biding their time, looking for bipartisan legislation now that they can show they are able to accomplish a lot on behalf of the american people so they can maybe a peel to voters who are looking ahead to the presidential election. they feel like if they can get the white house, and keep hold on to the house and senate, they will be able to move their agenda forward, rather than looking like they are just fighting right now with the administration. that is not a picture they want to portray for the public. it does not do well at the polls. people look at the republican party as getting in the way and being obstructionist. they are trying to shed that image. that is why you see big legislation like shelby financial reform legislation move forward and looking more bipartisan than you might expect from the republican party. susan: his expression was "open for business." host: there are two major leverage points coming out in the fall.

what is the appropriations process with the september 30 process. the other is the debt ceiling. you also spoke with him about planned parenthood which is another fulcrum and the process of these negotiations. what do you see happening with that? victoria: the best case scenario is nailbiting. we have had a nice long period without having these brinkmanship moments. i have been studies that show a really does have an economic impact. it is really not good for the economy for there to be this uncertainty and for congress to keep going to the 11th hour on these things. best case scenario, it seems like the congress has set itself up to have something like that. worst case is if you do have another crisis where the government shuts down, they don't raise the debt ceiling really uncertain. susan: they are in control for

the most part. the signals both sides are sending our that we are not going to get near that shutdown moment. they have a stopgap spending measure to get the government-funded so we don't get to september 29 and wonder if everybody is going to run out of funding the next day, which is the end of the fiscal year. a waiver that things could get in the way such as conservatives saying we are not backing anything like planned parenthood. it is a way they can get cooperation with the democrats of the conservatives are sideline. i think that is the strategy we are looking at now to avoid, as you say, the brinkmanship that scares the markets and makes the public unhappy. susan: senator shelby himself noted that with the number of gop wannabes in the senate, it is a different ball game. victoria: absolutely. susan: thanks for being with us this week. >> thank you.

>> the only pie in history -- pirate in history to have fought the british navy to a standstill. >> most pirates ran and high tailed it out. >> tonight on q&a the search for the pirate ship the golden fleece and its captain, joseph banister. >> he started his life not as a pirate, but as a noble english sea captain who is trusted by very wealthy ship owners to sail their ship, the golden fleece, between london and port royal jamaica, which was known as the wickedest city on earth and carry valuable kari like sugar indigo dye, and for years he did that responsibly and nobly.

that one day, 1684, for reasons no one can determine he stole his own ship and went on -- he turned pirate. >> tonight on c-span's q&a. >> the republican presidential candidates are in manchester new hampshire for the first presidential form on monday at 7:00 p.m. eastern. c-span foss road to the white house is providing live coverage on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. the new hampshire junior leader along with media -- they are sponsoring this forum. following the life form, you can provide your input by ginning -- joining our call-in program manager programs best comments on facebook or twitter. road to the white house 2016, on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> new jersey governor and 2016

republican presidential candidate chris christie talks about national security and foreign policy issues. this was at the university of new hampshire and manchester. it is just over an hour. gov. christie: i want to thank my friend. it was my honor to come here to new hampshire and campaign for you. to give the support of not only myself, but the other republican governors, for your effort her e. your campaign made a real difference in terms of the conversation that new hampshire voters for dissipated in last fall. i know this much, that while new

hampshire is doing ok. new hampshire would be doing very well if there was governor walt -- [applause] gov. christie: and first lady of new hampshire would be -- [laughter] [applause] gov. christie: >>--it is great to see judy again as well. i don't want to speak to long today. i want to make time for your questions to talk about our role in the world and the challenges that cases, but mostly the opportunities that are here as well. in a presidency that in my opinion, with all due respect to the president, has generally been disappointing, overpromised and under delivered, that the

worst thing this president has done in his seven years as president is the agreement he reached with iran two weeks ago yesterday. i say that because i believe that it is going to lead to a fundamental of ending of nuclear deterrence in our world over the last 70 years. what the president has done, secretary kerry has done, in this agreement has been deciding a bad deal is better than no deal at all. when this started, america wanted a deal with iran, and iran needed a deal with the rest of the world. the way the negotiations have ended, it appears that america needed a deal with iran, and iran just wanted a deal with the rest of the world. there are lots of things that we could talk about, five-year

lifting on conventional weapons embargo, eight your lifting on the technology of developing ballistic missiles, but the worst part of it is that the president of united states did not tell us the truth two weeks ago. the fundamental underpinning of this agreement, the president himself said, was that it is not based on trust. it was based upon verification. he stood before us and said that we can have inspections anytime anywhere. it turns out when you read the fine print of the agreement, his idea of anytime, anywhere, is different than the common understanding of those words in our language. let me give you an example. if there is a place in a run -- iran where we believe there is cheating and we request an

inspection, if you listen to any time, anywhere, you would think that means anywhere, this place, anytime, right now, no. it would mean the iranians can object. if they do, a ghost arbitration. the arbitration panel, where iran has a vote, that adds up to 24 days to make their decision. it hardly seems like anytime anywhere. i would say that it is analogous to this, as u.s. attorney for new jersey, i had evidence that someone in this audience was committing a crime and that there was probable cause for that crime to be committed so i went to a court and got a search warrant. they approved the search warrant based on probable cause and i came to your home, not on the door i tell you that i have a search warrant to search her home and i will be back in 24 days to search her home.

-- search your home. [laughter] gov. christie: even the stupidest criminal in new jersey -- if i gave them 24 days to come back and look for the evidence -- would be able to figure out how to get it out of there before i came back. we pride ourselves in new jersey and having some of the stupidest criminals on earth. [laughter] even there, the stupidest criminal would find a way to move the evidence out before i came back. here is the bad news. the iranians are far from stupid. they will use these opportunities that the president has willingly given them in this agreement to thwart any effective verification of this agreement and puts them on the threshold of a nuclear weapon. why is that bad?

three reasons, in my opinion. first, iran is still the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. there is no common sense reason why you would ever willingly give these folks the opportunity to become a nuclear power. two, it is bad because the middle east is already in turmoil, and this will lead to a nuclear escalation. if you are the saudi's, egyptians, jordanians, iraqis, and you see this agreement, you will start to pursue a nuclear weapon yourself if you have not already. you would either develop it on your own purchased the technology from rogue states, or a combination of both. that is bad because we do not need a less stable middle east. now, folks who have thousand

year old conflict with each other possessing nuclear weapons to use in attempting to resolve those thousand year conflicts. third, it is disastrous for israel. israel is our best and truest ally in the region and the only democracy in the region. it is amazing to me that the israelis were not at the table. it is amazing to me that they were not given later weight by this administration. it is shameful that this president decided that the only world leader he is willing to stand up to and berate in public is the prime minister of israel. this deal has directly led and contributed to our problem in

syria. the president drew a redline in syria and said that if bashar al-assad uses chemical weapons, we will take him out. you can degree or -- agree or disagree, but once the president decides to make it he must back up the threat he has made. get this president when he has used chemical weapons and murdered 220,000 of his own people that he did nothing. it makes no sense, right? the real issue going on was that since the iranians and support bashar al-assad, if you are more concerned with making a bad deal with the iranians than giving your word as president, then you look the other way as the

syrians are killed in cold blood by their own government and has hundreds of thousands of them stream over the board and -- the border into jordan. the middle east has always been a complicated and difficult place for the united states, and for the resident of the world -- and for the rest of the world. the president has made it close to an manageable -- two unmanageable without wrong -- clear, resolute leadership. that is what we have to do in january 2017 with the next president worried the second thing i want to emphasize to you and i will be happy to take your questions is that interwoven into any discussion these days of our national security and military has to be the discussion of our national intelligence capabilities.

it has become a more complicated and difficult world. in fact, i want to alert you that you are about to have a historic moment in front of you. one of the only times you will hear this, i think, in my political career, i quote jimmy carter. [laughter] i feel uncomfortable about it. [laughter] i feel a little twinge in my neck, but i am going to do it because even president carter is right once or twice. i saw him give an interview to the aspen institute with walter isaacson, and he was asked about the obama foreign-policy and his opinion on it. as with jimmy carter said. he said, i cannot think of one country that we have a better relationship with today than the day he became president. that came from a president of his own party.

the world has become a more complicated and difficult place because of the lack of american leadership as personified by this president and his conduct. so the need for accurate real-time intelligence in our country, it is now more acute. in this world of terrorist activity by groups like al qaeda, isis, has block hamas we need to interdict before then. it is not good enough to catch them afterwards. we have to catch them before they act. a big part of that is to active -- is an active, well-funded intelligence community. this president has damaged our intelligent community, and by the way, so ha=ve some embers of our congress.

and the bush administration, it was awfully bipartisan in their waning days. it hurt morale. it contained outright falsehoods. the president has continue down this path with his conduct an attitude and some members of congress, towards the nsa and the efforts we are making to interdict terrorist activity before it starts. let me be clear, as the only person in this race for president who has actually reviewed and approved applications under the patriot act, i and the only person in this race who has reviewed and approved matters before the foreign intelligent courts, i am the only person in this race who has investigated indicted, prosecuted, and convicted terrorists who were attending to kill americans on our soil.

i continued that based upon seven years of that experience that the conduct of the president and the congress in the past couple of months has made america weaker and more vulnerable. it was unnecessary. we have the ability to be able to protect people civil liberties, while also getting real-time intelligence in the hands of our government officials as a result of that information. anyone who tells you differently either doesn't understand how this world works or has a complete disregard for the level of danger our country faces from those who are trying to attack us and kill us every day just because we are americans who stand for freedom and liberty around the world. and so, i would urge the

reversal of those policies as president. i would fund our intelligence capabilities greater than today. i would say to the members of congress you want to be vigilant about civil liberties so do i, then you sure congressional oversight to do so. i would say to my attorney general, if any intelligence officer of the united states violates the law and civil liberties of one of our citizens, they need to be prosecuted, but you do not throw the capability out because you fear someone might misuse it. you police the use of the capability. so, we need to be serious about our intelligence capabilities. we can build our military, which i advocate. we can build bases around the world, which i will do. and we can be clear with our adversaries around the world about the limits of our patients

but all of that will only partially do the job if we don't have the vigorous, capable intelligence operation around the world. those are the things that we to do in my view to begin to rebuild america's image around the world our ability to defend ourselves, and our ability to be a positive force for our allies around the world. i want to in with this. i have no interest in the young men and women of united states of america being the world's policeman. i have no interest in being the president of the united states when america is not the world leader. there is a difference. our allies around the world want american leadership. they need american leadership. we need to work with them and then lead. that is what a great nation does.

add for -- and for adversaries around the world, if i'm president united states in january 2017, nothing will happen in this world based on misunderstanding. there are a lot of things that people can say about me, that being misunderstood is not one of them. [laughter] i speak in rather plain and direct english that any translator will be able to understand and translate quickly. that is not meant to intimidate our adversaries. it is meant to inform them. so they know the true limits of america's patients and they know what our willingness will be to help them if in fact they are working in a way that promotes freedom and security around the world. that is why i was so excited when walt gave me the opportunity to come here and speak to all of you folks who are obvously concerned about

these issues in our country, and i look forward to taking your questions as we move ford from here. thank you for your time. i appreciate it. [applause] walter: thank you. i have a pleasure to introduce a moderator for day. i face known to just about every -- and certainly to me. we are delighted on behalf of apps -- welcome to the forum. thank you. 2[applause] paul: pleasure covering your campaign.

we are honored to be part of this series. we have already had carly fiorina here, and we are glad to have governor christie. as i was driving into work this morning, i heard a chris christie commercial. we like that. you are talking about the nuclear deal and criticizing it. if you were president, what would your deal be like with iran. host: wegov. christie: first of all, we would have walked away months ago. [applause] gov. christie: the president is trapped. he is trapped in trying to defend a bad deal. his offense is well, tell me what your deal would look like. that is not the way things work. it is not an either or proposition. they are dynamic, not static.

this entire negotiation could have changed six months ago when the iranians were not willing to make a fair deal with united states. the president of the united states and should've called the secretary of state to come home and delivered a message to the foreign ministers of iran. when you are serious with wanting a fair deal that is fair to the rest of the world and a congress is what we need to accomplish, insure the world that iran will not have a nuclear weapon capability, then call me. you have my number. this is not unprecedented in world or national history. ronald reagan walked away from reykjavik and got a great deal of criticism from some quarters for walking away. he understood that no deal was better than a bad deal. he walked away from gorbachev and what happened? a year later, gorbachev was back

with a better deal that helped to preserve peace. i know what the deal -- don't know what the deal would have looked like, but i would not have accepted this deal. i would just have walked away and work with our allies to keep the sanctions in place, if not strengthen them. then see how the iranians react. the premise for these negotiations was that america wanted a deal, but iran needed a deal because of the worldwide sanctions and damage to their economy. that is what i would've done. i would have walked away from the table. again, negotiations are dynamic thing. whether you are negotiating a nuclear arms deal or buying a

car, you walk into the showroom and give your final offer. if you keep hanging around, they know they have you. you can walk out of the showroom. the car will still be there. they might take you more seriously. walter:paul: would you stand in the way if israel acts unilaterally? gov. christie: we don't have the right to stop israel from acting. they are allies and friends, and so i would have we will -- i hope we would have a conversation. that is what good friends do. no, do i believe that the united states should unilaterally stop israel. the answer is no. they have a right to defend themselves. as president, i would hope to

have the type of relationship with prime minister netanyahu that we would have conversations before that would happen. paul: couple of your rival said they would scrap the deal on day one. what is your thought? gov. christie: it is an awful deal that we should never have agreed to. before i commit to what i am going to do on this deal, let's see what the world looks like where our allies are, let's be smart about this. it would not take long, but i think that eventually with events changing so rapidly, you have to see what the world looks like and how you would go about doing it. i tell you this, if the iranians cheat like crazy on this deal,

we will have plenty of reasons to walk away. let's see what the world looks like on that day and not just pound our chests and say things we think will get applause from the grandstands. being president of the united states is much more serious than that. paul: who is the bigger threat, china or russia? gov. christie: russia is a bigger threat because their economy is in such bad shape. i don't see any reason at the moment why oil prices will go up. as a result there it economy will continue to be in bad shape. when countries are in bad shape economically, they act out around the world and keep their folks at home -- so over the next 10 years, russia is a greater threat. four years ago, mitt romney said

in a debate with the president that russia was a great threat to us, and the president knocked him and said the 19 70's are calling and asking for their foreign policy back. it is a cute line. it is instructive to note that mitt romney was right about that and we should have listened to him and on a lot of other issues as well. paul: on the related topic, a question here, why does the united states not provide defensive weapons to pro-western democratic countries like ukraine, who are attacked by external forces coming from russia? gov. christie: i think we should be arming more folks around the world, the kurds should be armed more aggressively. and for the folks in ukraine, we should have a sears conversation with them about their need for additional weapons from the united states and how do we go about doing that.

there is no reason for us not to have those conversations. we need to send signals about the limits of our patients -- that we have reached the limit. paul: we were just talking about india. would you continue president obama's policy building business governor christie: interesting. about seven or eight months ago i had the opportunity in new york city to meet with the prime minister of india. a very interesting guy my impression is he is very forward thinking, modern inking. he is trying to move them into a greater economic development in connection with the world and seems to be someone who understands how important active and vital participation democracy is. his election was one that