Thank you, thank you all very much. It’s great to be back here at UNH Manchester. I gave our second speech of this national conversation here on tax and regulatory reform, and so I thank the folks here at UNH Manchester for their continuing courtesy and their cordiality. I want to thank my friend, Walt Havenstein. It was my honor to come here to New Hampshire and to campaign for you the number of times that I did and to give the support of not only myself but the other Republican governors around the country for your effort here. Your campaign is one that we’re extraordinarily proud of and one that made a real difference in terms of the conversation that New Hampshire voters got to participate in last fall. And, and I know this much, that while New Hampshire is doing okay New Hampshire would be doing very well if there was now Governor Walt Havenstein and, and the First Lady of New Hampshire would be, would be amongst my favorites in America. And so it’s great to see Judy again as well, and I bring regards to both of you from Mary Pat who are home with, with our children. I don’t want to speak too long today off the top. I want to leave the majority of the time for your questions to talk about our, our role in the world, and the challenges that face us but also the opportunities that are here as well. You know in a, in a Presidency that in my opinion with all due respect to the President has been generally disappointing, that is over-promised and under-delivered, that the worst thing I think this President has done in his seven years now nearly as President is the agreement he reached with Iran two weeks ago yesterday. And I say that because I believe that it’s going to lead to a fundamental upending of nuclear deterrents in our world over the last 70 years. What the President has done and Secretary Kerry has done in coming to this agreement is to decide that a bad deal is better than no deal at all. Now when this started my view was that 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 different things we could talk about about this deal. The five year lifting on conventional weapons embargo, the eight year lifting of the technology towards ballistic missile development that’s all contained within this agreement. But the worst part of it is that the President of the United States stood in front of us two weeks ago and just didn’t tell us the truth. The fundamental underpinning of this agreement the President himself said was that it was not based upon trust of the Iranians, it was based upon verification. And he stood before us two weeks ago and said we can have inspections anytime, anywhere. As it turns out when you read the fine print to the agreement his idea of anytime anywhere is significantly different than the common understanding of those words in our language. Let me give you an example. If there’s a place a location within Iran where we believe there may be cheating going on on the agreement and we request an inspection, if you listen to anytime anywhere you would think that means anywhere, this place, anytime, right now. No. Under the agreement what it means is that the Iranians can then object and if they do then it goes to an arbitration panel. And that arbitration panel where Iran has a vote then has up to 24 days to make their decision. Hardly seems like anytime, anywhere. And I will tell you from my experience as a prosecutor I think it’s analogous to this. If 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 that that crime was being committed. So I went to a court and got a search warrant. The judge reviewed and approved the search warrant based upon the probable cause I presented, and I then came to your home and knocked on the front door and said I have a search warrant to search your home because I believe criminal conduct is occurring here or evidence exists to support it, and I’ll be back in 24 days to search your home. Now listen, even the stupidest criminal in New Jersey if I gave them 24 days before I was coming back to look for the evidence would be able to figure out how to get it out of there before I came back. And by the way, just as a side we pride ourselves in New Jersey in having some of the stupidest criminals in America. But even there, even there the stupidest criminal would find a way to move that evidence out before I came back. Here’s the bad news for America’s national security, the Iranians are far from stupid, far from stupid. And they will use these opportunities the President has willingly given them in this agreement to thwart any effective verification of this agreement and to put them on the threshold of a nuclear weapon. Why is that bad? It’s bad for three reasons in my opinion. First, because Iran is still the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. And there is no common sense reason why you would ever willingly give these folks the opportunity to become a nuclear power. Two, it’s bad because the Middle East is already in turmoil and this is gonna lead to a nuclearized Middle East. Because if you’re the Saudis or the Egyptians or the Jordanians or the Emirates and you see this agreement you’re going to start to pursue a nuclear weapon yourself if you haven’t already. You either develop it on your own, through purchase of the technology through other rogue states, or a combination of both. That’s bad because we do not need an even less stable Middle East with now folks who have thousand year old conflicts with each other possessing nuclear weapons to use in attempting to resolve those thousand year conflicts. Third, it is disastrous for Israel, which 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 the concerns of the Prime Minister and their Knesset were not given greater wake by this administration, and it is shameful that this President decided that the only world leader he's willing to stand up to and berate in public is the Prime Minister of Israel. This deal has directly led to those three problems, and indirectly I think has contributed to our problem in Syria. Because remember, the President of the United States drew a red line in Syria, said if Assad uses chemical weapons on his people we will take him out. And you can agree or disagree with that decision by the President, but once the President of the United States empowered to make that decision makes it, if those weapons are used he must, he must back up the threat he’s made. Yet this President when Assad used chemical weapons and has murdered 220,000 of his people did nothing. It makes no sense, right? The only way it makes sense is if what the real issue going on was that since the Iranians support Assad if you’re more concerned with making a bad deal with the Iranians than you are keeping your word as President then you look the other way as those Syrians are killed in cold blood by their own government and as literally hundreds of thousands of more stream over the border into Jordan, and leave their home country. The Middle East has always been a complicated and difficult place for the United States and for the rest of the world. What the President has done in the last two weeks has made it close to unmanageable without strong, resolute, clear American leadership, and that’s what we need to do when the next President becomes President in January of 2017. The second thing I just want to emphasize to you and then I'm happy to take your questions is that absolutely interwoven into any discussion in these days of our national security and out military has to be a discussion of our national intelligence capability. It has become a more complicated and difficult world. In fact, I want to alert you all I'm about to have a historic moment in front of you. For one of the only times you’ll ever hear this I think in my political career, I am about to quote Jimmy Carter. I feel a little uncomfortable about it, it gives me a little bit of a twinge in my neck, but I'm gonna do it because even President Carter is right once or twice. I saw him give an interview in the to the Aspen Institute with Walter Isaacson. And Isaacson asked about the Obama foreign policy and Carter’s opinion on it. Here’s what Jimmy Carter said about President Obama’s foreign policy. 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 it makes the need for accurate, real time intelligence in our country even more acute. In this world of terrorist activity by groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS and Hezbollah and Hamas we need to interdict before they act. It’s not good enough to catch them afterwards, we have to catch them before they act. And the single indispensable part of that is an active, engaged, empowered, well-funded intelligence community. This President has damaged our intelligence community, and by the way so have some members of Congress. The report the Democrats put out last December regarding the intelligence efforts under the Bush administration was an awful partisan stew put out by the Democrats in their waning days in control of the United States Senate. It hurt morale in our intelligence community, and it contained outright falsehoods. The President has continued down this path in my opinion with this conduct and attitude and some members of Congress’ opinion and attitude towards the NSA and the efforts we’re making to interdict terrorist active before it starts. Let me be clear. I am the only person in this race for President who has actually reviewed and approved applications under the Patriot Act. I'm the only person in this race who has reviewed and approved matters that went before the Foreign Intelligence Courts. I'm the only person in this race who has investigated, indicted, prosecuted, and convicted terrorists who were attempting to kill Americans on our soil. And I can tell you that based upon seven years of that experience that the conduct of the President and the Congress in the past couple months has made America weaker and more vulnerable. And it was unnecessary. We have the ability to be able to protect people’s civil liberties, while also getting real time intelligence in the hands of our government officials who can make the judgement about what conduct needs to be taken as a result of that information. And anyone who tells you differently either doesn’t understand how this world works, or has a complete disregard for the level of danger that our country faces from those who are trying to attack us and kill us every day just because we’re Americans who stand for freedom and liberty around the world. And so if I were President I would urge the reversal of those policies. I would fund our intelligence capability much greater than it’s funded today, and I would say to the members of Congress you want to be vigilant about civil liberty, so do I. Then use your congressional oversight to do so. And I would say to my Attorney General if any intelligence officer of the United States violates the law of the civil liberties of one of our citizens than they need to prosecuted. But you do not throw the capability out because you fear someone might misuse it. You police the use of the capability against actors who might misuse it. And so we need to be serious about our intelligence capability, ladies and gentlemen. We can build our military to a stronger level, which I advocate. We can build better alliances around the world, which I will do. And we can be clear with our adversaries around the world about the limits of our patience. But all that will only partially do the job if we don’t have a vigorous, capable intelligence operation around the world. Those are the things that we need 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 end with this. I have no interest in the young men and women of the United States of America being the world’s policemen. But I also have no interest in being President of the United States at a time where America is not the world’s leader, and there is a difference between the two. Our allies around the world want American leadership, they need American leadership. We need to work with them and then lead, because that’s what a great nation does. And as for our adversaries around the world if I'm President of the United States come January of 2017 nothing will happen in this world based upon misunderstanding. Lots of things people can say about me, but being misunderstood is typically not one of them. I speak in rather plain and direct English that probably any translator around the world will be able to understand and translate very quickly. And that is not meant to intimidate our adversaries, it’s meant to inform them so that they know the true limits of America’s patience and they know what our willingness will be to help them if in fact they’re working in a way that promotes freedom and security around the world. So that’s why I was so excited when Walt gave me the opportunity to come here and to speak to all of you folks who are obviously concerned about these issues in our country. And I look forward to taking your questions as we move forward from here. Thank you for your time today, I appreciate it.
Walt Havenstein: Thank you, Governor. It’s now my pleasure to introduce our moderator for today, Mr. Paul Steinhauser, a face known to just about every Granite Stater and certainly to me and we’re delighted on behalf of APPS that you’ll you’ve agreed to (inaudible) from the NH1 News and, and we’re welcome to our APPS floor. Thank you.
Paul Steinhauser: Walt, thank you very much. Pleasure covering your campaign last year. Saw a lot of this guy up here doing that.
Paul Steinhauser: And I just want to say right off the bat NH1 News, which I know you’re all watching now. You have an alternative to WMUR we are honored to be part of this series. We’ve already have Carly Fiorina and Lindsey Graham here and we’re so glad to have Governor Christie. Let me start right off the bat with something you were just talking about, Iran. As I was driving into work this morning I heard a Chris Christie commercial. Surprise, right? We’ve heard a lot of those lately, so we like that. You were talking about the Iran nuclear deal and you were criticizing it as you just were. If you were President right now what would your deal be like with Iran?
Well, first off, we would have walked away months ago. Negotiations are not linear. There’s this the President now because he’s trapped, he’s trapped to try and defend a bad deal his offense is, “Well you tell me what your deal would look like.” You know, that’s not the way things work. It’s not an either or proposition because negotiations are dynamic they’re not static. And this entire negotiation could have and should have changed six months ago when the Iranians were not showing a willingness to do to make a fair deal with the United States. The President of the United States should have called the Secretary of State and said come home, and deliver this message to the Foreign Minister of Iran. When you’re serious about wanting a fair deal that’s fair to the rest of the world and accomplishes what we need to accomplish, which is to assure the world that Iran will not have a nuclear weapons capability, then call me. You have my number, happy to talk. This is not unprecedented in, in world or national history. Ronald Reagan walked away from Reykjavik, and he walked away from Reykjavik and got a great deal of criticism back here from some reporters for walking away. But he understood that no deal was better than a bad deal. And so he walked away from Mikhail Gorbachev, and what happened? A year later Gorbachev was back and with a better deal for the United States and one that has helped to preserve peace between our two countries since that time. So I don’t know what the deal would look like, but I would not have accepted this deal. And months ago after every extension that they gave every deadline got another extension I would have just gotten up from the table and walked away, allowed and worked with our allies to keep the sanctions in place if not strengthened them. And there’s certainly incentive in Congress to do that and was back them. And then see how the Iranians react. Remember, the premise of this negotiation from the beginning was that America wanted a deal but Iran needed a deal because of the damage to their economy that was being done because of worldwide sanctions because of their misconduct in the nuclear area and because of their terrorist activity. So that’s what I would have done. I would have walked away from the table. And then what would happen after that I'm not exactly sure. But, you know, again negotiation is a dynamic thing and this is whether you’re negotiating a nuclear arms deal or buying a car. You know, you walk into the showroom you get your final offer and if it’s not the dollar amount you want to pay if you keep hanging around they know they got you. Get up and walk out of the showroom, you can come back two days later, the car will probably still be there. And they might take you a little bit more seriously then, too.
Paul Steinhauser: We’re getting a lot of great questions from everybody here, and we thank you for that. And one of them is related to this topic. Would you stand in the way is Israel acts unilaterally to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities, and if not what would you do?
We don’t have the right to stop Israel in acting in what they believe to be their, their national interest any more than Israel has a right to tell us, you know, they’re allies and they’re friends and so I would hope we would have consultation and conversation. That’s what good friends do. But, no, do I believe the United States should unilaterally stop Israel? The answer no because Israel has an absolute right at self-determination and to defend itself. And as President I would hope to have the type, and I would expect I would, have the type of relationship with Prime Minister Netanyahu that that would not necessarily come as a surprise to me and that we would have conversations before anything like that were to happen.
Paul Steinhauser: Before we move to other topics, one final question. One of you’re a couple of your rivals I believe now for the nomination have said if they were elected President they would scrap the deal on day one. What is your thought? If you were in the White House in January of 2017 what would you do with this deal?
Listen, it’s a it’s an awful deal and it’s a deal that never should have been agreed to, but before I commit to what I'm gonna do on this deal on January 20th, of 2017 let’s see what the world looks like on January the 20th, 2017. Let’s see where our allies are positioned, let’s be smart about this. It wouldn’t take me long, but I think events are changing so rapidly that you have to see what the world looks like then and how you would go about doing it. But I can tell you this, if, if the Iranians do what I suspect they will, which is cheat like crazy on this deal we’ll have plenty of reason to be able to walk away. But let’s assess what the world looks like on that date and not just pound our chests and say things that we think will get applause from the grandstand. Being President of the United Sates in this arena is much more serious than that.
Paul Steinhauser: This is a question from Bill Troy from Acton, Massachusetts. We like people coming over the border. He asked who is the bigger threat, China or Russia over the next 10 years?
Russia. Russia is a bigger threat over the next 10 years because their economy is in such bad shape, and in countries, and I don’t see any reason at the moment why oil prices will go up. And so as a result their economy will continue to be in bad shape, and when countries are in bad shape economically they often act out around the world and attempt to keep their folks at home distracted from their own economic problems. And so I think over the next 10 years that Russia is a greater threat. And I want to note at this point that four years ago Mitt Romney said in a debate with the President that Russia was a great threat to us, and the President mocked him and said the 1970s are calling and asking for their foreign policy back. It was a cute line, one that the President couldn’t use now. And it’s instructive to know that Mitt Romney was right about that and we should have been listening to him not only on that issue but on a lot of other issues. We would be a lot better off in this country right now if we had listened to Governor Romney.
Paul Steinhauser: Staying on the related topic we have a question here why does the Unites States not provide defensive weapons to pro-western democratic countries like the Ukraine who are attacked by external forces coming from Russia?
Listen, I think we should be arming more folks around the world, the Kurds should be armed and armed more aggressively. And for the folks in Ukraine we should be having a serious conversation with them about their need for additional weaponry from the United States and how we would go about doing that. There’s no reason for us not to be having those conversations and we need to send some very clear signals to President Putin about, as I said in the speech, the limits of our patience. And some of those actions may indicate to him that we’ve reached the limit of our patience. That’s a good signal to send.
Paul Steinhauser: Getting back to India we were just talking about India. Here’s another question about India. Would you continue President Obama’s policy on building business relations with India which they say is the world’s next foreseeable super power?
It’s interesting, about seven months or eight months so ago I had the opportunity in New York City to meet with Prime Minister Modi. A very interesting guy, my impression of him is he’s a very forward thinking modern thinker. He’s trying to move India into even greater economic development and connection with the world. And seems to me to be someone who understands how important active and vital participation in democracy is, and his election was one that was participated in by a record number of Indian citizens. And so I think it would be real smart for us to continue into conversations with and cooperation with India on those issues because I think we have a Prime Minister, at least from my initial impression, that’s interested in having a real strong relationship with the United States, making that relationship even stronger, and the benefit from each other economically. India is a huge market for American products as well.
Paul Steinhauser: You were discussing this in your initial comments and we’re talking about the funding military funding. This question coming from Brad Cook(sp?) in Manchester. Brad where are you because you’re a native of Glen Ridge, New Jersey it says right here?
There you go.
Paul Steinhauser: There we go. All right.
He’s over there.
Paul Steinhauser: Perfect. Brad asked given the deficit problems threatening the U.S. how can we fund our foreign policy and defense needs?
We have to reapportion the spending that we have and we have to take out entitlement reform. If we don’t do those things right now entitlements and debt services in our country are 71 percent of federal spending. We continue down that path we’re not gonna have any money to spend on anything else. And that’s by the way remember when debt service is being charged at record low interest rates. Those interest rates go up things are gonna get real interesting. So that’s why we put out a really detailed plan on entitlement reform that will save $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years. And we have to reapportion the spending that we have now. We can’t spend any more than we’re spending now, we can’t afford to. Btu we can reapportion how we spend, and I would, and I believe we do have to spend more on our national defense our national intelligence as I mentioned before. And I also would be an advocate for spending more for the National Institute of Health and the National Science Foundation to continue to partner with the private sector in our university community to bring new cutting edge developments whether it’s in, in medicines or whether it’s in weaponry. We need to continue to do that. That’s the things America needs to invest in, but we’ve got to get this entitlement situation under some measure of control. Because if we don’t it will eat everything else alive.
Paul Steinhauser: We’ve got two questions on cyber security. I'm gonna read one of them, it’s from Don Holden of Amherst. And he asked, what is the role of the federal government in making sure that the private sector that their critical infrastructure is safe and secure from cyberattacks?
The there’s, there’s an enormous role from the federal government in that, both on the intelligence side of the operation and the law enforcement side of the operation. We need to be making sure that we’re interacting hand and glove with our major private sector infrastructure operators in this country to try to protect what’s going on. It is one of the real threats going forward. And in New Jersey, for instance, we’re the first state in the country to set up a separate cyber security operation to protect both our state governmental assets and our assets for folks in the private sector as well. Partnering with the federal government both in terms of funding and, and strategy. And with our, our joint terrorism task force that works together with the feds and state and local, local folks. This is a really important thing for us to be focused on because the next war may not be a shooting war. The next war a President has to deal with may be a war that happens over our computer systems and the infrastructure that runs our, our banks, our, our power companies, you can go through the entire list of ways that that could become very, very dangerous and very destabilizing for the United states. And so we need to be working very closely with the private sector on that because so much of America’s infrastructure is under the control of the private sector.
Paul Steinhauser: I cover campaign politics so I'm not an expert at all on national security but when it comes to cyber attacks even I understand that a lot of them seem to be coming from China. If not officially sanctioned by their government it’s, you know, it looks like Beijing has a hand in all this stuff. What do we do?
We have to continue to work to have our relationship with China evolve. I don’t want to see China as an enemy. I don’t think they are an enemy. I think they’re a potential adversary for influence in the world. And we need to make sure that we’re working with them in a way which makes three things to them really clear. The first one is that we want to be their friend. We’ve worked hard to have a relationship with China over time, and we want to be their friend. I'm not looking to make an enemy out of China, and nor do I think China should, should...
Paul: Want to try this one?
Yah. Nor do (inaudible). Guess they didn’t like my answer.
I guess not.
Nor do I think (inaudible) nor do I think that China should want to make an enemy of us. We’re an enormous market for them as well as they’re trying to grow their economy and a vibrant middle class they need American markets and access to American markets to be able to do that. Second, we need to make sure that we’re continuing to have regular communication with the Chinese that’s set out very clearly what our goals and objectives are and to keep quiet every once in a while and listen. Let’s listen to what the Chinese goals and objectives are, see the places where those can be married and then anticipate the conflicts. And third, and I use this phrase again because I think it’s very important. We have to be very clear to the Chinese once we discover those conflicts is to let them know the limits of our patience. They need to understand that you want to have a good relationship that’s fine. We don’t have to grant every issue, but what we do have to do is have respect for each other’s sovereignty. And cyber attacks on the United Sates that are headquartered out of Chinese is an attack on American sovereignty. And we’re not attacking Chinese sovereignty and as President I would make clear to the leaders of China that those type of things are not gonna be received well here. And so they need to measure twice and cut once if they’re thinking about participating in those kind of things. I think but all three of those things have to be part of your approach to China. If you’re just belligerent that’s not gonna help, and if you don’t talk to them specifically about the things that are out of bounds then you leave yourself open for misunderstanding. You don’t want misunderstanding.
Paul Steinhauser: Thank you. It seems to working now.
That’s because you have it in your hand.
Paul Steinhauser: Yeah.
I’ll just hold this, well maybe not. We’ll see. Since the, I'm frustrated now so let’s just...
Paul Steinhauser: We don’t want Governor Christie frustrated, we don’t want that.
No it’s not a good thing generally.
Paul Steinhauser: Since the horrible incident in Chattanooga there’s been a big discussion across the country and right here in this state about whether we should be arming military personnel at military recruitment centers. I think you all know in this room what’s going on here and with the National Guard the governor said. I want to hear your thoughts on this. I know you’ve been talking about it down in New Hersey.
Sure we should be. I mean, we trust these men and women with the most sophisticated lethal weapons that man has ever developed, yet we’re not gonna trust them with a handgun and a sidearm to be able to defend themselves? It doesn’t seem to make sense to me. And the world has changed and evolved since George Bush 41 made this decision back in the early 1990s. That’s pre 9-11, that’s pre the level of terrorist activity that we have, that’s pre the first World Trade Center bombing. So the world has changed. And so that’s not a criticism of President Bush, it’s just an acknowledgement that the world has changed and that the mere wearing of a uniform of the American military now makes you a target. And we need to acknowledge that the world has changed, we don’t need to like it. But we need to acknowledge it and we need to allow these men and women who defend us to defend themselves. It seems to make common sense to me.
Paul Steinhauser: National security I think kind of covers another topic that is very hot right now in the ballots of the GOP nomination and that is border security and what to do about the problems of illegal immigration in this country. A lot of your rivals have talked about beefing up the border. I want to hear your thoughts on that, but I’ve got a question here from Representative Carlos Gonzalez(sp?) and he asked your thoughts on a comprehensive immigration reform going forward and as a future President.
Sure. First on the border, I’ve said that there’s four things that need to be done to try to make our border more secure. The first is we need to build a wall or a fence in those areas where it makes the most sense. Now when I say that, let’s be very clear okay. I'm not for building a wall along the entire 2,000 mile border of the United States. I don’t think it makes sense, I don’t think it makes cost sense and it doesn’t make common sense. In the end, what we want to do is build those, build walls or fences in areas where it makes the most sense to do so. And it does not make sense to do it in my opinion over the entire 2,000 mile border and also it’s a very bad message to send. I’ve never seen, by the way, a wall or a fence in human history that a determined human being couldn’t get over, under, or around, and so let’s not get lulled into again this kind of chest thumping false sense of security for folks who advocate that kind of thing. In places, yes, across the whole border, no. Second, we need to not only beef up our border security agents but we need to involve in a much greater depth the FBI the DEA and the ATF at the border. This is to interdict criminal activity. Gun running and drug running across that border needs to be interdicted needs to be interdicted by professional law enforcement. And so we need to have a greater presence there. Third, we need to use electronic surveillance. We need to be using drones and cameras along the border in the more difficult parts to be able to see where activities is going on that’s problematic and then to use those things to deploy human assets to those areas to be able to firm them up. And fourth, and I think most importantly, every business in America should be required to use E-verify. And the fines for hiring people who are here undocumented need to be so large that it will wipe out any type of profit motive that goes into hiring folks who are here as cheaper labor because they’re undocumented. Now there is a lot of Republicans who don’t like to talk about that, because it’s a direct shot at the business community which is generally supportive of us. But I'm telling you I met lots of undocumented people in New Jersey over the course of my governorship, and none of them has ever said to me that they came here to vote. This path to citizenship stuff is not the goal. Almost every undocumented person I’ve spoken to said they came here to work. And so if that work is no longer available to them they won’t come over the border to seek it. And so if you want to secure the border you have to do all four of those things. If you don’t, then there’s no way you can secure the border without all four of those items. And as far as comprehensive reform the fact is that there’s gonna be something we’re gonna need to do with the 10 to 12 million people who are already here. And the American people are not gonna put up with talking about that until you get the first part done. You have to have a plan that gives them a sense of comfort that you’re not gonna add to that 10 to 12 million problem. But I would say two things about the 10 to 12 million problem. We should agree on two facts that will help to guide us on what we do from here. The first is these folks are not gonna self deport. They’re not leaving. Many of them have children who are now American citizens. They are not leaving voluntarily. Secondly, I can tell you from a law enforcement perspective that there are not local, county, state and federal law enforcement officers combined in the entire country to be able to forcibly deport 10 to 12 million people. So if both of those things make factual sense to you, whether you like them or not, whether you’re happy about them or not if you say that’s the truth then it gives us a very narrow lane of what’s left available for us to do regarding these folks. So let’s see if we can have agreement on border security, let’s see if we can have an agreement on what the range of options are for the folks who are already here. And then the last piece is let’s not as the Republican Party be the anti-immigration party. We’re not, we’re not the anti-immigration party. In fact, we believe as a party in opportunity for folks who want to come here on a legal basis. And, you know, my great-grandfather was a mason in Sicily and he wanted to come to the United States, and he went through the process legally. When his ticket got called when it was his time to go my great-grandmother was nine months pregnant, and they got on that boat. They got on the boat and my great-grandmother gave birth to my grandfather in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean on their way to the United States. I can’t imagine what that would have been like. This led of course to my mother constantly teasing her father, said you’re nothing. You’re not Italian, you’re not American, you were born in the middle of the ocean. My grandfather died when I was about 9-years-old so I have very few memories of him, really vivid memories that’s one of them. His reaction to that was violent. He would get red in the face and he would say you don’t say that in front of my grandson, I'm an American. They made me an American when I got to Ellis Island. I'm an American. My grandfather was very proud of the fact that his mother and father took the risk they took to come over and to come to this country to help build this country and to make a better life for themselves. My grandfather was a mason as well for a good part of his career. And they believed in hard work and they helped to build Newark, New Jersey and Jersey City, New Jersey. Literally build it with their hands. And so we can’t lose that in this country. We need to have people who come here legally who want to continue to believe the truth about our country. That if you have a great idea and you work hard enough that you can become anything you want here. And think about that. Two generations removed from the guy who was born on the boat on the way over, his grandson is running for President of the United States. We don’t ever want to lose that in this country so (inaudible).
Paul Steinhauser: We’ve got a few minutes left so let’s tackle some other topics that we haven’t hit really yet. And one question here is what are your plans for tackling ISIS? A long-term plan is needed to overcome these terrorists.
It is because I guess the President has figured out they’re not the JV. That’s good. Then he said he had a plan to degrade and destroy ISIS that sounded okay, then he came back and said to tell you the truth we really don’t have a strategy against ISIS. Again, this type of vacillation and indecision in public, emboldens our enemies. So let’s be really clear about what I would do about ISIS. We have four allies in the Middle East who have a real motivation to want to bring the fight to ISIS. The Egyptians, the Jordanians, the Emirates, and the Saudis feel as if ISIS is an existential threat to their nation. They want to bring the fight to ISIS and we should encourage them to do so. And we should encourage them to do so in four ways. First, we should arm them with the most modern and lethal weapons they need to bring the fight against them. Second, we should be training down to the battalion level. Not high level training, training all the way down to the battalion level to make sure that they are prepared and ready to fight. Third, we should make sure that we give them the type of air support that they need to be able to do the things they need to do there in working conjunction with their air forces. And fourth, we need to make sure that we provide them with the type of intelligence capability that will let them know where the best and most effective targets are. Again, ISIS isn’t a nation state so we’re not working within a set of borders. We know they’re in Iraq, we know they’re in Syria, and we know that they’re looking to spread their capabilities to other parts of the region. So our intelligence capability has to be a large part of supporting these allies. The last part that I didn’t mention is American boots on the ground. I don’t believe now is the time to do that. This is their neighborhood I think we need to give them the opportunity to clean up their neighborhood themselves. Now we cannot take, but as President you can’t take the option off the table. You can’t say I will not, at least I wouldn’t, you cannot under any circumstances send American troops to fight ISIS. Circumstances on the ground can change, the situation deteriorates and ISIS becomes an even more immediate threat to the United States then we need to consider that as an option. But I think right now given our history in Iraq, given the concerns of folks in that region about America being an occupying force, we do not want to make that the lead on this effort. We want the lead to come from the Jordanians, and the Egyptians and the Saudis and Emirates. We want them to take the lead, but they need to know that we’re not gonna back off our support of them the first time the poll numbers go down. And I think that’s part of their concern as well, given the President’s conduct with Syria and his conduct with Iran. So they need to have their confidence rebuilt by a new Commander in Chief.
Paul Steinhauser: You just mentioned Syria and that brings us to the next question, which is what is America’s national interest in Syria and how would you as President achieve that?
Well we can see that the unrest in Syria has led to the growth of ISIS. And so, you know, again these things are not necessarily done in a linear way. But it’s dynamic, so world events occur, other people react, and then we have a whole new circumstance that we never thought we were gonna deal with before. I also do think that the American people have an interest in preventing genocide around the world. And the fact is that 220,000 Syrians have now been killed by their own government, after the President of the United States said he wouldn’t let it happen. We need to understand that America’s role as a leader in the world also calls us to be able to try to make sure that folks in the world who are the subject of genocide are protected. And that we deal with those countries in a way that will make it clear to others that this type of genocide is unacceptable. So our interest is not only in trying to contain and ultimately roll back ISIS by acting aggressively in Syria, supporting forces in Syria that are opposed to the government and are opposed to ISIS’ activity. But also we need to send a clear signal to the world that America and its allies, by the way, do not want to see this type of genocide happening in the world. You know, if you just happened to what’s happening to Jordan because of the Syrian situation. Hundreds of thousands of Syrians pouring over the Jordanian border. This is after the Jordan, Jordanians took on significant Iraqi refugees and over the course of time significant Palestinian refugees. We have to be careful about what happens with Jordan. They’re a great ally of this country and we can’t expect that they’re gonna be able to continue to take this. So the national interest in Syria is, you know, hundreds of thousands of Syrians pour over the Jordanian border, if they were ever to destabilize the Jordanian regime what replaces that? Or what will those folks have as an attitude toward the United States? So this is why we need a much more strategic approach to our foreign policy. My concern about the President besides the fact that he hasn’t kept his word is that he’s incredibly tactical. And what I mean is there’s not an overarching strategy of how to approach the world. It’s all one offs. I want an Iranian deal so I won’t press on Syria or today I think Syria genocide is bad so I’ll press on that. Oh now, you know, I want to make sure that the Israelis like me but no, that now got the Iranians mad so now we’ll go back to that. He the President’s foreign policy is like a pinball in a bad pinball machine. It’s bouncing all over the place unwittingly because he doesn’t understand apparently that when you shoot the pinball up into the machine and it bounces off one of the bumpers you don’t know where it’s going. Sometimes it bounces back down at you and you got to hit it with the flippers. Sometimes it bounces all the way back up. The President doesn’t understand that and that’s why you have to have an overall strategy for dealing with these things, not a tactical one off strategy which he’s had all around the world. So the national interest in Syria is because we have an interest in the region and the Syrian unrest has led to an effect in other countries in the region because of the embolding, emboldening of ISIS and the strain that it puts on allies like Jordan and others. So that’s the interest I think.
Paul Steinhauser: Move us from the Middle East to Europe and this is a question that’s hasn’t gotten a lot of play here in the U.S. The Greek economy is a big headline. What are your thoughts on what’s happening over there and the threat to us?
The threat to us is ourselves. We better not become Greece, and were heading in that direction. We’re heading in that direction given the percentage of debt to GDP. So the first thing is, you know, Greece should be a cautionary tale for us. We should take a look at Greece and know we don’t get our house in order, we don’t deal with entitlements, we don’t deal with economic growth in this country that’s where we’ll be. I don’t think the Greek economy is a big enough economy to be a direct threat to the United States economy, but if the European Union doesn’t hold Greece to its deal a further degrading of the European Union and its economy could certainly have an effect on the American economy. So I think, I think Greece is the canary in the coalmine. It’s letting us know what could happen if we’re not attentive both to ourselves and to others in the European Union. So I think it’s in the American interest to continue to talk with the leaders of the EU to make sure that they’re gonna be steadfast about the deal they just got the Greeks to agree to and make sure that that leads to a greater sense of stability both in Greece and across the EU. That’s where it’s a threat to us. And secondly, we should really take a good long hard look at what’s happening in Greece and the effect on the Greek people. We don’t want to go down that road in the United States and the effect on the world economy if the United States headed down that road is unfathomable. So I think that’s the significance of Greece at the moment more as a cautionary tale for us, and as something for us to pay close attention to and communicate with the EU about in terms of holding them to the deal they’ve made.
Paul Steinhauser: If we have time for one more let me bring it back home. I think we (inaudible) years ago that massive power outage in the Northeast from the Midwest all the way to right here to New England. Karen Tesserman(sp?) asks how would you secure our electric grid if you were President?
Well I think no matter what you do it’s got to be a joint effort between the private sector and the government. This goes back very much to the cyber situation we were talking about earlier, because one of the ways they can attack us is by attacking our electrical grid. So much of our economy is now based upon our ability to provide constant and reliable power that that is certainly a significant way that folks can create great disarray and fear inside our country. And we remember 10 years ago I was U.S. Attorney at the time and, you know, we immediately thought terrorism when the lights went out. That’s where the world has become different, too. We’re oriented differently. But the fact is that the way to secure this is to have a strong, stable partnership with the private sector who is administering that grid, and to make sure that we continue to invest in the research and development both in the government and the private sector to try to stay a half a step or one step ahead of the folks who are trying to shut us down. That’s gonna take investment, that’s why your question was a really good one. I mean, the investments we need to make now for our national security are broader than just weapons. There are issues like this, and if we don’t reconfigure the spending and how we do it in this country we’re either gonna lead ourselves to be, you know, an even higher taxed nation which will have an inevitable drag on economic on the economic growth of our country, or we’re gonna leave ourselves wide open to the type of attacks that could be truly destabilizing in our country. So to me it’s got to be a partnership with the private sector and it’s got to be something we’re investing as a government significant money in the development of the technology that keeps us a half a step or a full step ahead of those who are trying to injure us. And that’s gonna be a constant fight. That’s not ending anytime soon. That’s the weapons of cyber warfare become more sophisticated our defenses have to become more sophisticated, too, and I think they can be. But it’s gonna take a lot of work and investment of resources and money on our part. And the President what the President can do there is to being focus to the mission. And, you know, what am I gonna do to protect the electric grid? You better pray nothing, because it’s why I went to law school. I have no capacity for math or engineering. What a President can do is bring focus to the mission. John Kennedy had no idea how we were gonna get a man to the moon and back in the early 1960s when he said we would do it by the end of the 1960s. But what we brought were resources and focus to a mission. And then those people who did know how to go about that did it. Don’t misinterpret what a President can and can’t do. I'm not gonna protect the grid, but I am going to lead and inspire a group of people in the public and private sector to make sure that we stay ahead of those folks who want to do us harm. That’s what a President really is able to do. To lay out the priorities for the American people in a direct and understandable way so that they then can say to their elected representatives we like that, let’s go do it. That’s what leadership is. That’s what we’ll do on that issue and dozens of other issues I suspect in the time, you know, I’ll get a chance to be President of the United States.
Paul Steinhauser: And here is something a President can do, and that’s restore diplomatic relations I guess with a country and I'm bringing up Cuba. It’s been in the news a lot lately. How do you feel about the President’s actions and if you were in the White House would you continue those relations or would you end them?
First of all, the President is dead wrong to do this. Not to negotiate with Cuba but if Cuba wants to be part of the civilized world then they need to be civilized, and they’re not. I will tell you this is personal to me. 40 years or so ago a New Jersey State Trooper was shot and killed in cold blood by a woman named Joanne Chesimard. She was arrested, a member of the Black Panther party. She was arrested, tried, and convicted for murder and sent to jail. The Black Panther party while she was being transferred to another prison broke her out, she escaped to Cuba. She’s been a fugitive in Cuba for most of the last 40 years, supported and paid by the Cuban government and held up as somehow an example of American imperialism. She’s a murderer, and she’s in the top 10 most wanted domestic terrorists put out by this President’s FBI. While she’s on that list and living in that country this President takes Cuba off the terrorist watch list. While that family of that murdered state trooper still sits at home mourning their husband and their father, this President is gonna send American tourists to spend money to put in the hands of the Castro Regime which has supported these folks. Now if the President wants them to be serious about being civilized, send Joanne Chesimard home. Let there be some free and open ownership of property by your people. Because let me tell you, every American tourist that goes down there, you’re giving money to the Castro Regime. The hotels, the restaurants are all owned by the cronies in the Castro Regime. And if you think that you’re gonna do some great thing for the folks who are working down there remember something, you’re bringing dollars down and those folks are gonna be paid in Cuban pesos. And the difference between those two are gonna be kept by the Castro Regime. So I'm all for having real discussions with Cuba about bringing them back into the group of civilized nations once they show, give us some indication that they’re gonna be civilized. The last piece of it is think about the fact that all this is going on with a Cuban government that doesn’t allow access to the Internet for their people, with a Cuban government that has taken the position now that the President is normalizing relations now they want Guantanamo back and Raul Castro said they want reparations for the economic embargo. This is the President’s negotiating style. He gives you his shirt, and then they ask for your pants. And he’s given it. I mean, it is outrageous to me. Couldn’t you see that coming? If you give them normalization of relations and an embassy without anything in return he’s looking at it going we got a live one here. Let’s see what else I can get. So I don’t have any reason to want to continue to isolate Cuba, but Cuba has to stop isolating itself through its conduct. And as President of the United States would I end it? You bet I would end it and I would end it until he returned Joanne Chesimard home for starters. And the other fugitives that they’re harboring in Cuba. You want to be a civilized country then participate in the way civilized countries take care of those who break the law and commit murder. So in fact, that’s the only thing I said during the speech that quote of President Carter saying that he can’t think of one country that we actually have a better relationship with today than we did when President Obama started. We should amend that. It’s Cuba. Cuba is the one country we have a better relationship with and I can’t imagine that the President when there is time to reflect upon this in history is gonna be proud of that legacy, especially when they’re harboring murderers of American law enforcement officers down there and leaving the families home to mourn.
Paul Steinhauser: Governor, thank you very much for joining us. I think that brings it to the end of the session. We really appreciate you joining us today on behalf of APPS and the University of New Hampshire at Manchester and NH1 News we appreciate you being here.
Q = Walt Havenstein, Paul Steinhauser
A = Chris Christie
U = Unidentified Speaker
(INAUDIBLE) = Areas that could not be heard due to background noise, tape/phone line quality, muffled speaking, etc.