it was tens of thousands. >> isil turned their leaders. in the absence of leaders of the military formation, the soldiers will not stick around and wait to see what happens. collect some of the leaders of those divisions. i will tell you that when i was there from 2005 to 2007, several things were clear to me. we could equip them to fight. it would be harder to give them the logistics architectures. but we did. the hardest thing of all, as i say now, is to build leaders and have those leaders supported >> have those supported. to you question -- and by the way, there are still many iraq security forces, multi confessional, not just one sect or another who are standing and fighting. but the entire enterprise is at risk. >> host: what do you make of that? >> guest: i think they are saying we did train them so they had the skill set to fight and be successful but you have don't t have the will. will can't be trained. you have to be -- signing up to lay your life down for a greater cause isn't for everybody. if the belief isn't there because there is no faith in your leadership than it doesn't matter. that is what i think he is eluding to. >> host: if there is a lack of will what about dividing iraq into the three sectors? >> just by sitting back and not doing anything might cause that. >> the caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. i really appreciate having the ability to talk to our congress people via c-span2. i wanted to take a comment about the iraq situation. i think we should be one way or the other when it comes to promoting democracy around the world. the world is looking at us going to the iraq and afghanistan and trying to promote democracy and there are bigger players on the field. we do business with common trainers and they don't like us. and there is no playing around. they don't like us. the north koreans have nuclear weapon and they are closed to society. i am more worried about the north korean's and the chinese than i am the middle east. >> host: got your point. congressman? >> guest: it does seem disjointed. how can we pick this country and this cause and not this issue which is horrific and horrible. the united states has finite resources and we have to go where the hot spots and where we can gain victories whether that is human rights or stopping terrorism. it is crisis management just by the gnash nature of what it is. we don't like what is happening in north korea but is that affecting us directly? no. but when you have terrorist having the ability to attack america or america's interest from the middle east that presents a problem we are forced to deal with. we might like to deal with north korea but unfortunately we have a 50 meter target and have to let the 1,000 meter target be handled. >> the calle >> host: appreciate your time. >> tonight, president obama discusss the fighting in iraq and senate republicans talk about obama's foreign policy and the christian science monitor interviews texas governor pick perry. the advance of the sunni insu e insurgeoninsurg insurgeancy is adding tension to the area. iran is prepared to send volunteer militia into iraq to defend holy sights. the president announced his plan for assisting the iraqi military and fighting against isis which has captured several cities near baghdad. he is planning to send 300 advisors. this is 30 minutes. the president:i wanted to provide you an update on how we are responding to the situation. first we are trying to secure the embassy in iraq and i have taken steps to relocate the personal and sent reinforcement to better secure our facilities. second, we have increased our intelligence and reconnaissance assets so we have a better picture of what is taking place inside iraq and this will give us a greater understanding of what they are doing and how it is located and how we might support efforts to counter the threat. third, the united states will continue to increase your support to iraqi security forces. we are prepared to have centers to share intelligence. we are prepared to work with congress to provide additional equipment. we are prepared to send a small number of military advisors on how we can best train iraqi forces going forward. american forces will not be returning to combat in iraq. but we will help them as they take the fight to terrorist. forth, in recent days we are positioned military assets in the region. because of the increase intelligence resources, we are developing more information about targeting and going forward we will be prepared to take targeted and precise military action if and when we determine the sichation on the ground requires. if we do i will consult with congress, leaders in iraq and the region. i want to empici sayhasis the b response is to involve partnerships with iraqi forces take the lead. finally, the united states will lead a diplomatic effort to work with the leaders to support stability in iraq. secretary kerry will depart for meetings into the middle east and europe and consult with allies and friends. and all of iraq's neighbors have a vital interest in making sure iraq doesn't descend into the civil war or become a save haven for terrorist. above all, iraq leaders must rise above differences and come together for the future. all of the iraqs must have confidence they can advance their interest and aspirations through the political process not violence. national unity meetings have to go forward to build concensus. the formation is beginning of a dialogue and forge a government that represents the interest for all of iraqis. it is clear that only leaders that can govern with a central agenda will bring together the state. we will not support military options to support one sect at the expense of another. there is no military solution inside of iraq certainly not one led by the united states. but there is an urgent need for an inclusive political process, more capability security force and counter terrorist groups that deny groups like isil of staying. recent days remind us of the scars left by iraq, along side the loss of 4500 american patriots many veterans have that war on their mind and also will. we have seen the debates resurface but what is clear from the last decade is the need for the united states to ask hard questions before we take action abroad particularly military action. the most important question we should all be asking, the issue we have to keep front and center, the issue i keep front and center is what is in the national security interest of the united states of america. as commander and chief that is what i stay focused on. as americans that is what we should all be focused on. we will consult with congress and keep the american people informed. we will remain vigilant and continue to do everything in our power to protect the security of the united states and the safety of the american people. so with that i'm going to take a couple questions. i will start with colliene. >> do you have confidence in the prime minister and can he bring political stability to iraq? >> it is not our job to chose iraq's leaders. part of what are patriots fought for for many years was the right for iraqi's to determine their own destiny. but there is deep division right now and as long as those deep divisions continue or worsen it is going to be hard to deal with this. we consulted with the prime minister and said that to him priv privately and publically that whether he is the prime minister or another leader it has to be a journey where everyone feels they have an opportunity to advance their interest through the political process. and we are seen dating back to 2008-2009 but worse over the last two years defense among sunni's and their interest were not being served and legislation promised was stalled and you hear similar complaints that the government in baghdad hasn't reached out to some of the tribes and been able to bring them in to a process that, you know, gives them a sense of being part of a unity-government or a single nation state and that has to be worked through. part of the reason why we saw better equipped iraqi security forces are larger numbers not holding contested territory against the isil probably reflects that lack of -- a sense of commitment on the part of sunni communities to work with baghdad. and that has to be fixed. >> americans may look at this decision has a sneak preview of coming attractions and that the number of ad visors is the beginning of a boots on the ground. why is iraq's security interest in the united states and are you concerned about the potential for mission creak? >> i think we have to always guard against mission creak. american combat troops are not going to be fighting in iraq again. we do not have the ability to simply solve this problem by sending in tens of thousands of troops and committing the kinds of blood and treasure that has been expended in iraq. this is something that has to be solved by the iraqis. is it in our national security interest not to see on all-out civil war in iraq. not just for humaneitarian but it be destabalize the region and issues like energy and global energy markets continue to be important. we also have an interest in making sure we don't have a save haven that continues to grow isil and other extremist jihadist groups who could use that as a base of operation for planning and targeting ourselves, our personal overseas and eventually the homeland. if they accumulate more money, more ammunition, more military capability, larger numbers -- that poses great dangers not just to allies like jordan, which is close by, but it poses dangerous to europe and the united states. we have seen inside syria groups like isil that right now are fighting with other extremist groups or a regime that wasn't responsive to sunni majority there and that has attracted more and more jihadist or would be-jihadist. some of them from europe and they start traveling back to europe and that can create a codray of terrorist that could harm us. so we have humanitarian interest and counter terrorism interest and they have to be addressed. the initial effort to get awareness through reconnaissance and surveillance we have done coupled with some of our best people on the ground doing assessments of exactly what the situation is, starting by the way with the perimeter around baghdad and making sure that is not overrun, that is a good investment for us to make. but that doesn't forshadow a larger commitment of troops to fight in iraq. that would not be effective in meeting the core interest we have. >> do you wish you have left a residual force there? >> keep in mind that wasn't my decision. that was made by the iraq government. we offered a force to help continue to train and advise iraqi security forces. we had a core requirement and they are provided immunity since being provided by the government and if for example they end up in acting in self defense if they are attacked and find themselves in a tough situation that they are not hauled before a foreign court. that is a core requirement that we have for u.s. troop presence anywhere. the iraqi government and tprime minister declined to provide us that immunity. i think it is important to recognize that despite that decision that we have continued to provide them with very intensive advice, support and have continued throughout the process over the last five years to not only offer them aeour assistance military but we have urged the kinds of political compromise we think is necessary to have a functioning multi secretarian democracy in the country. >> you mentioned syria. the united states has been slow to provide weapons and training directly to syrian opposition. does the expansion of the war into iraq change the mind about the weapons you are giving to syria now? is that what prompted kerry to say they are going to change the assistance. >> that assessment about the dangers happening in syria have existed since the beginning of the syrian civil war. the question has never been we thought this was a serious problem. the question has been is there the capacity of moderate opposition on the ground to absorb and counteract extremist as well as a regime that was outmanned and ruthless. we have consistently provided that opposition with support often times the challenge is if you have former farmers or teachers or pharmacyst who are taking up opposition against a battle-hardened regime with support from external actors that have a lot at stake how quickly can you get them trained and mobalized and that continues to be a challenge and even before the situation we saw with isil going into iraq we had already tried to maximize what we can do to support moderate opposition that not only can counter act the brutality but also make sure that in the mind of sunni's they don't think they have alternatives like the terrorist groups. i think the key to both syria and iraq is going to be a combination of what happens inside the country, working with moderate syrian opposition, working with iraq government that is inclusive, and us laying down a more effective, counter terrorism platform that gets all of the countries in the region pulling in the same direction. i alluded to this in the west point speech, i talked about it today with respect to the counter terrorism partnership fund. there is going to be a long-term problem in the region in which we have to build and partner with countries that are committed to our interest, our values, and at the same time we have problems with terrorist organizations that maybe advancing and rather than try to play whack a mole wherever the terrorist organizations may pop up we have been to able to built effective partnerships and make sure they have capacity and some of the assets that have been devoted solely to afghanistan we have to shift and make sure there is coverage in the middle east and north africa. you look at yemonopoen, impover and we have a committed partner and we have been able to help to develop their capacities without putting large numbers of u.s. troops on the ground. at the same time we have enough counter terrorism capabilities we are able to go after folks that might hit the embassy or export terrorism and into europe and united states. looking at syria and iraq, but in order for us to do that we still need to have actual dpment government on the ground we can partner with and pursue the political inclusiveness and in yemen a dialogue that took a long time but gave people a sense of a legit political outlet for grievances they have. >> going back to where you see the prime minister playing a role -- you said a time to rise above and more inclusive. is he a unifier and how much clout does the united states have with any of the leadership of iraq? >> we still provide them significant assistance. i think they recognize unlike some other players in the region we don't have territorial ambitions in their country. we are not looking to control their assets or energy. we want to make sure that we are vindicatting the enormious effort and sacrifice made by troops in giving them the opportunity to build a stable, inclusive society that can prosper and deliver for the basic needs and aspirations of the iraqi people. at the same time, they are a sovereign country. they have their own politics. and what we have tried to do is to give them our best advice about how they can solve their political problems now they are in crises we are indicating to them that there is not going to be a simple military solutions to this issue. if you start seeing the various groups inside iraq go to their respective corners then it is certain that baghdad and the central government will not be able to control huge chunks of their own country. the only way they can do that is if there are creditable sunni leaders, both at the national and local level, who have confidence a shia majority, that the kurds and all of those folks are committed to a fair and just governance of the country. there is too much mistrust right now. an election took place and the good news is in despite of this mistrust and frustration and anger you had millions of iraqi turns out. you have a court that certified the elections and a constitutional process to advance government formation. so far at least the one bit of encouraging news we have seen inside iraq is that all of the parties have said they are committed to choosing a leadership and government to the government. as the prospects of civil war heightenmany iraqi leaders are stepping back and saying let's not plunge back into the abyss but they don't have a lot of time and you have a group doing everything they can to send the country back into chaos. a message we have the were prime minister, speaker of the house and the leadership in iraq is get going on the government formation. it will make it easier for a military strategy and make it easier for us to partner. >> given the prime minister's track record is he a unifier? can he play that role? >> i think the test is before him and other iraqi leaders as we speak. right now they can make a series of decisions. regardless of what happens in the past, right now is a moment where the fate of iraq hangs in the balance and the test for all of them is whether they can overcome the mistrust and say this is bigger than any one of us and we have to make sure we do what is right for the iraq people. that is a challenge. that is not something the united states can do for them. that is not something the united states armed forces can do for them. we can provide them the space. we could provide them the tools but way they are going to make those decisions. our job is to make sure american personal is safe, we are consulting with forces and getting an idea of what is on the ground and recognizing them over the long term and developing the kinds of comprehensive counter terror strategy we need. that is going to involve short-term responses to make sure isil isn't obtaining capacity to endanger us or allies and partners but it is going to require long-term strategy as well. part of what we have seen with respect to isil is, you know, a broader trend that i talked about at west point. a single network. a discreet network of terrorist. this fluid combination of hardened terrorist and diseffected local leadership and where there is vacuums and they are filling it and creating the potential for serious danger for all concern. thank you very much. >> any words on what you are willing to do and willing to work -- >> our view is iran can play a contructive role and that is iraqi only holds together if it is inclusive and if the interest of everyone is respected. if iran is coming in solely as an armed force on behalf of the shia and framed in that fashion then that probably worsens the situation and the prospect for government formation that would be constructive over the long term. well, i think that just as iraq leaders have to make decisions, i think iran has heard from us and we indicated it was important to avoid steps that might encourage the kind of slits that might lead to civil war. the one thing that i think has to be emphasised is we have dep differences with -- empicized -- is we have deep differences with iran. what happened with syria is the result of iran coming in hot and heavy on one side. and iran obviously should consider the fact that if it has -- if its view of the region is solely three secretarian frames they could find themselves fighting in all kinds of places and that is probably not good for the iranian people. iraq and chaos on their borders is probably not in their interest but old habits die hard and we will have to see if they will take what i think a more promising path. all right. thank you very much. >> in the senate today, republicans discussed the increasing violence in iraq and the obama's administration foreign policy. this begins with senator john mccain. it is 50 minutes. >> today, we see reports that new isis has taken over the major oil refinery in iraq. names that we used to hear quite often like mocities that are under the playing flag of al qaeda and isis which is worse than al qaeda if that can be believ believed. we now see the forces of isis marching on baghdad itself, which i don't believe they can take, but the second largest city is now under the black flag and quantities of military equipment is falling into the hands of what is now a syria-iraq largest terrorist, richest largest base for terrorism in history. this is all come about in the last couple weeks and what is the united states of america done? today we see on the front page of the "washington post" u.s. see risks in iraqi airstrikes. the president of the united states goes for fundraising and golfing and is now fiddling while iraq burns. we need act, mr. president. but we need to understand why we are where we are today. the senator from south carolina and i visited iraq on many occasi occasions. more than i can count and know were a fact we could have left a residual force behind and we would not be where we are today. if the president of the united states wanted to leave a force he never made it clear to the american people. the president said quote what i would not have done is left 10,000 troops in iraq. that would tie us down. he celebrated in 2011 the departure of the last -- as he described it, the last combat soldier from iraq and was of our defect and we didn't leave the force behind we are paying a price and the people of iraq are paying a heavier price. what do we need to do? we need to understand there are no good options remaining. this is a cull forming of failure after failure of this administration. but for us to do nothing will ensure this base of terrorism, over a hundred, have come back to the united states of america. there are hundreds and hundreds who are leaving the battlefield in syria and iraq and they will pose a direct threat to the the security of the united states. i say to the critics who say do nothing and let them fight it out. you cannot confine this conflict to iraq and syria. the director of national intelligence and secretary of homeland security said that these people will be planning attacks on the united states of america. so what do we need to do? of course malkey has to be transitioned out but the only way that is going to happen is to assure the iraqis will be to assist. and no one i know wants to send combat troop on the ground. but airstrikes are an important factor, psychologically and in other ways. we cannot afford to allow a syria-iraq enclave that will pose a threat to the united states of america and if we act we going to have the act in syria as well. a residual force could have checked the conflict. and what are the iranians doing while we are not making decisions? the head of the kurd's force is the one of the most evil people on earth was reported to be in baghdad. i say to my colleagues we must make this threat and the president of the united states must make decisions and i am convinced the national security of the united states of america is at risk here and the sooner that all of us realize it the better off we will be. i yield to my collyialolleaguao south carolina. >> the senator from south carolina. >> i would ask to be recognized for four minutes. >> without objection. >> thank you. mr. president, contrary to what maybe poplar belief there are plenty of democrats worried about iraq. the question is what do we do it about it. it is complicated. but we have to asess does it matter what happens with iraq? yes, i think it does. iraq could be a fail state that spreads against the country you will feel at the gas pump and at the wallet. it will affect the world oil market and throw it into turmoil. military does it matter? it does in this regard. isis is an off shoot of al qaeda because they al qaeda kicked them out. they will have safety from syria to the gates of baghdad. they are sworn to attack us. part of their agenda is to strike our homeland. their goal is to create an islamic state that would put the people under their rule into darkness and i don't know want to hear war about women studies unless you address iraq and syria. you want to see a war on women i will show you one. can you imagine what little girls are thinking today in the sunni part of iraq and syria? the hell on on earth. the people that will do that to their own what would they do us. i don't mean to be an alarmist but i am alarmed. i am telling you what they are saying they will do. our director of national intelligence said the safe haven for isis in syria and now iraq presents a great threat to the homeland. the mistake the president is making is not to realize we need lines of defense. 10,000-15,000 would have given the iraq military the capacity they don't have and con -- confidence -- they have today. and you have seen the collapse of iraqi army i thought would keep us safe. you cannot kill all of the terrorist to keep us safe. our goal is to keep the war over there so it doesn't come over here. it is in our national security interest to partner with people in iraq and there were many who wanted a different life than isis would have. many shia's want to be iraqiraq shia's not iranian. so the decision to look for ways to get out totally has come back it haunt us and we are on the verge of doing the same in afghanistan. the taliban would be dancing in the street, they just don't believe in dancing, when they heard we were leaving in 2016. can you imagine how the afghan people feel believing we would not abandon them that we are pulling out the troops. can you imagine how the young women in afghanistan and pakistan feel? they could be in the cross hairs of the people trying to take afghanistan down. but what about us? president obama is going back to a pre-9/11 day. those in america who think if you leave these guys alone they will leave you alone you are not listening to what they are saying and the only reason 3,000 died on september 11th and not three million is because cannot get the weapons. but if they could they would. and they are close. the taliban will regroup and the afghan army will meet a terrible fate and the people that wish us harm will come back our way. the region is a target for radical islamic. at the end of the day your job is to protect us. the afghan people are willing to have us stay there in enough numbers to protect them and us. mr. president, before it is too late change your policy in afghanistan. don't take this country back to pre-9/11 mentality when you treat terrorist their rights rather than gather intelligence. we are letting down our defense all over the world. if we continue on this track it will come here again. i yield the floor to senator chandler. >> senator from georgia. >> i rise to join my colleagues in talking about the direction of foreign policy especially relating to the middle east. the policy has unravelled and the president made it a priority and attempted to forge a new beginning between the muslim world and the united states. the middle east over the last three years have been beseized by resurgeance of violence, instability and terrorism. the administration has chosen to confront the challenge that has implications for u.s. security by leading from behind and relying on a strategy that includes view concrete measures. the shortcoming of the strategy are evident in both syria and iraq. and in september of last year the administration praised the u.s. russian deal disarm syria of its chemical weapons and buy time for a diplomatic solution. here we have today where the syrian have missed deadlines, have chemical weapons and continue to use barrel bombs filled with chlorine and other chemicals. in addition to the disaster that unfolded in syria allowing to status quo to continue has given the islamic state and others the save haven they needed to grow into the force we phase -- face -- tide. and terrorist are training in syria today planning to attack in america and american interest. i have heard some in this body talk about the intelligence failures of iraq. the intelligence community makes fair share of mistakes and i am the first to criticize them when they do. but these recent events including the resurgeance of isil are policy and leadership failures. they provided warning of the declining security situation in rebecca libya but they did rit little to enhance security in benghazi. it wasn't an intelligence failure. it is a policy and leadership failure on the part of the administration. with regard to iraq, intelligence including director clapper's testimony at a january 29, 2014 hearing has been clear that iraq was vulnerable to the threat from isil. i encourage any member to read the intelligence if they are questions regarding the assessment about security in iraq and the rise of isil. it was clear in 2011 as u.s. forces were withdrawing that iraq was vulnerable to resurgeance and we have seen the violence escalate during the administration's failed policy. this was easily predicted but we have stood by and watched as it has occurred. again, this is a policy failure. not an intelligence failure. perhaps the most concerning aspect of the foreign policy is the counter-terrorism strategy. i hear them touting the dissire of them being on the run. but nothing could be further from the truth. al qaeda is on the run but they are running from one country to the next and taking over one country and the next. violent extremism is on the rise in the middle east and the warning signs have been visible for years. that includes the benghazi attack, the rise of al qaeda affiliated groups, the resurgeance of isil and the fall of the second largest city now in iraq. yesterday a terrorist flag raised over the largest refinery in iraq. the administration is only willing to take limited steps to curb this disturbing trend. instead of focusing on making counter terrorism operations more effective, the administration has been focused on ending the wars in iraq and afghanistan while america's enemies grow stronger. this approach has been a huge gamble that continues to jeopardize america's security. we have sidelines tools we use successfully to counter al qaeda in the years immediately after 911 including the effective long-term detention and interrogation of enemy combatants. we know far less today about terrorist organizations. since the president ordered the close of guantanamo bay in january of 2009 our nation has been without a clear policy of detaining a suspected terrorist. without a policy, including one that identifies a facility to holding terrorist that are captured outside of afghanistan, the ability to conduct ongoing operations has been limited. i recognize there is no one-size fits all solution for handling terrorist. but our detention policies must foster intelligence collection before prosecution begins. al qaeda is determine to attack the united states. we constantly face new plots looking to murder america like the may 12th plot to put an ied on a u.s. bound aircraft. this plot luckily didn't materialize but we will not always be that lucky. we know al qaeda in the arabian peninsula represent one of the biggest threat to the homeland. they are continually plotting against our interest and seeking new recruits. especially among the own citi n citizens and former detainees. explosive experts continue to roam free posing a threat to the safety and security of u.s. citizens. the proposed closure of guantanamo bay presents significant risks of the united states and yemen efforts to counter aqap inside yemen. a portion of the detainees remaining are yemen citizens. transferring them to a country plagued by prison breaks, assassination and open warfare at this point could prove catastrophic. they would join other gitmo detainees and worsen the security situation. the most example of a failed and dangerous policy on the part of the administration is the exchange of five guantanamo bay detainees for sergeant bergdahl. he are happy he is back. but the deal of five individuals from guantanamo bay who make up every morning thinking of ways they can kill and harm americans wasn't the right thing to do. there are other ways to handle. yet the administration without notifying congress and that was clearly intention -- the failure to notify congress of what they plan to do. when they signed the papers and didn't release them for two and a half weeks shows they didn't want to come to congress and that reason is because they knew there would be objections on both sides of the aisle. whether it is iraq, afghanistan or other parts of the middle east, americans have fought and died in the war against al qaeda. our nation is leery of war but the concern remains. i have asked the president to declassify the personal files on those five individuals. tell the american people what we know about them and look the american people in the eye and say this is a good deal. i know they are going to return to the fight and seek and kill and harm americans but this was a good deal. that is for the american people to decide. and i urge president obama, my congressional colleagues and the american people not to abandon the gains we have made in the fight against terrorism since 9/11 but let's remain steady and continue to fight the good fight. and i would yield to my friend from north carolina. >> senator from north carolina. >> i ask consent to speak for up to five minutes. >> without objection. >> i want to join my colleagues to discuss the administration's misguided foreign policy especially relating to afghanistan and the threat of al qaeda, the taliban and the network, despite what the administration would have you believe, al qaeda and the taliban remain capable and committed advisary in afghanistan. they are a threat to the safety and stability of the region and continue to attack troops and plot against the region at home. yet for some reason, this administration failed to recognize time and time again and worse they are chosen to ignore. al qaeda isn't ruined. it's senior leader ship continues to plat plot attacks and serve as an inspiration to a series of affiliates in syria and iraq and else where. these affiliates are plotting against the united states of america with thegoid guidance and support of al qaeda's senior most leadership. the al qaeda brand is alive and well the and the strategy to end the conflict not win it reveals a profound failure to analyze threats in the region, the world and the united states of america despite what this administration has you believe: ... ork is done will not, will not, end the fighting. we cannot take the pressure off off, or our enemies will bring the fight here to our doorstep here at home. but al qaeda is not well a loan in afghanistan. it's well established that the aoccoquanlyi -- acany network is the link between the taliban and al qaeda. it is responsible for a significant number of u.s. casualties and injuries on the battlefield in afghanistan and continues to actively plan potential catastrophic attacks against our interests and the interests of others in the region. the group routinely targets the group routinely targets but duke said car targeting civilians and using murder and intimidation tactics against the afghan people they have mounted assaults and suicide attacks on civilians and u.s. forces with a deadly effectiveness, yet the administration took until late 2012 at the urging of the senate of the united states in a bill i introduced to actually name that timing that work as a foreign terrorist fertilization. why is that important? that changes the game. provides us the full range of diplomatic and military tools to use directly against the al qaeda network. it is against that background that the administration then negotiated with a network the release of five high-level taliban fighters for sergeants bergdahl. in other words, the president rewarded the network for its incarceration of u.s. service member, strengthened its relationships with the taliban, emboldened the taliban, and undermines the afghani government all with one decision does anyone in this administration believe that that high-ranking -- five high-level taliban officials on set free would not return to the fight? if they do, then they have not paid attention for the last decade or longer. i understand that this nation is weary of war. i understand the sacrifices made by service members, and i work every day to ensure our brave nurse, veterans who are providing the care and treatment they deserve. their efforts should not be in vain. mr. president, we are here today , marine sgt kyle carpenter will receive the medal of honor. 19-years old was he signed up to go to the marine corps, a young marine in combat who saved his fellow marines just begun a grenade. i -- he completed his freshman year at the university of south carolina at 24-years old. he is an american hero. he could be any one of our children or grandchildren. what makes this country great is that we have people like kyle carpenter that step up when asked and to more than we could never ask of them. our service members served as sacrificed overseas so that we could be safe at home. we cannot in good faith let the administration dishonor their efforts with a misguided policy. the continued drawdown of u.s. and coalition forces in afghanistan will provide al qaeda, the taliban, and the network with a safe haven to train the operatives and plot further attacks against the united states of america and their allies. contrary to the campaign statement of the president and vice president, al qaeda is not on the run, and i urge this administration to avoid further actions that may endanger our nation. mr. president, i yield the floor to center in off. >> the senator from oklahoma. >> unanimous consent. >> without objection. >> mr. president, the subject today, of course, is the failed foreign policy of this president and administration. it is hard to your do it in a limited amount of time because once something happens like benghazi and we get into the middle of that, all of a sudden you turnaround and is president turns loose arguably the five most heinous terrorists from guantanamo bay. at the same time we have a policy that was going so well, and now we find out that is not working out either. if i have time now will touch on that. the first thing i want to do is mention benghazi. being the ranking member on the armed services committee, i have the opportunity to really be there and see as it was happening, the ambassador that was sent over there and was killed, a friend of mine. we spent time together. and as we got closer he realized and started sending messages to the president and the white house task to send security over there. he said, right now that terrorists are actually training in benghazi. they had flags flying. they knew they were organizing something. so he knew that and had requested. the president elected not to let's send help at that time. the question a lot of people have is, al qaeda, they knew there was an organized attack. i can tell you how. we have four people responsible for revising the president on threats, intelligence. as cia director, at that time john brennan, the director of intelligence, james cropper, the secretary of defense, leon panetta, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general dempsey. all of them were acknowledged when the index was hit in benghazi that day that it was an organized attack. they suspected it but the new for a fact that it was. so you are talking about the individuals who are responsible for advising the president to all of them were well aware that on the day of the end next attack in benghazi it was organized terrorist attacks. several days later gave rise to the shows in order to try to make it sound like it was some video that someone had. now, why would the president not want to that meant that this was an organized terrorist attack? it is right before the election, and he had a lot of people who thought that then on and having been captured, there was no longer that big a threat out there in the middle east. so it was for political reasons that we ended up losing four lives. and then just recently they're saying now, they found someone who has been around for two years. the press has been talking to report two years. why all the sudden they're saying now that this is the guy that perpetrated benghazi when, in fact, this all came from the white house. i just think they are covering it up, and i am very much offended by that. the one thing i wanted to talk about and know that some other members will be here. having to do with the release of the five taliban terrorists to be released. let me tell you a side of this that people are not talking about that i feel strongly is the reason for it. this president is approaching that last death of his second term. as is always the case when you get down toward the end of your term you start looking for a legacy. one of his legacies is closing guantanamo bay. this president has been talking about it for as long as i can remember, certainly longer than he has been president. i go back and tell people in oklahoma, why does he want to close its? and you cannot answer that. we have had that base since 1903. it is the only good deal, one of the few good deals and governments, we only pay for $5,000 per year, and have the times the cubans did not cash the check. we have this thing and have actually 778 people they're incarcerated and being interrogated prior to the time that mr. obama became president of the united states. now we're down to 149. as far as that researchers, no one argues the fact that the humane treatment is beyond anyone's expectation. there is no place else in the world that they can do that. they are fully compliant with the geneva convention. they have had people go in there and look at the maximum-security prison and have attested to, human rights organizations, the red cross, and everyone else agrees it is a very humane place while they are interrogating. as i said, there is no place else they can do this. if we start doing this in our court system they get marin writes, constitutional rights, and people are pretty offended when they find out and this keeps us from getting information that would affect some of the others. an expeditionary legal process like there, the only one in the world were they can do this. and so this is a place where we can actually get in there, interrogate can get information, incarcerate people, not intermingle terrorists with the prison population in this country, which is what the president has been talking about doing. i say that because these guys are terrorists, not criminals. you put them in our prison system and by definition their job is to train other people to become terrorists. that is what they would be doing . so i have to say this, too. all of the talk about osama bin laden and the fact that we do have in there i am glad we were able to bring him down. but how did we did it? through information we received through interrogation at guantanamo bay. i always say that because people wonder why in the world would he be wanting to do this, and how does he want to fulfill this expectation or lacey that he has let me tell you. if you would take out of the 149 individuals left, the five most heinous, most dangerous taliban terrorists and turn them loose, that would put him in a position then to get rid of the rest of them with the exception of those awaiting war crime trials. so what happened, he turned them loose, number one. number two, he told the taliban exactly when the united states is going to leave. regardless of conditions on the ground. thirdly, he has said that he is going to declare an end of hostilities. now, that is a phrase from a proper phrase, end of hostilities. this is not a war. it is a hostility. if he does that, that would then give him we justification for opening the gates, turning everyone lose from guantanamo bay, and closing guantanamo bay. that, in my opinion, is the estimation. the threat because of that? we are in a position right now where we have five people who are turned loose, even if we trusted the country to hold these five people for one year, the velocity -- philosophy would be we will turn you loose if you promise not to kill americans for a year. that does not make sense. this is something that should not have happened. we have people there making decisions, celebrating as we speak. one of the five individuals, i will end with this, a taliban commander over in afghanistan. listen to this, mr. president. he said, talking about one of the five guys, his return is about the glory, and a hundred thousand tell them fighters on the side. now they have the right lion to leave them in the final moments before victory in afghanistan. that is what happened. that is how it is viewed. with that, i will yield the floor. >> mr. president. >> the republican whip. >> how much time remains for the allocation of this side time? >> the republicans have eight minutes remaining. >> i know we, perhaps, have another member coming to speak. i would short please advise me after i have used five minutes of the eight minutes. >> i will do that. >> i want to talk about the intersection of national security and death. over the last five years president obama has had multiple occasions to embrace real, structural, entitlement reform that would help solve our long-term debt problem. you might wonder why i am talking about that when the subjects that we are generally talking about is national security, including what has happened in iraq and syria. it is because the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said, admiral mcmullen, when asked what the single biggest threat to our national security was, he said, it is our debt. the president had an opportunity when the simpson bowles commission released its recommendations in late 2010. as you recall, a bipartisan commission the president himself appointed to help come up with a formula to deal with this with our fiscal problems. unfortunately, once they made their recommendation in december 2010 the president walked away from it and nothing came of it. even though we are facing an addition of $17 trillion in debt, we are facing more than $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. perhaps it is because those numbers are so big that we have a hard time getting your head around it, but people have become desensitized to the urgency of dealing with our debt and these unfunded liabilities. the president has never once endorsed any sort of reform necessary to deal with this challenge or to prevent a future crisis. the fact of the matter is somebody someday -- probably these gunmen and women, they will be the ones to have to pay this back because our generation will have failed them unless we meet the challenges that this presents it seemed like the only part of the federal budget that the president is eager to cut its national defense. under his latest budget plan defense spending would drop from under three and a half percent said just over 2 percent of gdp by 23. at the same time we are told the u.s. army might be shrunk to its smallest size since pre-world war two. president obama needs to realize that even america's current military capabilities are proving inadequate for global challenges. for example, one former assistant secretary of defense has declared that because of pentagon budget cuts president obama highly touted pivot to asia cannot happen. in other words, despite promote -- promoting an asian pit as a crucial element of american foreign policy, the president has failed to take the necessary fiscal steps to make sure that happens or could happen. this, of course, makes it a hollow policy, one where the promises are extravagant and the delivery is anemic. it will do major damage to u.s. credibility among our allies and adversaries. the prospect of bringing department of defense spending back to sequestration levels has alarmed senior officials in all branches of government. the chief of naval operations has said that reverting to sequestration levels in 2016 would leave the navy to small and lacking the advanced capability needed to execute missions that the nation expects of the navy. secretary of the air force has said that going back to those spending levels would compromise our national security. chief of staff of the army said it would put our young men and women in uniform at much higher risk. in other words, the president cannot simply keep cutting defense spending and the military in order to find his other priorities. at the same time ignore this 70 per cent of spending that is on autopilot, so-called entitlement spending. that is where the big money is and where the reforms need to take place, but it won't happen without a leader. well, we all know what is happening in iraq. i know time is short. i don't want to take any more time than necessary away from my colleague from alabama. this map reflect what is happening now in iraq. the civil war with syria, which the president had drawn a red line that once crossed there was no consequences associated with. now this border between iraq and syria has basically been wiped away. we see all of these places where the isis, a horrific terrorist group worse than to let -- al qaeda, has basically taken charge. this is what happens with failure to lead. i know time is short and i want to make sure my colleague from alabama has some time to speak. at this point i asked the rest of my remarks be made part of the record in yield the floor >> without objection. >> mr. president, the senator from alabama. >> mr. president, with consent, would not be allowed to speak for up to five minutes? >> without objection. [silence] >> mr. president, when a nation commits itself to a military effort, it is a very significant , complex decision. i was here when we voted to utilize military force in iraq and afghanistan. the majority of the democrats in this body supported that. the american people supported that, and through tough times success was achieved in this sense that iraq has elections, a functioning government. when the u.s. military was drawing down its personnel the country had a reconciliation with the different groups, and we are on a path that gave us some prospects, i believe it is fair to say -- critics can have different opinions, but it is clear to me that we have prospects for a successful conclusion of that effort, which would allow a relatively stable, relatively democratic nations to be established that did not provide threats to the united states or its neighbors. and so we should not have done that. well, we did that. that is what happened and was the situation when president obama took office, and he failed, in my opinion, in negotiating the time of drawdown and statuses of forces agreement that needed to be established to be able to create credibility in this new and fragile i'll regime and hold our military together, keep them trained while the reduced dramatically our presence of military activity. we will be there as a supporting , background, equipment, intelligence, aircraft, lift capability. we have given them time frames. a very clear. well, we can't reach an agreement. we are pulling everyone out. the general talks to us recently and told us that he has 100 soldiers. i asked him if he would prefer general patraeus, and he said yes with a bit of a smile. but he only has 100 people. i guess i would say we are worried about it. one of the things that is so critical in the conduct an understanding of what we are involved in is to understand that the nature of a terrorist threat is going to be there for a long time. we are just going to be dealing with it for a long time. it is a significant number, not a majority by any means, but a significant number of radicalized people in the middle east who want to destroy the united states. they see as as an evil force and oppose what we oppose, want to take over their neighbors and continue to expand they are regent -- recently functioning racemes that provide some freedom and order and societies and impose a theocratic government and legal system on those countries. and it is not good for us, not good for other countries, and not good for the united states and the world. one of the things we have to do is, when you capture a person committed to the destruction of the united states and is attacking our people, they are not criminals, they are warriors and most of their activities are clearly contrary to the laws of war, so they are on lawful combatants. and they are -- when you capture a soldier in battle whether lawful or on lawful you do not normally if they have complied with the rules of war, on like this group, you do not try them per say. you hold them until the of war is over in the peace treaty has been signed and an agreement has been reached. that is not being -- not happening now. and as a result we have a confused policy that is releasing dangerous criminals like the last five we just released under this confused thinking. determined to attack president bush, guantanamo, and it became a symbol in their mind of the policies being used to detain people who are captured. enemy combatants, lawful or unlawful. when you capture them, you hold them. you do not release them so that they can go back to work. it we send soldiers out to capture them, and once they're captured we release them so they continue with the war. as justice jackson once said, the pact is not certified. all right. one additional moments. >> is there objection? without objection. >> they have to be treated properly. they do not have to be released. recaptured, for example, one man last year for conspiring with osama bin laden. he goes back to somalia. the 1988 bombings in east africa that killed 2204 people before 9/11, he is a treasure trove of intelligence. a group went in and captured him, took him away at risk of their lives. they took cam out on a ship. they said he was sick and not doing well. what happened? they took him to the united states justice department, turned him over for civilian trial. the purpose of capturing him was to get intelligence. he is a warrior. you want to talk to him and see what you can learn. he was placed in federal custody where it's a lawyer, speedy trial, a public trial and the things that prisoners of war do not get. yet this is all happening and has been happening over and over again. this president has a lack of understanding of that nature of the conflict we are engaged in. the evidence is a policy that is dangerous to our safety, and it is wrong to send out the americans and capture people like this and then treat them in a way that allows them to minimize the opportunity to obtain intelligence of the nation. i think the chairman and hit the floor. >> tomorrow irs commissioner will be on capitol hill to answer questions about the alleged targeting of conservative groups. live coverage of the house ways and means committee at 9:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> this weekend american history tv is live from the gettysburg college civil war institute saturday morning at 845 eastern. you will hear a historian on robert e. lee followed by arizona state university professor on ulysses s. grant. later, a historian on the burning of chambersburg is weekend. >> rick perry talked about immigration, border security, the environment, and his 13-year tenure as texas governor in an interview with the christian science monitor. this is just under an hour. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you for coming. i am david cook from christian science monitor. our guest is taxes governor perry. our first visit from them. he grew up in the west texas town up a creek near where his great, great grandfather had settled after the civil war. he became an eagle scout, went off to texas and am planning to become a veterinarian. as the governor once said, four semesters of organic chemistry made a pilot out of me. after graduating from college in 1972 he served five years as an air force pilot returning home to work on his family's 1,000-acre ranch and later entering politics winning a seat in the texas state house as, of all things, a democrat in 1984. in 89 he became a republican and then next year won election as texas agricultural commissioner with the help of a consultant named karl rove. elected lieutenant, but -- governor in 98 and became the lone star state chief executive december 2000 when george w. bush moved to washington. so much for biography. now on to the ever popular process portion of the program. as always, we are on the record. no live logging, tweeting. in short, no filing of any kind while under way to give us question -- time to listen to what our guest says. there is no embargo when the session is over. if you'd like to ask a question send me a subtle, nonthreatening signal, raised eyebrow or wave of the hand, what have you. i will call on as many votes as possible. we will start by offering our guest of the opportunity to make opening comments. we will move to questions around the table. thank you for doing this. >> thank you. reached over and touch my forearm. >> okay. >> i will take that as a clue to wrap up my remarks. [inaudible] it is a distinct honor. [inaudible] >> in all seriousness, it is a pleasure to be able to sit around the table with so many of you that influence what goes on in the world. .. the freedoms that we have until they lived around the world back in the early to mid-1970s and seeing how people were treated and somewhat downtrodden in certain places and making the relationship between the type of government that they had in those countries and how the people were impacted. and it's really, it really had an impact on me and is one of the reasons i got into public service business to make a difference. i had no idea was going to end up certainly not the length of time that i have done it but with that said let me share with you what i have been doing for the last 18 to 24 months because i think that's the most timely period and going forward. i don't think there is a more important job for chief executive weather is a governor, a head of boeing, whether it's the president of the united states than helping create a climate where people know that they can risk their capital and have a return on their investment and be able to create jobs and in turn to create the wealth of your entity. so that it's been my major focus as the governor. i from time to time will get distracted off of that but i always try to return back to that is the single most important reason that i do in my position to help create that environment and generally by tax policy and regulatory policies which in turn make for a skilled workforce and translate into that skilled workforce. those are the four pillars if you will of what has happened in texas and i think it works or it would work in any other place. even california or new york as i say that that's the most important thing that we do. here's the reason i say that. you cannot have better health care delivery. you can have better transportation infrastructure, you can have better or more effective schools if you don't first have the resources. i don't think you can have thoughtful impact for foreign policy unless you have the economics back the economics back home to be able to drive that. so from my perspective that goes across-the-board. whatever is the chief executive where we may find yourself if you don't help create that bond of economic viability and strengthened then you are not going to be as influential. i don't think your people are going to be as happy in that kind of goes to my whole fifth amendment position and this blue state, red state conversation that i was engaged in over the course of the last 18 months in particular to go hopefully do it again in a thoughtful and civil event and they went some way. i know governor brown and governor cuomo sometimes say i am being critical of them but i hope we are doing it in a civil way with a smile on her face. governor brown -- tit-for-tat and we have fun competing against each other as i do my republican governor friends. i am happy to host governor scott last sunday in san antonio as he -- is a world champion. we have fun with each other and then i'm a real results-oriented person. i am rare in the sense that i've been along a round lineup in the role of government to see the results of the policies we have put in place. for instance in 2005 we passed the most sweeping tort reform in the nation and a lot of critics said for this reason you are doing this. we had 19 counties on rio grande if you are pregnant female you would get prenatal care and today that's not the case. we have 34,000 more physicians practicing medicine licensed to practice medicine in the state than we had in 2003. that's a real result of that tort reform. >> this is where usually play my obnoxious poster also another minute. >> 37% of all the private sector new jobs created in america during the period of time i've been governor was in the state of texas. think about that. one out of 12 people in this country. three out of eight have new jobs created in this country. 95% of those jobs are above minimum wage. the federal reserve chairman place for a different team politically than i do. he's a democrat that basically says if you took out the medium wage jobs that have been created in texas since 2000 america would be underwater on middle wage jobs. the experiment going on for 12 years relative to these and i will suggest to you people are well served by those in by the jobs we created. we are an incredibly diverse country. i understand that and i find that on a regular basis how diverse we need to be very tolerant of that diversity as we go forward and as we look at all of the policies. i know all people don't want to be texans and people need to be free to go live where they are most comfortable socially and otherwise. again a one-size-fits-all out of washington d.c. i admit is very good policy and it's one that i hope we can have a thoughtful, civil when some conversation about over the next month in years as we go forward. thank you all for letting me comment and i will be happy to answer your questions. >> thank you for coming. there are lots of folks who want in. loren fox kevin beas david lowder tom defrank rebecca rebekah elliott miles benson murrieta a ratio carl luke stewart and mark shields. my only question is how is today's rick perry more prepared to be a successful presidential candidate and if elected a better president than you were in 2012? >> i learned some very -- i'm glad i ran in 2012, as frustrating and it's painful and as humbling as that experience was. it was painful. it was very humbling and being prepared physically and mentally is very important. i am of the classic example of a guy that thought -- mika broke my arm when i was 17 and surely i thought six weeks at the ready to go back in the game. it's not necessarily the case. having run for the governorship of texas and it does not prepare you for one for the president of the united states. preparation is the single most important lesson that i learned out of that process. over the last 18 months i have focused on being substantially better prepared. please don't think that is an indication that i have made a decision on whether i will run for the presidency or not but if i do next year make that decision i will be prepared both from the standpoint of understanding the global impact of our foreign policy economic policy domestically and internationally. choose me as your next leader. >> specifically there has been a state legislature is going to be considerably more conservative than 2015 so i'm curious whether there is any -- ted cruz's victory in 2012. and not back. >> it's not you, it's us. >> you know texas is pretty big. we are a microcosm. the legislature is a microcosm of the state so i'm not sure if one person has the ability to change all that. we get our 15 seconds of fame and whether was dan richards or whether it was george w. bush or whether was rick perry or ted cruz. somebody's substantial staying powers to make a long-term difference. i love andrew richards. anchor richards is one of the funniest and most profound individuals that i have had the opportunity to serve with and and go didn't really change texas. so the idea that a personality in the political arena could change texas may be a little bit outside the realm of reality. so ask me in eight years if senator cruz has made an impact on the state. at this particular point in time it's a little bit early to say and a senator would have substandard play changed. i don't know few use that word or not, i will. substantively changed the state. >> kevin. >> governor yesterday you announced a search operation. first of all are you planning on going to the fence for this cost and second of all state officials state police on the border -- [inaudible] are the feds just going to release them? >> i obviously believe that the federal government's responsibility both in actions belongs to them to the security of our border. i have been bringing to the attention of flagging issues on that border for multiple years. you will recall i stopped on the tarmac to welcome the president and gave him a letter about border security. he'd do it to his attention and try to focus he is his administration particularly common security on this, mainly children who were coming in on the backs of these trains in 2012. i am deeply frustrated and disappointed in the administration's response both directly back to the state of texas and in their actions. with that said yes i would like the federal government to pay for what is a clear constitutional responsibility in federal government which is to secure the border. we know how to do that and that is to reason. let me back up. over the last six years we have extended upwards of half a billion dollars, 450 plus million dollars on border security. the state of texas has outplayed to local law enforcement our national guard, our law enforcement to surge into sectors and doing research into sectors it has worked and it has worked well. we have seen the amount of illegal activity plummet into those areas. that's a 1200-mile border. it is a very fast and inhospitable area that is substantially if not almost all private property so the idea that we have had this ability to secure the entire border and i hope you can get your arms around that is very hard to do. the limited resources we have. yesterday i received a signature from the lieutenant governor and the speaker to appropriate $1.3 million to surge as broadly as we can across the border. hopefully the american people through their congressional and senatorial representatives will press upon the federal government to do their job in securing the border because it is the single most important thing that they must do. you can't have a conversation about immigration policy. frankly i think immigration reform is down the list on the things you have to do. the american people do not trust the federal government until there is a secure border. secure the border with boots on the ground was to treat take fencing in areas where technology we know will work whether it's land-based aviation-based technologies. you can secure the border and the second thing i would do is if you are serious about getting the american people comfortable with immigration reform needs to occur and can occur then you have to substantially reform the imf. if you don't fix the ins and reform the ins you can't have immigration reform in my view. this is like saying we are going to put substandard way more money into the veterans administration and leave that broken system in place. you have an agency in the ins that is broken. but it takes nine to 11 years for someone to receive their citizenship that's just not right. there's something broken so anyway back to your question of how the federal government. my concern is this government is not committed to securing the border and there are some very powerful messages that we have seen from them. three to four years ago there was the catch and release as we referred to, people who are apprehended on the u.s. side of the border and they were literally driven inland in some cases 150 to 200 miles, released with a summons to go to work. now, after that was publicly brought to the attention of the american public that was stopped but we are still seeing people broadband, moved to various other places and in too many cases not returned, not returned to their country of origin. service on the company alien children issue though has the potential to be an absolute catastrophe, a humanitarian catastrophe. and as we deal with the complexities of this off how are we going to actually house and take care of these young people and then what is the administration's role going to be and how are they going to -- are they going to send these young people back to their homes of record and i suggest they are going to have to end that they should. but a question that is out on the table but i think needs to be asked is diplomatically where the government of honduras, called salvador, quadra mullah in mexico allowing this to happen. think about this for a minute. you are transporting young people in a lot of cases openly on trains from the southern border of mexico to the southern border of the united states across the rio grande from texas. that government does not know about it. mexico is very strict about illegal immigration. think more reading and tijuana. they are pretty strict about allowing people to come into their country so how were we seeing literally thousands of young people being transported across the country? i don't know the answer to that but i consider to be a failure of diplomacy by the united states and working with those countries asking those questions because we have known this has been going on since 2012. this was brought to my attention by our homeland security folks who work in or fusion center at our department of public safety. i have known about this for two years. the president has known about this. the homeland security agency is known about this. i can answer the question about why are we seeing this spike. i don't maul that but it begs a huge number of questions the least of which is not is this is a coordinated effort by some entity somewhere that has funneled these young children onto these trains with the instructions if you get here this is what you say. i don't know the answers to those questions but they are questions diplomatically we need to be asking at the same time we deal with this. let me wrap up with this one thing. my concern as a governor of the state that from time to time gets impacted by major natural disasters, katrina. and on the heels of katrina rita that pushed people westward and northward. hundreds of thousands of people. we are just going into hurricane season. were we to have a major event i literally do not have places to house our citizens because of this influx in mexico. i am greatly concerned about the huge catastrophe that could occur with those two events happening simultaneously. see governor you call that a painful experience and can you tell us what appeals to you again? >> i am a patriot. i do care about where this country is headed. i'm a competitor. i believe in states competing against each other. it makes the fabric of our country stronger so regardless of whether i decide to run for the presidency and i hope to stay engaged in that arena of talking about the 10th amendment and challenging the federal government to allow states to be more engaged in making those decisions, being a person of influence in some form or fashion. maine and not take the role of a candidate. not only is my eyesight beginning to fail but i'm getting to be a bit of an older statesman so maybe that's the role, don't know. i do care about this country. i care about these issues that confound us and challenge us and hopefully this 30 years of public service that i have been engaged and i can be of assistance or service in some form or fashion. >> ci for "the new york times" that the love california. you vacation there every year in san diego and might move to california when you are done in texas so it's appropriate that the next question comes from the "l.a. times" david lowder. see i wanted to follow up on this. at the risk of -- i want to go back to the border issue. the vice president is supposed to be going down to central america to meet with the leaders of those countries that you mentioned. what do you think you have to tell them and what should we be looking for from those governors? governments. >> maybe not tell them. maybe ask them what is it that we have missed over the course of the last six years in his case that has caused there not to be a trusting relationship between those governments and hours. i would suggest to you and i've not saying this is just a recent administrations problem. but i don't think the focus out of the current administration has been on this hemisphere and i think you know we are paying a price for that. we are paying a price for that in of trust so i am glad he is going but i hope he is not going to go tell them what to do. i hope he is going to say hey lesson we need to work on these challenges together. what is it that we can do blacks the north american region has the potential to be one of the most powerful economic engines in the world with canada the united states and mexico in particular. if those countries have economic prosperity and an energy policy and begin this administration is going to have a hard time going to our north american partners and saying we want to help you. because the xl pipeline is still sitting there languishing and the canadians who are our number one trading partners are looking to washington d.c. and not being trustful at all. i think mexico and the mexican issue goes back a little longer than this administration, let's say all the way back to the 1840s. i don't think mexico has felt particularly trusted in the united states and i would suggest to you that central american countries as well. we should have been and again and i'm looking backwards and i know it is what it is that we should've been working to develop closer relationships and when you know there are proble problems, and this unaccompanied alien children issue is not a new issue. they have known about this and until it becomes unmanageable and i don't want to just jump across the entire foreign policy fronts but it seems that this is how this administration they function. they don't address something until it becomes an absolute catastrophe and then they address it and bounce to the next one. so we have lost our way from my perspective when it comes to our role as being a country that has created good faith and trust around the globe with people who historically have been our allies and when you look at canada and mexico under central american countries by and large they should be our allies. >> todd. see you mentioned hurricane katrina and possible weather events and energy policy and job creation in texas which has a lot to do with texas being blessed with oil and gas. i'm wondering what your views are on climate change in what the role is of human activity in that and particularly given your love of the 10th amendment a problem like that doesn't lend itself to a state-by-state solution. does not require a national policy to try and address and mandate climate change? >> let me try to clarify one thing that you said that you intimated that i just want to make sure you and i may not necessarily agree completely upon trade i don't know what you are intimating about. you intimated that texas is economically strong because of our energy industry. the energy industry in texas is very vibrant but in 1984 hour energy industry made up approximately 11% of the state product. today it makes up about 11%. the point is this is a state that over that 30-year period of time and i will suggest to you starting in the mid-90s, starting with substandard diversification's that when you think about the price of oil is three times what it was in 1984 in their huge amounts of natural gas that can be found that we could even realize we had yet it's still the same% of the gross state product that it was in 1994. it's a pretty strong indicator that this is a highly diversified economy and the substantial amount of those jobs 37% of those jobs that were created over the course of the last 13 plus years came in other areas of the economy not oil and gas and mining. i like to remind people that we are blessed to have the oil and gas industry. as a matter of fact california and new york have substantial natural resources. they have chosen not to develop them. that is their choice. under the latter issue at hand i do think that states have the ability to make very positive and impactful environmental issues outside of washington d.c. that actually can be even more influential in that, allowing them to come up with innovative

Related Keywords

Honduras , Alabama , United States , China , California , San Diego , Syria , Washington , District Of Columbia , Mexico , Arizona , West Point , Al Udaydah , Yemen , South Carolina , El Salvador , Cuba , New York , Canada , North Carolina , Texas , Iran , Afghanistan , Georgia , San Antonio , Jordan , Pakistan , Oklahoma , Maine , Iraq , Baghdad , Tijuana , Baja California , Geneva , Genè , Switzerland , North Korea , Somalia , Capitol Hill , Texans , Americans , America , Chinese , Mexican , Salvador , Iraqis , North Koreans , Afghani , Iranians , Iranian , Afghan , Canadians , Cubans , North Korean , Iraqi , Syrian , American , Simpson Bowles , Carl Luke Stewart , George W Bush , Al Qaeda , Rebecca Rebekah Elliott , John Brennan , Katrina Rita , David Cook , Benson Murrieta , Andrew Richards , Rick Perry , Ted Cruz , John Mccain ,