boy, would that be great. but the problem we detected that problem we detected, i don't know if tom can speak about the networks we are trying to defend our private and contain information about citizens of the united states, companies within the united states that the ceos or those people and privacy advocates might have a problem having the government actively defend. be a wonderfuld topic for discussion between the private sector and the government to figure out a way to do that without setting off every alarm bell in the privacy community. until then time, we are in a world where information needs to

be exchanged between the private sector. weking about public-private, are talking about information sharing. when you are talking about the investigation, it is too late. to get to a point where we are , not in real time, in signaturesme, the that things are happening, we have to realize this is voluntary on the private sector's part. there is no law compelling them to do this. there probably should not be. voluntary, we want to encourage the private sector to share information. everyone agrees the sharing of this information is for the government to facilitate it. reduce the hurdles and barriers

to sharing the information with the government and with other entities. better,ink security is if i am telling you what i am seeing and we are both telling dhs, the businesses that are doing that should not think there is going to be an antitrust violation if they share between each other or that dhs, which was designed to accept information from the private sector and disseminate going to publicize that information or use that information to another regulator that might have authority over the business. has to be onfocus taking down those walls and barriers. is dhs has a lot of these authorities already.

including something called detecting critical infrastructure information, which is part of the security act to get information from the private sector, strike out the names so it can help other entities protect their critical infrastructure. those authorities are being underused at this point. the views i am about to express are my own. one of my personal views on the informational sharing dynamic is it is incumbent on the government or anyone asking other people to engage to really be able to share the value proposition, which goes back to one of the points steve made earlier. the traditional view is taking information and not sharing it. my heart was warmed today when i to the dhsences

information sharing program where we have been able to share real value to members, many of whom are individual companies that we create a forum for those companies to share information. so it is about what those companies are seeing. it is building that foundation of trust. there are a lot of tools we have to increase the amount of information we are able to share. it is incumbent on the government to really sort of show that value proposition for those various relationships. >> if there are any questions to the audience, if you could come up to the microphone now. i'm going to give everyone 30 seconds to answer this question. what is missing? government action, legislation, technology? regulation or do we need more

litigation? if you could spend 30-45 seconds what you think is missing. if there are any questions, come up to the mic. i would reiterate, it is a combination of private sector and government working together with organizations in the world that do the same thing, focused on detection and penalty. the private sector already has the detection and the attribution. couple of weeks after the government put out its indictment of five members of another member, the private sector is saying this is exactly who is hacking the country. we are making those handoffs. the government also put up a

wanted poster for a russian national. we could do a better job with the air having this be an international manhunt. -- with the private sector having this be an international manhunt. using the networks and then sharing that with the government to take the ultimate step of penalty and deterrence. that would get us to a far greater place than this view. i am reminded in the recent framework, they asked one question, they said, we are having a hard time coming up with any metrics of what success means. how do you measure success? if there are 1000 attempts every second. is that a successful program you

have? day, internationally, nationally, we have not done the question of, how good can we get in what we are doing? and the residual risk that is left, is it sustainable? we can do a lot of good things, but if you still can't survive, you know you have a strategy that needs to be revised. we have to look at that strategy now. >> as the only government person on the panel i'm required to continued plug that the administration has made cyber security legislation a priority. back to his proposal in may of 2011, working with numerous committees on the hill to try to and additional authorities, especially at dhs to codify the role they are being asked to play working with the private sector, that is

something we did not talk about. the state of way of security. thatinly it is something remains a priority of the administration and the department, getting the cyber authorities. >> in the spirit of the lightning round, there are a few things that have been mentioned, the increased awareness around this issue needs to continue to grow. of resources.on essentially the rethinking of risk away from what state law has caused us to think about, which is only pii to other is an companies have important thing we have to think about. we have to reduce the government's schizophrenia. dhs should exercise with more muscularity its authorities to help the private sector share

information with each other and with the government. litigation is not the answer here. detecting, cyber security negation 1.0 regarding 2.0 may beof pii, litigation between companies. we talked about the clout before and the outsourcing of information management to other entities. if a breach happens at company a and if it is using company b, the contract between those entities, which may or may not contemplate a cyber attack, is going to be the primary document that determines the allocation of risk. i use becausemple

there are many opportunities for the lawyers in the room to add security of our clients by helping them look around the corner and think about the next set of issues in cyber including the fact what i call private law between various be one ofs likely to the major battlegrounds in the courtroom. >> we have time for one quick question, and then i did promise to joe we would end on time. thanks so much to all of the panelists for an excellent panel. i had one question in terms of thesuccess of section 311, patriot act against cyber one drink by a company last year. by a companydering last year.

>> fbi guy. [laughter] not familiar with the latest government actions. >> i'm not either. >> sorry. >> i would like to thank the panelists for coming here and for giving us such great thoughts. now i am putting on my hand as lawvice chair of the aba institute and i would like to have a few closing remarks on behalf of joe who had to leave already. first of all, this event would not be possible without one person. we know who that is, joe puts, him and holly hampton, not only

put a few months into this, but they also have dedicated over only creating an entity, but creating a bar that we all this. interact with joe one way or another, the one thing he wants is to continue to bill the build the bar. we not only have to be good but we, do good work, also have to build a bar. whether that means teaching, speaking ands, attending events. having said that, i would like to thank you all. as much effort as we put into this event, if people did not these events, would not happen. so i genuinely thank you for your support and with that, i look forward to the 10th annual

home security law institute. if people have ideas, let joe or myself know. we have ended on time so you can tell joe i did my job. have a safe day. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] historyn's american tour travels to explore historic

places will also hearing from authors about some of the people and places that shaped the nation. tonight we will focus on the civil rights movement. illinois,ace riot in martin luther king's letter from birmingham jail, and the bombing of the 16th street baptist church which killed four african-american girls. that is tonight at 8:00 p.m. here on c-span. while congress is in recess, we are showing do book tv in prime time. tonight it is in depth with author reza slan. he spoke about his book "zealot," the life and times of jesus of nazareth. 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. withmerican history tv programs on how hollywood has per trade the civil war and the issue of slavery. we will start with remarks on

the depiction of slavery in films since the 1930's. after that, the recent film of" lincoln" and the passage of the 13th amendment. and a discussion on the film "gone with the wind." all of those programs tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span3. today, john kirby held a briefing with reporters at the pentagon. he condemned the movement of russian humanitarian convoys without permission by the government in kiev. here is more of what he had to say. very concerned by the movement of the russian convoy across the border. we condemn this action. any action to increase tensions in the region. russia should not send vehicles, persons, or cargo whether under

the guise of humanitarian convoys or any other pretext permission.'s this is a violation of their sovereignty by russia. russia must remove its personnel from the territory of ukraine immediately. failure to do so will result in additional cost and isolation. we're consulting with the red cross and other partners and as we have more details to provide on what we know, we will do that. does the u.s. consider this an invasion and are they taking calling anyeither counterparts overseas in ukraine or in russia? entry byunauthorized this convoy. we are consulting with international partners right now. i don't have anything additional to add at this time. again in my opening statement i made it clear what we are

expecting of russia. >> no phone calls or anything. >> i'm not aware of any outreach today certainly by this building. i won't speak for other agencies. i would remind you the secretary talked to the minister a few days ago. the minister guaranteed, was his words, they would be no military the pretext using of humanitarian relief. would be nos there military members as a part of this convoy. >> you said under the guise, does the u.s. have evidence there are military equipment? >> i am not prepared to speak to the evidence at this time. he should not be doing this under the guise of humanitarian convoy, to use that as an excuse to cross the border in an

unauthorized way. we have a lot more work to do. we will sort this out throughout the day. you will hear more from us throughout the. >> that was a portion of a today atheld earlier the pentagon. yesterday, the georgia chamber of commerce held a forum. michelle nunn and david purdue. they announced retirement of saxby chambliss. this is 45 minutes. welcome to you all. thank you for being here. i'm the retired newscast for wsb. they dusted me off and put me up here to moderate up for him which has attracted a good deal of attention. we are sold out. wmaz,ill be televised by

perhaps some other outlets. we will be seeing rebroadcast of the forum on other media outlets around georgia. it is going to receive wide exposure. this is the first time david purdue and michelle nunn have been on the same stage. we would ask you to refrain from applause or audience reaction, with the exception of when the candidates are introduced and at the conclusion of the for him. i want to tell you a few words about the format agreed to by both campaigns. each candidate will have an opening statement of five minutes. following the opening statement from michelle and david, we will have a series of questions posed by me. those questions will cover four , immigration,

transportation, defense, and health care. the topics.es know they do not know the questions, which will come from me. if there is a need for rebuttal, that will be at my discretion. i have the ability to follow up. candidates will have two minutes followingand then that there will be closing statements of two minutes apiece. are we ready for the introduction? 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] please 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 warner robins. 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 warner robins 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.o. 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 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 small group of people at manuel'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 organization 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 of thousand dollars to a $30 million dollar budget. 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. ike you, i've sat through lots 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 we need more of in washington. that's what i take with me. 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 the corporate tax rate. 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, i've heard some very different kind of tenor. 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 h.w. ush 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 ierce advocate for georgia's

fierce tner and a 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 sacrosanct, but let's move into questions. we have four basic top quake areas. -- topic areas. the first question is on health care, which, of course, means the affordable care act. mr. perdue, you favor repealing obamacare. and ms. nunn, you favor it but 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. i've been saying this for the last year. there are challenges with it. including, when i'm in southwest georgia people tell me they're paying among the highest rates in the nation. we need to add a more affordable tier. we need to extend tax credits for small businesses. i was one of the first to say we need to delay 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

about a.c.a. in six years? can't we come together and build upon some of the things that are working? i don't think we want to go back to a time when people who had pre-existing conditions who were not able to get 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 health insurance. i had a father who told me i sleep better at night because i'm able to cover my kids. i think we want to go forwards, not backwards. 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 is, are they getting quality health care and 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 -- gaining public support as the benefits for some become known. is it unfixable? and what would you put in its place? and what about the time lag? >> absolutely i think it's unfixable. i don't think you can repair this. this goes against the grain of our american heritage. i think we proved in the 1980's, that a society has a leg up. a freeh enterprise society has a leg up over managed economy. we brought down the soviet union with the strength of our economy and the power of our ideas. when this president told us we could keep our insurance, i'm not sure what he meant by that. like you, millions of insurance -- millions of americans have had their insurance cancelled. my wife and i had our personal insurance cancelled. we had a high deductible cat

trosk insurance, with a high deductible. 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 best is congressman price's own h.r. 2300. deals with affordability, transferability and insuranceability. it 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. hey 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. that gives the governor and the legislature more flexibility to deal with these needs in the rural communities. >> 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 state. 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 bills and sending the dollars elsewhere. we haven't done that. we need to be pragmatic. we need to work together. we can't afford to be gridlocked. 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 funds from the federal highway trust fund, which is rung on -- running 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. and that means less gas purchased, thus less revenue for the highway trust fund. 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 taxes under any circumstances but what's the alternative to raising the gas tax to keep those 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 not just the roads. it's the entire infrastructure. we're spending a fraction of what we need to be spending in our infrastructure just to maintain it. not to be competitive with other countries in the world. 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. 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. it's one of the five basic precepts of economic development. regulatory control, educated work force, water, cheap power and infrastructure, that's how

you grow an economy. 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 not 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. >> no vote for a gas tax hike. >> no, sir. >> same question to you ms. nunn. would you vote for a hike in he gas tax, in order to keep federal trust fund dollars coming to georgia? >> 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 our 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 need to have a long-term view around this. again, what it takes, we will work across the aisle, embrace partnership in getting things one. i think the savannah port the deepening of the harbor is a perfect example. it did take almost 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 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. >> briefly, what do you do? if the funds run dry and -- >> they're already dry. but we have that in so many areas of 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. but we have an $18 trillion debt, and another $86 trillion in things we're not even talking about yet. here we want to add another tax on the back of 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 topic 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 toward by folks like the

chamber and unions and farm ureau. people as diverse as chuck 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 one. 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 chamber, 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 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. not executively.

>> 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. this has been this president's position all along. i disagree with that. i think the first thing that we have to do is break this complex issue into 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 the legal immigration problem, it may be as 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. 188-to 1920 and then again in the 1980's. 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, because there are needs. having grown up and worked on farms, i understand the needs of farmers to get access to legal labor. right now, the program is built 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. >> next general area of inquiry is defense. military bases in georgia are very important to the state's economy. we know we lost fort mcpherson fort gillam and the naval supply school in athens in the last base re-alignment 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? could robbins air force base be on the line? my question to each of you, and 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 ecurity?

>> well, i grew up just down the road. warner robins air force base. 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. about every four or five minutes, a tanker or a b-52 took off to 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. but in all seriousness, i believe the greatest threat to our national security and defense is this debt and the fact we are not taking it seriously. if you look at what we're trying to do around the world right now, 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 e have a strong defense. i'll work with these private organizations like 21st century and the chambers of commerce to make sure we communicate the strategic intent of these bases nd the strategic importance of our geographic 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. back in the day when 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 ood job. the 21st century partnership. we have such a proud heritage of support for our military in georgia, with nine bases, 140,000 men and women serving under d.o.d., $20 billion of economic impact. second-highest enlistment rate of any state in the country in ur 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. we have a wonderful heritage of 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 commit to being a steward on the 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 sequestration, i was talking to a major general in the marines, he said sequestration as done more to hurt our preparation than anything else in the last few decades. the government shut down for furloughed 4,000 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. what i was saying, we cannot default on our interest payment. this is one of the things that's sacrosanct. we had a lot of people beginning to talk about that. >> we have covered the four basic topic areas the candidates agreed to. i wish we could keep going, but 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. over the next few months. 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 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. and it is responsible for the 50,000 folks who have given time or resources to the campaign, and at the heart of taking on issues we can deal with with a practical and pragmatic sensibility. some of the issues that we talked about here today. 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. >> 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 hat has the rule of law. i just believe that this race is very simple, the decision in this race. if you like what's going on in washington, vote for my opponent. because you know 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 this 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. >> thank 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. >> thanks. very nice job.

>> each friday night this month, c-span's american history tour travels the country to explore historic places while hearing from thursday about the eants and places that shaped the nation. among the lives, the civil rights acts vista medgar evers, who was killed in 1963. here is a look. >> he witnessed a lynching when he was only 12. he said when he asked his father why would they do that to him, his father said that is what they do. he said i am sure he was a little bit angry, frustrated, and he was hurt. getting away from mississippi, medgar enlisted in the army when he was 16. he serve inside world war two. he talked about defending

america, it didn't matter about the color of his skin until he came back home to mississippi. on his 21st birthday he tried to register to vote, he and his brother, charles, who was also a veteran and other veterans. he said this group of white men turned them around with shotguns. medgar said we ran. we did not go up against those men, but it haywood minimum get serious. >> that was a portion of the interview held in jackson, mississippi. you can see it tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> all this month while congress is in recess we are showing you book tv in primetime. tonight at 8:00 eastern, it is reza th with arthur aslan. he spoke about his book, zealot, the life and times of jeez of nazareth. see that on use.

on c-span 3, it is programs on how hollywood what is portrayed the civil war and slavery. we will start with remarks on the depictions of slavery in films since the 1930. after that a look at the recent film lincoln and the end of slavery. and finally, gone with the wind and whether it is a source of southern culture. see all of those beginning at 8:00 peterson on -- 8:00 eastern on c-span 3. >> on september 18, scotland plans to vote on an independence research dempster whether to end their 305-year-old political union with england. warnings that scotland's north sea oil reserves could deadline in 15 years, and that could lead to major damage to their economy. this is half an hour.

>> thank you. presiding officer, the first minister and i can agree on two things. he is the preeminent expert on north sea oil. he reluctantly entered the debate, saying he did so as a father and grandfather and saying he didn't want future generations to ask why he stood silent. he warned the scottish government had over-estimated gas and oil production by between 45% and 60%. he warned the first minister had over estimated tax revenue by two,000 million pounds a

year. we would ask him to explain to him and his grandchildren why he is wrong. >> i hope john and i can agree on more than two things. we agreed just two weeks ago that scotland had the potential to be a prosperous, independent country. i think everybody agreed with that in this chamber. let me agree that ian wood is an authority on oil and gas, but not the only one. there are other authorities. but i think what ian has to say should be considered very kyrafully indeed. the figure i have quoted of up to 24 billion barrels of oil and gas equivalent remaining in the north sea is not the government figure source. it was the figure that the industry has produced and has produced for a number of years and i think is a robust figure.

it shows the stroor potential that remains in the waters around scotland if the policies are pursued and the stewardship is correct to make sure that the resources work for the scottish people. >> two things. the first minister recognized that ian is an authority. but if he says something he doesn't want to hear, he simply ignores it. that is not good enough. and secondly, i would have imagined that ian knew exactly what the first minister said about these figures. he is offering a critique that we must addressed. it is for the public to judge why he disagrees with him now. he said and i quote, relevant to scotland's independence is and gas offshore oil production rests. he says young waters mathieu be

fully aware that by the time they are of full age, scotland will have finished production and this will hurt things. can the first minister tell our children and grandchildren why he was wrong to give them that warning? >> my headline message for the youth of today, get involved. the oil industry will see you through your lifetime. ian wood, bbc, november 9, 2012. yes, he is an authority, and he has been foremost in pointing out the future potential of the oil and gas province. i listened to him on the radio, and he said, and i think he was right to do so, because alec kemp is a foremost authority of modeling of oil and gas and what remains.

he said he felt that the figure of 15 to 16.5 billion barrels was own appropriate estimate. incidentally, that come pairs th the o.b.r. estimate of 10 billion over the next 30 years. that is 60% higher than the one offered by the agencies of her majesty's government. but it came over the last few days. so i consulted professor alec kemp he is website, and i've got it here. that is absolutely correct. he and his research partner have conducted substantial modeling for future production of oil and gas. he says if target and tax centive were reduced, it could increase to 15 billion barrels of oil quintavious

harrow leapt. it goes further. but there is potential for further develop after 2050. hey found in the year 2050, no less than 25 existing known discoveries remain undeveloped. >> order. let's hear the first minister. >> and finishes, thus the ultimate potential of 24 billion barrels of oil equivalent appears plausible. so now we have a point of agreement. , and 24 on to 2050 billion barrels as the total value. that is a lot of billions of barrels, and scotland should welcome it. >> well, that will give a lot of confidence to people.

because obviously the first to ter said he listened ian. he willfully refused to hear what he was hearing. he deflected the fact that failed to he interserena in the debate because he was misquoted. that is the hallmark of a first minister's approach to persuading people to support his life-long political project. whatever is said in the moment, they ignore the substance of the argument. but in his warning, in his warning, ian envisioned far from an independent scotland exporting oil to the rest of the united kingdom, but scotland having to import oil

from the united kingdom. he said this preempt expert identified, unfortunately i think scotland will lose on renewables. u.k. is subsidizing pricing. he added of the oil industry most operators -- >> let us hear, please. >> this is about the future of our country. >> order. >> he added of the oil industry most operators would feel more confident if scotland was to remain part of the u.k. so i ask the first minister again why use ian drawn to say that in the interest of our children, grandchildren and the generations to come? >> first minister? >> well, i have already pointed out that wood is on the record

saying the oil will see you through your lifetime, and he is right to say so. 2050 is not the limit of the oil industry. it will go long beyond that. i've got the transcript of his interview this morning. i spoke to alec kemp two or three times, and he is right on the 15 billion to 16.5 billion that i have quoted is the right sort of range. that is exactly the point i was making. yes, alec kemp says 15 billion to 16.5 billion up to 2050. he goes on to say it will be up to 24 billion if you take a future resource in the reserve. this country of scotland with only 16.5 billion barrels of oil, up to 2050, worth one trillion pounds in wholesale value over that period. terrell.low, 1.5

this come has a great curse of 15 billion barrels of oil. every other country in the world would give their eye teeth for such a substantial resource. why did labor party and the it r party's alleys think was a great curse on scotland. incidental, having 25% of the off shore energy renewable content offshore for europe is not a disadvantage. >> order. > the knighted country is not. it is a wonderful country that deserves not to have its

intelligence insulted. >> order. >> it is not a debating point between me and the first minister. it is what a senior person in the oil industry is saying about the future of our country. so let's review the record over the last two years. there st minister said was legal advice. that is not true. >> order, order. >> it is uncomfortable. carry on. >> it has been established that that wasn't true. john swinney said he was in discussions with the bank of england on a union, and that wasn't true. nicolas told s.n.p. conference scotland couldn't be privatized.

ow he says it isn't. >> order. we will get through this a lot quicker if the applauding and jeering will stop. there is your last question. will you just get to it. >> well, let me hope in all optimism you get an answer to the question. scotland's greatest oil expert says it would be bad for cotland. alec doesn't have a plan b on currency, or europe or oy. the trouble is this is a case that scotland doesn't trust him because he is a man without a plan. >> first minister. order. >> can i just put on the record hat in answer to the first question, wood, i respect his authority, as alec and donald,

who have analyzed the scottish government physician and produced their own estimates, which are similar to the stimates of the scottish figure. the up to 24 billion figure is an industry estimate. it has been used by many people. i pointed out the first 16 billion barrels it up to 2050, and alec kemp says there is more to come, and the 24 billion looks entirely plausible. on the question of the health service, perhaps if john can't bring himself to agree with me, how about agreeing with unison. that means they can't run down and privatize that from london way they are doing in england. but what they can do is starve it. they are cutting back on the money provided to the scottish

government and putting the scottish government under pressure. unison of the union. john asked me who is to blame for that. i was struck, encouraged and excited by ian davidson's comments of only this week. he identified that labor's failures was the reason for the success and spoke out. the reason are why s.n.p. has done well has more to do with the failure of the labor party, the lack of organization. the s.n.p. have become what the labor party should have been. his argument was scottish waters bloofed from glasgow to scotland. many of them became supporters. they didn't want the politics f labor. >> order. conclusion, first minister. >> i am available to quote ian

davidson against joe and. perhaps the reality is the labor party in scotland don't have a plan a, never mind a plan b. >> order. order. question two. >> thank you. to ask the first minister when he will next meet the prime minister? >> no plans. >> wood is the most respected business figure and for 2 1/2 years in this debate, he has kept his own council. he has stayed neutral. as he said yesterday, he had no wish to get involved. now i just heard all the things the first minister has been firing at sir ian's critique yesterday. what i haven't heard and what i am asking the first minister is this. why does he think sir ian feels

so compelled to speak out. >> sir ian wood wanted to clarify that his opinion was that the oil reserves were between 15 billion and 16.5 billion, his estimate. i am pointing out that i think that is based on the forecasts of professor alec kemp, who points out today in his aberdeen university blog, that that applies up to 2050. there are already ole fields on the west coast, which are going to produce beyond 2050. alec kemp has identified over 100 oil discovers that are not in the calculations to 2050. he and industry figures believe that therefore the over-all value in terms of reserves in the oil province is up to 24 billion, which is the industry estimate that u.k. oil and gas have. u.k. oil and gas, individual companies gave us a briefing

from british petroleum, from tim smith, the vice president. billion barrels produced at 2012. potentially 27 billion barrels yet to produce, beyond 2050. so if the industry estimate is up to 24 billion, and if major companies are saying 27 million. they they not bring themselves to realize that whether it is 16.5 billion in 2050, whether it is 27 billion confront 2050, that is many, many bills of barrels of oil and in wholesale erms worth trillions of pounds . every country in the world would believe that is a tremendous asset. why would the labor party believe it is a liability? >> with all due respect to the first minister, that is not why sir ian said he felt the need

at this critical time to speak out. sir ian has no worlds left to condition kerry. he is not trying to win any votes. he just wants the scottish people to know the facts before they make this irreversible decision the throughout this whole debate, the first minister has twisted facts and simply closed his ears to inning that doesn't fit his life-long obsession of independence. but not everybody out there is like that. people want to know what is best for their children and their grandchildren. so can't the first minister just have the decency even at this late stage to concede sir ian's point, that our young voters must be fully aware that by the time they are middle aged, scotland will have little offshore oil and gas production, and this will

seriously hit our economy, jobs and public services? a direct quote from ian. will he not concede it? >> i think if she checks, she will find even her boss, the prime minister, hasn't said on the contrary. read out ian's rallying calling saying the oil in the north sea what last them an entire lifetime. for goodness sake, don't misquote. this is an important argument. >> order. set down. >> i get to the position that alec kemp has decided in terms of forecast, and in his forecast blog today, he points out there is 125 known existing discoveries which in these estimates will still be underdeveloped in 2050 when the clear rich field is already going to produce beyond 2050. can you not admit this is a

long time business that will be with us for generations to tom? major physician in the westminster government have underestimated the significance of oil and gas. dennis, healy, we underplayed the value. it was part of his normal batter. given the track record, is it not possible that the government with its 10 billion barrel estimate over the next 10 years, is capable of doing exactly the same thing? according to evidence in the last 40 years, i think most people in scotland will say t's get the use of natural resources for the benefit of the scottish people.

>> order. >> first minister, how will the scottish government will ensure the future of ship building? >> on tuesday i met with the ferguson shop stewards, i spoke to them again this morning. tomorrow i will visit the ship yards theps and speak to the -- themselves and speak to the people there. a multi-agency task force has been convened. it is due to met again monday. i will assure everything in this chamber that the government will do everything in its power to ensure the continuation of ship building at ferguson. >> i want to thank the first minister by his response. i am sure he is encouraged by e number of people that have xpressed serious interest in

ship building there. although we all express a very serious regret that a yard with such potential was allowed to close, a closure that was brought about by the failure by the companies to place orders for ferry's three and four, following the very successful build of mv vehicles. no question of the psychoish government that they wish to continue ship building in ferguson. is the first minister confident that his view as shared by others, and how can he ensure that the order of vessels will be used in support of ferguson's and helping the scottish economy? >> when john made his statement on tuesday, i did think that he stopped at the wrong note in

terms of how to analyze this situation. there have been substantial orders placed with this yard nd substantial opportunity for the new generation of environmentally safe ferries. we are confident that that will continue under new ownership. two things encourage me greatly. one is the spirit and determination of the work force in ferguson. one thing has been unanimous from every commentator around this issue. no one has questioned the skill, dedication, application, resilience and resolve of that work first and every person in this chamber should give them maximum support. that enencourages me greatly. the second thing is i was encouraged by the statement yesterday. he made it clear that he was moving to an early deadline in

terms of offers to be analyzed of 5:00 this evening. in that statement he said he was moving to that deadline because he wanted to make sure there was a chance of a continuation of ferguson's as an ongoing concern. he would be particularly looking at holding this work force together and making sure there are prospects for the future. although we are not there yet, although there will still be more anxious hours and days for the work force at ferguson's, that we have reason for substantial encouragement, and that encouragement is founded and based not just on the courage and determine nation of this council and governor, but on the workers themselves. >> thank you. ask the first minister what the scottish government has to say on the first report? >> we welcome it.

it empowers communities the power to make decisions for scotland's island communities. local government will be important for an independent scotland. it has to be with only with a written constitution. >> the first minister is aware that this report follows a previous report in 2012 by nother foundation, failure and resemifinal in local government in scotland. does he agree that the only way to get a truly democratic society in scold is by voting es in september? >> i agree with that position. but the point of john wilson's question i think is very opposite. there are a range of vital

could, ons in which with a written constitution, have entrenched protection important to the vital fabric of scotland. that is one of the benefits of having a written constitution. we recently had the commonwealth games in glasgow. it was a success. 71 countries participate negligence these games with the exception of new zealand, every sing of one of these independent countries has a written constitution which preserves and protects the rights of the citizen as well as free rights. i agree with john wilson that the position of local government would be entrenched in a written constitution of an independent scotland. >> first minister, would you discuss how the government's conomic strategy will affect economic opportunity.

>> it offers opportunity for the vast talented population. we show how through independence we can create more and better job opportunities, helping young people realize their ambitions and aspirations here inled psycho. it seems while we offer a decoration of opportunity, neil finley and close colleagues in the conservative party have nothing whatsoever to declare. >> we know that first minister's forecast is a mere 60% out and corporate tax gifts to beg business would take $350 million a year from subservices. is it voodoo economics that would see scotland with an $8.6 million back hole in its finances. and what would he say about what gregory says is a complete

lie in the event of a november-vote? >> i know it is extremely difficult no the constituent member given his alliance with the conservative party to try and reflect on the position that lots and lots people in scotland agree with the search of support for protecting a national health service through independence for scotland and in a written constitution. he will not pay close attention to the quote i read out from unison, making the point that as the health service budget and public service budget is doesn't england, he believe that privatization is intended to increase in england. as that happens, if enforced in cotland, as unison gives financial pressure. it shows an increase over the last few years in the national

health service budget. about what has happened in wales? a 3% deadline. either we believe that the to party in wales wanted reduce real term spending in national health service, which even i don't believe, or it could be from forced financial pressure from westminster. i agree with the labor party in wales and england, that england's privatization is endangering the health service. i agree it is high time the members did as well. >> order. question six. >> thank you, presiding officer. to ask the first minister what progress has been made in existing infant mortality rates. >> we welcome the figures by research on monday, august 18. t shows the mortality rate has

reduced by 25% in the last four years. we are working with cancer research, aimed at pushing cancer survival. we are working to improving scotland's cancer treatment infrastructure, including 22 million pounds for a new treatment center to help meet the raising demand for radio therapy treatment over the next 10 years. >> thank you. better treatments and fewer people smoking after hall contributed to the fall in the death rates from the top four cancer killers. does the first minister agree that the health inequality gap between the groups is still too high for lung and stomach cancer and that programs for early detection are vital to

ensure that everyone in scotland receives the life-saving treatment they need can given by a fully functioning health service can provide? >> yes. we had a 30 million pound investment in early detection. we invested another 12 million to the psychotic breast screening program. part of the program is focused on addressing the fears of cancer. we know that diagnosis and treatment at the earliest stage helps to improve survival rates. this will ensure every patient regardless of where they live receives timely treatment and follow up. he mentions the importance of a public health service. i hope everyone in this chamber understands the importance of protecting and preserves our national health service in scotland. it is absolutely vital. we believe that can be done through scottish independence. if there is an alternative

route, it better get spelled out. the s.n.p. have become what the abor should have become. >> that ends first ministers questions. we heavy new business. >> thursday's question time was the last session before the referendum vote. the leader of the scottish national party has been advocate fog an independent scotland. david cameron supports the better together campaign, and he believes that scotland should stay in the u.k. on monday there will be a debate between the prime minister and alex darling who heads up the better glasgow campaign. >> here are some of the highlights for this week. tonight on c-span in primetime, we will visit important sites

in the history of the civil rights movement. saturday night at k, highlights from this year's forum. on sunday, "q & a" with new york koronkaman charlie rangel at 858 eastern. tonight on use, in depth with religious scholar reza aslan. and sunday night at 11:00 p.m. eastern, lawrence goldstone on the competition between the wright brothers and glen curtis to be the predominant name in manned flight. tonight at 8:00 eastern, a look at hollywood's portrayal of slavery. saturday night the 200th niversary of the battle of bladensburg. find our television schedule one week in advance at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you are watching.

e-mail us at comments at c-span.org. like us on facebook, follow us on twicer. >> tomorrow on journal journal. military times reporter andrew tillman on the role of the defense apartment on the gross of isis in the middle east. and then they discuss issues important to voters in the 2014 and 2016 elections. then huntly looks at the 509th anniversary of the wilderness acts. plus your phone calls and tweets and facebook comments. >> earlier today, the russian ambassador to the u.n. told reporters in new york that convoy's carrying humanitarian aid to villages in eastern ukraine had been begun arriving

at their intended destinations. he insisted there is not a military presence in the convoys. that it is a humanitarian effort. here is more now. >> ambassador, what is the plan with these trucks which are now at the center of this dispute between russia and ukraine. once they off load their delivery, what are they doing? are they returning back to russia right away. one follow-up question. nato is report that the russians have sent in artery . d advisors to help the >> they have reported that without providing any proof. >> could you answer the question? >> i think they will go back. i don't know the exact arrange. immediately we went into very details discussions. we are professionals, russian professionals and icrc professionals. i am not privy to all the details of those discussions.

>> they firing on things? >> they need to provide proof. without providing any proof, i don't see any reason to -- >> from your own information, from your own military information, are russian troops and artery there? >> no, no, no. >> one other question. what do you expect from the security council meeting this afternoon? >> we were not the ones who called this meeting. it was called i think by the delegation of lithuania, who is also torpedoing all constructive initiatives we have had on the security council. the humanitarian situation in ukraine with the lithuanians,

not working. with the division of labor, the u.s. and u.k. are not far behind. >> some of the remarks earlier today by the russian ambassador to the u.n. you can watch it all online at c-span.org. >> earlier today, press secretary rear admiral john kirby held a briefing with reporters at the pentagon. he condemned the movement of russian humanitarian convoys across the ukrainian border without permission of the government in kiev. this is 40 minutes. >> everybody, sorry i am late. i know i am terrible -- terribly late today.

i want to say something. we are concerned about the movement of a russian convoy across ukraine's border. we strongly condemn this action and any action that russian forces take that increase tensions in the region. russia should not send vehicles, persons or cargo of any kind in the ukraine whether under the guise of humanitarian convoys or any or pretext without kiev's express permission. this is a violation of sovereignty and territorial integrity by russia. they moved remove vehicles and personnel from the ukraine immediately. that will result in further isolation. we are consulting with other international partners, as we have more details to provide on what we know, we will do that. >> is this considered an than

vision? >> it is certainly unauthorized entry into the ukraine by this convoy, and we are consulting as i said with international partners about next steps. i don't have anything additional to add at this time. in my opening statement i made it very clear what we expect of russia. >> but no phone calls or anything yet between the administration? >> it is just happening today. i am not aware of any outreach today certainly by this building, and i won't speak for other agencies in the ferguson. i would remind you that the secretary did talk to minister shoygu a few days ago, and the minister guaranteed in his words that there would be no military intervention using the pretext of humanitarian relief and assured us there would be no military members of this humanitarian convoy. >> you said under the televise

of a humanitarian convoy. is the u.s. aware of military equipment? >> i am not prepared to speck to specific evidence at this time. we have made our position very clear, that they should not be doing this under the guise of a humanitarian convoy. so use that to cross the border in an unauthorized way. we have a lot of work to do here, and i think well sort this out throughout the day. you will hear more throughout the day. >> we heard yesterday the secretary and chairman dempsey talking about a long-term strategy. could you give us a sense on what does it mean? are we going to see changes in regards to the current operation now in iraq? >> i think what the secretary was referring to, and i'm pretty sure the chairman was referring to, was that we need to have a regional approach here, an interagency and international approach about

this threat possessed by this particular extremist group, isil, and that this would take time to develop this type of lult lateral and multi-national approach to dealing with this threat. the president himself said this wasn't going to be over in a matter of weeks. i think we all recognize that this group didn't grow up overnight. they didn't get the capabilities they got overnight. we have been watching this for a while, and we all recognize it is going to take a while. just as critically, joe, it is going to take a while for everybody, not just the united states military. you are not going to see the answer to all isil problems through a military lens. we are a component, we are a tool. we are conducting operations inside iraq against this group in support of iraqi and kurdish

forces. but we are not going to be the only tool in the tool box that can or should be used. >> does the pentagon know what the size of isil is in rack? are we talking 10,000 or 20,000? >> it is a difficult number to get at. believe me, we asked ourselves that question. it fluctuates a lot. it changes. if not weekly, then certainly daily. it is a constant fluctuation. this isn't a classic army with an order of battle where you can look at a map and say this is how many they have. clearly thousands, but it changes every day. as we talked about, they have free flow across that border between syria and iraq, which for all spent and purposes doesn't exist for them. it is difficult to pin it down

to a specific number. >> go back on russia a millsap and another question. is it not accurate that you now estimate that may be up to 18,000 troops near that border between russia and ukraine? and isn't the reality that you have seen very recently a number of additional heavy weapons, including sa-22 surface-to-air missiles and long-range artillery go across? my second question is can you bring us up to date on this threatening encounter that the chinese military has had with the u.s. military this week in the air? >> there is a lot there, barbara. i am reticent, as i typically am, to give a hard number on russian troops arrayed along the border. i have said for several weeks it is north of 10,000. i believe it is still north of 10,000. we do believe they continue to dd to their battalion tactical

groups there? >> is it not closer to 18,000, well north of 10,000? >> i am going to stay where i have stayed, which is north of 10,000. it does fluctuate. we have seen a consistent increase in the last week or so. i haven't exactly seen troops moving away. they have certainly added and reinforced those troops. but again, i am really reticent to get into numbers. it is hard for us here in the pentagon to give an exact order of battle for another military's forces when you are not there with them. north of 10,000, i think that is fair to say. more wore some than -- worrisome than the number is the readiness that exists in these groups. they are combined arms capable. armor, artery, infantry, air defense. they are very ready, very capable, and they are very mobile, and they continue to do

nothing but increase the tension on the other side with ukraine. this gets to your second of three questions. just as worrisome is the continued support to the separatists, which continues to this day and includes heavy weapons systems, air defense sls, artery systems, tanks. we are seeing a lot of hardware going across that border on a routine basis. >> and russian troops? >> well, it is hard to believe credulity to think it wasn't accompanied by russian forces. get fix let's not eighted on the numbers. the capabilities that exist in

the troops on that side of the border and the capabilities that continue to find its way into separatist's hands. now to china. i know you all may have seen a press report on this. i am going to give you an update here about it in case you weren't following. on the 19th august, an armed chinese fighter jet conducted a navy ous intercept of a p-8 interpret aircraft. it took place about 135 miles east of ha-non island in international air space. we have registered our strong concerns about the unsafe and unprofessional interpret, which posed a danger to the crew and not customary with international law. it undermines efforts at

continued developing military to military relations with the chinese military. that is where are abouter now -- where we are now. >> how close did it get? >> it is difficult to say with precision, but within 30 pete of the p-8. very close, very dangerous. >> is it correct that as they went within 30 feet they moved around the u.s. aircraft, over, under and around it at close range? >> we believe they made self passes, three different occasions, crossed under the aircraft with one pass having only 50 to 100 feet separation. the chinese jet also passed the 90 of the 9-8 a lot -8 at 90 degrees with a point

of showing the weapons. then they threw directly under bringing ide the p-8, their win tips to within 30 feet and then conducted a roll over the p-8, passing within 45 feet. [inaudible question] >> i mean a roll. i am not an aviator, so i am not going talking with my hands. if you have the p-8, the fighter is going over like this. so pretty aggressive and very unprofessional. as i have said, we registered our concerns very strongly to -- through official department matic chance with the chinese. this kind of behavior not only is unprofessional, it is unsafe and certainly not keeping with the kind of military to military relations that we would like to have with china. >> do you have photos or video? >> i believe there is imagery of it.

[inaudible question] >> i don't know. i am not sure. >> can you say if the administration is considering more seriously now expanding the air campaign in iraq to directsly confront isil in a way it hasn't with the next mission or expanding the strike zone area? some of the comments that administration officials have made in the past few days that maybe that is under more serious conversation than in the past. and can you give us an update on the upgrade of weapons? >> on your first question, i think secretary hagel el and the chairman spoke well to it yesterday. i don't know that i can expound on it any further. we continue to assess and monitor isil activities. that is one of the reasons we put assessment teams there in the first place, to get a

situational awareness of what is going on there. as you know, we are engaged in supporting iraqi security forces, and not just only, but with air strikes, which we believe have had an effect. i am not going to get ahead of planning that hasn't been done or decisions that haven't been made. we don't telegraph our punches, but i think you can rest assured that the leadership here in the pentagon understands the threat posed by this group, understands the threat posed inside iraq, and we are gaining every day a better understanding of iraqi security force and kurdish force capability in meeting the threat inside iraq. two points i think are important to make. i am going to make these points, and i know i am not

answering your questions. i am not going to talk about any future planning or operations. but it is important to remind everybody that what we are doing in there is in support of iraq and that ultimately this a fight that the iraqi security forces have got to take on. the second point is there is not going to be a purely military solution. so when the secretary and the chairman were talking yesterday, they talked about using all the elements of american power and international influence as well to deal with this. ultimately the answer is going governance. n good i know this doesn't off the immediacy needed for this threat, but it is the ideology of good government. it is removing the pietri dish through which groups like this can foster and grow. we are a tool in the tool box. we are going to continue to conduct the missions that we

have been conducting in iraq. you have seen it more today. think central command released another press release. we are over 90 air strikes. >> when did it become a sense of u.s. self-defense? the administration has said again and again that it won't hesitate to act against any organization or terrorist group that acts against americans. that seems different than helping the iraqis push that back. >> what we are doing in iraq does both of those things. the secretaries mentioned yesterday is part of the mission is supporting, advising, assisting, helping, iraqi security forces and kurdish forces in blunting the momentum. we believe we succeeded, but it is also about protecting some u.s. facilities. i think the united states

military has over the last several years a pretty good track record of defending american sbst, citizens and facilities in many places around the world, protecting them and defending them from terrorist threats. [inaudible question] >> imet sorry, yes. -- i'm sorry, yes. secretary hagel el has set up a task force here at d.o.d. to examination options. no decisions have come out. i have nothing to announce about that today. that said, we do continue to help the iraqi government in baghdad conduct those kinds of resupply missions, in some cases actually flying their equipment up to the north where it needs to get. and we have been encouraged by the assistance of international partners like the u.k..

i also want to take the opportunity today to thank albania. they have now come forward and offered to conduct resupply missions for kurdish forces, which again we are very grateful for. >> admiral, can you help me nderstand what it means when they say they cannot rule out air strikes? >> the secretary didn't rule anything in or out. i think he said that all options remain available, and they do. i'm not going to speculate about where that might take us, justin. i think you can understand why we wouldn't do that. >> on the foley operation, there was a suggestion from at least one member of congress today that the president or that the white house was slow to approve the rescue mission and this may have le to not getting there on time -- may have led to not getting there on time and that the hostages

were moved. do you have any indication that that was slowed down in in way? >> i don't have any such indication. as we have talked about before, . tempts like this just as critically, it takes time to be informed enough to make that kind of operation. intelligence is often laird over time. like you guys working with sources, you build a picture over time from many different vehicles. that is the way intelligence works, and that is the way it worked in this rescue attempt. i think chairman dempsey said it well yesterday. that there was a lot of planning and effort went into it. onsite, we had indication that

they had actually been at that site. when they were moved, we don't know. but to say it was slow-footed or down in a ham-fisted manner, or that it was an intel failure i think does a disservice to the immense amount of work and the courageous decision it was to move forward to make the attempt. if you will allow me a second to editorialize, i think it says a lot about who we are as a military and as a country, that we are willing to try to pull something like that off. a lot of bravery, a lot of skill, a lot of courage. there will be a lot of names and faces you will never know of people that put their lives very much at risk to try to save the lives of others. i think that is pretty darn commendable. >> last question. is there any update on sending this 300 u.s. security personnel to baghdad? is there any specific threat to the embassy in baghdad?

are these people being sent there to prepare for an evacuation? what is going on? we heard this request from the state department. when is it going to be fulfilled, if at all? >> what i will tell you now is we are processes a request by the state department for some additional security force personnel for baghdad specifically. like all requests that we get for forces, we take them seriously. we explosion sourcing options and force protection requirements that go along with it, and any number of other factors that go into this. we are reviewing that right now. i don't have a decision to announce on it today. as for the need, i wouldn't get into -- i don't talk about specific intelligence matters. i won't do that today. i am not aware of a specific three stream that led to this

request, but clearly it is the kind of request that we take very seriously, and we will. >> last night the missouri representatives met to talk about the 1033 program. can you tell me if the secretary is review or when that may happen? >> the secretary is keeping an open mind. he shares the concerns. certainly, as that concern could lead to the use of military equipment, he has not made a decision about conducting a review. he is gathering information. he not only met with those representatives, he held a meeting with senior staffers the day before to ask lots of probing questions