tv U.S. House of Representatives Legislative Business CSPAN September 29, 2016 4:00pm-6:01pm EDT
committee on the what may be up to two million accounts that were either fictionalized or unauthorized with personal information. and for which wells fargo has been the recipient of levies of fines up to $185 million, most of that to the consumer financial protection bureau. you saw the graphic on the screen. we're interested in your thoughts on this in terms of the punishment for wells fargo. the the c.e.o. has already had stock compensation clawed back this week from the board at wells fargo. is that enough? is the clawback of benefits enough? if you think so, call 202-748-8920. if not, 202-748-8921. if you are a wells far fwow account holder, please call us at 202-748-8922. we'd love to hear your experience. post your comments on facebook,
send us a tweet at c-span and we want to let you know, that was just an hour or so portion of what we mentioned, four hours of testimony. we'll show all of it tonight at 8:00 eastern here on c-span and follow that too with your comments and reaction. let's get to your calls. we hear from linda first who thinks, no, it's not enough. san antonio, texas, good afternoon, linda. caller: good afternoon. my statement is about the 5,300 that were fired. something on the scale of this fraud is not something that started at the lower level. this is something that started at the top. culture that was fostered and cultured and driven from the top. but it's always the people at the lower levels that take the fall for these people. and you know, just like with the
bailout that we had years ago, i want to see some heads roll that matter. i want to see some heads of these companies take the fall and be punished. i want some accountability. it's not enough to go and say, oh, i'm sorry. host: do you think mr. tstumpf should step down? caller: i think he should step down and the people directly below him should step down and there needs to be a cleansing. wells fargo maybe has gotten too big if they don't know what's going on. host: thanks for your call, linda. let's hear from frank a wells fargo customer in minneapolis. caller: i wanted to say, this has happened too many times at these big banks. these people should be prosecuted. it's long overdue. i think the law should be enforced on big banks when they do this.
host: davenport, florida, another wells fargo customer, henry. go ahead. caller: i'm apalled. being a customer of wells fargo for many, many years, i am thoroughly apalled. i think what they have done, rom the top down, is kind of like al capone stealing from the banks. but they in turn have stole from their customer base that have made them what they are today. it is sixen -- sickening and i think that stumpf from the top, all of the high echelon, should be terminated and prosecuted and serve a good length of time that maybe that someday they will wake up. i am a large depositor with wells fargo. i have for many years. and believe me, i am getting
together all my paperwork and i will withdraw everything tomorrow. host: let me ask you something, you don't have to answer it, it's personal, private information you say you're a large depositor, how much are we talking about here? >> i will not divulge. host: i totally understand that. but i appreciate you calling in. we welcome those who are wells -- 748-89 ers, 848 to 2. just for some perspective on the size the fine, some $18 -- some $185 million in fines, most of which will go to the con fumer protection financial bue rohr, but some to the comp troller of the treasury and the city of los angeles. we have a tweet from jim. a fine of $185 million for $2 million -- for two million
fraudulent accounts works out to about $92 per incident tavepls slap in the face. and mary is calling. caller: thank you for letting me speak. i was surprised when congressmen were interviewing the chairman and c.e.o. that there was such a long list of abuses and a long list of fines that wells fargo has had to pay. and we try to understand why are just rican people so -- disenfranchised from their government, from, you know, from feeling like our government is there looking out for the american people, and it's because even the government allows this thievery to continue on and they slap the wrists and the little hands of all these men who, you know, line their pockets with the american
taxpayers' money, or their -- people who put their money into this bank and then they walk away, you know, with the -- with that, you know, those funds. and our government hasn't done enough in the anti-monopoly area. we should have learned a long time ago, you know, through the bank failures and all this restructuring we were supposed to have, that wells fargo shouldn't have been allowed to go in there and buy up the, you know, all of these other, smaller banks, to become this huge monopoly that no one can control that can't be allowed to fail and no one holds accountable. host: mary, you have a similar, a kindred spirit on twit for the maya who says, she righteous scolding of bankers coming from a congress that continues to
enable them falls a bit flat. and another from william, about the methods wells fargo reportedly used. cross-selling itself is not the problem, the problem are the yeah tas, incentives an fear. and this one says, it's untrue that banking employees and customers' interests are always aligned. management should understand and manage this disparity. and we have another call from a wells fargo customer. caller: i have been through a four-year battle with my brother with alzheimer's, waiting for his last breath to occur. speaking as an average citizen, we have responsibilities, you know, that keep us from keeping all details on what is going on here. but i cannot say enough for everything, the last comments, beginning with linda. i agree with everything that has been spoken. and it is just so appalling to
see mr. stumpf sit there as if he's an innocent puppy and just, i just so applaud the democratic representative meeks from new york and the gentleman from wisconsin. i mean, how difficult is it to say, yes, it is -- i mean, like they say, it's not -- it's my fault, i'm sorry. and all the people, i just sum it up, i think mary finished all the other prior comments. i can't say much more. but it is so disappointing. i am -- we are an elite credit card customer and account customer but i again, i mean, we're not wealthy, we're middle class people, hard working people, but we will be withdrawing our money from there. not that that's -- that's like nothing but i agree with her,
the slapen the wrist is, i mean, i just kvent understand -- i can't imagine how our young people, or the millenials, can look at our country and the banking industry and everything, and have any respect for our country or our government or -- host: joyce, thanks for sharing your comments. more on facebook, lots of posts there throughout the day this one from jim who says, when government penalties and fees are charged to the bank, they're taking from the customers. try taking the money if the personal accounts of the executives instead and see if their behavior changes. here's james in illinois who thinks that more needs to be done in terms of action against wells fargo. go ahead, james. -- er: -- host: host: james, make sure you mute your television or radio. and we hear from delano.
, it's: i'm an 81-year-old always the same with government they don't d anything. put the inspectors in jail, the people that manage the inspectors, put them in jail. people who read those special reports should have done something with it. they are not going to do anything with this thing. it's just a show. host: so far, john stumpf has had some $40 million of his compensation, stock compensation taken back from the board. headline in "forbes" today saying "wells fargo clawback" of -- clawback of c.e.o. john stumpf's pay rocks wall street" and they write that it's sent a chill through wall street with bankers fearful that a hardening political climate will encourage boards to be more aggressive about making them forfeit pay.
read that at forbes.com. mark's next, north carolina. a wells fargo customer. welcome, mark, go ahead. caller: thank you for having me. the biggest issue i've got with wells fargo is, as a wells fargo account holder, i'm personally missing $138,000. really impacted my small business operation. host: you broke up a little bit, you're missing $138,000? caller: that's correct. $138,000. there are a host of unauthorized accounts opened. and these unauthorized accounts ultimately led to a loss for my small business of over half a million dollars. host: where does that stand right now? are you in a court, a legal battle with wells fargo? >> no. here's what's happened. once i was fleeced for the $138,000, ultimately you don't have the financial capacity to fight wells fargo. every civil attorney i spoke
with basically told me i need a $30,000 retainer to just get started. wells fargos have attorney that they haven't even take then wrapper off of yet. whenever you're going against a large organization like this, you're really rely thing consumer financial protection bureau and the office of the comptroller of the currency to do their job. due diligence. i reached out to both the cfpb and o.c.c. their regulatory agencies. all they did was act as intermediary to pass documents back and forth between myself and wells far fwow. they did not take any action. as a matter of fact, i got a letter from the office of the comptroller of the currency informing me that basically said in an effort to streamline your case, we're closing your case. just like that. in two or three sentences. in my opinion, this is like the ultimate failure. earning $200
million, there's no reason to talk about a $40 million clawback having any impact in this situation. it's not. you can't talk to me about the $185 million that wells fargo has been fined as having any impact. that's three days' worth of earnings. host: give us a timetable, how long have you been dealing with this situation? caller: started, the fraud occurred, the first sign of fraud was september 28 of 2011. when a $24,000 instrument marked nonnegotiable was presented against one of my checking accounts. and this has gone on basically all the way up until today. i have not received -- i take that back. i did catch wells fargo employees processing a $20,000 forged instrument against one of my accounts and i ultimately ended up getting that back when i walked to the branch the day after the account. host: marking we appreciate your comments, sorry about your situation, hope it gets worked
out. and we have a couple of comments from twitter. this one says congress has been doing nothing but grand standing at these hearings, it's disgusting. and this one says, the only trustworthy bank is the food bank. thank you, gordon gekko for showing that greed is good. stumpf the dummy is us. we'll show the entire hearing tonight at 8:00 eastern and follow that with your phone calls and comments. a four-hour hear, wrapping up the week in the u.s. house. their legislative business was done yesterday in the house and senate. they are done through the election. they have proved that -- they approved the continuing resolution funding the federal government through the 9th of december. both bodies overrode the president's veto of the bill that will allow 9/11 victim's families to sue saudi arabia and approved in the continuing resolution, and the water bill in the house, the funds, $170 million for flint, michigan. when the house returns it'll be the week of november 14, live
here on c-span. and this -- and the senate on c-span2. house homeland security committee chair michael mccaul spoke this week and laid out his strategy, hi plan -- his plan for defeating isis, fighting isis and fighting islamist terrorism. he spoke about the american enterprise institute in washington for about an hour. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] >> good afternoon, everybody. welcome to the new american enterprise institute. this is my first event up on our new stage so i'm a little bit nervous. i'm danielle with the american enterprise institute and i'm pleased to welcome chairman michael mccaul to a.e.i. to our new stage. chairman mccaul is the chairman of the house committee on
homeland security. he's been the representative of texas' 10th district for six terms. if that's right. but prior to that you have pretty extensive experience in national security. he was chief of coubt terrorism and national security in the u.s. attorney's office in the western district of texas and he served as texas deputy attorney general under current u.s. senator john cornyn. so today, we have a lot to talk about obviously. there's a lot in the news. and there are a lot of things we want to cover. but today the chairman and the committee have released this report, national strategy to win the war against islamist terror. so maybe you'd like to take a couple of minutes for our audience and lay out some of the ideas that are contained here. there are copies of the report outside for you folks to take afterwards. mr. mccaul: let me thank ample e.i. a lot of familiar faces in the room. i want to thank my staff, miles, jake, katy, who were
instrumental in putting this document together. we have been working on this for the last three months very swensively and then of course the events of last saturday occurred, making this report very timely. on saturday, we saw three terrorist attacks occur in this country. one in new york, one in new jersey. and one in minnesota. it's an evolving threat. and i think this report demonstrates again the relevancy and the reason why we need this report. i think it's important to note i'm going to submit, i've already submitted this to mayor giuliani and i also intend to submit this to hillary clinton. i think moving into the next presidency, whoever it is, will need to adopt a new counterterrorism strategy. we've been operating off outdated strategies from the bush administration.
and now under president obama. there are different strategies. what we try to do is to take into account the current threat, the evolving threat that we face today that was very different, say, pre-9/11. or even in years following 9/11. how does it change a lot of people ask, what's the difference between, you know, ane, al qaeda, isis, baghdadi. i think the main difference is the age, the digital age. the fact that lane was very top down command and control. very primitive in his communications. caves an couriers. now we have this new generation of terrorist that are very savvy on the internet. they know how to exploit it. to both recruit, to train, to and radicalize from within.
and all these threats need to be taken into a new strategy which is what we do in this 30-plus page document with over 100 policy recommendations, very substantive document. we have seen through the internet they've been able to recruit 40,000 foreign fighters from 120 different countries. something we've never seen before. but we've also seen this radicalization from within that accounts for a lot of the attacks i think we've seen in the united states. this is the individual on the internet looking at the propaganda. getting radicalized. and the next step is enacting terror. i was at the 9/11 ceremony at ground zero. very moving ceremony. and then met with the new york police department and their intelligence unit, the next day. really to go over the state of security in new york. and that was just a week ago.
this case did not come up. it's the one you miss that keeps you up at night. but i can tell you what the evolving threat as they see it ands -- and as i see it as well, we've seen isis with basically two directives coming out of syria, one come to syria and join the fight. the other one, kill where you are. i think with the -- some of the military successes we're starting to have now in iraq and syria, you're seing that message more along the lines of, go ahead and stay where you are. and then kill by any means necessary. by any means that you have. whether it's picking up a knife in a shopping mall in minnesota, to developing pressure cooker bombs like the boston bombers, to pipe bombs, to running people over in the street. we have to adapt the strategy. i think that's what we do in
this document. we can get more specific. if you like. that's sort of the overarching theme. we have to evolve. with this evolving threat. it's not like it was prior to 9/11. the idea of hijacking airplanes in a spectacular event is probably not a likely scenario anymore. what is more like sli an active shooter, an i.e.d. going off, a suicide bomber. or a bomb in a last point of departure airport coming into the united states like the flight from cairo into j.f.k. or the other at airport. that's kind of the broad brush of the threat that has evolved that we see today, that's very difficult and challenging to stop because it is so pervasive over the internet. 200,000 isis tweets per day, the
propaganda is in so many homes now across the united states and across the world how much do you stop that from influencing on a global level? i talk a lot about the military strategy which is important to go on the offense and take them out where they are so they can't conduct these external operations in the united states. we talk a lot about the political reconciliation, diplomatic, the counternarrative is important as well. and the role of ideas is equally important in terms of the ideology in this generational, long-term struggle we face. it's not going to end probably in my lifetime but i hope it ends in my children's lifetime. we have to be better prepared to eal with the ideology. host: the report is not a gimmick. i read through it in its entirety. it's a series of serious
recommendations for major policy changes rather than just the sort of quick fix to anything. so i don't want to put you on the spot, particularly when it comes to the attacks that happen in minnesota, new york, and new jersey. i do want to ask you a question about the so-called lone wolf. that's not a phrase i love actually because i don't think they are lone wolves. they're pardon of -- part of a broader network but nonetheless, particularly with the new jersey afghan immigrant who is now an american, he had posted on facebook some jihadist sympathies. he had gone to pakistan and to afghanistan several times in recent years. his father had reported, "the new york times" is reporting just now, his father had told the f.b.i. that he thought, two years ago, that he thought he had terrorist sympathies. obviously things slip through the cracks but where to we draw the line in these sorts of
situations? should we be reading people's facebook pages? should we be following their twitter accounts? is that how we do it? and how do we balance that with privacy? i know you've talked about that a little bit, but talk about it some more. mr. mccaul: we have to do that constitutionally in the united states. but i would argue in people coming into the united states we should look at social media when we admit people into the country from a safety standpoint. for people in the united states, the constitution, the first amendment but at what point is protected by free speech. at what point is, how to make a bomb in the kitchen of your mother, free speech? with all this propaganda -- i think what we try to emphasize in this document, it's no longer just one group. it's a global jihadist movement. powered by the internet. powered their ideas, the force of ideas.
and so when you say lone wolf, that tends to, i think in lot of people's minds downgrade the threat. like it's not that big of a deal. just one kind of nut case. problem -- one kind of nutcase problem. but when you have multiple lone wolves lining up, we know there are ties. we he went to pakistan, afghanistan, reportedly got married and brought her back to the united states. we don't know where she is today. she may be back there. we've seen some of his writings, e talks about al awlaki, talks about lane, talks about the new jersey bombing in his writings. what we try to emphasize is you can't downgrade it by saying lone wolf. it is a global jihadist movement. we need a counterterrorism strategy to address that movement. and i think we need to look at the internet, they say what's the difference? they both, lane and al baghdadi
have a seventh century mindset of world -- osama bin laden and have a seventh century mindset. but this group can exploit, use encrypted communications to communicate so we can't see what they're have a seventh saying o paris and brussels. we encourage the private sector to leverage, to shut down twitter handles of jihadists. to put up counternarratives on google when a jihadist terminology is searched in the engine. we think those are all positive things. but then, you know, at what point do we treat it like, say, child pornography? if you post or look up child pornography on the internet, you will be arrested by the f.b.i. why can't we look at algorithms and maybe look at this propaganda in the same way,
consistent with the first mendment and the constitution. danielle: are we not? mr. mccaul: no. danielle: really? mr. mccaul: we're attempting to monitor social media but there's no move to shut it down. you talk about cyberops, cyberoperations, there's been -- been limited attempts to shut it down. again, i think, that differentiates the new terrorists from the old ones. their ability to spread this throughout the internet. so you know, i ask the question, i beg, this is a healthy discussion to have. at what point do we allow this under the first amendment? at what point do we just shut it down? danielle: good question. one of the things you talk about in the report, you detail the number of plots that there have been.
now when someone is arrested, nothing happens. there isn't an attack. so that is the challenge to us. had we arrested 19 people the day before 9/11, the attacks wouldn't have happened. there would have been an outcry, arrests, there would have been questions about the evidence and suspicions and profiling and everything else. talk about what people aren't seeing. i think that's an important narrative that isn't out there mr. mccaul: i'm always very -- i always praise law enforcement. what they don't know, most people, is we've arrested over 100 isis followers in the united states since the beginning of the caliphate, the islamic state. we've had 100 plots against the west, both europe and the united states, and we have over 1,000 investigations in all 50 states. that shows you the numbers, we do a terror threat snapshot out of my committee every month and
the frightening thing from my perspective and i try to not, try not to inflame thing bus the numbers keep going up, they're not going down. this movement is expanding globally, not shrinking. even though we're having some limited military success now against them. why is that? because of the power of the internet. and so again, those numbers going up concerns nypd and every major city, police chief and f.b.i., in terms of how can we stop it? we can't stop it all. that's just the fact of the matter. this won't be the last time we see an event occur in the united states, and certainly europe is far more wide open than we are. ey are in a pre-9/11 posture and they have completely open borders. we talk about ours. they don't share intelligence the way they should. and they don't really utilize databases as effectively as they should. that's part of our report is to
share that intedges better with our foreign partners to make sure, the biggest homeland security mission is keeping bad people and bad things outside of this country, not allowing them to come in but you know what? through the power of the internet you don't have to travel to syria. you can get radicalized here. and they kill americans as they are directing people to do so. danielle: we've been talking mostly about isis and the radical jihadists coming into the country but al qaeda, and you reference al qaeda in the report, it's still out there, it's spread very dramatically, largely under the radar, over the last eight years. one of the questions that i have is, you talking about the regions where these terrorists operate, where these groups are operating, whether it's is subsaharan africa or the middle east or asia or wherever they are, there's nothing we can do
about stopping the flow unless we're willing to address the problems at their core. and one of the questions i wanted to ask you about was this term you use that we need to break the movement. and that we need to break the movement back there. that's not just a military strategy. the president likes to put it as a buynary sort, either we're doing x or it's war. you say we need to do much more in these countries. what are we not doing? what do we need to do? how do we ensure that these groups aren't flourishing? mr. mccaul: the great focus of the previous two administrations has been core al qaeda. we have decimated top leadership. aqap still exists, in terms of external operations one of the greatest threats we have, but we're not look at this as a global movement. when you look at the destabilization of the middle east that's going on today and in africa where i just came back from sinai in egypt, camp north
up there, to due knee zha, the libyan team that's in exile after benghazi. they thrive in safe havens and power vacuums. so yeah, the military aspect is important. military strategy is important. but equally as important is governance and stability. and that's where i think the political diplomatic piece comes into play. we can't be -- syria is not going to be resolved until we have a political reconciliation in syria with mr. assad. iraq is not going to be resolved until we -- until we get rid of isis, but also have governance. we have no governance in libya at all. it's a failed state. due knee shah is a fragile democracy, with per capita more foreign fighters than any other country in the world. of course isis is very prevalent and egypt to the point where they've taken down the russian
airliner. so i think the political stability and of course economic stability comes with that. they are not unlike some gang members who want to be something, part of something greater than themselves and they may not have the economic opportunity that we say would have in the united states. so all those factors, i think, holistcally need to be taken into account to address what is again a global jihadist movement. danielle: do we need a whole new strategy to approach these parts of the world that differs dramatically from what we've been doing up to now? mr. mccaul: we haven't had a military strategy in about four years. i got briefed on isis 4 1/2 years ago and the skiff, we've let it fester. we've let it expand. and we've done very little, we had a policy of containment, essentially, not to defeat. i think the military strategy is
sort of just now coming into play. so i do think that's very important. but i think balanced with that is again the political, diplomatic and then finally the war of ideas and counternarrative approach, we failed miserably. we talk in the strategy about a marshall plan if you will, not occupying countries, we're not occupying countries. those days are over. but a way to assist these countries where they can have governance. the biggest thing in libya, when i was over there, was you have two military dictators that can't get their act together without a unified military, you have no governance. so the governance has impleaded in those power vacuum safe havens is precisely where the terrorists thrive and breed and out of which they can hit the west, europe and the united states. danielle: let's bring it back to
the united states for a little bit. everybody loves to hate t.s.a. i heard this edirector of t.s.a. at a speech, he said, before i was t.s.a., i used to hate it too. well, i still hate it. that's probably a shared sentiment around the room. what i'm trying to figure out, you reference the needed fixes domestically and say we haven't updated since 9/11. why is it so broken? mr. mccaul: it's getting the department to move forward in the modern technology. age. i've had great discussions with admiral neffinger. t.s.a. does more than screen people at airport. they stop a will the of bad people from getting on airplanes and coming into the united states. it also stops a lot of bad things like bombs from getting on airplanes. last point of departure airports. those concern me. cairo, i've been over there, not very secure. istanbul airport, not very secure. we have flights coming into the
united states. but i do think with respect to screening domestically at airports, what i've been pressuring them to do is really look at all the technologies out there that you can leverage where, imagine this, your fingerprint is a boarding pass. or your facial recognition is your passport. i predict within five, hopefully not 10 year, hopefully five, this is going to be the modern age of travel. where you won't have to carry documents around. what better way to identify a person than through the biometrics. also the screening itself will not be people taking their shoes off and getting stripped down like i got today. i got put in secondary, by the way. randomly. the guy in front of me did as well. kind of odd, two random secondary searches. but rather you walk through a panel just like in the white
house there's a lot of technology there you're not familiar with or know about but yet you're being screened. imagine -- that is the vision, i think, and i think what will be the future of modern day travel. is to walk through panels and not have to go through the a.i.t., not have to go through the shakedowns, not have to take your shoes off. and then travel documents will be biometric. danielle: that all sounds awesome. i'm getting on a plane tomorrow. i'd really love that. but why? i mean, we're not -- none of us are silicon valley. we're not on the cutting edge of technology. but you're talking about this. i understand what you're talking about. and yet we don't see a lot of evolution. there's not a dramatic difference between what happened on september 12, 2001, at the airport, and what is going to happen to me tomorrow, or happened to you today. why is there no internal
mechanism? where is the breakdown here? mr. mccaul: precheck has been a good program. taking people that are trusted travelers out. i think make sure that t.s.a. is coordinating for the first time with the airlines and airports with respect to personnel flows so we don't have the lines. basic stuff. and there's a lot of good software technology out there to integrate these systems. we have more effective flow of travel. but the a.i.t. machines are a new thing since 9/11. canines are visible. there are things in place. but you know what? they've got a fail regular port card when the red teams went through, guns and knives got through the machines. and that's a problem. danielle: more than 90%, wasn't it? mr. mccaul: 90% failure, not a good grade.
particularly about aviation. why do we have to keep doing this stuff? is it really necessary? well, i would just point you to the threat briefings i get when it comes to al qaeda in the asiaian peninsula to what isis did. aqap has been targeting the aviation sector for years, with cartridges that they try to get on the plane to blow it out, to nonmetallic i.e.d.'s and then to see isis develop that. through the insider threat. this is not getting through the screening. this is an insider vetting problem where you have a corrupted or radicalized employee putting a bomb on an airplane. that to me, that's an easy thing to do. and it's something that does keep me up at night because we have to properly vet these employees, whether it be in cairo or in cuba. cuba is letting 100 flights a day in.
t.s.a. bag check didn't think it was up to speed security wise yet now they're coming in danielle: marco rubio tweeted out, there are no air marsha shalls on the flights to cue bafment mr. mccaul: we were assured they'd have federal air marshals on those flights. but there are not. they're tied to iran and russia, a communist country. i attempted to go and inspect the airport myself with a congressional delegation and the government of cuba denied my visa application. danielle: shocking. let's circle back to new york and new jersey and i will let you all get a chance, a word in edgewise, i promise. we're going to turn to questions pretty soon. but i want to talk to you about what has become extraordinaryly controversial, the question of refugees and immigration. donald trump and donald trump jr. got some attention by
referring to refugees as skittles. wouldn't eat a whole mouth ffl you knew there were three bad ones in there, something that offended the makers of skittles and probably should have offended a lot of refugees and immigrants. i'm an immigrant, i'm a big supporter of immigration. i want you to know where i sit on this. how do we have an intelligent national conversation about this? i don't think we've been having one up to now. how do we do that? do we have the tools necessary to actually let people in who need us? because that's what america stands for. it's a country of immigrants. how do we let people in who need us, but not let in the people who are going to be the san ernardino killers? mr. mccaul: we're a nation of immigrants. compassionate nation. we let in over 100,000 refugees is the new number. i think we have to be smart about it too.
we don't want to be letting in people that want to kill us. and i think the san bernardino case demonstrates that. the new york bomber was an afghan. born in afghanistan. danielle: naturalized american. mr. mccaul: came to america, naturalized. the syrian population, it's a unique population. i'll tell you why. the director of the f.b.i. , tified before my committee secretary of homeland security and nctc, telling us they don't have database on these individuals. they really don't know who they are. when i heard that, we were concerned. for obvious reasons. it was backed up by, again, by the director of the f.b.i. in his words, we can query until the cows come home but without the databases, we can't really, truly vet for security. so i think we need to develop a way to properly vet them.
we've let 0,000 in. mrs. clinton wants to bring in 65,000. again, it's so unique because we don't have records on many of these people and so i've seen them, the majority, refugee camp, the minister of interior told me, i don't know who these people are. now granted most of them are mothers and children. and you know, it's the military age males that give me more pause. we had a bill that passed the house that call forward pause on the program until we can properly vet and then certify at the highest levels that they are not a threat to national security. this is again where i think technology could be a very good solution. there are two types of technology out there, one is iris developed and another one, biometric, that can essentially, with almost 100% accuracy, tell whether you're liing or not. it's not a lie detector test
which is time consuming. it's a quick test. it seems to me, when they ask them the question, are you a jihadist, of course they're going to say no. and they come in. even in the iraqi refugee program, where we had good intelligence on the ground, which we don't have in syria, we still had two terrorists come into the country. so my first and foremost responsibility is to protect the safety of the american people. having said that, i think there's a way to do this, you know, we had a hearing on this the other day, urged the department and uscis to look at this technology. and i think the american people would have a lot more comfort and assurance in the refugee program if they knew this was being deployed. danielle: let me press a little harder, this is such a big, contentious issue. i know you're a supporter of mr.
trump who said we should not allow any people in from countries where there have been, where there's terrorist activity. i don't know exactly what that means because i presume he then means france and germany as well. mr. mccaul: that's a problem. danielle: that is people have a visa worker program, people coming in citizens of those countries. you put together what we're talking about, the global jihadi effort that has been absolutely energized by the internet and it is far ahead of us in many ways in terms of modernization of its context. you put that together with the fact that there are people in, you know, many, many countries, 40,000 jihadists who went into syria. many -- they come from all over the place, not just due knee -- tunisia, not just iraq, how do we maintain our immigration? should we be cutting it off and not letting people into the
country at all? or is there a way to actually continue to be the country we have always been? mr. mccaul: that's a balance. you noted europe, i think, is a far graver situation because so many refugees have come into europe and we know that two of the paris attackers exploited the refugee program to get in. the d.n.i. director of national intelligence, mr. clapper, sent me a letter saying they have already attempted to exploit the refugee program to infiltrate the west. isis, in its own words has said that. i have taken all that seriously. having said that, mayor giuliani and i prepared a memorandum to the nominee basically stating to him that an outright been on all muslims is not realistic. the -- you know, the king of jordan is a very good ally and
muslim. you can't keep them out, it's not workable. but the idea of increasing the vetting of people coming in, i agree with you. i don't think -- he can look at some, what we call special interests -- countries of special interest. but then to say, we're going to, you know, put a ban on all people from europe because lelingts face it, they're there now. 5,000 western passports, foreign fighters in europe. that makes that not quite so workable either. that's why we present in here a vetting process that includes law enforcement and the intelligence community. so a greater vetting process of those from countries of interest. but integrate manager effectively the f.b.i. and the intelligence community which is not being done in my judgment effectively today. danielle: last question.
an interesting one. i haven't seen you talk about this. i'm sure you have an informed opinion. people who are arrested in the wake of 9/11 are actually due to be released pretty soon. what do we do? the president wants to close down guantanamo. he's been releasing people from fwauntaun moe left, right, and center. mrs. clinton wants to close down guantanamo. i don't know what donald trump has said about guantanamo but i assume he wants to keep it hope. what do we do with these people? mr. mccaul: i was a federal prosecutor, counterterrorism. many of these have already served their time, providing material support for terrorism is a federal crime and if they rved their time, our legal system, they're entitled to be let go. but it concerns me. can we monitor them? yeah. but the f.b.i. only has so many resources.
we've had hundreds of foreign fighters going to the region, many of whom have come back and we have to monitor. if we can't arrest and charge them, we have to monitor them in the united states because we don't want the next act of terror occurring. when it comes to guantanamo, i've been down there. i saw khalid sheikh mohammed which was evil incar gnat. it was prayer hour, he was wing to mecca, very slender, it was spooky. are we going to bring him to the united states and have him stand rial and create a magnet for jihadists? we had in congress a bill that prohibits that. the president now is releasing them into other countries. that was -- that's always been part of his campaign. ending iraq and afghanistan and that didn't work out so well and then shutting down guantanamo. now what's left there, roughly
50 or so, 60. an it's kind of the worst of the worst. so what do you do with them? i, for me, seems like the military needs to move forward with these prosecutions and the military tribunals, but then some you can't prosecute at all. we'll be debating the merits of guantanamo. i personally think we've got great intelligence by detaining terrorists an interrogating them. i know we have. can't talk about a lot of it. but we have stopped a lot of bad things from happening as a result of that. danielle: why don't we open things up to questions. rules haven't changed. that means i have to take off my glasses because i can't see youful raise your hand, i'll call on you. if you'd be nice enough to wait for somebody with a microphone to come over, identify yourself and put your brilliant statement in the form of a short question.
thank you. es, sir. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. my question is after 15 yearses killing d five years of osama bin laden, terrorist activities are still going on around the u.s. and in india and of course in many parts of europe. what message do you have for the global leaders meeting today at the united nations in new york, including president obama and others spoke already and many will be speaking in the coming weeks. what message do you have for the future that will live in fear? mr. mccaul: that's a great question. it's an area, i'm glad you brought it up, i meant to touch on this. when we talk about capturing violent exdreamism or radical islamists -- islamist terrorism, how can you effectively do that?
our state department used to do it through voice of america and wave the american flag. that's not going to persuade the guy who is radicalizing. same thing in the united states. i've urged the department of homeland security to start adopting a counterradicalization strategy in the united states. how can you effectively do that? back in the day of after 9/11, i remember walking into a mosque with an f.b.i. agent as a federal prosecutor. that's not -- that has a chilling effect. that's not going to persuade. so what we need are credible voices in the community. that can reach out to the muslim community. both in the united states and world leaders and religious leaders. so the top imams that are around the world that issue, you know, their religious edicts. it's iven couple bent upon them to save their own religion and stand up to this perversion of
the islamic faith. and the same thing in the united states. tapping into religious leaders in the community, credible voices. also people who have come, gone to the region and come back and it wasn't such a great experience fighting alongside isis or the brides of isis which for the life of me i don't understand why an 18-year-old girl would, it's like an online dating service, would go into that dangerous part of the world and then be enslaved. that's part of the war of ideas an counternarrative we're losing. we're losing them because the global movement has expanded. i think only through utilize, that's a state department mission, d.h.s. mission, locally. i think the nypd if i had to pick out a police department that has kind of gotten some of this right, it's the nypd. they are fully integrated with
the mosques and the muslim community because if the signs of radicalization can be spotted early on, like in the case of the new york bomber, we -- every time this happens, it's always after the fact. oh, i noticed when he came back from pakistan he was a little more radicalized. tsarnaev, the boston bomber, he was so radical he got kicked out of his movek but we didn't know about that. it was not reported to authority. we didn't know about that rad -- radicalization. so the key in the homeland is being able to spot those sivense radicalization early on and as we talk about in the report, provide the offramps toward deradicalization. you know, saudis have an interesting program, as does u.a.e., to help deradicalize individuals. we see a lot of -- i've met with the ambassador from belgium.
they have very segregated societies of muslim populations and diasporas and they have serious problem on their hands. but they also have developed some pretty interesting deradicalization programs and then finally, theresa may, now the prime mipster, we met with when she was home secretary, the u.k. has a far better countering violent extremism or deradicalization program than we have in the united states. i think it's because they've been dealing with the issue longer, you know, than we have. that's an area we need to, i think, try to identify anything that we need to be doing a better job. it's that. danielle: how big a problem do you think, the fact that this is a religious issue is? because what you see is that the state department is extremely nervous. they basically don't want to do this. if you follow there, what is it?
look back? think again? they're absloutly awful -- their absolutely awful twitter feed that was meant to persuade anybody, i can't even imagine it persuading a soul. it's so incompetent. can we actually trust government institutions to do this kind of thing? they felt much more comfortable when it was communist ideology. now that it involves god somehow, they don't want to touch it with a 10-foot pole. can we do this? mr. mccaul: i think the role of n.g.o.'s could play a powerful role, rather than the state department. i often compare this to communism, though oo mutually assured destruction aflide soviets, it doesn't apply to jihadists. it is a long-term ideological struggle that will take in that case it took communism 40 years. i think the next president needs to be honest with the american people about this and the american people have to accept that notion that we're in this for the long term.
but we're not doing -- the state department has take an lot of this out of their vernacular. war on terror. radical islamists. -- radical islamist terrorism. they don't want to refer to that. for whatever reason. some say they don't want to inflame. others say they just don't want to have to deal with taking that issue head on. but it is real. it is a religious -- radical religious movement. and i would argue in some of the cases, the terrorists really hijack their religion and just really use it for power. and you know, the ability to take, you know, these safe havens and take them over through the use of -- exploiting religion to gain power. danielle: not unheard of in history.
>> huh you doing, i'm colin, an intern here on the critical threats project, we spend a lot of time tracking many of the things you've mentioned today. one term that's just beginning to gain prominence is this idea of son of isis this idea that once we destroy isis capabilities in iraq and syria, it's only a matter of time before isis .0 emerges. i'm wondering from -- isis 2.0 emerges. i'm wondering from your perspective, how much should we invest in iraq to prevent this happening? mr. mccaul: it's a good question. we invested quite a bit and made a lot of mistakes. i would argue going back to the bush administration was a huge blunder and it turn over the iraqi military into al qaeda's hands and they became al qaeda in iraq. fast forward to this administration.
the lack of status of forces agreement. mrs. clinton went to baghdad one day for three hours to visit with prime minister maliki which i think was diplomatic negligence, malfeasance. we had an implosion. out of that implosion, al qaeda in iraq morphed its ugly head into isis. now it's complicated. we can't make a decision for four years and then you've got russia propping up assad along with iran and the sunni world thinks we're aligned with the russians and the iranians. we have shia militias in iraq and syria trying to fill that power vacuum while the sunnis see it as a real threat to them. i can't think of a more complicated, messed up situation. i think we want to destroy isis and defeat them, and we take their governed space away from them and we took back ramadi,
fallujah, i think we're on the path, won't happen by the end of the year, but to take back mosul places, but once you do that, you need a governed space and who is going to govern that? i don't want u.s. troops occupying in iraq and syria but we need to get to a diplomatic, political resolution in iraq and syria so we have governance. without governance, the terrorists thrive. that's the problem. that's the problem. the problem, you extend it to northern africa where we know they're expanding their band widthth and they've also expanded their bandwidth all throughout the internet. reaching across the globe, into indonesia, into australia, into europe. and into the united states.
questioner: herb roast. one of the points in your report here is to deny jihadists access to weapons of mass destruction. i seem to recall that in oklahoma city a number of years stuffed with as ammonium nitrate and fuel oil, caused quite a bit of damage. 45 also read recently that states have open-carry laws as far as guns are concerned. recently seen that soft targets are easily attacked using weapons, which are available to most citizens. so, unless you do something
about these easily accessible weapons, how are you going to stop attacks, particularly soft targets in this country? mr. mccaul: ramsey youcef is another example of ammonium nitrate. i would argue mcveigh learned his trade craft from ramsey youcef, whose uncle is khalid sheik muhammad. you're right. these materials are available. there's a certain limit you can buy. going to the pressure cooker, it's available on the internet. how to build this bomb. readily available. that's why they do it. i would argue ak-47's are the weapon of choice and there are 100 million -- those are illegal. but there are 100 million ak-47's circling around the black market around the world. and that is their weapon of choice. how do you stop that? the fact is you can't stop it all.
are you going to ban pressure , okers in department stores to the farmers buying amonia nitrate? you can regulate the amount maybe someone can purchase. these are all, you know, they're -- the fact is, if you want to kill and terrorize, the not that difficult to do. and the hard to stop. the intelligence is really so important here. and when i talked to the f.b.i. again, what they're most worried about, we're losing intercements internationally, but when we can't see their communications, because they've exploited encryption and turned it against us, such that someone in iraq is talking to someone in d.c., but we can't see what they're saying, so we're blind, communications, that's how -- i would make a -- that's how i would make a case as a federal prosecutor. through a wiretap.
that may be a thing of the past. i don't know. the f.b.i.'s going to have to think about how are we going to stop not only terrorists, but child pornographiers and predators, to just regular c.r.s, if we can't get these intercepts anymore. people talk about predictive analytics is the next step we're going to be looking at to stop some of this. but it's it's a very big challenge. one of the recommendations in the report is the commission idea i put together with senator mark warner. stakeholders, both the intelligence community, privacy , to law enforcement, like the f.b.i., to make recommendations , not unlike the 9/11 commission did to the congress on a very complicated issue, to guide us. because this is an area that cries out for guidance to the congress. most members don't understand it.
if we do a knee jerk response and put a backdoor in everybody's iphone, after the next attack occurs, with encryption, that will have an unintended consequence. it will push innovation and technology offshore. i don't think most americans want that. the whole apple-f.b.i. issue. i think at the end of the day, the right result occurred and that was the f.b.i. got the capability to then open the phone, rather than the f.b.i. forcing a private company to create codes, to create -- codes to create a vulnerability in its own product. moderator: you differ with some of your colleagues about that. i'm interested to hear you say that. i think there was a lot of unhappiness in certain ranks in congress about apple actually failing to cooperate with the f.b.i. so you think they did the right thing and it came out right in the end? mr. mccaul: the apple general council, i know the director of the f.b.i., it took me, an interesting position, but i do
think the right result ccurred. they were able to hire -- no, can i say who it was? they got the capability to do it rather than, you know, i thought it was an overreach. but it shows you how antiquated the law is, when the governments are lying on a 1789al wriths act that was all d into law by -- 179 writs act that was signed into law. they want to protect people's data. we haven't even gotten into the cybersecurity threat that's a little beyond the islamist-based threat. but i see that as far more damaging and consequential. if the jihadists get that kind of capability, they won't have the reservations that the russians and the chinese have. to use it. moderator: so we doing the right thing, are we properly
equipped, are we moving in the right direction on cyber or are we doing what we're doing in all of these other areas which is a lot of bureaucracy, not moving fast enough, move -- leaving george washington in charge? mr. mccaul: on that we passed out of my committee and out of congress the cybersecurity act which prope provides the -- which provides the information share and malicious codes to the private sector with liability protections, they can share it with the federal government. and then private-to-private. this has helped harden our critical infrastructures in the private sector. the military would stand up in the event of a cyberwarfare attack. but where i'm concerned is if the theft of intellectual property, i think keith alexander said the largest transfer of wealth in human history is killing us from an economic standpoint, to the espionage acts of china stealing 20 million security clearances out of the federal government, out of o.p.m.,
including mine. moderator: and mine. mr. mccaul: and yours. to the allegation of the russians interfering with our elections. and the idea that things can be shut down in a cyberwarfare event. shutting down power grids, financial institutions, i talked a lot about this in my book, failures of imagination, about the great potential. cyber is just staying ahead of that threat curve, just like it's staying ahead of the kinetic islamist threat. moderator: are we making a mistake then? you and i have spent 45 minutes and our questions talking about the jihadi threat, about islamists. we've just taken two minutes and talked about cyber, russia, china, the infrastructure, the grid, national security, not necessarily in that order of priority, i should add. what -- are we afraid of the wrong thing? are we not focused as a nation on what is a much more serious threat?
because we're focused on pressure cookers in chelsea? mr. mccaul: i think they both demand our attention and focus. i think this get more attention because it's in the news. cybersecurity is not in the news a whole lot. there are no rules of the game, there are no international standards. the really the wild west. there are no consequenceses to china when they stole our security clearances. there are no consequenceses when they ransomwmbing are, when they export companies -- ransomware, when they extort companies. it's an important issue as well. this one gets more of the headlines. i do think it's where the kinetic threat that results in loss of life and blood on the streets, that's why it gets a lot of attention, god for bid they get their hands -- god forbid they get their hands on that kind of capability, just
like the gentleman talked about weapons of mass destruction. you know, if the pakistani nuclear device got out, or some of this radiological material that has been smuggled out that we know about gets into this country, you know, that's a problem. isis in a magazine talked about how -- talked about smuggling a pakistan nuclear device into this hemisphere and across the u.s.-mexico border into the united states. now, do they have that capability? i ask that question at every briefing, i don't think they do. but it's just a matter of get it in their hands. they got chemical weapons from assad. the idea of them getting nuclear material, even a dirty bomb, which shut down this entire city, which shut down the houston shipping channel, which provides 1/3 of the energy supply, it's not that difficult. once you have that material,
all you really need is a stick of dynamite and that would install a serious terror. moderator: so there's no failure of imagination on their part, perhaps. mr. mccaul: they are -- they always -- it's staying one step ahead of them. they are very crafty. moderator: folks, i'm going to take one last quick question. and then we're going to head for the hills. es, sir. questioner: hi. i'm stanton burke. i'm a student at howard law school. i have a question regarding the role of social media companies that you mentioned. what role can private companies ike facebook, twitter, what'sapp do to help the deradicalization message and how can they help partner with governments to help identify threats that are online? mr. mccaul: that's what we're in the stage of attempting to do that.
i've sat down with twitter in california. there's a woman who is sort of the queen of jihad, they call her, who shuts down the twitter handles. the only problem is, like janay hussein, they'll go to another twitter handle. it's hard to stay in front of that. the google counternarrative is important. what's app, if the stuff is on the app, should we require them under law to shut it down? that's a policy decision that congress has to think about. the problem with that is the majority of these apps are not based in the united states. they're foreign-based. so i'd say more than half of these apps, like telegram, what's app and telegram are their favorites. that they used in the paris and brussels attacks. but many of these apps are overseas-based and we have no jurisdiction over them. so we're entering into this
digital age of security that's a huge challenge. i think you pointed that out very well. moderator: thank you very much for an important conversation. [applause] mr. mccaul: thank you. appreciate it. moderator: if i could ask everybody to remain seated for just one second while the congressman heads out and then we can all get up. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] >> tonight the c.e.o. of wells fargo, john stumpf, testifying again on capitol hill about the sales practices of his company. which involved creating an estimated two million fraudulent accounts without cust merts' permission -- customers' permission. he provided an update on actions being taken by wells fargo, including expanded its review of accounts and eliminating sales goals. mr. stumpf spoke in front of the house financial services committee. we'll show you the hearing at 8:00 eastern, 4:00 pacific time -- actually, 5:00 pacific time.
that will be here on c-span. earlier today president obama left andrews air force base for israel to attend a funeral of former israeli president who died yesterday at the age of 93. traveling in the presidential delegation include former president bill clinton, the u.s. ambassador to israel, secretary of state john kerry, and democratic house leaders. he served as israel's president from 2007 to 2014.
>> c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up friday morning, committee for responsible federal budget president on her group's efforts to educate voters and lawmakers on the fiscal impact of the nation's growing debt. and author talks about his latest book, supremely partisan, which argues the supreme court is becoming increasingly partisan and that politicized cases threaten to undermine public confidence in the court. c-span's "washington journal," live beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern friday morning. join the discussion. earlier
today, house speaker paul ryan held his weekly briefing with reporters at the capitol. he spoke about work in the house over the past week, including zika funding, the rewriting of education laws, and republican plans for health care. he spoke for about 15 minutes.
mr. ryan: good morning, everybody. are you as excited as i am? >> about what? [laughter] mr. ryan: first, i just turned on the tv and saw what was happening in hoe boken -- hoboken. we don't know all the details but this looks like -- there's already loss of life being reported. our prayers go to the first responders to make sure they can get people to safety and that people can be reunited with their families. this week congress sent to the president's desk a bill that provides funding to train our military in an approved care for our veterans, our milcon-v.a. bill. it will also provide resources to address the zika outbreak and relief for our fellow citizens recovering from recent floods in louisiana and west
virginia and some other places. this concludes a pretty darn productive period. first long-term highway bill in 10 years. the first rewrite of our education laws in 15 years. the first update to our customs and border enforcement in a generation. the end of the 40-year ban on crude oil. a comprehensive opioid addiction and recovery law, permanent tax extenders, which is one of the biggest steps one can take toward rewriting our tax code. when we return in november, i look forward to completing work on some very important key initiatives that just haven't quite gotten over the finish line. tim murphy's mental health reform, fred upton's 21st century curious initialtive. obviously we passed our water resources bill last night. the senate's passed theirs. we need to complete work on that. i also am hoping we can make progress on criminal justice reform. lastly, saturday marks the third anniversary of the rollout of obamacare. it isn't so much limping toward
that anniversary as this law is collapsing. this law is collapsing under its own weight. in a matter of weeks, americans are going to face another round of steep and massive premium increases, coop programs are failing across the country, leaving people without coverage, these are fundamental problems. these are not problems that can be fixed by tinkering at the margins. this law does need to be repealed and replaced. it needs to be replaced with real, patient-centered health care reforms. this is our plan to do it. page 20, and will you see our plan for a comprehensive replacement of obamacare to finally give people what they want. patient-centered health care, more choices, lower prices. we need to give people a very clear choice in this election. a clear path. that is what we are endeskering to do. we want to go bold, we are specific, and we're showing people that we are here to tackle the big challenges in this country before they tackle us. we want to hear more about our
better way agenda, go to better.gop. this is why we are here, to show the country that we can get things fixed and that we have a better path and that is a conversation we're excited about having with our fellow citizens over the next month and a half. questions? reporter: glad to see you have your pants on again. mr. ryan: yes, thank you. i can give you a copy, if you'd like. reporter: i might need one. you guys came to this deal pretty last minute. it all happened in 24 hours. it's been pretty clear for a while that democrats really wanted to see something done on flint. ultimately we saw that 140 house republicans voted against that amendment. was your hesitancy to have the c.r. debate, knowing where your conference was on this, and because of how many republicans owe polesed that amendment, are you worried about what happens in the wrda negotiations, whether flint could -- [inaudible] --
mr. ryan: no, i'm not worried about that. first i'd say what happened is what i was hoping and planning on happening all along. i thought it was important to get flint out of the continuing resolution debate and where it belongs, in the water resources bill. flint is a water resources problem that therefore should be addressed in water resources legislation. you're kind of mistaken when you say it was a democrat request. we had a lot of republicans asking for this flint amendment to be addressed. candace miller, fred upton, john molnar, michiganders were asking me all year long on the need to address flint in legislation. i always thought that the water resources legislation was the right way to go. this amendment passed in the senate like 90-something votes, if i recall. so we always knew that this was the place to do it, was in the wrda bill. and it came together very successfully. just so you know, this is a bipartisan amendment. it was a moolenaar and kildee amendment. so this was something that a lot of republicans, like i
said, mrs. miller, i talked to her a lot about this over the last couple of months, and other michiganders, or michiganians. anyone from michigan? michigan anders, that's what i thought. against wisconsin this weekend. wolverines are going down. we beat michigan state already. i'm probably going to eat those words, aren't i? i don't think it's going to be jeopardized at all. i think actually having the kildee-moolenaar amendment passed, with a big bipartisan vote yesterday, and having, i forgot whose amendment it was in the senate passed something like 97 votes, tells you that this is very close to being done and that the wrda legislation is going to come together in lame duck. reporter: can you elaborate on the thinking of thank it always belonged in wrda -- mr. ryan: that's where authorizations occur for water resources projects. reporter: right. but democrats wanted flint funding and that wasn't germane. mr. ryan: it wasn't because it was an authorization bill. the scope from the -- the scope from the senate bill is a little broader and that's what
we'll reconcile in conference. reporter: let me ask you this. about a year into your speakership here. your predecessor -- [inaudible] -- for not moving individual spending bills. we talked about this. doing c.r.'s, having to turn to the other side. i know you got well over a majority on the bill yesterday. but that said, they said they didn't get a lot of things they wanted. they didn't get the spending number they wanted, they didn't get refugees from syria. how are you at this stage, 11 months into your speakership, different than john boehner when you speak to the freedom caucus? mr. ryan: we've passed appropriation bills. i think members of our caucus realize that when harry reid and senate democrats want to stop the appropriations process for political reasons and political motivations, they have the tools to do that. so i think people in our caucus under the reality of the moment that this divided government presents us with. having said all of that, we still have passed some appropriation bills. the senate even has passed some appropriation bills. but i really believe that the senate democrats made a
decision somewhere in this year to slow things down and prevent further activity. my hope is that after the election they'll drop their political shenanigans and we'll get on to doing the serious business of actually appropriating. if we don't, we'll do another c.r. reporter: why weren't some of those conservative priorities that i outlined, the funding planned parenthood -- mr. ryan: i think -- i think people realized this is what divided government gets you. you don't always get what you want in divided government. reporter: it's divided on your side of the aisle. mr. ryan: democrats have a vote in this. democrats can filibuster bills. you know this as well as anybody else. i think our members understand that. reporter: mr. speaker, there have been suggestions recently by the chairman of the ways and means committee and also in the senate, chairman of the finance committee, the t.p.p. may still have some life in it, in a lame duck congress, from your point of view, again, is the t.p.p. dead in a lame duck? and if i could, can you give me
your thoughts on the latest warning by our secretary of state, john kerry, that u.s. leadership's credibility in asia would be severely damaged if we delay in approving this -- mr. ryan: i have nothing to add more than i've already said. nothing new to say on t.p.p. if you're talking about damaging u.s. leadership in the world, look at the obama administration's foreign policy. i rest my case on that. reporter: you talked frequently about the limits of divided government and said this morning you don't like divided government. even in the best case scenario, for your party in this election, you won't have 60 in the senate. so could you talk about what you see foreseeable legislatively that could pass nto law next year? mr. ryan: is this is our plan for 2017. -- this is our plan for 2017. much of this you can do through budget reconciliation.
and i think the rest of it is something that the vast majority of the american people want to see get done. do we want to keep people stuck in poverty and on welfare or do we want to change our welfare programs that are worked to get people from welfare to work? do we want to get the regulations off the backs of our businesses so they can start creating jobs? do we want to have the separation of powers so we have self-government? these are things i think most americans want. and i think they'll put pressure on their democratic senators to do these things. a lot of what's in here is also something that's fiscal in nature. those are things you can do through a budget that you don't necessarily need 60 votes for. this is our game plan for 2017. as i mentioned this morning, at the -- [inaudible] -- unified republican government is what it's going to take to get all of this done. reporter: i have two questions. the first one regarding the leadership elections. the house caucus are talking about some sort of request on your part to delay leadership
elections until after the lame duck. and then also i wanted to ask about criminal justice reform. you guys did an internal survey i guess of house republicans, most people said they were undecided on. some people i guess are worried about, you know, protests, riots, and also about looking soft on crime. what are you going to do to move that needle -- mr. ryan: to your first question, i've never received that request. we'll keep planning on doing things the way we've always done them. when we come back from the elections. for the next session. we don't publish our whips. but we do know that we have more work to do to talk with our members about the merits of criminal justice reform. the judiciary committee member who knows about this issue, you're in favor of it. it's very boyfriend. it's conservative -- bipartisan. it's conservatives who are leading the charge on this. lee, goodlatte. there are a lot of our members who just have not looked into this issue well enough. it's those undecided members who have not formed opinions
yet that we're going to be communicating with in the weeks ahead. reporter: what do you consider a good night for you on election night? mr. ryan: winning. [laughter] reporter: losing only five seats, 10 seats? mr. ryan: i don't like the idea of losing any seats. i think a good night is keeping our strong majority, keeping the majority in the senate, and donald trump winning, so we have unified republican government. anybody who hasn't talked for a while? reporter: leader mcconnell said he would be supportive of moving mini buses during the lame duck session. can you talk about coverings you've had with him regarding that and what the timeline -- [inaudible] mr. ryan: i agree with what -- with that. we think minibuses are a proper strategy. we're not in favor of doing a big, massive omnibus. the fact we we have mill done-v.a. done -- milcon-v.a. done already shows you we've got things done. we have a lot of work to do. our appropriators are going to
be working all month, all october. it's not as if, if we're not in session we're not getting stuff done. we're going to be working on these things so that in the fairly brief time we have in november and december, we can start moving appropriations bills. it's so much better to do appropriations than c.r.'s. reporter: is that an indication what have bills might get clumped together? mr. ryan: i don't know. reporter: earlier this year you raised questions about the unintended consequences that could be created by passage of jasta. this was after the senate had -- [inaudible] -- both the chairman of the intelligence committee and the armed services committee had those concerned -- [inaudible] -- what changed your mind in terms of bringing this to the floor? mr. ryan: i think it's that the victims -- we want to have the victims get their day in court. we want to make sure that the 9/11 victims and their families have their day in court. at the same time i would like to think there may be some work to be done to protect our service members overseas. from any kind of legal
ensnarements that occur -- that could occur. any kind of retribution. i would like to think there's a way we can fix so our service members do not have legal problems overseas, while still protecting the rights of the 9/11 victims. which is what jasta did do it. >> last question. reporter: you said in your opening remarks that you thought there was some progress that could be made during lame ducks. mcconnell just said -- mr. ryan: yeah, i heard that. reporter: criminal justice reform could get done. you have talked about this? mr. ryan: over the year we've talked about it. i'm a fan of criminal justice reform. we've gotten 11 bills out of the judiciary committee now, so we're a little farther down the road than the senate is on this. we have basically been talking to our members. many of our members just are unfamiliar with the details, so we're still working with our members to make sure that they get there. i think the good legislation. i think it's time -- its time has come. we're going to advance this issue as far as we can.
thank you. reporter: got out without a trump question. mr. ryan: that was amazing. [laughter] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2016] >> house minority leader nancy pelosi also held her weekly briefing at the capitol today. she talked about the house's passage of temporary government spending, assistance for flint, michigan, and the override of president obama's veto on the 9/11 victims bill. this is 25 minutes. ms. pelosi: good morning, everyone. sad this morning, this crash in hoboken, new jersey. and thoughts for those
done as we leave this congress. we had plenty of time to pass gun safety legislation. no fly, no buy, and background checks, expanding background checks legislation. we had time to pass legislation that recognizes that increasing the paycheck of america's workers helps to grow the economy for everyone. no minimum wage, no equal pay for equal work, no paid sick leave, none of that on the part of this congress. we had plenty of time to, of course, do something on immigration. instead we've done the reverse. so sad that we could not even honor the founders and pass a correction to what happened in the courts on voting rights. as we get ready for an election. some of the issues that we talked about, student loans, we have had the courtney bill, we had it in committee, they won't
take it up on the floor, they won't let us call it up. they rejected our ability to do that over and over again. bank on student loans, emergency loans, re financing a student loan at a lower rate available to newer borrowers. the banks have lower rates than the families with student loans. so to any subject you can name, we have a missed opportunity. don't even have a budget. they don't even have a budget. chair of the budget committee is the speaker of the house. they don't even have a budget that they can pass. and in many ways that's probably a good thing. show me your budget, show me your values. the values in that budget are terrible. but the american people should see what that is. if there's one thing you needed to know about the republicans' ryan budget, thanks it removes the guarantee from medicare. if there are two things you should know about the budget, it is, secondly, it removes the
guarantee from medicare. if there are three things you should know, it's that it removes the guarantee from medicare. makes it a voucher for seniors to go shop for their health care. all of these missed opportunities. zika, after eaving acting seven months after the president made his request based on science, evidence, facts, data of what would be eeded, we're -- and 23,000 americans later infected, 2,100 pregnant women, we passed a bill yesterday, glory, hallelujah, but it's so long overdue, paid for by taking money from other priorities. and falls short of the amount that the president requested. nonetheless, we've moved down the road on that. as i said, gun violence, 91
americans killed every day. think of time. a day. 91 americans kill every day. think of time a day. 78 americans dying of opioids. and yet we're taking the time to go home for another 40-some -day break. even falling short of the schedule of september we could have done some of these thing. we really have to, you know, come to some -- we all agree that our responsibility is to protect the american people. we take that oath to protect and defend our constitution, our citizens, the people in our country, our communities. we all agree that thank we should be securing our economy -- that we should be securing our economy and yet we're not doing it. securing our communities' safety, we could pass a gun bill. securing our economy, we could be engaged in middle class
economics, so that increases pay checks and jects demands into the economy, with consumer -- and injects demand into the economy with consumer confidence and creates jobs and secure our democracy. let's pass the voting rights act. let's -- just, i mean, everybody shows up for selma, they show up for african-american museum, all of that. d yet they reject the values that they supposedly are showing up for, by not passing that. so, we are missing opportunities to secure our economy, secure our country, and to secure our democracy. and now we're going home for the election. and that should be interesting. that should be very interesting. as we have that debate, hopefully it will be a debate, be a debate, as hillary clinton has put forth, as to what it means in the lives of the
american people. not what it means around here. just on another sad note, sad too, we're all saddened to knowledge the passing of , president bal icon perez. he was a founder of israel, he was a champion for democracy, he was a friend of many in our country. i consider it a personal loss for all of us because we all learned so much from him. and while he has left us, his leadership will inspire us for a long time to come. i have the honor of going to his funeral later today. with the president. any questions? yes, ma'am. reporter: this morning, whip hoyer said that he's not yet seen signs of the democratic wave taking over the house on election day. do you agree with that? ms. pelosi: i don't know what
you said. he said we're not going win -- what did he say? reporter: he said he's not seeing signs of a democratic wave for you guys to take back the house. ms. pelosi: what's a wave? you make your own wave. that's what we're doing. we have candidates, we have the nthusiasm, we have -- raise in terms of resources, the republicans, over and over again. i feel very confident that the makings of a wave are there. you don't know -- i agree with steny. you don't know this far in advance. we didn't, nobody thought we were going to win at this point in 2006 and it turned into a wave. it turned into a wave in 2010. much closer to the time. the like saying, you see a wave, we're not even at the beach. let us take this thing down the road and then we'll see where it is. but i think we are all in agreement, including steny, that we're going to win very
many seats and some of it, as he said, depends on how big the margin is for hillary clinton. that makes a big difference in a presidential election year. we feel good, though. the response we are receiving, based on the difference between the two parties in terms of trickle-down versus middle class economics, where we are on gun safety, where we are on lgbt, where we are on women's a right to choose, where we are on protecting the environment, addressing climate change, the list goes on and on. we feel very confident that the american people will respond to our important message as to what it means in their lives. the other part of it is, of course, our friend, the gift that keeps on giving, on the other side, his statements are -- they help register voters, they help mobilize at the grassroots level. they help raise money. they help us differentiate in messaging, so i think we're in
a very good place. reporter: yesterday the -- rity whip -- [inaudible] -- whip sca little and representative hice introduce -- scalise and representative hice introduced the free speech act of 2016. which would change the johnson endment from 1954 to protect nonprofits' free speech. you have heard about that? ms. pelosi: no. right now what we're talking about is strengthening our economy, growing paychecks of america's workers, we're talking about protecting a woman's right to choose, protecting medicare, a lot of big things happening. i don't very any what -- i don't have any idea what they're talking about. i'll look into it. the, shall we say, not a front burner issue in terms of jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, medicare, medicare, medicare.
gun safety, gun safety, gun safety. the list -- voting rights, voting rights, voting rights. hopefully they'll turn their attention to some of the big issues facing america's working families. reporter: congress spent weeks rangeling over a relatively simple stop gap spending bill. how does that bode for doing 11 appropriations bills in the lame duck? is that going to be easy? ms. pelosi: did you ask that question last week? reporter: no. ms. pelosi: one of you did. let me say this. in terms of, as an appropriator, many of us were forged in the appropriations committee, we're part of that culture. what's interesting about it is that it is a place where you try to come to agreement. i had no doubt that left to their own devices, the appropriators can come to the conclusion on bipartisan legislation. what happens is, though, that the leadership sprinkles -- comes in with poison pills
afterward and that's what messes it up. i have plenty of confidence that working together, chairman rogers and congresswoman, our ranking member, nita lowey, as well as right down the line, our chairs and ranking members, know what their responsibility is and now how -- know how to get it done. we'll see how that goes. i think the bill yesterday is an example of how we can just do the bill without the poison pills, when we did the v.a. bill yesterday. military construction. yes. reporter: that said, do you go into these negotiations -- [inaudible] -- crisis moment like the c.r. or something like this, knowing they're going to have trouble on the other side? your side was pretty insistent on flint. they needed your votes to carry -- to carry the c.r. and say, ok, i know i've got them, we're going to go in and get what we're going to have -- or
they're going to have to do something like shut the government down or -- [inaudible] -- what is your psychology as you go these negotiations because you know how the vote counts are on the other side? ms. pelosi: we've been talking about flibt for a very long time. well over a year. the been no secret, any leverage that we had in our back pocket, this was front and center, that the children of flint could not be neglected any longer by this congress. it was only about, let's see, two days ago, right about now, that it dawned on the republicans that they would be willing to pay attention to the needs of the people of flint. with that revelation, with that epiphany -- would that epiphany , would that
have happened if they only had 170 votes to pass the c.r. of their own writing? you'll have to ask them. this was well known. really we wanted much more. it had passed the senate in a bipartisan way, 90-something to three or something like that in the senate. we were proposing. pass the senate in a bipartisan way. it was paid for. i don't think it should be, but had to be. passed the senate, bipartisan. urgent. and something that should have happened, even if the republicans had all the votes they needed for the c.r. but there's no question, the fact that they did not have the votes gave us leverage. but we were prepared. we were prepared. reporter: related to the flint deal. a lot of your members were saying before things are moving on the actual deal, that they wouldn't vote for a c.r. without flint money or an assurance that flint was getting to the president's desk before september.
they also were concerned about floods moving ahead of flint and kicking flint to the lame duck but not kicking floods along with it. how did you convince -- convince your members that the deal you guys came up with, which doesn't appropriate money, doesn't guarantee funding in the lame duck, was an acceptable solution? ms. pelosi: there may have been some statements of that kind by some. and that frankly gave me leverage. as i say to them, say whatever you want to say, it just strengthens my hand. the fact is, at some point we're going to have to make a vote. so don't make any declarations of how you're going to vote until you see what the outcome is. i think it was a very good outcome, our colleague, dan kildee, this is a lion. this is a champion. this is a person, every single day in his service in congress, his leadership in our caucus, came forward and reminded us of
what was happening on a daily basis, getting worse in flint. getting worse in flint. some of us visited flint. if you ever went there, you would wonder how the congress of the united states could turn its back on the children of flint. or this long a time. in my view, it was important for him to be satisfied with what the arrangement was and there was no one in our caucus, stiff competition for caring about children, but nobody who knew more, cared more or had more at stake for the children than dan kildee. and he's highly respected by our colleagues. once he accepted how we would go forward. not even accepted, he helped shape it. he helped shape it. then our members. now, of course, we would love the money right this minute. 10 week in the life of a child who isn't having access to clean water, etc., makes a
difference. we've been going on for over a year. that's horrible. the certainty -- i feel quite certain that this will happen. i trust the speaker and the leaders in the senate, senator mcconnell made his very strong statement on the floor. any on't think there's doubt that it will happen. it's a matter of eight, 10 weeks, that we'd like to shorten that time. the fact that members said, no flint, no c.r., was only helpful to me. reporter: there are reports that the train in hoboken didn't have positive train control and know congress last year voted to extend the deadline for implementation of that technology. what do you think about that and is that something that you believe should be revisited in any way? ms. pelosi: i don't think we should have extended the deadline. the trains were still running. if you're going to extend the deadline, stop the trains. because the risk is there.
that would go a long way to saving lives, improving safety and restoring -- having confidence in our infrastructure in terms of transportation, so i think that was unfortunate that we couldn't stop that extension. because we know that where it exists, safety is greatly improved. so hopefully we can revisit that. i don't know, how much longer is that delay? reporter: december, 2018. ms. pelosi: yeah, so. why? two more years? again, it's about time. and the about time congress faced its responsibilities when it comes to the safety of the american people, when it comes to the security of their families in every way, economically, personally, leaving their homes and safety of the ballot that they will cast. it's about time that we took our responsibilities as seriously here as they impact the lives of the american
people. a waste of time is something almost sinful to squander when we could be making a positive difference in the lives of the american people. this is one example. i think we have time for one more question. reporter: i was wondering if you would shed some light on your thoughts on the veto vote yesterday, the override. the president called it basically a political vote and said -- [inaudible] -- doing it before an election with the family. could you share your thinking on it? ms. pelosi: we were really, really busy yesterday working on keeping government open and getting our vote, ette, to proceed -- etc., to proceed. i wasn't familiar with the president's statement in that regard. i know his disappointment. but i didn't know about that statement. the timing on when it was brought up i think really related more to 9/11.
they wanted to have the bill passed, was it that friday, thursday, the 8th, 9th, 10th, whatever it was, in time for 9/11. did all of that have to happen and go to the president in the manner that it did? there was great enthusiasm on the part of the families to do so. as i've said to you before, i go way back with these families. i first wanted to introduce a bill to have a 9/11 commission. it passed in committee and the intelligence committee, where i served. another place i was forged. and when we went to the floor, it was resoundly rejected by the republicans, almost accusing me of being a traitor for even bringing it up. the mobilization of the families, we brought it up again under the leadership of our congressman from indiana on the intelligence committee and later to the ambassador to india, a distinguished member of congress. he brought it up and then, one
thing and another, we had the leverage to have it become the law. i also served as co-chair of their -- there were four co-chairs of the joint investigation, house-senate, democrat-republican,. worked very closely with the families on all of that. worked very closely with them on 9/11 health benefits and compensation to this day. so we're all -- we have a very close relationship. for me, as i weighed the equities, i appreciate the concerns which i think are very legitimate that the president put forward, i thought these families should have their day in court. strong vote, a large number, i think maybe something like 60 democrats voted to sustain the veto. i suppose a dozen or so republicans. so it's really unfortunate. because i do think that perhaps it could have been written in a little bit of a different way
that addressed some of the concerns. the families think they did make changes. but, not to the satisfaction of the president, obviously. it's a very sad situation and, again, members just had their own individual reasons why. i don't think it was a political vote on the part of anybody. if you're saying the timing of when it was brought up was political, well, that i don't know. that was it. the speaker needs the room right now. thank you all very much. have a good -- i was going to say summer. seems like we haven't gotten enough work done to be at the end of a term. perhaps i'll see you on the campaign trail. otherwise i'll see you after the election and i know that we will be in a very positive place at that time. reporter: do you think the giants are going to win? ms. pelosi: still have the wild
card. reporter: barely. ms. pelosi: i'll take it. [laughter] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national
cable satellite corp. 2016] >> the senate gaveled out earlier today and won't return until november. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell held a briefing on the current republican agenda, including tax reform, trade, entitlement changes and the merit garland supreme court nomination -- merrick garland supreme court nomination. this is 25 minutes. mr. mcconnell: did you have a good time with her and chuck? [laughter] good morning, everyone. a couple of years ago the american people decided to change the majority in the u.s. senate. i was down in louisville the day after the election, had a press conference in which i pointed out what i thought the new majority needed to be. dysfunction in the senate was not the biggest issue in 2014. but it certainly was one of them. i said, i thought we needed to
end that. i knew we had big differences with the president. and the minority in the senate's almost never irrelevant, unless it gets down to a very small minority. so what is the way to try to avoid dysfunction? i said, first, we need to let people participate. remember that mark was defeated in alaska in significant part because she never had a roll call vote on an amendment in a full six-year term. not one. we had had only 15 votes on amendments in 2014 here in the senate. i said, we needed to open the place up and let people participate to the maximum extent possible in both the majority and minority. over the course of the congress, we've had over 200 such votes. people have had an opportunity to offer their ideas. on both sides of the aisle. and i have focused largely on the things that we had some
bipartisan agreement on and had a chance of getting a presidential signature. so let's rount re-count some examples. the rewrite of no child left behind. major complaint of those in k-12 education all across america. the first five-year highway bill in 20 years. trade promotion authority in which, kind of an out of body experience. i was allied with the president against harry and nancy. and a variety of other bipartisan accomplishments that i will not go down the list of, but i think demonstrate that we were trying to achieve things in a time of divided government, rather than just pointing the finger all the time. some of these things that i think really got us away from all of these little short-term
fixes, remember how many doc fixes we did over 20 years? i think there was something like 17 of them. we did a permanent doc fix. we were trying to get out of these constant cliffs that we were in. we made a number of temporary tax provisions permanent. again, trying to avoid these constant cliffs that seemed to have dominated the agenda around here. is ne area of dysfunction clearly attributable to the minority. it was obvious to me they did not want to have a normal appropriations process. pretty darn clear. this year i devoted, gosh, i think something like six weeks to trying to move through the regular order appropriation bills. you saw what happened. so they had an obvious desire to ball up the appropriations process and put us in to a c.r./omnibus situation.
so the only area, as you look back on the last two years of this congress, the only area where we've had anything that i would define as dysfunction was clearly and obviously created by the democratic minority and their desire to ball up the spending process. we have obviously some pretty big differences with the administration. and we tried to highlight those as well, but we were not consumed with doing that most of the time over the last two years. we put the repeal of obamacare on his desk. we did a number of different repealers through the congressional review act. so, we did point out there was some pretty serious differences that we had on policy. obviously he didn't sign any of those and we didn't expect him to. but the focus has been on trying to accomplish things for the american people. a only way to do that in
time of divided government is to try to look for some kind of bipartisan consensus, move the ball down the field and get a presidential signature at the end of the day. so i think with that i'll stop and throw it open. reporter: yesterday 28 senators signed a letter to corker i ng that -- [inaudible] wanted to know what your houghts are on that. [inaudible] mr. mcconnell: that was a good xample, it seems to me, of failure to communicate early about the potential consequences of a piece of legislation that was obviously very popular. i told the president the other day -- is this some water here? that this was an example of an issue we should have talked about much earlier. it appears as if there may be some unintended ramifications
of that. thank you. and do i think the worth further discussing. but it was certainly not something that was going to be fixed this week. reporter: does merrick garland have -- [inaudible] -- picking him up next year if he were renominated, would your position change if hillary clinton was elected and renominated him? mr. mcconnell: as i said repeatedly, the next president will fill that vacancy and we'll see who that is. reporter: do you think it could be better than -- reporter: -- [inaudible] -- election, could you talk about the discomfort level right now with your presidential nominee -- ow -- [inaudible] senator mcconnell: this is not something i'm going to discuss
today, the implications of the presidential race on the senate. >> senator schumer said that the american people are on their side and the only thing that would stop them from taking back the senate is money. senator mcconnell: what did you say? >> senator schumer said the american people's priorities are with the democrats in taking back the senate but the only thing that's holding them back is money. mr. mcconnell: did he mention tom stire? i wonder why? i don't know either. >> one of the areas democrats point to in dysfunction is judges, you talk about merrick garland but there's a record umber of traditional -- or other vay can sis. is there anything the senate can do to fill them. mr. mcconnell: as you've heard me