but it still exists and is still a problem. so, yeah. those are some things we just wanted to focus on. >> to watch all the winning entries from this year's student cam contest go to studentcam.org.

>> medicare trust fund benefits will be fully funded through 2026, but the latest trust fund report predicts baby boomer retirements after that will deplete the reserves. the american enterprise institute hosted a discussion with the chief actuary for the centers for medicare and medicaid services who broke down the numbers. after his presentation a panel of retirement income and policy experts talk about medicare's future solvency. >> okay. good morning, everyone. i'm with the american enterprise