tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN December 15, 2015 9:00pm-12:01am EST
ronald reagan picked up on that agenda, championed that into the general election, and we got reaganomics. we got tax relief, tax so i think that is the kind of combination we as a party hope to build upon. want a house republican for nominee? speaker ryan: i want house republicans helping the nominee before the nominee arrives. the last thing we should do is sit around and wait. we know who we are, we know what we believe in. we know we want to have a solution for the debt. we want faster economic growth. we want to reignite economic growth. we want a stronger national security posture. we know these things. we should tell people what it looks like, how we get those things.
these are unifying things within our party. we believe it will help propel not only the nominee but help us win. mike: last question. of a julyility nominee -- how worried are you about a deadline? speaker ryan: i do not worry about stuff like that. i am not. mike: what are the possibilities? speaker ryan: i am busy working in congress. i do not think about stuff like that. couple jake: weeks ago you are trying to get into a new routine. have you found that routine? getting there? how has it changed? speaker ryan: i have more people with me. here, i just work. i work out and i work. i have that routine. at home, it is a similar
routine. volleyball and basketball on weekends. packers had a good win on sunday. jake: you were there? speaker ryan: yeah. i pretty much got myself in a routine. jake: you had dinner with nancy pelosi last night. what was the most interesting thing you learned? speaker ryan: the most interesting thing i learned -- this is newsworthy, that i had dinner with my counterpart? why should this be newsworthy? we did not know each other very well. i never served with her on a committee. she is a counterpart, and i thought it was a good idea to get to know her. mike: what did you learn? speaker ryan: i got to know her better. she is a very smart lady. passionate in her beliefs. she represents her caucus very well. we have opposite views on most things.
but we are respectful of that. jake: you talked about not getting stuck on this rider or that rider, but the work of congress can be technical. speaker ryan: we need to raise because we can get stuck in the here and now, the petty and small. but time is so tenuous. myust believe -- this is 17th year in congress. i believe we have four more years where we ignore the debt crisis, have government taking over the health care issue, weakening our military. we have horrible foreign policy. economic stagnation. wages are flat. ourr countries are eating lunch competitively. wewe keep down that path,
will not give the next generation a more prosperous future. we have never done that before. every generation has made a sacrifice and decisions so the next generation is better off. that wewithout a doubt will sever that legacy if we do not get on top of our problems. means fixingaze these problems while they are still fixable. give you one example. entitlements. most of them are age-based entitlements. security, mysocial mom and i needed it when i was young. but if we stay on this path, it goes bankrupt. the sooner we tackle these problems, the better off it is. our own terms, we can prevent these programs from going bankrupt without changing the benefits.
the government can actually keep its promises to the people who are now depending on the programs to organize retirement around these promises. those of us in the younger generation, you and i are in the same generation? are you a millennial or something like that? are not going to be there for us if we do not do something about it. let's get onake is top of america's problems now. impasse weast the have had to keep the promises that have been made on our own term. if we keep kicking the can down the road, it will be a european debt crisis without america backing us up. we will not be able to fund government programs and salt economic problems on our own terms. that is why we have to raise our gaze and tackle the problems before they tackle us.
you were insistent that you did not want this job. were you wrong? speaker ryan: it is what it is. i am fine. tell.you love it, i can speaker ryan: i had to do it differently. we should not be governing what this. i want to get us back to regular order. it is turning a battleship a little bit. we made some pretty good turns. we have more to go. i like it in the sense i see progress being made, and i am excited about 2016. i'm excited about our party giving the people of this country the choices they deserve whatve so they can decide this country looks like going forward. sliver of that role, in helping determine that, i feel honored to do that. now that you have the
gavel, what has been the biggest constraint or power? speaker ryan: i am not a person who wants power. i want power to go out there, out in the country. i do not want it to stay in the capital. if i can use the gavel to decentralize power out of washington, back to the people where it belongs, i feel i can make a difference. that is what i like most. mike: you are chairman of the national convention. you say you are not going to reject or bless any candidate. -- have been very speaker ryan: we use the word "trump" as a verb. your point? mike: what do you think of him? speaker ryan: i will not get into any of that stuff. i think that plan or comment
deserved to be called out. my rule is not to comment on the people or the ups and downs of the campaign. mike: this was an extraordinary exception. speaker ryan: it is an extraordinary exception. therefore, i will not be answering the question. mike: you said this is not conservatism, not what the country stands for. how did you decide to talk about him? speaker ryan: it is the first amendment. the bill of rights. religious freedom, pluralism, is who we are. this is why the country was founded in the first place. when you see your principles, , youunifying principles have an obligation to stand up for those principles. jake: you caught me off guard. i will take it back to you. i was enthralled with what he was saying. [laughter]
speaker ryan: best white house correspondent at politico. earbuds. used to wear those are gone? speaker ryan: i walk with other people now. i have new friends. i do not want to be rude to my new friends. jake: could you say affirmatively you will not be drafted into the presidential race? speaker ryan: that is ridiculous talk. i am doing this job. you should stop all that speculation. jake: i think you just stop it. speaker ryan: good. mike: jake was talking about your routine. when you are here, what do you do in the morning? speaker ryan: i go down to the gym at 6:28, start my workout at 6:30. workout until 8:00. mike: 90 minutes? speaker ryan: i get a shower
also. i shower. do you really want me to get into that? when i shower? what kind of shampoo i use? then i go on my day. mike: who do you work out with? speaker ryan: a bunch of members. i do not know that i should get into who they are. mike: what are you doing? speaker ryan: a lot of things, insanity, p90x, yoga. we do some cycling as well. spin. spin is cycling, just so you know [laughter] what do these groups have in common -- the rolling stones, ac/dc, rage against the machine. iza -- zac brown
is not on my playlist. jake: you seem to take offense. speaker ryan: i do not know who they are. jake: what do the rolling stones, ac/dc and rage against the machine have in common? speaker ryan: they are on my playlist. i am a bow hunter. we have gun season, which interrupts those season. bowt a decent 10 pointer in season. i am having a dry spell. i got a little busy. i like to make italian sausage, jerky. steaks and venison. that takes about three to get in the freezer, and i have one. the season goes to the end of the year. i will go back out in the woods.
hunter, deer season is not over with, and i have a tolerant wife. mike: two more? speaker ryan: hopefully. we will see. ofre was a picture tweeted you at lambeau with the packers. what was it like to be there with your kids? speaker ryan: awesome. we try to get in a game a year. at the end of the summer, when we look at the schedule, which came we were hoping to go to, i like going to december games, hitting the bull. -- bowl. it is just fun. it was like 50 degrees and raining. we just wanted to go to a december game. the cowboys, it is always great to beat the cowboys.
jake: do you get better seats now that you are speaker? speaker ryan: not really. mike: what is your super bowl prediction? speaker ryan: as long as we can keep the old line healthy, which it is, and mccarthy is not we had a veryays, balanced offense, if we hit our tempo, which we clearly can and can connect with the -- receivers, which he can that is the thing about going to a live football game. you can see how well receivers run the route. i think we can make it. i hate to say it, but my guess is it is the pats we would face. jake: i thought you meant they would win. speaker ryan: i probably should not do this, but i think the patriots have a decent chance of
a repeat. they seem to be back on their game. i do not know if denver will get there. and russell wilson is playing pretty well. those guys are on an upswing. year.c is tough this the division here is not so good. [laughter] speaker ryan: the rest is pretty good. you give us one thing to look forward to next year that you will, let's in the you will a cop which in the house? speaker ryan: we will go back to regular order. we should not take it as inevitable we will pile up appropriation bills. we have to stop thinking it is normal. i believe there are things where we can find common ground. external business reform is a good example. i think there are areas where we can make a difference, move forward. then we are going to disagree on
a lot of this. that is a good thing. let's disagree by offering a big agenda. then, let the people decide. that is the way i see 2016 unfolding. mike: i would like to thank jake and anna for joining me today. thank you to my amazing colleagues at politico who put on hundreds of amazing events. america, to bank of your colleagues, for making these conversations possible. we really appreciate that. thank you for reading playbook and supporting this event. i think the audience in live stream land. mr. speaker, merry christmas. speaker ryan: merry christmas. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> next, hillary clinton
outlines her plans to combat homegrown terrorism. then a discussion on the climate agreement in paris over the weekend. on our next "washington journal," we get your reaction to tuesday night's gop debate dingell and debbie discuss domestic terrorism. then we get leonard lance's perspective on the spending bill and federal budget. the new jersey republican will talk about the fight against isis and the 2016 presidential race. washington journal is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. join the conversation by phone, facebook, and twitter. >> c-span takes you on the road to the white house. best access to the candidates at
town hall meetings, speeches, rallies, and meet and greet. we take your comments on twitter, facebook, and by phone. every event we cover is available on www.c-span.org. democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton talked about her strategy for trying to prevent terrorist groups such as isis from recruiting in the u.s. remarks come nearly two weeks after isis-inspired terrorist killed 14 people in san bernardino, california. mrs. clinton was critical of donald trump and ted cruz. she spoke in minneapolis, minnesota. >> thank you, everybody. today it's my pleasure to introduce hillary clinton. you may have heard of her. [laughter] >> she's running for president of the united states. [cheers and applause]
>> hillary's running for president to make the economy work for everyone. not just those at the top. she's running to make our democracy work for everyone, not just the special interests. she's also running to be commander in chief, to keep america strong and american families safe and secure. as we all know, maybe too well, there are a lot of people running for president this year. [laughter] >> but hillary is the only candidate who has the strength, wisdom and experience to be commander in chief. the recent attacks in paris and san bernardino reminded us that we find ourselves at a very dangerous and complicated world. we're in a global fight against extremist forces who use advanced technology and communications to orchestrate
terror attacks and strike fear in free and peaceful people. so, as we all know, the stakes are high. and we need a president who's up to the job. hillary will not need on-the-job training. as secretary of state, she led the charge to restore america's leadership of the world. she spearheaded a global sanctions coalition, and she -- excuse me. she did more here. [laughter] >> she spearheaded a global sanctions coalition against iran that spurred the agreement that will prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon, she brokered a ceasefire between israel and hamas, while championing human rights around the world. and she recommended to president obama, in the situation room, that he authorized the mission
to bring osama bin laden to justice. she has been the only candidate in the race to lay out a specific and comprehensive plan to defeat isis in every place that it presents a threat. in the middle east, around the world, and, yes, here at home. now she comes to minnesota, and may i thank her for coming to this wonderful university of hours. [cheers and applause] >> she's here to give more details on the last part of her plan, protecting america's homes, schools, houses of worship and businesses from domestic radicalization and foreign extremists. i have known hillary for a long time. there is no one i trust more to sit in the oval office. so please join me in welcoming
the next president of the united states, hillary clinton. [cheers and applause] ms. clinton: thank you, thank you. thank you. thank you all very much. thank you. thank you. i'm delighted, delighted to be here at this great university. one of the premier public institutions of higher education in our entire country. yes. indeed. [applause] ms. clinton: just, you know, one of those statements of fact that deserves a response. i want to thank my long-time friend, vice president mondale, for his kind words.
his support in this campaign means a great deal to me personally, because i admire so much his service to our country. he is a great minnesotan and a great american and we're so privileged to have him with us today. [applause] ms. clinton: i want to acknowledge a few of the other elected officials who are here. i am delighted to be joined by former colleagues and friends amy klobuchar and al franken who are the dynamic duo for your state, and i am grateful to them for everything they are doing
and their support of my campaign. i want to thank tina smith and steve simon, your secretary of state. [applause] ms. clinton: and i understand betsy hodges is here, mayor of minneapolis. [applause] ms. clinton: i also want to acknowledge the dean of the humphrey school, eric schwartz. [cheers and applause] ms. clinton: eric was my top adviser on refugee issues at the state department. i also had the great privilege of working with him when he was on the national security council during my husband's administration. you know, he brings a mix of expertise and empathy that has been conspicuously missing from
much of our public debate. and i'm grateful that he is here today, but i'm also a little jealous that all of you here at the university get to have the benefit of his experience. over the past several months, i have listened to the problems that keep american families up at night. most people don't expect life to be easy, but they want more security, a good-paying job that lets you afford a middle-class lifestyle, health care you can count on, a little bit put away for your retirement. being secure also means being safe, safe at home, at school, at work. and today, i want to talk about how we keep our country safe from a threat that's on everyone's mind, the threat of
terrorism. but i want to begin by saying, we cannot give in to fear. we can't let it stop us from doing what is right and necessary to make us safe and doing it in a way that is consistent with our values. [applause] ms. clinton: we cannot let fear push us into reckless action that ends up making us less safe. americans are going to have to act with both courage and clarity. now, as we all know, on december 2, two shooters killed 14 people at a holiday party in san bernandino, california. sadly, in america, in 2015, turning on the news and hearing about a mass shooting is not unusual.
but this one turned out to be different. because these killers were a husband and wife inspired by isis. americans have experienced terrorism before. on 9/11, we learned that terrorists in afghanistan could strike our homeland from fort hood to chattanooga to the boston marathon, we saw people radicalized here carrying out deadly attacks. but san bernandino felt different. maybe it was the timing coming so soon after the paris attacks. maybe it was how random it seemed. a terrorist attack in a suburban office park, not a high-profile target or symbol of american power. it made us all feel it could have been anywhere at any time.
the phrase "active shooter" should not be one we have to teach our children. but it is. [applause] ms. clinton: now we are all grappling with what this means for our future, our safety, our sense of well-being and our trust and connections with our neighbors. we want to be open-hearted. and we want to celebrate america's diversity, not fear it. and while we know the overwhelming majority of people here and around the world hate isis and love peace, we do have to be prepared for more terrorists plotting attacks.
just yesterday, a man in maryland was charged with receiving thousands of dollars from isis for use in planning an attack. and here in minnesota, authorities have charged 10 men with conspiring to provide material support to isis. but in the twin cities, you have also seen firsthand how communities come together to resist radicalization. local imams condemning terrorists and local activists pushing back against propaganda. i met with a group of community leaders who told me about some of the work and the challenges that they are dealing with. as the sirs somali police sergeant in minnesota and probably in the country, said recently, safety is a shared
responsibility, so we have to work together. the threat we face is daunting, but america has overcome big challenges many times before. throughout our history, we've stared into the face of evil and refuse to blink. we beat fascism, won the cold war, brought osama bin laden to justice. so no one should underestimate the determination of the american people. and i'm confident we will once again choose resolve over fear. [applause] ms. clinton: and we will defeat these new enemies just as we have defeated those who have
threatened us in the past because it is not enough to contain isis, we must defeat isis, and not just isis, but the broader radical jihadist movement that also includes al qaeda and offshoots like al-shabaab in somalia. waging and winning this fight will require serious leadership. but fortunately, our political debate has been anything but serious. we can't afford another major ground war in the middle east. that's exactly what isis wants from us. shallow slogans don't add up to a strategy. [applause]
promising to carpet-bomb until the desert glows doesn't make you sound strong, it makes you sound like you are in over your head. [cheers and applause] ms. clinton: bluster and bigotry are not credentials for becoming commander in chief and it is hard to take seriously senators who talk tough but then hold up key national security nominations, including the top official at the treasury department responsible for disrupting terrorist financing. [applause] every day that's wasted on partisan gridlock could put americans in danger. so, yes, we need a serious discussion and that's why in a
speech last month before the council on foreign relations, i laid out a three-part plan to defeat isis and the broader extremist movement. one, defeat isis in the middle east by smashing its strong hold by killing its leaders and infrastructure from the air and intensifying support for local forces who can pursue them on the ground. second, defeat them around the world by dismantling the global network of terror that supplies radical jihadists with money, arms, propaganda and fighters. and third, defeat them here at home by foiling plots, disrupting radicalization and hardening our defenses. now these three lines of effort reinforce one another. so we need to pursue them all at
once using every pillar of american power. it will require skillful diplomacy to continue secretary kerry's efforts to encourage political reconciliation in iraq and political transition in syria, enabling the sunnis and kurdish fighters to take on isis on both sides of the border and get our arab and turkish partners to step up and do their part. it will require u.s. and allied air pour by strikes biplanes and drones with proper safeguards. it will require special operations units to advise and train local forces and conduct key counterterrorism missions. what it will not require is tens of thousands of american combat troops.
that is not the right action for us to take in this situation. so there is a lot to do. and today, i want to focus on the third part of my plan, how we defend our country and prevent radicalization here at home. we need a comprehensive strategy to counter each step in the process that can lead to an attack like the one in san bernandino. first, we have to shut down isis' recruitment in the united states, especially online. second, stop would-be jihadists from getting training overseas and stop foreign terrorists from coming here. third, discover and disrupt plots before they can be carried out. fourth, support law law enforcement officers who risk their lives to prevent and respond to attacks.
and fifth, empower our muslim-american communities who are on the front lines of the fight against radicalization. [applause] ms. clinton: this is a 360-degree strategy to keep america safe. and i want to walk through each of the elements from recruitment to training, to planning, to execution. first, shutting down recruitment. we have to stop jihadists from radicalizing new recruits in social media and chat rooms and what's called the dark web. to do that, we need stronger relationships between washington, silicon valley and all of our great tech companies and entrepreneurs. american innovation is a powerful force and we have to put it to work defeating isis. that starts with understanding
where and how recruitment happens. our security professionals need to more effectively track and analyze ayesis' social posts and map networks and they need help from the tech community. companies should redouble their efforts to maintain and enforce their own service agreements and other necessary policies to police their networks, identifying extremist content and removing it. now, many are already doing this and sharing those best practices more widely is important. at the state department, i started an interagency center to combat violence jihadist messages to have a better way to communicate on behalf of our values and to give young people
drawn to those messages an alternative narrative. we recruited special lifts, fluent in urdu and somali to wage online battles with the extremists. these efforts have not kept pace with the threat, so we need to step up our game in partnership with the private sector and credible moderate voices outside of government. that is just somewhat what we have to do. experts from the f.b.i., the intelligence community, state department and the technology industry should work together to develop a unified national strategy to defeat isis in cyberspace using all of our capabilities to denny jihadists virtual territory just as we work to denny them actual territory.
at the same time, we have to do more to address the challenge of radicalization, whatever form it takes. it's imperative that the saudis, the kuwaitis and others stop their citizens from supporting madrasas and mosques around the world once and for all. and that should be the top priority in all of our discussions with these countries. second, we have to prevent isis recruits from training abroad and prevent foreign jihadists from coming here. most urgent is stemming the flow from fighters from europe and iraq and syria and then back home again. the united states and our allies needs to know the identities of every fighter who makes that trip and then share information with each other in real-time. right now, european nations don't always alert each other
when they turn away a suspected extremist at the border or when a passport is stolen. they have to dramatically improve intelligence sharing and counterterrorism cooperation. and we're ready to help them do that. we also need to take down the network of enablers who help jihaddists finance and facilitate their travel, forge documents and evade detection. and the united states and our allies should commit to revoke the passports and visas of jihadists who have gone to join isis or other groups and bring the full force of the law against them. as i have said before, united states has to take a close look at our visa programs and i'm glad the administration and congress are stepping up scrutiny in the wake of san bernandino. and that should include scrutinizing applicants' social
media postings. we also should dispatch more homeland security agents to high-risk countries to better investigate visa applicants. for many years, america has waived visa requirements with reliable procedures, including key allies in europe and asia. that makes sense, but we also have to be smart. except for limited exceptions like diplomats and aid workers, anyone who has traveled in the past five years to a country facing serious problems with terrorism and foreign fighters should have to go through a full visa investigation no matter where they're from. we also have to be vigilant in screening and vetting refugees
from syria, guided by the best judgment of our security and diplomatic professionals. rigorous vetting already takes place while refugees are still overseas. and it's a process that historically takes 18-24 months. but congress needs to provide enough resources to ensure we have sufficient personnel deployed to run the most thorough possible process. and just as importantly, we cannot allow terrorists to intimidate us into abandoning our values and our humanitarian obligations. [applause] turning away orphans, applying a religious test that
discriminates against muslims, slamming the door on every single syrian refugee, that is not who we are as americans. we are better than that. [cheers and applause] it would be a cool irony indeed if isis can force families from their homes and also prevent them from finding new ones. so after rigorous screening, we should welcome families fleeing syria, just as the twin cities and this state have welcomed previous generations of refugees, exiles and immigrants. [cheers and applause]
ms. clinton: of course the key is to prevent terrorists from exploiting our compassion and endangering our security, but we can do this. and i think we must. third, we have to discover and disrupt jihadists' plots before they can be carried out. this is going to take better intelligence, collection analysis and sharing. i proposed an intelligence surge against isis that includes more operations officers and linguists. enhancing our surveillance of
overseas' targets, flying more reconnaisance missions to track terrorist movements and developing closer partnerships with other intelligence services. president obama recently signed the u.s.a. freedom act which was passed by a bipartisan majority in congress. it protects civil liberties while maintaining capabilities that our intelligence and law enforcement officers need to keep us safe. however, the new law is under attack from presidential candidates on the left and right. some would strip away counterterrorism tools even with appropriate judicial and congressional oversight and others seem to go back to discredited practices of the past. i don't think we can afford to let either view prevail. now, encryption of mobile devices and communications does present a particularly tough
problem with important implications for security and civil liberties. law enforcement and counterterrorism professionals warned that impen trenable encryption may make it harder to prevent future attacks. on the other hand, there are very legitimate worries about privacy, network security and creating new vulnerabilities that bad actors can exploit. i know there is no magic fix to this dilemma that will satisfy all these concerns, but we can't just throw up our hands. the tech community and the government have to stop seeing each other as adverse sears and start working together to keep us safe from terrorists. and even as we make sure law enforcement officials get the tools they need to prevent attacks, it's essential that we also make sure that jihadists don't get the tools they need to carry out attacks.
it defies common sense that republicans in congress refuse to make it harder for potential terrorists to buy guns. [cheers and applause] ms. clinton: if you are too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to buy a gun. and we should insist -- [cheers and applause] we should insist on comprehensive background checks and close loopholes that allow potential terrorists to buy online or at gun shows and i think it's time to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines! [cheers and applause]
i know that this will drive some of our republican friends a little crazy. you'll probably hear it tonight. they will say that guns are a totally separate issue. i have news for them. terrorists use guns to kill americans and i think we should make it a lot harder for them to do that ever again! [cheers and applause] and there's a question they should be asked, why don't the republican candidates want to do that? you see, i have this old-fashioned idea that we elect a president in part, in large part, to keep us safe from
terrorists, from gun violence, from whatever threatens our families and communities and i'm not going to let the gun lobby or anyone else tell me that that's not the right path for us to go down! [cheers and applause] ms. clinton: the fourth element in my strategy is supporting law enforcement officers who risk their lives to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks. in san bernandino, city, county, state and federal authorities acted with speed and courage to prevent even more loss of life. detective lazano, a 15-year police veteran assured terrified civilians, i'll take a bullet before you do. there is no limit to the
gratitude we owe to law enforcement professionals like that detective who run toward danger to try to save lives. and not just in the immediate wake of an attack, emergency responders will keep putting their lives on the line long after the cameras move on. it is disgraceful that congress has failed to keep faith with first responders who are feeling the lasting effects of 9/11. many of them were men and women i was so proud to represent as a senator from new york. zadroga 9/11 health act. it looks like majority leader mcconnell may have dropped his opposition. and i hope the american people
will hold him to that and we will continue to honor the service and sacrifice of those who responded to the worst terrorist attack in our history. we have to make sure that local law enforcement has the resources and training they need to keep us safe. and they should be more closely synced with national counterterrorism experts like fusion centers that serve as clearinghouses for intelligence and coordination. and we need to strengthen our defenses and wherever we are vulnerable whether it is shopping malls or higher profile targets like railways or airports. we have to build on the progress of the obama administration in locking down loose nuclear materials and other w.m.d. so
they never fall into the hands of terrorists who seek them actively around the world. so we can be providing the department of homeland security with the resources it needs to stay one step ahead, not trying to privatize key functions like t.s.a., as some republicans have proposed. and it's important for us to recognize that when we talk about law enforcement, we have made progress in being sure that our federal authorities share information with our state and local authorities, but that was an issue i tackled after 9/11, and we have to stay really vigilant so that information is in the hands where it needs to be. finally, the fifth element in the strategy is empowering muslim american communities on are on the front linings in the fight against radicalization. there are millions of peace-loving american muslims living, working, raising
families, paying taxes in our country. [applause] these americans may be our first, last and best defense against home-grown radicalization and terrorism. they are the most likely to recognize the insidious effects of radicalization before it's too late, intervene to help set a young person straight. they are the best position to block anything going forward. that's why law enforcement has worked so hard since 9/11 to buildup trust and strong relationships within muslim-american communities. here in the twin cities, you have an innovative partnership that brings together, parents, teachers, imams with law enforcement, nonprofits, local
businesses, mental health professionals and others, to intervene with young people who are at risk. it's called the building community resilience pilot program and it deserves increased support. it has not gotten the financial resources that it needs to do everything that the people involved in it know they can do and we have got to do a better job of supporting it. [applause] i know that like many places across the country there is more work to do to increase trust between communities and law enforcement. just last month, i know here, adown african-american man was
fatally shot by a police officer and i understand an investigation is under way. whatever the outcome, tragedies like this raise hard questions about racial justice in america and put at risk efforts to build the community relationships that help keep us safe from crime and from terrorism. when people see that respect and trust are two-way streets, they are more likely to work hand in-in hand with law enforcement. one of the mothers of the 10 men recently charged with conspiring, the terrorists said, we have to stop the denial, she told other parents that. we have to talk to our kids and work with the f.b.i. that's a message we need to hear from leaders within muslim-american communities across our country. but we also want to highlight the successes in muslim-american communities, and there are so
many of them. i just met with the first somali-american member of the city council here -- [applause] ms. clinton: he was proudly telling me how much change somali immigrants, now muslim-americans have made in parts of the city and neighborhoods that have been pretty much hallowed out. let's look at the successes. if we are going to fully integrate everyone in america, we need to be seeing all their chiropractics, too. -- all of their contributions, too. and that is one of the many reasons why we must all stand up against offensive, inflammatory, hateful anti--muslim rhetoric.
[cheers and applause] you know, not only do these comments cut against everything we stand for as americans, they are also dangerous. as the director of the f.b.i. told congress recently, anything that erodes trust with muslim-americans makes the job of law enforcement more difficult. we need every community invested in this fight, not alienated and sitting on the sidelines. one of the community leaders i met with told me that a lot of the children in the community are now afraid to go to school.
they're not only afraid of being perceived as a threat, they are afraid of being threatened because of who they are. this is such a open-hearted and generous community, i hope there will be even more efforts perhaps under the egis of the university and governor dayton and others to bring people together to reassure members of the community, particularly children and teenagers that they are welcome, invited and valued here in this city and state. [applause] trump's proposal to ban all
muslims from entering the united states has rightly sparked outrage across our country and around the world, even some of the other republican candidates are saying he's gone too far. but the truth is, many of those same candidates have also said, disgraceful things about muslims. and this kind of divisive rhetoric actually plays into the hands of terrorists. it alienates partners and undermines moderates. we need around the world in this fight against isis. you know, you hear a lot of talk from some of the other candidates about coalitions. everyone seems to want one. [laughter] ms. clinton: but there isn't nearly as much talk as it is to build a coalition and make it work. i know how hard it is. insulating potential allies doesn't make it any easier. [cheers and applause]
-- insulting potential allies doesn't make it any easier. [cheers and applause] demonizing muslims makes it that much harder. the united states is at war with islam. as both the pentagon and the f.b.i. have said in the past week, we cannot in any way lend credence to that twisted idea. this is not a clash of civilizations. this is a clash between civilizations and barbarism and that's how it must be seen and fought. [applause] some will tell you that our open
society is a vulnerability in the struggle against terrorism. i disagree. i believe our tolerance and diversity are at the core of our strengths. at a nationalization ceremony for new citizens today in washington, president obama noted the tension throughout our history between welcoming or rejecting the stranger, it is, he said, about the meaning of america, what kind of country do we want to be. and it's about the capacity of each generation to honor the creed as old as our founding, e pluribus unum. out of many, we are one. president obama's right. and it matters. it's no coincidence that american muslims have long been better integrated and less susceptible to radicalization than muslims in less welcoming nations.
and we cannot give in to demagogue who play on our basic -- basis instincts and rely on the principles written into our american d.n.a., freedom, equality, opportunity. america is strongest when all our people believe they have a stake in our country and our future, no matter where they're from, what they look like, who they worship or who they love. our country was founded by people fleeing religious persecution. as george washington put it. the united states gives to bigotry no sanctions, to persecution, no assistance. so to all of our muslim american brothers and sisters, this is your country, too. and i'm proud to be your fellow american. [applause]
ms. clinton: and i want to remind us, particularly our that georgeriends, w. bush was right. six days after 9/11, he went to a muslim community center and here's what he said. those who feel like they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take out their anger don't represent the best of america, they represent the worst of humankind and they should be ashamed of that kind of behavior. [applause] ms. clinton: so if you want to
see the best of america, you need look no further than army captain khan. he was born in the united arab emirates and moved to maryland as a small child. he later graduated from the university of virginia, before enlisting in the united states army. in june, 2004, he was serving in iraq. one day while his infantry unit was guarding the gates of their base, a suspicious vehicle appeared. captain khan told his troops to get back, but he went forward. he took 10 steps towards the car before it exploded. captain khan was killed, but his unit was saved by his courageous act. captain khan was awarded the
bronze star and purple heart. he was just 27 years old. we still wonder what made him take those 10 steps, khan's father said in a recent interview. maybe that's the point he went on, where all the values, all the service to country, all the things he learned in this country kicked in. it was those values that made him take those 10 steps, those 10 steps told us we did not make a mistake in moving to this country, his father finished. as hard as this is, it is time to move from fear to resolve. it's time to stand up and say we are americans. we are the greatest nation on earth, not in spite of the challenges we face, but because of them.
americans will not buckle or break. we will not turn on each other or turn on our principles. we will pursue our enemies with unyielding power and purpose. we will crush their would-be caliphate and counter radical jihadism wherever it tax root. -- takes root. we are in it for the long haul and we will stand taller and stronger then they can possibly imagine. that's what we do here. that's who we are. that's how we will win, by looking at one another with respect, with concern, with commitment. that's the america that i know makes us all so proud to be a part of. thank you all very much. [cheers and applause] ms. clinton: thank you.
>> c-span takes you on the road to the white house and into the classroom. this year, our student can documentary contest asked students to tell us what issues they want to hear from the presidential candidates. follow c-span's road to the white house coverage, and get all the details about our student contest at c-span.org. >> a few live events to tell you about tomorrow on c-span3. a state department special representative for pakistan and afghanistan testifies about u.s. pakistan relations, and u.s. diplomacy in the region. we will have live coverage from the house foreign affairs committee at 10:00 a.m. eastern. then puerto rico's governor will talk about his territory economy, and it's more than $70 billion in debt. live coverage from the national press club, on c-span3 at 1:00 p.m. eastern.
later, federal reserve chair janet yellen holds a news conference to talk about u.s. monetary policy. that is that 2:30 eastern. next, the state department's special envoy for climate change talks about the international climate agreement reached over the weekend in paris. todd stern also took audience questions at this one hour event hosted by the center for american progress. good morning, and welcome to the center for american progress. i and the executive vice president of external affairs, and i am thrilled to see all of you for this fantastic conversation. for years, the science has been clear for anyone who was willing to pay attention to it. unchecked, climate change poses major challenges to our society and the natural world. threatening the world's cities and infrastructure. food security, public health. and the survival of countless
species. despite this very real and present danger, our congress has stood by and done almost nothing. since 2011, the only legislation that congress has considered has been to stop action on climate change. promote highly polluting sources of energy, block funding on research, and even prevent the state department from working with other countries on solutions. fortunately, none of these bad ideas have become law. but while congress dithered, president obama got to work. in june 2013, the president announced his climate action plan, and in the 2 1/2 years since, we have seen bold and unprecedented leadership from the administration on the issue of climate change. they have taken steps to enhance efficiency, boost renewables, curb tailpipe emissions, and cut pollution from our power sector.
as impressive as these accomplishments are, and they certainly are, we have also known that climate change is not a problem that can be solved by the united states alone. we can lead, but others must follow. that is why since 2009, the state department has persistently and resolutely toiled to bill consensus toward -- build consensus toward a global agreement on climate change. that work was not done in isolation. over the past year, the french demonstrated remarkable diplomatic skills and the chinese and indians stepped up to the plate. the private sector, civil society, and officials from every government around the world worked hard and it paid off. on saturday, 195 countries came together in the spirit of cooperation and solidarity around an historic climate
agreement that will reduce carbon pollution and make the world safer for our children and grandchildren. the paris agreement has been characterized as ambitious, flexible, transparent. the world is already transitioning to greater clean energy use. this agreement establishes a strong foundation for that action that will accelerate the shift to a clean energy economy for the world. as the administration has worked toward this achievement, the center for american progress has been right there. thinking through the problems, identifying solutions, and focusing the public's attention. our work on the green climate fund identified the tremendous opportunity the fund creates and how to get it off the ground. our work on the legal form of the agreement is an excellent primer for those hoping to understand what types of international agreements need to be considered by the senate and
which ones don't. our work on loss and damage list a path for how this important issue could be resolved. and throughout the run up to paris, we were always thinking how do we increase the ambition? so many people from so many countries deserve recognition for the work that made this agreement possible. but there is one man who has been the face of the united states to the world on climate change since 2009. and no one in the united states deserves more credit than he does. todd stern's career boasts an impressive list of accomplishments from harvard law school to senior white house negotiator at the kyoto and buenos aires climate negotiations, to the senior role in the treasury and senate judiciary committee. not to mention his time here at the center for american progress as a senior fellow. todd is the lead u.s. negotiator
, and we are so very pleased and honored to welcome him here for his first appearance after the paris agreement for a conversation with cap senior fellow, peter ogden. please, todd stern, welcome to the stage, pete, please join us. [applause] >> thank you for the introduction, it is wonderful to have you here. >> thank you to everyone here, and to my old home. there was a point in time in washington where everybody who was a democrat had worked for either john or tony, and i actually worked for both of them. i also want to thank everybody at cap and everybody else who is involved and has been involved and engaged in the n.g.o. world. or in some other aspect of working on and pressing on action on climate change because i think that there was a huge amount of momentum around the world this year coming from
n.g.o.'s in the u.s. and in ,urope, and around the world coming from business, the french were really good at developing what they call the pillar four for the paris event. that channeled that kind of intense interest and activism and momentum. it was a really very different story if i think all the way back to kyoto where the business , was basically lined up hard against action. so it -- all of that i think played a part. so i start with the thank you to all of you who have been engaged and glad to be here. pete: maybe a good place to start would be to get your kind of perspective on what the key elements of the paris agreement are. then we can dig into that. and talk a little bit about what it was like on the ground for a couple weeks. todd: i think that we have -- that we have, in fact, a major historic agreement that is built
on a number of elements. first of all, it's universal and lasting. it's sort of a not kyoto. it's an agreement whose expectations and requirements and so forth apply to everybody. so we tried the kyoto model. the kyoto model was all obligations aimed at developing countries. and developing countries not really having to do anything. and that failed as matter of politics, but also as a matter of being able to substantively deal with the problem. universal and lasting. it sets us on a path of high ambition built on the so-called indc's, the targets that 186 countries had put forward before the paris talk started. there are five-year cycles, so countries will have to ratchet up the targets every five years
, either on the basis that they put in a new target or if they are in the middle a longer target period they have to review, and decide whether to increase at that time in light , of science and technology and so forth. or at least put forward a communication saying that they have looked and they are going to keep -- stay where they are for that period. five-year ratchets which we thought were really critical. there are strong goals in the agreement both goal of keep temperature rise to well below two degrees and trying to pursue efforts to hold the increase to 1.5. as well as essentially carbon neutrality or climate neutrality in the course of the century. strong ambition. third, strong new transparency regime we think is critical. this piece of the agreement is legally binding. and it applies to everybody.
it's built on countries having to do inventories, having to report on the progress they are making toward their targets, getting -- being subject to expert review and peer review. all built into a transparency system that applies to both developed and developing countries. really important. it enhances the focus more than has ever happened before. with a particular emphasis on both national planning, international cooperation, support from richer countries to poorer countries, and so forth. then i guess, we could have started here because this is quite fundamental to the agreement itself. the architecture of climate -- of the climate regime has changed. the core here is that of course there has to be differentiation of the agreement, but we have really insisted and pushed for years since you were running around at the state department, pete, for a differentiation
regime that is built on essentially forward-looking rather than backward looking approach with nationally determined activity based on capacity and circumstances at the core of it. rather than saying every country that is in this category, set up in 1992, is only expected to do x and developed countries are expected to do y. even if those countries are china or korea or singapore or the oecd countries now in that category. that doesn't make any sense. instead, we have essentially changed the architecture. then there are provisions on the financial assistance and technical assistance which we think are strong and balanced and those are the key elements. pete: one of the things you mentioned at the very end which is one of the -- one of the threads that's been spun way
back starting in 2009 how to move forwards an arrangement in which the major economies are also not hung up or see an obstacle in setting a low-carbon path. one which they think can be consistent with their own development priorities. do you feel like something is -- what's changed between 2009 when that was so hard to see and for countries to want to embrace to today when not only do they set that but they agreed to a system of ratcheting them in perpetuity. what do you think changed? todd: i think it's a really good question and it's going -- this is a question the answer to which will evolve with more reflection and more kind of review of what's actually happened.
but i think i start the answer by saying that copenhagen, which is widely regarded as a massive failure, and definitely chaotic and failed in certain respects actually did very important things. in copenhagen was the first time where -- we come in, the president gets elected. secretary clinton comes to the state and i come in with her. and we are catching a negotiation that's right in the middle because that negotiation was launched in bali in 2007. so it's a two-year negotiation, and we are jumping on to a moving train. that moving train basically still premised on the notion that you are going to fundamentally have -- have a real fundamental difference between the kinds of things that developed countries would do and the kind of things that developing countries would do. one side would be legally binding and economy wide, etc., and the other sort of do what you can as you can.
and we came in with -- i have been through the wars in kyoto and buenos aries after that. i have been working on climate continually. i have been through those wars. i continue to be involved in my capacity at c.a.p., as i was also practicing law. great, great, great many countries were just not prepared to have that basic kind of understanding that they thought that they had agreed to in bali where you would still have a kyoto like separation. the countries were not prepared for that to change. we came in and said at that time we are not going to do a legally binding agreement just for the developed countries. we'll consider the legally
binding agreement if it's set up the right way, but not for just one side. not for us with leave china and -- leaving china and all the others out. that roiled the waters a lot. the danes, who played a great hand all the way up to the last couple months, figured out early on that this was not going to be the treaty that people were expecting, because you weren't going to be able to get that. so they started to convert this whole notion quietly and bit by bit and in a way that -- started to talk about publicly. this would have to be agreement that would be politically binding but not legally binding and where at least the big players all did something. and that actually happened in the copenhagen accord. but there was -- not without a lot of broken crockery. there was huge upset. huge kind of violent reaction
against being yanked out of the sold old system. -- the old system. that started it. the old system wasn't kind of definitively surpassed at that point, but that started it. i think that then you sort of have years of negotiation by the mandate for this one was reached in durbin. there were two critical things in the durbin mandate. one was that the agreement was going to be applicable to all. they took that plunge that everybody was going to be in. in a way even well beyond what happened in copenhagen. and -- at the same time they got language in there that they felt protected them. it was going to be under the convention. it was going to be protected by the classic principles of common responsibilities and so forth. i think those things were quite critical.
and then if you look at this agreement, there are still sort of protections from -- in terms of the way they would look at it. we reached an important one line fix in the famous china, joint announcement with china in 2014 where we took that kind of differentiated responsibility sentence which doesn't automatically mean this, but it's traditionally read by countries to be these two categories, we added a few words in the negotiation that was a part of that short statement , which changed the formulation little bit to make it more forward-looking, more -- with more of a sense of evolution. that line then got dropped into the lima negotiation last year. it was a bit by bit, people getting more acclimated.
and we were just -- we were just quite insistent about this for a long time. people knew, i think, there would not be an agreement with the united states unless we move past that whole architecture. pete: you mentioned that one of the challenges was trying to figure out the right legal form that would allow you to make -- to secure those gains. maybe we can talk a little bit about, again, the diplomacy on the ground. just as a general matter, one of the issues that arose at the very end was the question of some language in the text and the question of what it would mean, the overall legal architecture of the agreement. can you speak a little bit to that? how you felt when you saw the text. todd: so the last draft of the
text that we were supposed to be less iteration, i guess, came out around 1:30 on saturday, and comes online to everybody's computers. we all started printing it out. i started reading it right away. i was the one who saw in article 4, paragraph 4, this word shall that wasn't supposed to be there. it was supposed to be a "shoul"" and it was a "shall." it was a paragraph we had worked on very carefully and we had worked on in concert with the french. we worked through -- shared our -- the language and had agreement with the chinese. and all previous drafts had in that pivotal word had always been the same. the word matters because basically shall means legally binding and means should not legally binding in the way the
drafting of international agreements goes. somehow or other a gremlin got into the french typewriters and computers and the word popped out. it is a very interesting mystery as to what happened, because somebody, somewhere in the french or secretariat system , decided to do that, because you don't auto correct from should to shall. the law of fabious, the president of negotiations, and key drafters we were very close to, didn't know anything about it. i saw -- i actually saw the word. secretary kerry was there. we called him right away. he had no idea it had happened. none of the key drafting people knew it had happened. but somebody, somewhere changed it. we couldn't actually go forward because that would have made this whole agreement legally binding for the united states. that for reasons that are
probably obvious, that wouldn't have been so useful for us. but it was a genuine mistake. and i think the chinese knew this and the french knew it. but on the floor -- i wasn't -- i wouldn't say i was deeply, deeply worried, but i was worried. but there was, at that point, such a sense in the room and there had been an earlier gathering in the plenary before the text came out. there was a broad feeling among developed and undeveloped countries that this would happen. i can't imagine it would fall apart over this, but there is a history of tremendous amount of distrust and skepticism in these negotiations. the notion everybody thought it was a mistake as opposed what did the u.s. do? what did they fix? it's not that easy, you have to
get over that. then even the way -- these negotiations, this is a hardball environment. even for people in many countries who are difficult, fair number of difficult countries may come as a shock to you, but there are, so for some of those negotiators, whether it was a mistake or not, it was there. it was an opportunity. ok, you want me to agree to let this be fixed? what am i going to get? that would have unraveled the whole thing because you wouldn't have been able to stop that. there was 90 minutes of a lot of hustling around, diplomacy right on the floor and the back rooms right around the french and around the big podium area to fix that. and ultimately we did. the french handled it.
there was a lot of talking to a lot of people to explain what happened and quiet things down and to get the bolivians to talk to the nicaraguans and chinese to you talk to the south africans. there's a lot of calming that had to be done. pete: you said at the end there again, the french sort of handled that moment well. sound like they handled a lot of moments well. i think they have got a -- for people -- it's one thing to say it was diplomatically skillful. that word can sort of be abstract to people. what does it mean to be -- are there moments when you thought, you know, this is really well played. the french are doing this right. this was smart. or you sort of were able to -- in a more concrete way that people can wrap their heads around. todd: yeah. i think that they certainly played that moment quite well. and once there was enough discussions had gone on and the
proceedings resumed, they had a guy from the secretariat who has been there for a long time and who is just the picture of a pure contract, just get up and read through like 10 little corrections. there was supposed to do, here. the opening lines and just read what was supposed to be. it went really quickly. seeing broad support in the room. the whole thing was over before anybody kind of knew it which was good.
throughout the two weeks but also throughout the year they did a good job in having the process feel open and inclusive. thatg countries a sense everybody was getting an opportunity to be heard. thatimes you have sessions feel like they are a waste of time. them.is a purpose to there were two sessions on wednesday and thursday that went on for hours, late in the night. a room with a gigantic square table. probably 85 countries around it. countries were just giving
speeches. we've got things to do. what are we doing? this is a waste of time. to do totually smart give people that sense of being included. they spent the entire day on friday having groups. the islands, the african countries, the less developed countries and so on. each one coming in to sit with fabius to say this is what we are concerned about. it was important substance that happened. they also give people a chance
to be heard. this is an art not a science. these kinds of negotiations. it is an odd kind of .nternational body there is a new conference of the parties meeting at the end of every year. the french know how to do it now but they're not doing it. the kind of mastered it but then they were done. then somebody else comes in and they don't have a clue as to what they're doing. there was an oddity in the way this process works. the other thing we would be youear about. abou
were there for two weeks. president was there for several days. it was all leading up to that moment. what was that theory of the case? stern: i should go back a , not to tutor on horn. it reflects that we had from the beginning. durban in 2011. it came out of the conference with this new mandate. form but not clear
what the legal form would be. applicable to all. covering the various areas. out that it wasn't very complicated to figure out that other countries and gotten it right away. you have to have a bottom-up structure where the countries would determine what their commitments were going to be. in kyoto, because it was very there., having been fundamentally it was a three cornered negotiation between the u.s. japan and the eu. the less developed countries were on the sides of that. it was a real negotiation.
have negotiations like that. you have to have a bottom-up structure. it was originally nationally determined commitments. you don't want to let countries off the hook easy. you're put pressure on countries to do their best. we came up with the idea of having a first-round intended to determine contributions. countries would have to be exposed to the sunlight. guys like you and other ngos and other analytic bodies.
they are all going to say thumbs up thumbs down. pressure put on countries reputational pressure. most countries care about that. moreu favored an actual involved assessment process. whether the proposed targets were good enough. there was no way the developing countries going to put up with that. we were, we have a pretty clear idea in our minds about the legal framework. not through any connivance on our part. new zealand put forward a
proposal that was very constructive for mark warner to the legal form of the agreements. the rules were legally binding about the target itself. a very useful construct. that also was something that we started to work on. it didn't get settled all the way to paris. everybody knows what is going and but they didn't want to quite say so. transparency was going to be key.
have you no countries are going to actually do what they say? is it binding in that sense? the answer is no. you can't possibly get agreement for that at this point. so is legally binding but not in the punitive way. these are all elements that inform the kind of core architecture of this agreement. this can visit unfair to think everybody has to do the same thing. everyone should have the capacity to affect in this area but in a way that doesn't impede
their ability to grow. we had met this out pretty much from the beginning. we had this forum that we started called the major economies forum. presidentorerunner of bush's meeting. i don't actually know what the real story was behind it. was, sort of thought it they had undergone a lot of criticism. some point along the way they want to put more positive face on activities. in the climate arena.
is more or less the g20 minus three. we gave it a new name and we gave them new mission. to help facilitate negotiations. used that. it is was no tremendously useful which has met three to six times a year. i wrote an article that called eighte creation of the ee . not that different from the 17th ended up in the major economies forum. having gone through kyoto in buenos aires, realizing that circus is not the place we can
we came into the year with a 90 it wasmpilation text everything but the kitchen sink countries who want to make sure their own pet issues were included. everything was put into this huge ungainly thing. there were four meetings of the sub ministerial level. the first meeting didn't really change that text very much.
even the progressive voices among the progressive developing countries were more or less silenced. it was very acrimonious just a month before paris. is very much focused on retailing a coalition that the eu had pulled together at the time of durban. he worked a lot with the islands in the least developed countries. they had interesting perspectives that are often afferent from the others
mission to get that coalition restarted. to put the u.s. firmly in that coalition where we had always sort of been on the margins. and to show flexibility in certain areas different from what they've done all year. that gave rise to what became known as the high ambition coalition. in paris. it was enormously important tactically.
various meetings along the way. there were maybe 30 countries that were at this dinner including the u.s.. was very close ongoing collaboration and interaction of this coalition in the days that followed. including a press conference where eight or nine of us were up on stage. including the u.s. for the first time. the press conference room was completely packed. this was already big news. impact thehad a big
midday plenary was on saturday. they were walking through what was going to happen that day. there was basically a march from the meeting room to the u.k. this is a big big center. it's a long way. it just swells. there were a zillion cameras. people were cheering. it was an amazing moment. i think it was also moving moment and also tactically important.
>> i know that we could continue to unpack what happened for a long time. i want to just use the few remaining minutes to talk about what is to come. you probably have not had a lot of time to think about what is coming next. as you said, one of the successes of paris was because of the activity at the society of the private sector. they all had a big hand in his victory. if people start to think about beyond, what kind of questions do you think could benefit from more thought and investigation? stern: the first thing is
that there will be a number of work,where further guidelines will be need to the put in place to implement and to provide more detail to the things that were great too. the whole transparency regime. we had one real priority, which was to not allow the effort that was an actual explicit effort by a number of countries to have a supershort transparency section.
we got will needed and then some. you'll still need to do more than that. a lot of guidelines the need to get negotiated in those areas. it will be important to make sure that the world is still watching. and that ngos and others can be clear. making sure the press are looking the other way. people that are trying to call back.
there we some number of areas in the international negotiations where we will need to do further work. the next step will be to map out exactly what those areas are and what the plans are to carry them forward. will also true that there be a tremendous amount of what needs to happen now that needs to happen at a national level. levels.operatives bilaterally or multilateral. there is a ton of work to do
get developing countries to help them develop an environment that can attract investment. about financelk and these overly politicized negotiations you often get the response that we want to talk about the private sector and you all was said it is your fault. obviously there needs to be substantial public money. where are we on this? in terms of getting to that hundred billion dollars commitment. the oecd did a study and found
that it was around 62 billion through 2014. about three quarters of that is public money. it is not the case that public money isn't happening. that if you step back what all of this is about is transforming the global economy. that is what this game is. we have to combat climate change. the steps that need to be taken to make that possible are key and the capacity to get private sector financing flowing around the world is critical. that requires the right kind of investment in the countries around the world. you can see the countries are doing it.
places isof all totally hardliners negotiations. including in those last minutes. somewhere in the range of 20 to almost 50% renewable energy in about five years. they made certain regulatory legal changes where they were paying way too much for energy. they relied a lot on and other expensive stuff. they got religion now and they are going whole hog. because you put in a tariff.
you put in changes that made it possible for countries to investors to actually depend on the purchase agreement as part of the facility that is going. that is what. there are many countries where this is not true. the clean energy transformation the needs to happen. that will be very important to drive assistance for adaptation. initiative the prime minister mission innovation. bill gates had a very important role.
and inventions. we had investors ready to get discoveries over the various death valley's that make it hard to go from discovery to commercialization. i was very excited about this development. we've created a framework for international action that is going to last is going to ratchet up every five years. that is now for the first time ever established. under the banner of this structure take action. >> we have a few more minutes
here. and that todd will have to leave and start playing that game. i would love to be able to take a couple of questions from the audience. if you could please just announce your name and your organization. >> there is no question that what you have negotiated is an extraordinary achievement. there's also talk that even if every country achieves the , nobody falls below time, we are still only getting half way of where we need to be. probably less than halfway if we are shooting for two degrees. what do you think the impact would be internationally if we were able in the united states
and the next congress to elect or to enact a revenue neutral see on carbon emissions couple adjustment tox give other countries the economic self-interest and incentive to do the same thing? would that get us where we need to be? stern: that we say couple of things. you are right to say that these agreements don't get us all the way there. i would note that the climate which is a very analytic body analyzing these issues. a year ago they projected that we were on the path to 3.6. october 1 they revise that to 2.7.
two and evenom longer way away from 1.5 degrees but also a long way away from 3.6 degrees. i think that is very important. pricing carbon is a big big deal. we have implicit prices on carbon. the president try to get a real price on carbon back in the days of cap and trade. sunday that is going to happen. one would hope that it would happen sooner rather than later. the president has done what i is anby any assessment absolutely amazing job of driving forward change in this country on the basis of this legislation. the power sector. the vehicle sector. you can do more if you have congress.
that is something our future. the sooner the future income the better. i don't want to jump into that one. ideally isather see a world in which there was carbon pricing all over the place. whether it is priced at the right level or not. it probably won't be right away. i think that kind of thing probably will be important. we have to get as a virtuous circle where more action begets more action. the streethere
economic case says you are going with clean energy than the alternative. you didn't need legislation for computers to make typewriters obsolete. it was because it was a better cheaper product. >> i can't get agreement on my own dinner table and i'm amazed that you could get 195 countries to agree on what they had is much less something as complicated as this. did you have a team of psychologists working for you to figure out how to make people
more constructive? was french wine involved? stern: we did not have psychologists. we had some french wine, but is actually never the case that you get everyone to agree with you. , these are very contentious negotiations. it was striking to be sure. what you are doing is trying to to find the landing zone. to socialize those with enough important players.
there is never a combined moments. except maybe when the whole thing is done. everybody is relieved and pleased that something is happens. there seem tout be a lot of smiles at the end. i should spend some time trying how it all comes together. is a matter of countries evaluating their national interest in a hardheaded way.
also the phenomenon of different negotiating styles. generally developed countries don't tend to be this way. you definitely have some dynamic of the style where countries know they're going to get a lot less so when they don't get the moon they are not actually that disappointed. there's a lot of patient work that goes into it. nobody is so unhappy that people are prepared to block it. >> this was the store again would not have happened if not they are seven years of work.
political scholar matthew green joins us. to talk about underdog politics. the minority party in the house of representatives. historian and lecturer craig shirley discusses his book last act about ronald reagan. starting december 21. >> c-span presents landmark cases the book. a companion to our landmark cases series. exploring important supreme court decisions. miranda versus arizona. roe versus wade.
[applause] mike: thank you for coming to the playbook breakfast. anna: we are very excited to welcome senate majority leader mitch mcconnell onstage to join us. [applause] mike: good morning. we think all of you who are joining us out in lifestream land. please send us your questions. we're excited to have a doubleheader, senator mcconnell and speaker ryan.
announced it yet. what we are looking for on the tax side is to have a large measure as opposed to a .hort-term extender bill more permanency for things that we think matter for the economy. foroduces the baseline getting to comprehensive tax reform which the country desperately needs. several of these extenders are making those permanent is important as a shot in the arm to our economy. mcconnellheadline is thousand ambitious agenda. what you mean by that?
we have regularly scheduled elections in our country. mcconnell: we can't just say we can't do anything because this is an election year. democratsing that the succeeded in completely thwarting. it was the normal appropriations process. even though all 12 of them came out of the committee for the first time in five years. what i hope you will do now that we've decided how much would a spandex here is to not spend any time arguing about that. the process of passing the 12 bills to fund the government. this is been dysfunctional for the majorities in both parties. the last time we completely get .t right was 1994 that is something we can have minimal arguments over and try
to accomplish even in the middle of a contentious election year. story, they say that you have had a solid first you have got a victory lap of sorts. mcconnell: it was more than a solid first year. let's compare it to last year for existence. last year we have 15 roll call votes on the whole year. this year we had over 200. the democratic majority couldn't pass a budget. we did that. is to acceptto do the reality of the government we have. the president is not of our party. the democrats have enough votes in the senate to prevent things from happening. so how do you break through that? you do it by issue selection.
pipeline andne enjoyed a large majority. we did the iran nuclear deal. a multiyear highway bill. a rewrite of no child left behind. take the highway bill for example. the democratic leadership actively tried to scuttle was being developed by senator boxer myself and they failed. the committee process worked and you have the ranking democrat on the committee admitting what we are trying to do. it develops bipartisan support inside the committee. even if the democratic leadership wants to stop it, they can't. that is how we achieved the budgets that we achieve this year. mike: you gave a speech about
restoring the senate has been harder than you thought. mcconnell: i have democrat senators coming up to me before our new majority took over saying they didn't really like the job. look at the bills they participated in and voted on. passed byese bills overwhelming majorities. that was just on the republicans. saying hey i took a lot of criticism on this. i don't much like this job. i don't think many of them are telling you that now. i'm sure they would like to give the majority. i don't think they enjoy being marginalized and irrelevant. having all the action being in the senate majority leader's office rather than in the committees. i do have a choice.
you need 60 votes to do most of the things that we do. i was looking for the kinds of bills and worth doing and get bipartisan support. the coin of the realm in the senate is floor time. how are you going to use that point. how much time you have is the biggest factor. what are you going to allocate the time to. we have a divided government. so what can we do? people seem to like divided government. were they saying when they like divided government? they are saying we know you have a lot of differences want you look for the things that you agree on and try to do them.
that has been my strategy. they're still think big differences. we are in the process of repealing obama care. two of these clean power regulations. mike: as a student of history do you think will have divided government in 2017? senator mcconnell: i hope not. your relationship with harry reid had been tense. ?ave you worked together mcconnell: i think the low point was when he broke the rules of the senate in the fall of 2013 to change the rules of the senate. the rules mean nothing if any
majority at any given time with a simple majority changes the rules. familiar,of you not the senate's rules don't change at the end of every two years. they are permanent. you need 67 votes to change the rules of the senate. was thepened in 2013 .esire to jam them minority they said we will just change the rules like that. with a simple majority. that was the low point of our relationship. i think it did a lot of damage to the institution. it further soured relations. personally. but i don't like the way he ran the senate majority leader. we have have to work around him to get things done.
democrats who of want to be relevant. they want to do the jobs they were elected to. except the fact that we are in the majority. because of issues we talking about requires bipartisan support. mike: there was a story that said boehner's exit will costs we collect kindred spirit. mcconnell: paul ryan's been around a long time. work witha chance to him for many years. he hired a longtime friend of mine. we knew each other well. we have to start from scratch. i think paul can speak for himself. he is in the make a difference
side. the people who want to make a point, and the people who want to make a difference. and we all from time to time want to make a point. but i don't think the american people here sent us here to do nothing. they elected a government that neither party entirely controls. i get the impression the speaker would like to make the difference given the cards that we were dealt. not perfect. you can address the question to him. i think the transition is quite smooth. anna: i want to ask you about the interview with the washington post. you think this is pumped into the next president? senator mcconnell: i am
disappointed that some of the outcomes. that i am not regretful of doing print promotion authority. process by which this president and the next one can send to a trade agreement to the congress and get it approved. important to get that agreement in place not just for obama but for the next president. the could have been in my put of you a lot better. you have heard trade discussed. all the democratic candidates for president against the bill. any of the republican candidates -- and many of the republican
candidates are against the deal. it is up to obama to decide when to initiate the process. he should take into account the obvious politics of trade at the moment in our country. what will the outlook be for tax reform? senator mcconnell: i would assume it would be high on his agenda. we do have a significant positive impact on the baseline. for conference of tax reform which the speaker would like to do and i would like to do. there are some challenges in doing comprehensive tax reform. i believe it should be revenue neutral. reagan and tip o'neill had an agreement 30 years ago that tax
reform was not about bringing in more money to the government but about getting rates down as far as possible. rate is thee tax cause of some inversions. we need to do something about that. we need to treat taxpayers similarly. most american business that is not a corporation. most of them are s corporations or llc's. if you lower the rate only for corporations, you leave the rates for individuals up here. most american businesses don't get a tax cut. we have some substantial differences with president obama about what tax reform should look like.
i think we should treat small business just like we do big business. whatever revenues produced by the elimination of preferences should be used to bring down rates not to spend by the government. mike: you think there could be narrow tax reform? mcconnell: i don't know. mike: since the terrorist attacks, that the fbi in the cia have both expressed concern about the use of encryption to mask with a are doing. has there been congressional action on this? we know thennell: patriot act was mistake.
we had internal divisions among the republicans about whether that was an appropriate thing to do. the bill that we passed in early summer i did vote for it. our conference was split right down the middle. the encryption issue is another good reason for revisiting that whole subject. that could well happen. mike: what are the circumstances of where that could happen. mcconnell: it depends on what happens in the world. to the extent that our intelligence capabilities are to ask theou have question, is that a smart thing to do? mike: would you like to see action on that?
what would be the top of your list? mcconnell: one of our youngest senators, tom cotton, has had a lot to say about this. he has already become a leader on this. chairman richard burr has some concerns as well. anna: integration has been a big issue. your wife very successful from taiwan. do you think all this -- is it concerning to you? how do you respond to it? leader mcconnell: well, the president pretty much messed up the environment for doing anything on immigration. in a proactive way with his executive orders after the election. in which he did things that he had previously said on numerous
occasions he didn't have the authority to do. proving he didn't have the authority, the courts have stopped him. so that's on hold. a separate issue is immigration concerns raised as a result of terrorists coming in. and i do think we need to continue to look at tightening up the various ways in which people can come into the country. the key in my view on the infiltration of terrorists as opposed to the lone wolf factor, it -- is having safe places inside syria so people don't feel they have to leave. and that requires a more robust military approach to what we are currently doing. more robust. that's something the president's been reluctant to do. tightening up the entry is
important. but you have the lone wolf problem, which apparently was the case in san bernardino. that gets back to whether or not we have the tools that we need to have on the intelligence side. to track and discover these people before they do something like this. anna: speaking of having a more robust presence here. -- this year. you don't want to do an aumf -- leader mcconnell: the president thinks he has the authority to do what he's doing now. he's got a year left in office. i know the democrats in the senate well enough to know when they talk about an aumf they are talking about a highly prescriptive aumf. how many troops you have. how long they can stay there. maybe what they can do there. but if we are going to do an aumf, it ought to give the president all the authority that he may need. rather than trying to
micromanage the conflict. so i can't imagine this senate getting more than 60 votes for the kind of aumf that the next president may need, which is the authority to do what needs to be done. in other words, not to micromanage the military employment, not to tell them how long they can stay there. so i would not want to saddle the next president with a highly prescriptive aumf. mike: anna will ask you a question about a specific senator in the second, but to pull back, what are the chances that republicans keep the senate and you remain majority leader? leader mcconnell: it's going to be a challenging cycle. state the obvious that the key to the republican majority lies in purple states. new hampshire, pennsylvania, ohio, wisconsin, one blue state, illinois. nevada, colorado, florida. what do they all have in common? every one of those states except illinois will be the same states that determine who the president is. so i'm hoping for a presidential nominee who can carry purple
states, who can actually get elected president because those are the states -- i would add one more to that group where we don't have a senate race, that's virginia. a purple state that clearly will be in play in the general election of the presidency. obviously if we have a presidential candidate who is doing well in purple states it would make it easier for us to have a majority in the next congress. anna: speaking to your point on the purple states, how would senator cruz as a nominee affect the race of senator kelly in new hampshire? leader mcconnell: good try. [laughter] you know i'm not going to start commenting on various candidates for president. i like them all with great interest. [laughter] mike: you won't resist this. how would donald trump as a nominee affect re-election of senator rob portman in ohio? leader mcconnell: i'm still not
going to get into the presidential race. [laughter] mike: you talked about the ability to win in purple states. would some -- not naming names, would some of these candidates be more helpful to keeping the majority -- leader mcconnell: come on, mike. [laughter] let's don't waste each other's time here. i don't want to get into the presidential race. i have already stated it would be extremely helpful in holding the senate to carry purple states. all of you can draw your own conclusions about which candidates are most likely to carrie purple states. mike: as a republican party, how do you hold purple states? what is the key to that? leader mcconnell: i think our members want to be able to say to their constituents they were a part of getting results. getting results on things that were worth doing. what i wanted to convey, i said this after my own re-election in louisville last year i wanted us to be a constructive right of center governing majority. a constructive right of center
governing majority. no antics like shutting down the government or threatening to default on the national debt. no feeling among the american people that if they were to marry up a republican president with this republican senate it wouldn't be a good thing. i want them to think that's a good thing. i think for people like kelly ayotte and pat toomey and ron johnson and rob portman and mark kirk, they want to make the argument that they have been -- they have made a difference. not that they have sat around all the time making points, but that they have made a difference. i think we have an agenda that we have accomplished here in the first year that will help them do that. mike: mr. leader, chance here for a little reality check. this is the gray beard dinner written up in the lead store -- story of the "washington post" g.o.p. to gird for a floor fight about preparing for a brokered convention. what happened at that dinner? leader mcconnell: we were just talking about politics.
[laughter] a bunch of politicians talking about politics. no conspiracy theories that i heard. mike: set the scene. tell people what the dinner is and what it was like. leader mcconnell: it's a group that gets together periodically and has no particular agenda and certainly has no ability to control any particular outcome. like a discussion group. mike: "the washington post" said, near the end mcconnell and r.n.c. chairman acknowledged to the group that a deadlock convention is something the party should prepare for. leader mcconnell: yeah. the meeting is called off the record for some reason. [laughter] so i don't have any interest in quoting myself or others. this is a group that gets together periodically. i frequently go. we talk about politics. that's what we do in this town.
and it's supposed to be off the record. i was among those rather appalled to hear people who are in the meeting talking about it. mike: now that we are on the record in front of cameras, is a deadlock convention something the party should prepare for? leader mcconnell: it hasn't happened in a very long time. i think it's highly unlikely to happen. and what delegates do at a convention is determined by state law anyway. and i guess the only way that could happen would be if you went past one ballot because most states bind the delegates for the first vote, although some may bind them beyond the first vote. i don't in a moment it's an interesting thing to discuss but highly unlikely. mike: highly unlikely, not impossible. what is your worry about it as you go into this --
leader mcconnell: i got a big job to do here and i follow the presidential race, obviously. but handicapping every possible outcome is not something i spend much time doing. anna: turning back to the senate and your job, one of the questions that is outstanding is how many judges the senate will confirm. can you give us any insight into your thinking on that, or when you view the cut off, unofficial cut off date? leader mcconnell: there isn't any particular unofficial or official cut off date. the president has gotten a huge number of judges over the first six years. it was an explosion of judges right at the end of last year. and so most of the judges that were in the queue were already confirmed. and his overall record over this eight years is going to compare pretty similarly to previous presidents. anna: can you -- leader mcconnell: i don't have any specific. mike: mr. leader, tradition you have you take freshmen,
republican senators on a trip to hot spots, afghanistan, iraq, israel, etc. in the middle east. you did two trips this year because you had so many freshmen. what do you get out of those trips? leader mcconnell: a lot of the freshmen did not come from the house, so they haven't had a chance to visit places that have dominated or national security and foreign policy discussion over the last decade. so for the last few cycles, and this year as you indicated, i had, fortunately, a big group, so we went two times to israel, jordan, iraq, afghanistan. it's a way to immerse yourself in the situation quickly. because they have continuing important relevance. an example, it was clearly a huge mistake for the u.s. not to leave a residual force behind in iraq. whether you supported the war or
didn't support the war, president bush handed over to president obama a war that was won. and rather than using the model of germany, japan, and korea where -- after the conflict ended, we left a residual force, with very good results. we left altogether. there is no question in my mind, that is why iraq is a mess it is today. wouldn't have prevented syria , but it is why iraq is in a mess today. the president has been struggling over the last three, four years with a political desire to be them to say at the end of his years, we are out of afghanistan. that would be a big mistake. we have a president there who is a good president who wants us to stay. all the military feels we need to have a residual force.
the optimum number would be 10,000 for counterterrorism and ongoing training of the military. i hope he doesn't double down on the mistake he made in iraq. >> number of polls show that terrorism is in the minds of voters. senator mcconnell: this is a serious problem. isis is not the j.v. team. they control large swaths of land in syria and iraq. they have to be defeated with boots on the ground and don't necessarily have to include a large combat force of the united states. but we are going to have -- without american leadership, it
will not happen. we have to rally the saudis, the egyptians to join a kind of well led and supported by air power american effort to defeat isil , and until that happens, the problem will persist. you need to have safe zones inside syria so people don't feel like they have to run for their lives. >> we are going to need more troops, and as my friend points out, they are not boots, they are people. yes,ity leader mcconnell: you will need more boots they , don't have to be all of ours. america needs to stand up and says here's the plan. here is what we need to do. i need this many troops from you, france, for example or britain, for example. this many troops from you egyptians, saudis, jordanians. it requires american leadership or it will not happen. until that leadership is
provided by this president or the next one, the problem will continue. >> we have a number of interns with us today. some watching online stream. you were an intern for a senator john sherman cooper. what is your advice for interns? [laughter] mcconnell: it was to me a transformative event. i had always thought i wanted to try and succeed in politics. even as a young guy. that particular summer was the summer that the senate broke the filibuster on the civil rights bill, 1964 and senator cooper was right in the middle of that. and we were a border state and even though we were not overwhelmingly hostile to civil rights. i was in the mailroom. most of the letters were for people who did not like the bill. i remember getting an
opportunity to ask him one time whether he was worried about that or not and he said something akin to this, there are times when you need to lead and times when you need to follow and this is an example of stepping out and trying to convince people this is the right direction to take. he was an inspirational figure. i hope you are working for somebody you like and enjoy and you are learning lessons every day about how to conduct the job if you ever get to be a senator , or congressman. mike what were your duties in : the mail room? [laughter] majority leader mcconnell: sorting the mail. this was in the dark ages. it was all snail mail. we got very few telephone calls because it was a long dance -- distance call. people did not want to pay for it. sorting the mail and putting it in different camps and giving it to the right legislative assistant to answer. mcconnell, we
appreciate you are a faithful reader of political -- politico, and you like the trivia questions. we thought it would be fun to ask you tomorrow's trivia question today. anna: lauren sent this to me this morning. is most openly associated with illinois, but the 16th resident was born and partially raised in kentucky. what city was he born in? senator mcconnell: hodges. -- hodgin ville. anna: yes, indeed. [applause] very good. thatity leader mcconnell: was a softball question. mike: here is the hardball. [laughter] how is your team going to come back next year? majority leader mcconnell: well. first of all they need to get pelbon.cap upon -- pa
the player with the most number of strikes is not a teambuilding exercise. i think they need a solid, good hitting outfielder. jayson werth is getting older, not playing many games anymore. we could use another starter , although i think this young guy in the minors may be there jordan-- the answer to zimmermann's departure. i gave you more than you wanted. mike: you often watch the games, and when you are there you watch them with george will and charles krauthammer. senator mcconnell: they know a lot more about it. and a lot of other things. always a humbling experience. mike: anna, thank you for your coverage. mr. leader, thank you. [applause] thank you, sir.
now my colleague jake sherman and ryan are going to join us. welcome. thank you for coming in, mr. ryan. thanks for coming in. we have some family members. jake sherman's wife is here on his birthday eve. my sister bonnie and my neice grace are here from ethiopia. right here in the front row. grace is 10. she came from ethiopia when she was four. >> all i want for my birthday is to get out of town. so if we could expedite that process. jake mr. speaker, you said in : 2016 you want to have a big year and want to be the proposition party and not the opposition party. he made comments to a local
paper, and kenosha, you want to be more involved in the micro issues of policy and governing. more or less likely that now that you are speaker some sort , of narrow or tax reform gets done in the next year or so? i like micro policy, fashioning policy. it is more micro than macro. i have always been as a committee chair, a micro guy. way ofto find a balancing that. obviously, i have to do macro. to your question about tax reform, that will have to be one of the crown jewels of our agenda. we have to show the country how we get the economy out of neutral, jobs growing, which is growing, and how we get america competitive again, and families and businesses growing and tax reforms critical to that. ways and means committee is going to take a lead, but i have a deep interest. i will work closely to roll this out. getting it done in 2016 is not going to happen because of
president obama is president. offering an agenda, that will get done because we only did the country. jake: no hope? speaker ryan: no, because of president obama. can you imagine him wanting one more thing? speaker ryan: i think international is one more thing. that's something we were talking about last year, just this fall. so we have issues that i think people on both sides of the aisle will acknowledge we are losing our competitive edge internationally, because of the index of our tax code. that is something we should definitely explore. i would like to think that is something we can explore in 2016, which is sort of comprehensive tax reform. >> you could imagine getting action on that? speaker ryan: i would like to see it. >> one speech was announced by your staff along with the #confidentamerica. you want to be a happy warrior. speaker ryan: i am a happy warrior. i was raised by jack kemp.
he was my political mentor, the best happy warrior i knew. that is what i think inspires the country. my whole message was we as conservatives should not go down the path of playing identity politics. we should practice unifying politics, inclusive politics, inspirational politics. that means an optimistic agenda. we believe in our principles that make this country great. it just goes to say that if we take these principles we believe in, liberty, freedom, free enterprise self-determination, , the bill of rights, apply those principles to offer innovative solutions that fix problems that people are confronting every day, that our country is facing, so we can make the country better and restore confidence in this nation. that's something to be happy about and something to unify and win converts to
this cause, and win an election and get this done. we need a mandate election to break us out of the slog and it can only be won if you present an agenda to the country, straightforward, honest and if you win that election, then you have the moral authority and the mandate to put it in place and fix these problems. mike: my colleagues did a piece on politico the other way -- other day, the paul ryan way. what is the hallmark of that? speaker ryan: it starts with air conditioning. it's hot in here. [laughter] it's 80 degrees in here. i come from wisconsin so we like it cold. the paul ryan way, it shouldn't be the paul ryan way but the founders' way. let's get back to legislators legislating, let's get back to actually doing things methodically, deliberating. we call it regular order around
here. i call it democracy. and then let's end the cronyism and get back to our principles, . we believe in limited government, strong national security. we have 45 million people stuck in poverty. we need to do something about these things and we believe that our principles are where we need to go to come up with solutions. so my way has always been oppose what you don't like, but then propose what you do like. we are pretty good at the opposing part, we have to get better at proposing. mike has the freedom caucus been : tamed? speaker ryan: i don't like that construct. i reject the premise of the question of taming a person. giving people more say-so in how congress operates? yes. are we decentralizing power in the way congress is run and managed?
absolutely. i did not like the way things were going. people knew that. i didn't want the job in the first place but now that i'm in it, i like it. one of the things i have learned in the last couple of weeks, we cannot just consolidate the power of this place. we need to decentralize and let members do their jobs. we have had three conference reports in 10 days on something that i have worked on, our customs enforcement, we we needed to rewrite our customs laws. it is been a couple decades in the making. we did this the right way, regular order way. we had a huge highway bill. first time in a decade. huge rewrite of esea. all of those went through the conference committee process, where the experts of the policy, people who go to congress, get on a committee and specialize in these areas -- whether education, trade or transportation -- they are the experts. they are the ones who aggregate the thoughts and reforms, and ideas. we had a huge amendment process could floor, so everybody
participate, and we had a conference committee. we had huge partisan votes. good reforms. that's the way i think congress ought to run. that's not what we are doing with an omnibus. i want to get off of doing things like this. but that to me is the way forward. we are not taming people, we are liberating people. freeing people up so they can participate. mike why do you think if you looked at washington and a less couple of years, the government shuts down tomorrow -- well, it does. [laughter] you don't see the hysteria we have seen in the past. why is that? speaker ryan: i don't know, you tell me. [laughter] mike: i don't know. we get these countdown clocks. i think we have been pretty clear. we are not going to have a shut down. i never thought we would. we aren't. we are putting the bill together. we have been negotiating. we will be posting sometime today, we are waiting for the scorekeepers did -- to finish
drafting. i knew we weren't go to go meet december 11 deadline and needed to get it right. it took us a few more days. we'll have to do another short-term, because i have not going to waive the three-day rule. the c.r. expires tomorrow but we'll do a short-term and pass this on thursday. i don't know what mitch said about when the senate can take it up, but hopefully thursday. >> do you think there will be a big republican vote? traditionally these spending bills have been carried by democrats? speaker ryan: i'm not going to predict how the vote count will go down. you win some, you lose some. the day, we are going to get this done. let me say something about this process. we should not be doing things like this. i have been around for a while , and i have watched this from the outside. now on the inside i feel even more strongly, we should not be putting together appropriation bills this way. we should not have a handful of
people in a room putting together a trillion dollar spending bill. this should be done under regular order and bring these bills to the floor. the experts, the committees who are in charge overseeing the committees write the bills and members of congress, if they want to, can try to affect the bill and rewrite it. that's how things should be done. this really in my opinion is no way to run a railroad. i don't want to see it repeat itself. i just don't think it is the right way to govern. mike: i'm going to go to my colleague bryan bender in a second. but first, the trade deal. what are the prospects for the t.p.p. and congress next year and do you plan to bring it to a vote? speaker ryan: i think it is very possible. i just don't know when the answer is. we are still scrubbing it. we dill have a lot of questions, ways and means going through their analysis of it. i am as well. i have been pretty busy. it's very important. there are concerns on all sides of the aisle on this issue but something that's important that we want to get it right.
i don't have a set date. but if we conclude this is the right way to go and there is a lot of promise with an agreement that has 40% of the global g.d.p. where america is writing the rule that in the global economy. the ambition is right where it ought to be. the question is, does the agreement deliver on the ambition, and if it does, we want to move as soon as we can. like you areunds headed that way. so is it likely? speaker ryan: i don't know, but i'm not foreclosing any option. mike: my colleague has a question. after the paris attacks, you said that the attacks were an act of war. in february, president obama said to congress -- sent to congress a formal request an authorization for military force against the islamic state and
virtually nothing has happened in nearly a year. couple of weeks ago, 35 of your colleagues wrote you a letter, republicans and democrats saying that congress is abdicating one of the most important responsibilities by not debating and voting on what is becoming an expanding war. they argue that the aumf passed after 9/11 and one passed in the fall of 2002 need to be updated. isis didn't exist back then and the iraq authorization did not authorize military force inside syria. if you don't agree with them, if so, what do you plan to do, and if you don't, why not? speaker ryan: how many questions was that? [laughter] i do believe we have legal authorization under the old a f.s -- aum
i do believe it would be a good sign for american foreign policy to have a new one updating our aumf to declare our mission with respect to isis. that would be good for putting america in an offensive posture. so the question is, can we write an aumf that the president will sign, where he is not going to handcuff the next president and get consensus on how to do that. that is what we are trying to figure out right now. i have talked to ed royce and mac thornberry, plenty of members in our caucus who think this is a debate we should have. i agree it is a debate worth having. but what i do not want to do is have an aumf along the lines of what the president has been discussing, and i am hoping he will change. now that paris has occurred and other developments. that doesn't handcuff the next president of the united states from doing what that person thinks is necessary to defeat , not just contain isis. we just passed the defense authorization bill and it had a huge bipartisan vote was the
requirement of the administration to present a plan to defeat isis. this bill has been around for three, four weeks and we are waiting for the president to present a plan to defeat isis. there is a case to be made to say let's see what the plan is to defeat isis and wheth there is a case to be made to say let's see what the plan is to defeat isis and whether that requires or whether in our interest to have a new aumf to accompany the strategy to defeat isis. >> you think it's the president's responsibility. the speaker: this is congress' responsibility. the question is can we pass one give the military the tools they need to do the job and will the president accept that. will it handcuff the next president. the president put too many constrictions on the military. you don't take options off the table and don't telegraph what you will or will not do to your enemies. we don't want to repeat his mistakes.