certainly one of the most dangerous time in his lifetime in terms of an era of threats and compared it perhaps to world war ii where you have some of the most evil manifestations of what humanity has seen. it is worth looking at. i think accelerating all of this is this connection of technology, whether it is social media. you start seeing just how effective social media has been for our at the series to radicalize and recruit individuals, just look in syria and iraq. you have a surge, 13,000 foreign fighters joining the ranks of jihadist organizations. these are not small numbers, but big numbers. obviously when you talk about foreign fighters, at least 3000 of which are westerners, that adds all whole new level of concern to our homeland and to

the changing threat environment. these individuals are familiar with the country, speak the language, know the culture, and know everything about us. at some point many of these people return. that is something perhaps we do not feel the full effect of what it means right now, but two or three years from now i think you will see it manifest in very new and dangerous sorts of ways. if you were to look at the threat environment right now and try to understand the terrorism environment, it does come in various shapes, sizes, and forms, ranging from al qaeda senior leadership is still in business. how effective are they? i think that is the wrong set of questions, because i think what you are starting to see is conflation is many of the organizations that are sort of going in an outsource model. an open source model whether

working with, between and among one another. you see a conflation of conflict zones. you cannot fully separate al qaeda in the arabian peninsula and yemen and al qaeda from what you see unfold in syria and iraq. more individuals are being challenged by the adversary who can be turned around and sent back home, back to their homelands. sent back because of their recognition of the region. we did a major study in 2007, i want to say. looking at the foreign fighter trends and trajectories. at that time we started looking at a largely because of one particular case. does anyone remember that case? this was a naturalized american who went to afghanistan. his intent was to fight alongside the taliban.

he was intercepted by al qaeda, turned around, and said you are a much greater value to target the united states. he was behind the plot, a very sinister plot, to basically -- suicide, homicide bombings on the new york subway. this is the time i think our country was blinking really red. unfortunately he got further along than any of us would feel comfortable with. in part because we did not have the synchronization and innovation we strive toward for law enforcement and what have you. the plot materialized in denver, new york, had an overseas component. so we went out and started doing some analysis on this. the simple takeaway was foreign

fighters are nothing new. if you go back to afghanistan, the first fight against the soviets, you will see a number of westerners fighting alongside their erstwhile threats in the region as well. the difference is the numbers are falling in terms of scale. the demographic is changing, and many of them are coming back to the west. when you look at even the al qaeda threat, i think everyone would have liked to have said ding, ong, the witch is dead. let's worry about all of the challenges facing the economic situation and everything else we all struggle with on a daily basis. the reality is the threat was not that. part of that is getting to the recognition and understanding that it is not about networks or organizations alone, but the ideology.

to paraphrase, clinton said it it is the economy, stupid, but in this case the ideology, stupid. it is fueling the organizations and is quicker and faster and resonates with the percentage of people around the world that i think should warrant a lot of concern. so we need to continue to push the envelope militarily and tactically, but also recognize until we address the underpinnings of the threat, we will have tactics masquerading as strategies, so we will have to get to the point collectively to be able to undermine, expose the hypocrisy of the narrative, and quite bluntly, attacking it. then when you start looking into africa, why africa and the

tribal areas and afghanistan and pakistan? why the sahel and magreb? these are undercovered spaces, vacuums that are being filled by -- they have the time and ability to maneuver and plan attacks. i think one of the challenging issues we have all tried to address in recent years is take drones. at the end of the day, i would rather our enemies look over their shoulders then giving them more time to plot or recruit and engage in terrorist activity. is it a panacea? absolutely not. is it an important instrument? yes, it is. but it has to be combined with other instruments that quite honestly we're not that comfortable as a country or a world addressing. i think that is something we

need to worry about. isis. if you look at the tragic news in terms of the beheading of an american, this is part of their narrative. their narrative is to demonstrate we are vulnerable, we should be afraid, and they will continue to engage in this activity. i would advise no one to watch that video because in a way we are giving them the oxygen they look for, that they seek to be able to fulfill those objectives. that said, we cannot aid nor these particular issues. i hate to say it, but i think you will see more incidents along these lines. it is very reflective in recent

history of what zarkarwi was doing. he was terrorist number one in iraq, and he actually crossed the line someone say by bombing a jordanian wedding where he killed a number of wedding go ers and family members. what you ended up seeing was basically a pushback that he crossed the line and was behind a lot of beheadings and gruesome video and ultimately did not resonate and sell in the way he was looking for. it did for small percentage, but not all. was basically sending notes to him suggesting that this is to buy links, we will never be able to win the so-called hearts and minds that they were trying to in their obscure in twisted little way trying to do. i am not sure it has staying power, but i think it is almost irrelevant.

they are basically looking for small numbers to engage in activity very quickly. if you are to believed what you see out of recent reporting out of the u.k., you have 500 brits fighting alongside isis in iraq and syria. you have 900 french, according to security services. you have up to approximately 100 americans fighting alongside the individuals. these arm not small numbers. terrorism is by definition a small numbers business. you cannot afford small numbers of incidents because it has catastrophic potential impact. i think that is something we need to be thinking about, especially in terms of threats to the homeland.

if you look at isis, it's arguably the most well-funded terrorist organization in history. they rob banks, oil fields, someone is buying this. i hope that is where we start squeezing some of that. i have they have a sense of momentum and safe haven. at some point they will turn the canons away in terms of the threat here, looking here, unless we can ramp up our activity. that is why i support airstrikes right now, because i do not see better alternatives. so the most frightening thing for me was i do think there was a time where threat level had dropped. i think we got lulled into a false sense of complacency. i think now if you were to look at the threat level, in many ways it does mirror the pre-9-11 environment.

there are many things to bear in terms of intent and numbers. in terms of the actual counterterrorism tools we need to bring to bear, to me it is about addressing narratives. there are some great programs people are not aware of at the state department and some of the other entities that are forward leaning, in terms of humor. in terms of other safe havens, mali is one of concern. i think the french deserve credit in terms of terrorism,

food, yes, and wine, maybe. they were able to preemptively get in front of what was going to be a much greater threat in terms of immediacy but that, too, does not last forever. the question is how do we start addressing these issues? nigeria and boca haram. you want to turn off the tv. you want to stop reading your twitter feeds, stop reading the newspapers because it really is a gruesome organization. you got people being killed on a regular basis. you are seeing swaths of girls and now boys being kidnapped for

what? for trying to be human, studying, trying to be part of society. i am not sure how we best get our arms around that but we need to build up capacity because we cannot do it all. i would argue boots on the ground would be the last option of any of these places. this plays to the enemies narrative and quite honestly as much as we can deal with counterterrorism, we will never kill and capture of her way to victory alone. al-shabbab in somalia, good news there, but i think some of that is already beginning to fade. here you also have a very vicious terrorist organization that can easily make inroads. from a u.s. perspective, it's perhaps a community least

integrated into the united states. so many found their way to yemen. we are not out of the woods there yet either. aqap is still -- they have had the u.s. in its crosshairs for a very long time. up until what we saw unfold in iraq it would've been a very dangerous situation. so i hate to say it, but we have got a lot to worry about overseas. then what you see is what is old is new in new is old. russia -- it's back. dust off all your cold war papers. hate to say it, but we need to start thinking about what all of that means and their use of proxies.

if you start seeing in the 1980's when i first started working these counterterrorism issues in the 1990's, we were worried about state-sponsored terrorism. it's back, whether it is iran in terms, of russia providing near or plausible deniability using their proxies, which is not new. that is how they attacked estonia, and now starting to see it through physical means. why russia is perhaps greater concern is they have nukes, a lot of them. those can be a game-changer types of incidents. we have to be careful how we address the issues, because as brutal and gruesome as terrorism is, when you are

dealing with a nuclear threat, that can be a game changer quickly. obviously you have biodefense issues. if you look at it from an instrumentality perspective, the area we have done the least amount of work, whether it is foreign terrorists or even nation states engaging in biowarfare and appointment. these are the things that can be game changers, tipping points. you need to be cognizant of them. then of course we still have a homegrown threat. this comes in various stripes and forms. i think that here we are going to be so focused on many of these folks traveling overseas that you will have some that don't travel overseas and will

stay off the radar seem that can be significant and real threats. the long-winded way of saying weu ain't out of the woods, but i do think there is some potential for optimism here. a lot of this coming at a time when i think americans' trust in the government is at an all-time lows. i think we have to figure out how we can engage in the use and maintain the right balance because we do not ever want to tip it too far in one direction, but at the same time need to acknowledge and not simply wish threats away. in terms of cyber, which is gobbling up most of my time these days, i think we are at a very early stage in recognizing some of the threat and what it means. we are not going to defeat cyber. we're going to have to get to the point where we understand how our adversaries use cyber to

achieve objectives, whether it is what we see on the counter radicalization side or whether it is more computer network exploit or computer network attack, i.e. using cyber as a weapon to be able to attack our systems. but when i see and read the media here, i am less depressed because i did not think they understand it yet. right now i call it kids' soccer everyone chasing the shiny toy or ball. if you were to read the newspaper, you could not delineate the term web pack and more sophisticated computer networking attack. so i think we have to get to the point where we can get more clarity in terms of what we mean with respect to cyber. you cannot mirror image our adversaries. if you were to look at the very top it would be russians,

chinas, united states, some of our allies. but by and large, their intent, unless escalating in a military situation, is not to take down and attack systems unless they are threated. by and large it is exploit, which means they are in the business of stealing secrets. those are jobs. innovation, that is what keeps america going forward and vulnerable and susceptible which means it is being stolen at huge amounts like that. if you are in the chinese minds, what would deter you from not spending best? that is basically the way

they're looking at it. all this moral equivalency discussion the post equivalent discussion. of course we engage in intelligence collection but not engaging in that to support apple or ibm or ford or any american company. the difference is there you have national assets and resources being engaged and used to benefit companies. that is an unfair playing field and not the playing field anyone should want to play on because it gets to the very core of who we are as a society. who america is as a country. to me, that is a marketplace issue that needs to be addressed. i am somewhat optimistic we can get to some of those solutions. take russia and china, are they

engaging computer military attack for of these purposive? absolutely. i cannot separate what is physical and cyber anymore. they're all on and the same. but who are the countries we need to be most worried about from a national security immediate perspective? that is iran, north korea. what they can't engage kinetically, they can try to engage through cyber means. quite honestly they are. they are attempting. doing the equivalent of intelligence perforation on the battlefield. even a company like citigroup or bank of america or goldman sachs, they were not built to defend against nation states or national capabilities, but that is the battlefield we are in today. you cannot separate what is in the government and private sector. if i were to tell you who is

most concerned from an attack standpoint, probably the government of iran, through proxy or some of these other proxies they are using. the russians are doing this every day. it does provide plausible deniability because smoking keyboards are hard to find. i do not know who is behind the clickety clack of the keyboard. we are getting better at attribution. finally you are starting to see criminal enterprises, criminal enterprises that used to be in the hands of government alone. these are largely russian-speaking, eurasian criminal enterprises. just look at the target tax. that is what you are seeing and reading. if you think that is the only thing going on right now -- i am glad it opens up people's eyes,

puts some ownership in executives to address the issue, but they are the ones who got caught. if you think they are alone, think again. the reality is those who have been hacked, those to be hacked and those who have not are not aware they have been hacked. so to me, when you start to look at some of the corporate priorities and some of the business challenges and executives, cyber is at the top of the list going forward. looking at it from a national security standpoint, yes. you also need to be concerned about those that will engage in computer network attacks. the bottom line is we need more clarity and position when we talk about cyber. right now if you were to pick up the newspaper, you would not be able to do that. will there be cyber drive-by

shootings? yes, but not the same as a foreign nation engaging in an attack. will foreign terrorist organizations turn to cyber? they are trying. i am still more worried about kinetiv attacks because that fills recruiting and has visuals. are they going to engage in cyber? absolutely. if i were to have to take worst-case scenarios, it is the convergence of physical and cyber. it is a multiplier. that is what we need to worry about going forward. all that said and done -- it was yogi berra who said the future ain't what it used to be. my version is since the end of the cold war, threat forecasting has made astrology look respectable. i do not have a crystal ball. the best way to predict anything

is to shape it. i feel like we are in react mode. we are tired, we are reacting to crises everywhere. we need to be in the business of shaping the environment. yes, i am a proud american to our national interests, and then do so in a way that is collectively beneficial for society. i will leave it at that. i want to engage in any sorts of questions. thank you. [applause] we have any questions? >> when you were talking about france having citizens and great britain along with us fighting and isis, i would like your opinion on can we account on western allies at all? my big concern is the land grab going

on because now there is a home base. >> a great question. i will tell you when it comes to the community there is no sunlight. yes, we can count on them. the capacity and capability is another question. i do think they have a lot of capability and they are one of our closest allies, and if they have something, they will provide it. quite honestly the brits are probably upset because it has stymied some of their capabilities. in terms of the french, that is complex. as happy as i was in terms of what we saw in mali, and by the way, this went against all indigenous polls.

there was less than 20% support at the time of french engagement. it went against the polls of their own country. that said, still selling stuff for the russians. is that state-sponsored terrorism? i don't know. but i am not very happy with what we're seeing. who is buying this oil? that is the sorts of questions we need to ask because once you dry up the funding well, obviously you minimize their ability to project power and deploy forces in the same way we are seeing right now. so when you start looking at allies on counterterrorism issues, i think u.s.-france has been a strong partnership. perfect, no, but the politics

does not affect it. does not affect the relationships on the ground where it matters. we both have great interest to address these issues. it was also the frenchman that came back and shoot up a jews community. that was the first indicator you have foreign fighters engaging in terrorist acts. i am concerned when you look at the number brits fighting overseas. even before isis you saw a number of brits in southeast asia joining up with al qaeda and the arabian peninsula, which confused me. the way the brits security folks would explain it was they knew authorities were on to them if they kept traveling to pakistan. they go there, come back, and have the same street cred. we have to make this stuff not cool. it is gruesome and awful and

people die. so bottom line is that with the brits, i have every bit of confidence what they can do. other than russia, i would like to see them stronger with the russian investment in their own country. in terms of counterterrorism, i am optimistic our relationship with france is strong. the belgians, per capita, more belgians fighting right now in the region than any other country, western country. are the belgians a friend? absolutely, but do they have the capacity to get their arms around this? let's be serious, us. do we know everyone who has gone overseas? did we know the numbers until we started seeing some of them on

the battlefields? probably not. >> thank you. >> thanks, frank, for an excellent presentation. basically two questions. the first has to do with the efficacy of counterterrorism measures, whether it's squeezing the rich donors in the gulf states for financing terrorism, allegedly, again and the preeminence and lack of adequate measures against that. that's one question. what's your thought on the efficacy, both in terms of the effect of the recommendation and the impact of measures. secondly, a withdrawal from afghanistan, what kind of threats do you see both to south asia, our allies as well as the homeland? thanks. >> those are great questions and i apologize i didn't bring up afghanistan. let's not make the same mistakes we're seeing right now in iraq

in afghanistan. that's a longer set of questions and i'm not making a political decision on whether or not we should have huge boots on ground, but there are measures short of that that can be taken, must be taken and we can't take our eye off that ball because that vacuum can be filled really fast. by the way, i also neglected to discuss, when i mentioned the fatah region. a number of organizations, these are the bad of the bad and if there's one sense of optimism it's that they are looking a little bit over their shoulder. if they stop looking over their shoulder, they're going to be using that time unfortunately not to our best interests. in terms of -- and your first question was on the financial side. you know this better than i do because i think you teach a course looking at some of the

finance-related -- terror finance-related issues. but it's not just countries, it is individuals, and when we can get the precision to be able to address those measures, they are effective. you do have individuals that are fueling some of this and some of this in so-called ally countries so i am concerned about some of that. but in the isis situation, they don't need that. that's what makes it that much for frightening. they don't have to appeal to anyone because they rob the banks. they've got the oil. that's very different than what we've seen in the recent past. in the past decade of so-called long war. very wealthy a open ability to maneuver in

daylight organization. you have that there. it's well-financed on their own, it's well-armed. they took the knowledge and weaponry. it's heavily arm and would unfortunately they have a whole lot of training experience based on their activity so they're hardened and their adaptive. we tend to think that they don't learn. the reality is is they do learn and they become more resilient and adaptive based on recent history so that's something we need to always try to stay ahead of the curve. >> thanks a lot. >> thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- >> tonight, opposing views on the issue of climate change. questions behind the science of

climate change. then former e.p.a. administrators who served republican presidents call for action. here's a portion of remarks from both. >> even the ipcc does not subscribe to the belief that extreme weather events are tied to global warming whether it's human caused or not. they say there is no evidence of an increase in extreme weather events related to the warming at has occurred and yet phil mcgibbon, y'all gore, a whole bunch of them perpetuate the extreme weather events is because of us. this is why we'll never able to predict the future of the climate other than about three days out, as john coleman, who's coming up soon will probably tell you he knows. it's because of clouds.

water, the most important green house gas, the only one that forms in both phases of the at fierce and the lick use and aseous phase behave in a completely different way with regard to solar energy. clouds can reflect the sun back, hold the heat in and what computer model can predict the pattern of clouds in the world? it's impossible. that is why we will never be able to predict the future of climate and clouds are the wild card and many believe -- believe that as the earth warms and more water evaporates off the sea it will be cloudier and wetter and that will reflect more sunlight back. in other words, a negative effect against the co 2 and that is just as plausible a high poth

thinks as the fry in hell hypothesis. >> no legitimate debate over the fact of the earth's warming or man's contribution. the models of the world's leading scientists predict rising seas, drought, floods, wildfires and more severe and frequent storms. we are seeing impacts already. since the ocean absorbs 25% to 30% of the carbon from stationary or mobile sources, we thought the ocean was our friend. it was, keeping significant amounts of carbon from the atmosphere, but our friend is paying a penalty. the carbon from the burning of fossil fuels is causing the acidity of the ocean to rise and is already threatening shellfish, coral reliefs and other ocean species. the culprit is carbon that originated from fossil fuels. >> opposing views on the issue

of climate change tonight at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. >> here are some of the highlights for this weekend. friday on c-span in prime time, we'll visit importance science in the history of the civil rights movement. saturday night rat 8:00, highlights from this year's new york kids forum and on sunday, q&a with new york congressman charlie wrangle at 8:00 p.m. eastern. iday night on c-span 2, in aslan.ith reza saturday, after words with ben arson and sunday, lawrence gibbons. riday on c-span 3, hollywood's

portrayal of slavery. saturday at 8:00, the niversary of the battle of bladensburg. find our television schedule one week in advance at c-span.org and let us know in advance about the programs you're watching. call us or email us. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. now the georgia chamber of commerce hosts a forum with u.s. senate candidates. democrat michelle nunn and republican david perdue. the seat is open following republican senator's saxby chambliss's requirement -- retirement announcement in january. this is just over 40 minutes. >> welcome to you all. thank you for being here. i'm john pruitt, retired newscaster for sw -- wsb and they pulled me out of retirement

and dusted me off in order to moderate a forum. we're sold out here and this will be twillsed live by m -- wmaz. perhaps some other outlet's. we will be seeing rebroadcasts of the forum on other media outlets around georgia. so it's going to receive wide composure because this is the first time -- exposure because this is the first time candidates michelle nunn and david perdue have been on the same stage. we would ask you to refrain from applause or audience reaction with the exception to when the candidates are introduced and at the conclusion of the forum. i want to tell you a few words about the format that was agreed to by both campaigns after some negotiation. each candidate will have an opening statement of five minutes. following the five-minute opening statement from michelle nunn and david perdue, we'll go into a series of questions that

will be posed by me. through prior agreement, those will cover four basic topic areas -- immigration, transportation, defense and health care. the candidates know the top i said. they do not know the questions, which will come from me. if there is a need for rebuttal, that will be at my discretion and i also have the ability to follow up. the candidates will have two minutes to answer each question posed to them. in -- following that there will be closing statements of two minutes apiece. so are we ready for the instructions? thaumple. -- thank you very much. i might need this. we will be seated at center stage and i'll be in the middle. the candidates will be at my right and left and as i move to the center stage, let me be sure

everything is working here with this mike. yes, it is. we'll be passing the mike. so we're set to go. please join me in welcoming the republican and democratic candidates for the u.s. senate seat from georgia, republican david perdue and democrat michelle nunn. [applause] lease be seated. welcome to you both. and we'll begin with a

five-minute opening statement. first opening statement comes from david perdue. >> well, good afternoon. it's nice to be here with the chamber. appreciate you guys hosting us today. i feel right at home today for two reasons. one, like you, i've spent the last 40 years working in the global economy, completing, providing products and services to customers. and in so doing, adding value to our economy and creating opportunities for people to provide for themselves and their families. the second reason, i am home. i was born down the street at macon hospital. i grew up in -- my mom and dad were schoolteachers. i grew up working on our family farms. my wife bonnie and i met in first grade and we've been married 42 years. we've been blessed with two sons and three grandsons.

one of my first paying jobs was in will robin in a program that taught preschoolers how to read. when you show a child a book for the first time and you teach him to read, that never leaves you and i've carried that with me all my life. like many of you, i worked my way through college and graduated from georgia tech working construction jobs and warehouse jobs but in this race i'm learning how to say "go, dogs." you tech guys, don't worry, i'm still there. i worked here after tech with a firm that worked with many companies and we spent the first half of our career here in georgia. after that my family and i took off, literally, climbing in the career that we had and rising to senior positions later in companies like reebok, sara lee and later being chairman and

c.e. oomplet of dollar general, where i oversaw the rapid expansion of that firm, adding thousands of jobs and creating thousands of new stores. i'd never been in politics before but i dot in this -- got in this because i felt like we had a full-blown crisis in our country and i felt i could add value. if you look at the debt we have today, $18 trillion almost. but that's not the worst of it. what we're not talking about is another $86 trillion coming at us in unfunded future liabilities. that's $1 million for every household in our country. it's the greatest threat to our national security and our very way of life. and that's not the end of it. even after putting $3.5 trillion into our economy, this economy is flat right now because of bad government policies. today we have fewer people working as a percentage of our

working force than we've had since jimmy carter was president. the majority of small businesses have either stopped hiring or have cut back hiring because of overregulation. you know, you have to look at the situation and try to figure how did we get in this mess? i think to answer that question, first you have to look at the makeup of the united states senate. today we only have about 10 people in the united states senate who have any business experience and even those people have been in elected office longer than they've been in business. and combine that with the gridlock, the self-imposed gridlock that we have up there and you end up with in failed administration creating devastating rules for you and me out here in the working world. but the gridlock up there is not necessary. on harry reid's desk today are over 300 bills that have been passed in the house.

some of these bills had 2/3 majorities. that means they were bipartisan bills but they're stuck in harry reid's office because of one reason. that allows this president to run our government with executive order and regulatory mandate. it's created a failed administration. any way, any measure. foreign policy, immigration, health care. education, the debt. the economy. but it doesn't have to be this way. we need to get back to the founding principles of our founders. conservative principles. economic opportunity. fiscal responsibility. limited government. individual liberties. if we do that, we win this race, we take back the senate from harry reid and we start getting results again in washington.

together, we can turn america back toward a position of strength and prosperity. thank you for having us, i look forward to our conversation. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> our next opening statement now from michelle nunn. >> thank you, john. thank you, david. it's good to be in this conversation with you and thanks to the chamber. you all have a tremendous turnout here and it's a testament to the great work that you're doing in the state and the leadership that you're showing on behalf of the business community. i see a lot of folks in this all of a sudden that i've worked with over the last number of decades. 26 years ago i gathered with a all group of people at man yul's tavern and we had our first public meeting there and we went from a few dozen people with a dream with mobilized volunteers to a network that included hundreds of thousands of people across the country, and eventually, seven years ago,

we merged with president george h.w. bush's points of light organization and together we created an overings ocean that last year mobilized 4 million volunteers. we used to send out a post card with five or six projects on it. deliver meals to home bound or tutor kids and no we now complete over 20,000 projects every single month. so i'm seeing what happens when we apply creativity and entrepreneurship and innovation to getting things done. i know what it means to take an organization from just a couple thousand dollars to a $30 bunt. i know what it means to try to make payroll with -- to try to cover your employees with health care. and i also know wait means to make hard choices but with the end in mind of sustaining a

lasting and stronger organization than the way you found it. perhaps the most important lesson i learn and carry with me and that i work side by side with volunteers to really find common ground, to collaborate, to problem solve with a focus on getting things done for people and putting aside differences. like you, i've sat through lots of business meetings and church meetings and p.t.a. meetings and people don't always get along and y'all know that. but they keep at it. they don't walk out, they don't shut down, they keep going and they solve real problems and that's what wee need more of in washington. i hear that from people all over the state. they tell me we need to invest in our infrastructure, we need to alleviate the regulatory burdens strangling small businesses. reform our tax code.

reduce our long-term debt. we need to work to do that in a bipartisan fashion and we also need to invest in our kids and in education. so we need to provide the certainty to folks like you to be able to invest. we need to break the gridlock in washington and that's what i've been talking about, about sending someone to washington who's focused on partnership and getting things done together. but that's not what i've heard from david over the course of the year during the campaign. in fact, within minutes of winning the election for the republican nomination, david said this election is about prosecuting the administration and the president. but i don't agree about that. i think this election is about the hopes, aspirations, dreams of georgians and fighting for georgians. david was asked recently if there was a democratic idea he could work on with the democrats and he failed to be able to

answer that. couldn't think of one. if you look at his issues, you have a support for the government shutdown, against common core, something that the chamber has worked hard around. you have a record that says i'm against the farm bill. that's what david said, the bipartisan farm bill, and you also have the refusal to work together around comprehensive immigration reform. so that sounds a lot like washington as usual to me and i know that we can do better in washington and i know that we must. i know that we must work together. you know, david's allies have been running a lot of tv ads. you've probably seen me standing with president obama. what's interesting about that picture is it was taken at president george h.w. bush's library and if you widen the lens, president george r. -- h.w. bush was there. so i have the experience of working together across the aisle, of getting things done,

even when there are differences of opinion and i think that's what wee need, people who are going to problem solve and not prosecute and i pledge to be a fierce advocate for georgia's citizens' rights. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> since this is an opening statement, i'm not going to have rebuttal. there will be a closing statements and programs you could work in some responses during the course of the q&a. if a candidate is mentioned by the other candidate, there is a chance to respond but the opening statement is a little sack santhe but let's move into questions. the first question is on health care, which, of course, means the affordable care act. mr. perdue, you favor repealing obamacare. but . nunn, you favor it seem to have some reservations.

can you tell us what is it about the affordable care act that seems to prevent you from fully embracing it. what changes would you make if you should go to washington? >> i think we need to fix some of the things that are not working with it. there are challenges with it. including when i'm from southwest georgia people tell me they're paying among the highest rates in the nation. e need to add a more affidavit er -- affordable tier. i was one of the first to say we need to clay the employer mandate to make sure we get it right. those are the things that i think we need to fix and i'm willing to work with whoever is a person of good will to do that. i do not think that we need to go backwards. i do not think that we need to be having the same conversation.

david has said that he wants to repeal this. i ask you, do we really want to be having this same argument look a.p.a. in six years? can't we come together and build upon some of the things that are work something i don't think we want to go back to a time when people who had preexisting conditions who were not able to get health insurance. i don't think we want to go backwards and tell parents that they can't cover their children up until age 26 on their hirlt images. i had a father who told me i sleep better at night because i'm able to cover my kids. i don't think we want to be locked into the kind of gridlock that is emblematic of the refusal to say let's work together to focus on what really matters to georgians and that are they wet getting quality health care at good prices and are we getting more people

covered? i think if we keep that in mind we can do good things and actually make a difference in the lives of georgians. >> thank you. she's really posed my question to you. you want to repeal obamacare but how realistic is that given the view by many that's the law of the land and there are some indications that the affordable care act is slowly beginning favor as the benefits for some become known. sit unfixable and what about the time lag? >> absolutely i think it's unfixable. this goes against the grain of our american heritage. i think we proved in the 1980's, that a society has a leg up. we brought down the soviet union with the strength of our economy and the power of our kids. when this president told us we could keep our insurance, i'm not sure what he meant by that.

like you, millions of insurance had their insurance canceled. my wife and i had our personal insurance canceled. it was perfect for us with a major carrier. we were told that wasn't good enough so we now have a new policy that my federal government says is ok for me. it has a lot of things i don't need and my rates doubled. this government has not -- no government has proven they can manage this big a part of our economy. if you look at how good a job they're doing with the veterans administration, it might give you some indication of what this is going to look like in a few years. in my opinion it needs to be repealed and replaced. we have good alternatives but the one i personally like the est is congressman price's own h.r.-400. it has affordability and doesn't deny access the way this one does. i don't believe the bureaucrats

in washington is a better way to go than the free-market solution. >> follow-up to both of you. what about the problem of georgia's rural hospitals that are closing because the federal subsidies that are not coming largely because georgia didn't extend medicaid? >> it's largely not coming because of obamacare. they cut the rates. we need to give more power to the states and have more flexibility to deal with the priorities that they have in these rural and smaller hospitals that have a disproportionate share of medicaid and medicare patients. i think the medicaid patients should come back in the form of block grants. >> i know you've been vocal on this issue as well. what's your solution to these georgia rural hospitals going out of business? >> i've been talking to folks that run rural hospitals and that are partners to rural

hospitals around the statement. they tell me we should have expanded medicaid as a state. that we are not allowing 650,000 people that should have access to have access. we're paying their emergency lls and sending the others elsewhere. we need to work together. we can't afford to be gridlock. we need to fix what's not working and not have a stalemate while folks in rural communities suffer. >> thank you. let's move to transportation. as you know, georgia gets about half of its road building frunleds from the federal highway trust fund, which is rung on empty. it's depleted. the gas tax is the basis for the fund. it hasn't been raised since 1993 and to compound the problem not keeping up with inflation, you have americans driving less and

more fuel-efficient cars. but if georgia loses those federal funds it would be a big blow. road projects would come to a halt. you said you will not raise taxing -- taxes under any circumstances but what's the alternative to keep the federal funds flowing to georgia? >> this is a perfect example of what happens when big government tries to allocate our resources out here. this is a much bigger issue. it's the entire infrastructure. we're spending a fracture of what we need to be spending in our infrastructure just to maintain it. if you look at the port of savannah, it's taken us 17 years to get approval through the e.p.a. and our legal system to deepen that port five feet. in the meantime, china has added one of their major ports in the last three or four years. we're losing our competitive edge because we're not paying attention to our infrastructure.

regulatory control, educated work force, water, cheap power and infrastructure, that's how you grow an the problem right now, in every one of those areas we have difficulties. in this case, we have hope. there is $480 billion of redundant agency expenses in the federal budget. i said that right, 480 billion dollars of redundant agencies. we don't have a problem of enough money. we have a problem of it going to the right purposes. investment and infrastructure, roads, airports, rail, have economic return for our economy. that is where the money needs to be spent. not in redundant agencies. >> notebook for a gas tax hike? >> no, sir. >> m same question to you,s. nunn -- ms. nunn. would you vote for a rise in the gas tax? >> i do not believe we should be raising taxes either.

i also share david's sensibility about the importance of infrastructure. we have to find a way of investing in infrastructure. we have a d-plus grade from civil engineers. china is spending three times what america is spending on civil infrastructure. we have to have the capacity to work together. we talked about certainty in washington. we can't keep kicking the can down the road with three or six-month extensions. we have to have a long-term view. , we willat it takes work across the aisle, embrace partnership in getting things done. i think the savanna port and the deepening of the harbor is a perfect example. it did take, 17 years to get that done. and i think the example, the real illustration of why we need to change that, is we have too many people who are not willing

to work together to get the kinds of things done that we all know our practical -- are practical and need to happen. unlike david, i don't believe you can prosecute your way through. you have to be able to work with the president, together, across the aisle in congress, to get it done. that is what we need more of in washington. i do think that is essential to create conditions for economic growth. >> i have to follow up for both of you. the highway trust fund is empty. it has to be funded. in fact, there is a bipartisan move in the senate to do that. so this talk is wonderful, but the road building projects are online, the bulldozers are ready to go. they need money. what do you do short-term to keep money flowing? >> there are purposeful choices we need to make about how we invest. we know investment in infrastructure and education creates returns and enables growth. it is actually the way that we do enable more funds to have the

capacity for the things we need to get done. so i think we do have duplication in government. we do have to make choices. and i would make the choice to invest in our infrastructure as a part of a strategic outline working together with others in congress. -- doefly, what you do you do? >> we have that in so many areas in our country today. we have ways and means right now in the congress between the house and senate to take care of that. but they have to reallocate, reprioritize how the money is spent. that is what we send them to do. just adding a new gas tax is the easy way out. that would be an easy answer. debte have an $18 trillion , and another $86 trillion in things we're not even talking about yet. we will add another tax on small businesses and individuals -- there is a better way to do this

if the people in congress would get together and just get it done. >> next hop that area is immigration. as you know, the immigration reform act passed the senate in bipartisan fashion and never came to a vote in the house because of conservative republican opposition. you indicated that you favor that bipartisan bill in the senate. but president obama in the next few weeks is going, we are told, to make an executive action announcement. we don't know what he's going to say, but there is considerable speculation he may attempt to find ways to make it easier for the 11 million, maybe not all of 11 million, but some illegal immigrants in the country to gain legal status. my question to you, michelle nunn, do you think the president, in absence of congressional action, should take action? what would you like him to say? >> let me start by saying that i do support the bipartisan

comprehensive legislation that was really worked very hard like the chamber and unions and farm bureau. as chuck diverse schumer and marco rubio. when all those people agree, it is something you need to take another look at. this is probably one of the sharper contrasts you will find between david and myself. david embraces what i believe is the attitude of gridlock in washington, that has not enabled us to get this done. we talk about what is happening on the border. the immigration bill passed in the senate would enable us to invest in 20,000 security agents on the border, and a surveillance system that would make a real difference. so when you look at what david is talking about, not only does he oppose this, he ran ads distorting the position of the

compromise position many folks in this room worked towards creating. and i don't think that is what we need. david sat in the room with folks at the chamber and said, after 10 minutes, he walked out in anger. he said that. this is the kind of issue we need to be able to stay at the table to work out, to make a difference around, and really address our economy, jobs, and the deficit. all the economists i have talked to have said this is the right thing to do for our country, and we need to move forward with that. but i do believe we need to have congress and the president work together. we need to get out of the executive order system and into the compromising and collaboration and partnership is some -- system in washington. >> do i read that, you would prefer president obama not to call an executive action? >> i believe we should have

congress making the compromises and partnerships with the executive branch that will enable us to do this legislation. >> thank you very much. you said you cannot really talk about copperheads of immigration reform until we secure the border. but surely you have thought about and have some ideas about what to do about the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country, many of whom are important to the state's economy, in particular the agriculture industry. what do you do about these folks? do you deport them? what is your solution? also, i would like your comments on the expected executive action by the president. >> i think the fact that implied amnesty is on the table is one reason why we have the debacle on the border today. i disagree with that. i think the first thing that we have to do is break this conflict into its components. it is what you do everyday in business. the first component we have to solve, we have to follow the law of the land, enforce the laws we

have in the books to protect and secure our borders. i personally think it is more than an immigration issue. it is a national security issue. today, the immigration issue is broader than illegal immigrants. 40% of people here illegally came in on a legal visa and just overstayed their visa. this federal government is not even enforcing the visa laws that we have. in addition, if you look at illegal immigration problem, it may be big or bigger than the illegal problem. we are bringing in twice as many legal immigrants today as during the two highest period of our history. this has not been a bipartisan thing. this is this president with executive orders doing this. i really believe we have to take a conference of look at this, there are needs. having grown up and worked on

farms, i understand the needs of farmers to get access to legal labor. builtnow, the program is by bureaucrats, for bureaucrats, and it is very cumbersome for these farmers. i believe it needs to be streamlined so they can have access to legal labor. inquirygeneral area of is defense. military bases in georgia are very important to the state's economy. we know we lost fort mcpherson and the naval supply school in athens in the last base realignment and closure commission in 2005. there is word there may be another coming up in the next couple years, which raises the question, could dobbins air reserve base be on the line? you, andon to each of i will start with you, david perdue. as a freshman senator, what can you do to protect georgia's

military bases and be sure the cuts in defense, which are coming, don't endanger national security? down thei grew up just road. if you listen quietly you might hear a few planes going off. as i was growing up, during the cuban missile crisis i was riding a bicycle to football practice and listening and watching. off tor or a b-52 took do the route around cuba. as a young kid i thought, how important it is to have that type of security. that was a time when they had the nuclear bomb threat training in our school. where you get under your desk. seriousness, i believe the greatest threat to our national security and defense is this debt and the fact we are not taking it seriously.

we have confused our allies and encouraged our enemies because of this confused foreign policy we have. to have a strong foreign policy, you have to have a strong defense, but to have a strong defense, as we proved with the soviet union, you have to have a strong economy, and you cannot be borrowing at the level we are now and do that. i believe when the next round comes, i will be fighting to grow the economy to make sure we have a strong defense. private with these organizations like 21st century and the chambers of commerce to make sure we communicate the strategic intent of these bases and the strategic importance of location. these bases are not here by mistake, and i intend to keep them here. thank you. >> michelle nunn, as you know, georgia has long been somewhat protected from military cutbacks. walter george, richard russell,

even your dad sam nunn, your great uncle, they were part of the establishment that kept bases secure. but those days are gone. same question to you. how do you, as a freshman senator, protect military bases in georgia, which are of great importance to local communities economically, and be sure that defense cuts do not endanger the national security at a time of such peril? >> i have been able to travel around and meet with the base community, folks doing such a good job. the 21st century partnership. heritage of a proud support for our military in georgia, with nine bases, 140,000 men and women serving d., $20 billion of economic impact.

second-highest enlistment rate of any state in the country in our military. i would say i disagree with those in washington and the president who believe this is the time to cut our military. i don't believe that. i believe the world is a dangerous place right now. we have asked our men and women to sacrifice enormously over the last decade-plus, and we need to continue to have the strongest and best military in the world. ofhave a wonderful heritage bipartisan leadership in georgia. i've heard my dad say on a number of occasions, there was never a closure during his 24 years in the senate. that is not a coincidence. we need someone who is able to eward on theing a st armed services committee. i have committed to do that. we need someone who will work to preserve and protect bases, but also expand the mission. i was at king's bay.

they have 20% additional capacity. we need to bring capacity to continue to contribute to the military in georgia. i think gridlock is the enemy of our capacity here, and if you look at the frustration,, i was ration, io -- sequest was talking to a captain in the marines, and he said it has done more to hurt our preparation than anything else in the last few decades. the government shut down for about 4000 people just down the road. we need to work together to preserve and protect military bases and our military capacity. >> any rebuttal on support of the shutdown? >> not at all. that speaks for itself. the situation we had in washington was over obamacare. cannotwas saying, we default on our interest payment. we need to talk about that.

>> we have covered the four basic topic areas the candidates agreed to. i wish we could keep going, but on the -- under the rules we have the forum is approaching conclusion. time for closing statements. by prior agreement, the order was determined, and michelle nunn has the first closing statement. >> first of all, thank you, david, thank you. i look forward to more spirited conversations. thanks again to the chamber for hosting a terrific gathering. i was here last year with you all, just getting my campaign started. you are honoring saxby chambliss for a number of achievements. one of those achievements was his work with senator warner on the long-term deby. -- debt. i think that kind of bipartisanship, that statesmanship, that collaboration, is what we need more of in washington.

it has been the theme of my campaign. as i travel around the state, it has been responsible for the energy and excitement we see. we had 200 people in the hot sun waiting for us when we got here, just to say we are ready for real change, for the kind of civility you want to bring to washington. sponsible for the 50,000 folks who have given time or resources to the campaign, on at the heart of taking issues we can deal with with a practical and pragmatic sensibility. protecting and preserving our national defense. comprehensive immigration reform. making sure we are investing in the right things, smart things like infrastructure and our kids, education. david and i have different real world experiences. i have experiences about lifting people up to the last 26 years, growing organizations and getting things done for the people of georgia in a

collaborative way, a proven way of working across party lines. i think that is what we need more of. i don't think we need more prosecutors. we need more problem solvers. i think we need more collaboration and less conflict, and that is what i pledge to bring. i have been telling people all over the state i am interested in carrying forward the georgia values -- wisdom, justice, and moderation. i invite you to join me in this. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. now, the closing statement from david perdue. >> thank you, john, and thank you for hosting me today. our politicians have created a full-blown crisis in america. i think it will take somebody from the outside with the right experience to make a difference. i believe that in this race we should be talking about issues and priorities that address the crisis. americans always do well dealing with crisis.

i have been very clear about my priorities throughout this entire campaign. i believe we really have to get serious about stopping obamacare. i think we have to get serious about stopping this outrageous spending and rein in out-of-control expenditures. third thing, we have got to grow our economy and create jobs. that happens by reforming our tax structure, reducing regulations, and unlocking our energy resources. the fourth thing, we need to secure our borders and create an immigration system that makes sense in a free society that has the rule of law. i disbelieve that this race is very simple. the decision in this race. if you like what's going on in washington, both for my opponent. because she knows she will be nothing more than a proxy for harry reid and barack obama, nothing will change.

but if you are as outraged as i am by the size and scope of his government, by the arrogant policies that are failing this administration, and the sheer magnitude of the debt they are piling on the backs of our kids and grandkids, then stand with me and let's take our country back. together, we can bring america back to a position of strength and prosperity. thank you, again, for having us today. i look forward to future conversations. thank you very much. [applause] you to both of you for the stimulating exchange of ideas in this forum. i am sure this will not be the last time the two of you are on stage together as the campaign continues to build momentum heading toward election day in november. thank you for being here. thank you for your attention. good to be with you. thank you. [applause]

>> thanks. very nice job. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> tonight on c-span, opposing views on the issue of climate change. from the heartland institute, weather channel cofounder john coleman and greenpeace's cofounder question the signs kind climate change. then, former epa administrators who served republican president's call for action during a senate subcommittee hearing. here is a portion of remarks from both. ipcc does not subscribe to the belief that extreme weather events are tied to global warming, whether human caused or not. they say there is no evidence an increase in extreme weather events is related to warming that has occurred. and yet al gore, the whole bunch of them perpetuate the idea that every room whether you and --

-- of us.ecause less this is why we will never be able to predict the future of the climate other than about three days out, as john coleman will probably tell you he knows. it is because of clouds. water, the most important greenhouse gas, is the only one that occurs in both liquid and gaseous phases. the liquid phase of water and the gaseous phase of water behavior in completely different ways with regards to solar energy. clouds can reflect the sun back, can hold the heat in, depending on where they are and how thick they are. what computer model can predict the pattern of clouds in the world? it is impossible. that is why we will never be able to predict the future of climate and clouds. many believe that is the earth warms and more water evaporates

off the sea, it will be cloudier and wetter and that will reflect more sunlight back. in other words, there will be a negative feedback against the effects of c02. that is just as possible a hell"esis as the "fry in hypothesis we keep getting from the alarmists. >> we believe there is significant debate over the pace and effects of climate change, but no legitimate debate over the fact the earth is warming from man's contribution. models from leading scientists that rising seas, droughts, wildfires getting more severe, and frequent storms. those are the projections of these models. we see impacts already. 25% tohe ocean absorbs 30% of carbon from stationary or mobile sources, we thought the ocean was our friend. it was, keeping significant amounts of carbon from the atmosphere. nd is paying a

penalty. carbon from the burning of fossil fuels is causing the acidity of the ocean to rise, and is already threatening shellfish, coral reefs, and other species. the culprit is carbon from fossil fuels, contributing to global warming. >> opposing views on the issue of climate change, tonight at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. >> here are the highlights for this weekend. friday on c-span in primetime, we will visit important sites in the history of the civil rights movement. saturday night at 8:00, highlights from this year's new ark ideas for him, including cancer biologist. sunday, "q&a" with charlie -- charlie wrangle. saturday on "afterwords,"

retired nurse surgeon ben carson. sunday night at 11:00 p.m. eastern, lawrence goldstone on the competition between the wright brothers and glenn curtiss to be the predominant name in manned flight. 8:00 eastern, a look at hollywood's or trail of slavery. the 200th anniversary of the battle of bladensburg. sunday night at 8:00 the young, former white house chiefs of staff discussed the presidents make decisions. let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. commpentst @c-span.org. today in washington, governor rick currey criticized the president for his handling of immigration and iraq. in remarks at the heritage foundation, he accused the

president of not enforcing immigration laws and exceeding lawful authority with executive orders. concerned about violence in iraq, governor perry says that all options have to be on the table to deal with isis. aftermarks come wednesday, when he pleaded not guilty to abuse of power charges. this is just over 30 minutes. [applause] >> he never ages. anyway, thank you for the imitation to be here today. i refer to this as a little wellspring of wisdom in the desert of washington, d.c. heritage, thank you for what you do, and to genevieve, for allowing us to come and be a part of this today.

and jan, thank you for the program. i mentioned it you do, in fact, , look eternally young. some of you may not know this. rich has been the head of national review for as long as i've been governor of texas. that is a pretty lengthy period of time. you don't get to stay around that long unless you are really good at what you do, or just really lucky. i suggest both of those things. it doesn't hurt to be both. as he shared with you, and some of you might have heard that there are some interesting things going on back in my home state. right now, there are a few public officials in travis

county who have taken issue with an exercise of my constitutional veto authority. these are fundamentally, principles that are very important. namely, a governor's power to veto legislation and funding, and the right of free speech. i am very confident in my case, and i can assure you that i will fight this attack of our system of government, and with my fellow citizens, both republicans and democrats, i am to defend our constitution and stand up for the rule of law in the state of texas. [applause] to all of you who work here at heritage or at national review,

for republican leaders across the way. you have for 5.5 years been among the leading voices of the opposition. every bit as much as william f buckley and ed fuller and the whole conservative movement of another era, you have carried the flag when it wasn't easy. for conservatives across america, you have kept the supplies coming. you have been there with reasoned arguments, principled criticisms, in a spirited debate. you have been there to show optimism and camaraderie, and that is the mark of every good cause from my perspective. you have been holding the ground as best you can, and more than that, pointing away back for a

new conservative majority. we have 29 months left in the presidency of barack obama. that is the bad news. the good news is, he's got exactly 136 days left until the next congress convenes with a republican house and a republican senate. [applause] he will get a little taste. you will get a little taste of checks and balances. he has an appointment, if you will, come january 3, with constitutional limits. the election of 2014 is america's last chance to pass judgment on the obama presidency. and something tells me he's not going to like it. you know, how different it is, as we look back now, when you think about how his presidency

began. he came in the crying the smallness, the pettiness of washington and washington politics. he was the constitutional lawyer that was going to govern a different way, uniting the country and building respect across party lines. and maybe you remember the part about improving america's standing in the world. there were all kinds of offenses for us to atone for. our reputation, we were told, needed some polishing, and he was the right guy for the job. the constitutional law background is worked out in a rather interesting way, when you

think about it. 20 times, unanimously, the supreme court has had to set him straight on the limits of executive power. and when an american president is constantly exceeding his lawful authority, it doesn't exactly do much for bipartisan goodwill either. he has taken to saying, if congress won't act, i will. which certainly stirs up a certain element of our society out there. the problem is, we've still got two elected branches of government in this country. and yet, for all of those inconveniences, we still like to do things democratically. we are seeing this misuse of presidential power right now. and one of the issues that brings us here today, and that is, the integrity of our nations

nation's security, our nation's border. we have a crisis on our nation's border that is entirely under the president's authority to deal with under the law, but he will not fully and consistently enforce the laws as they are written. that is, requiring the protection of our borders against unlawful entry. and he wants to establish new laws, such as the amnesty of 2012 without the consent of congress. on the one hand, we are seeing a willful neglect of clear, presidential response ability. -- responsibility. on the other hand, we are seeing an aggressive overreach into the powers that do not belong to the president at all. when laws are treated this way, what usually follows are chaos

and grief, and that is exactly what we've got right now. there is no briefing from far away that can capture the scenes along our border. not long ago, i invited the president to come with me and have a look for himself. he happened to be in dallas anyway on a very vital presidential trip to help the texas democrats, so why not chopper down to the border and take a look for yourself to see what is going on? he turned me down. and to this day, the president has yet to see the facts on the ground on our southern border. even though they are the direct consequences of his foreign policies. children, 1000 miles from their parents, vulnerable and afraid.

they are drawn here by rumors of amnesty. there are these coyotes, these smugglers, these gang members and lowlifes and other forms who are exploiting these children. and mind you, the unaccompanied children you are reading about are just 20% of those illegally crossing the border. many are adults. some are working for the cartels, or involved in other serious criminal activity. over the years, many thousands of violent crimes in the united states trace directly back to our porous border. s and assaultst and murders that should never have happened, because the thieves and the assailant and the murderers should never have been in the country to begin with.

on our side, we have some very fine, dedicated people on the border patrol. doing their level best under difficult circumstances. this summer, we began deploying up to 1000 of our national guardsmen. they are doing all they can come along with all of the public safety officers that i have directed to deal with criminal aliens. the entire nation is benefiting from that, but the resources, the initiative, and the will all come from the people of the state of texas, the people that i have sworn to defend, to serve. if the federal government showed half that kind of resolve, the border of the united states of america would be secure. here's what it comes down to. defending the border is not a political option.

it is a constitutional obligation. and until the federal government meets that duty and secures that border, all talk of immigration reform is pointless, because washington has no credibility on the matter. you earn credibility when you enforce the law, and you lose it when you don't. chaos is not the right condition for discussing long-term immigration policy. to those who wait on comprehensive immigration reform , here is my answer. withbout we start comprehensive border enforcement? [applause] border security, after all, is the nearest front of national security.

and i'm sorry to relate that this front is today, largely undefended. so many people come across the border without us ever knowing about it. from a certain angle, the cartels, as vicious and brutal as they are, they might be the least of our worries. what other bad actors are coming here? or for that matter, have arrived already? where have they come from? what have they brought with them? behind all of the political opportunism that has marked this debate is a profound sense of false security. after all, we are watching this crisis and our border at the very moment that other crises far away demand our concentrated attention.

just consider the events in syria and iraq, and other places in the middle east, they should have us thinking about the possibility of another terrorist attack in this country. we have been put on notice lately by the jihadist army that is right now charging across the country, we were told, was secure and stable. and the astonishing seizure of territory these past few months, if that is any indication, then we have every reason to take these individuals at their word. alertness is everything. here, too, presidential leadership requires the most candid assessment of the facts on the ground, because the most fundamental interests of our nation ride in the balance.

and here, too, we have to understand the consequences of doing nothing. all of us, republicans and democrats, have a duty to put no concern of politics before the security of america. we have to take things as they are in the world today, not as we wish things were. that, certainly, is the way we -- you approach things here at heritage. let me allow just a few things i would share with you on this unfolding crisis. one third of iraq is under the control of islamist terrorism. nearly as much of serious -- syria is dominated by the same jihadists. the group itself, the islamic state of iraq and syria, or isis.

when this year started, most of us had never even heard of that group. they had been advancing and captured american vehicles, dealing with captured american weapons and ammunition, taking it is that american troops bob and i to liberate. all of this and more has happened just since june. terrorists see it, they have had a triumphant summer. complete with this long-awaited caliphate. from far and wide, recruits are flooding into joining in the offensive. we are talking about a movement that is bigger and better financed than al qaeda ever was. and it's got nothing to learn from al qaeda about ruthless butchery either. isis has been butchering

-- executing nonbelievers, otherwise known as innocent victims. the poor souls that did not get away have met the worst of fate, beheadings, rape, enslavement, crucifixions. that is the character of this enemy. and in case we missed the point, they actually take pictures of their atrocities and post them online, calling it a preview of what we can expect in america. we have all seen the sorrowful images of the innocent photojournalist, james foley, await ao kneel and savage execution. the merciless killer was apparently british. in this case, we were seeing a radicalized british subject behead an american citizen in

iraq. among other questions that come to mind, how many other jihadists out there are carrying western passports? what mission might isis have for them? the danger of isis for the united states and other western nations may still strike some people as a little remote. but for many americans, of course, just about the last thing we want to think about is more conflict in iraq and what that might involve. but we better get on top of this crisis by every means necessary, because event are moving fast and the price is only going to go up from here. we have come to one of those moments when american action will be decisive, and inaction inaction -- inaction will be

consequential. there used to be a bipartisan tradition in american foreign policy, a basic willingness to unite in fundamental matters of security. if anything is left of that old spirit, we need to draw on it in a big way and right now. sure, it is tempting to revisit and reargue the old decisions that have already been made. many on the left will say that a fatal mistake was made when we went into iraq in the first place. many republicans would argue that the 2011 withdrawal from iraq left some hard-won gains at risk. the pullout seemed to be driven by political calculations and not strategic ones. still others take the view that no matter what comes next in

iraq is no concern of ours. their attitude is, we gave it our best effort, but now we are done. and then there is the sense of regret and tragedy that still hangs over the failure to help syrian rebels at a crucial point when we -- it could have made all the difference. they could well have gained the upper hand against the assad regime. syria could have been spared a lot of violence and other trouble, instead of becoming the isis stronghold that it is today. we heard from the white house that assad must go. that was an opinion, not a policy. so it all came to nothing. just now, however these and other questions also just they need to wait for another day. we can talk about all of causes

and the contribute in factors -- contributing factors all day long and it will get us nowhere. what matters in the here and now are the outcomes that are still within our power to influence. we know what the jihadist objectives are in iraq and syria. let's be clear and unequivocal about our own. erbil, a strategically crucial city in the north of iraq must not be allowed to fall. the momentum in the fight must be reversed, so the cities overrun by isis can be taken back by iraqi troops. iraqn syria, as well as in , this terrorist army must be confronted with overwhelming force. in recent weeks, president obama, his response has included limited airstrikes in hopes of finally slowing the isis offensive in the kurdish north.

he also sent 1000 or so of our american military advisers and special operators. he provided humanitarian relief and aid. the people there were able to escape and get into the mountains. the administrative -- -- administration wishes, and for that matter, who doesn't, that this was just a humanitarian crisis. and when they talk about limited airstrikes, they place a great emphasis on the word limited. yet clearly, more airstrikes are necessary. nothing less than a sustained campaign to destroy isis forces are required. the iraqi people are up against a terrorist blitzkrieg and it went practically unhindered for many weeks. and even though they have seen

glimpses of our superior power and technology, they need to see a lot more of it. and as for the many iraqis who are trying to defend themselves and their country, they need to see more help from us. air power is a major part of it. but it is also going to take more special operations, intelligence, and advisory support than we have offered so far. one more potent force for the good. the peshmerga in the kurdish region. they are a well-trained and disciplined militia. by every account, they have the ability and the will to fight back against the terrorists. what is missing are the heavy weapons they need. to stop isis, counter the maneuverability, put it on the

defensive. the united states and allies, if they are willing, should launch an immediate airlift and deliver those assets to the kurdish forces. peshmerga fighters, aided by american airstrikes in mid-august, have already pushed back isis in cities that looked to be lost just a few weeks ago. peshmerga is a fierce and ready force on the ground, and right now, they are in the best position to confront, overpower, and in time, defeat this enemy. in all of this, our allies are essential to the effort. and i might add, to the credit of the british and the french and the germans, they have begun to act already. people in those countries, as in america, have been stirred to action in these last weeks by these chilling news reviews of -- of the savagery of the islamic state.

these nations, if they do nothing else, are in the business of preventing the worst from happening. and we know the worst when we see it. the atrocities of isis would command our attention even if we had no security interest, although we clearly do. and the list of countries with a big stake in defeating isis doesn't end with just western powers. because it is so very extreme, even by local standards. the islamic state has clarified some very common interests in the region. isis has designs on jordan, for example. and a serious threat to the stability of that country would not be a welcome development for other powers in the region. even iran is in this complicated position. for years, they saw to undermine our efforts in iraq, and yet today, they oppose isis.

we shouldn't assume that the people today terrorizing iraq and syria have powerful support across the region. they do not. and where they are operating now, they are, of course, universally feared and despised. yet, there are chronic problems and divisions within the iraqi government itself. and these have hindered the country's ability to act when united action is needed. but the basic situation is this. iraq is a democratic nation of 32 million people who are horrified by the danger that is around them. and with everything on the line, if we help them, iraq can protect and defend themselves. in the weeks and months to come, we need for these and other military measures in iraq to become more obvious and urgent.

president obama is going to hear warnings from his party. he is going to hear the word mission creep. and that is also a very valid concern. how can we not be mindful of that after what we have seen occur? and yet, in this case, it seems to me that we would be very wise to remember the isis version of mission creep. that is when they start following through on the threats they have been making by sending their recruits into this country. it may be a team of terrorists arriving with their passports and papers all in order, just like before, or it may be when one or more of them slips across

our unsecured border. but what rational observer doubts that such an attack is not part of their plan? and who thinks it is a good idea to wait and to give them more time, instead of eliminating this menace right now? we have a viable stake here, reluctant as we might be to face 12 years of war in iraq. and three years after we are told that war was over, it is no one's idea of where this nation hoped we would be in the summer of 2014. it's a long way from what we expected, but it's where we are. and our strength and our resolve

today can steer us clear of our -- far graver problems ahead. the demands of national security always require dealing with the threats as they come. better still, we deal with them before they come in the faithful and vigilant protection of the united states. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. >> you are in charge. >> i love hearing that. governor perry put me in charge. we have time for just one question. [laughter] first.aw his hand go up we have the microphone. please state your name and affiliation. >> thank you.

i am with the border security committee. listening to your questions -- or, your statements, is there a concern isis may be coming through the southern border into the united states? >> certainly, there is i think great concern that the border between the united states and mexico is unsecure, and we do not know who is using that. what i will share with you that we have seen, historically high levels of individuals from countries with terrorist ties over the course of the last months. i will give you one anecdotal picture of what is happening. three ukrainian individuals were apprehended in far west texas within the last 60 days. so i think there is the obvious

conditionern that the of the border, not being secure, us not knowing who is penetrating across, that individuals from isis or other terror states could be, and it is a very real possibility that they may have already used that. we have no clear evidence of that, but your common sense tells you. we have seen the number of criminal activities that have occurred. i'm talking about the assault, rapes, murders by individuals who have come into this country illegally over the last five years. the idea that they would not be managing any of those attacks from that region

is not a good place to be. we need to have clear and , both law forces enforcement and otherwise, on our southern border to send a message. the border can be secured. it requires boots on the ground, the aviation assets, one of the reasons we asked the faa for the use of drones to look down 24/seven through all weather, night and day, and identify activity occurring on the border. we have yet to have that approval. obviously strategic fencing in the metropolitan areas is helpful as well. we have a serious issue facing this country. the security of our citizens. we need to be very vigilant. we need to be using every authority that we have. the president needs to be

engaged and using his presidential authority. and congress needs to engage in securing this country. as i said in my remarks, intel willorder is secure, there be no conversation in this country about any immigration reform. americans do not trust washington to deal with comprehensive immigration reform until that border is secure. thank you. [applause] >> we actually have time for one more question. so we will come right here. >> thanks for taking the time. i have one political and one policy question for you. hunt with nbc news. ilitically, you discussed -- am wondering why you view this indictment as political if the appointedhis case was

by a republican and the prosecutor served in a republican presidential admission. you have called for more aggressive measures from this administration but stopped short of saying traditional combat should be used on the ground. i wonder if you think we should send combat troops back to iraq? >> when david axelrod, lanny jonathanan dershowitz, chatt all say this is sketchy, outrageous, totalitarian, mccarthyite, i agree with them. [applause] and that is just on the democrat side of the aisle. all your options have to be open from the standpoint of dealing with this terror, this force in that country. enemyk signaling to your what you are not going to put on , bothble is very bad strategically and tactically.

we need to have all options open. it is too important to jordan, ofisrael, to the interest the west in that part of the world, to not stop isis. iny are not going to stop that region of the world. they need to be eliminated. they need to be eliminated now. thank you all. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, thanks again to the governor of texas, rick perry. coaty colleague john hill will give some directions about what we have outside. and thisreta bronner, week on washington journal we will be focusing on president lyndon johnson's vision for a great society and its impact

today. tune in at 7:00 eastern time and joined in on the conversation by calling us or sending us an e-mail. you can also send us a tweet. join the conversation at facebook.com/c-span. >> coming up tonight, the debate on, change. then rich it -- rick. talk about border security. and a nearly $17 billion settlement with bank of america over the 2008 financial crisis. john coleman called global warming the greatest scam in history while speaking at a recent climate change conference in las vegas. echoed byn was patrick moore who spoke against the idea of unit to be being tied to extreme weather events. this is a little over an hour.