that if iran violates these agreements, we will not delay in imposing sanctions. without that spadework being done now i'll tell you what i fear. money will be the order of the day and we would be forced to act almost unilaterally, which would not allow us to be as effective as if we act in concert with our allies. ..
allies to defend. that includes training and arming ukrainian forces with the weapons they have requested repeatedly which congress has already approved and assuring that what is provided is actually in working condition or not our heavily used castoffs. it also means focusing on the needful states with russia, poland, latvia, we must focus on supplying and equipping them and achieving interoperability committing to hire defense spending targets repositioning the forces in europe near the eastern borders and increasing cooperation with finland and sweden and building a new strong
integrated defense system to cover the eastern edge. in this context i welcome the fact montenegro will join the 29th denver state learning the lessons of the crimean invasion to develop and exercise plan for dealing with future russian provocations of course would also be a prudent step. we also know there's no such thing as little green men or volunteers in the future any such combatants must be treated as what they are and that is attacking the russian army. if they reappear it would strengthen the forces around the world to heighten the status to enable timely intervention in support of our friends and allies and even while the action sports us to take tough measures to achieve peace through the strength and safeguard allies i would make it clear that the door to the negotiations, the door to negotiations remains
open. achieving peace through strength has become our touchstone ever since bernhard baroque uttered those words after world war i and of course our president and greater general eisenhower adopted them as a central message of the campaign, and of course it was a central part of the campaign in 1980 and he acted on it once in office. i'm confident that talking with our allies we can create the conditions to build a new european security architecture that accommodates a security interest of all. to achieve this we don't need another reset but a rebel statement of how we will respond to any further russian aggression. this should apply to the relationship with china as well the clarity that we've shown is essentially no different from that which we have demonstrated towards china. the efforts to stake an outrageous claim control the entire south china sea and the
seabed resource which is clearly not entitled r. stark violations of international rules and norms. these are efforts to the neighbors because of those efforts we now must stand firm and supportive of our pacific allies who may be threatened by china's moves. this requires working closely with our allies significantly to increase our military presence in the region if only to ensure the freedom of navigation for the 5.3 trillion annual trade that currently passes through the lane to assist in the effort one effort would be to deploy the commander and station additional air force in the units in the western pacific and then we should increase the joint allied pacific freedom of the navigation control, submarine patrols and amphibious landing exercises. a strong relationship between the u.s. and japan that has a considerable difference defensive military poster of its own is essential to safeguarding
the vast pacific waters. we should support our japanese allies as they defend the territorial waters and the number of things we can do come anti-ship missiles, rocket launch torpedoes, seabed acoustic sensor systems systems command to deal with the ever present conventional nuclear threats posed by north korea and would work with the republic japan and other regional allies to revitalize the joint allied counter proliferation activities and to build ballistic missile defenses. we don't see confrontation in china then why would we just as we work with china since the initiative years ago together we should forge innovative solutions and institutions that respect and accommodate the national security interest of every pacific nation because leadership hasn't been a a rarity for the obama administration and told the
leadership the military and alliance relationships have grown weak and afraid and leave hesitated to live by the universal rules at the core of what we stand for. as we revealed that he could rebuild from the bottom-up i don't think we should fulfill every military service so-called wishlist. the threats that we face required that we build corresponding capabilities and never become inferior militarily. folks, what it means is that we build what we need based on the threat we have. there is no room for pork, rockthrowing or using the defense budget and the jobs program. build what we needed to meet the threats we have here in the 21st century. we have to be careful about how we spend our military dollars especially on weapons systems. we need to reward the on target
cost estimates and prototyping and provide incentives for contractors to come in ahead of schedule and under budget, commercial off-the-shelf technology needs to be used to establish tough criteria for the design changes. i served on the defense committee for 18 years and i was involved in many massive reforms, procurement reforms, and goldwater nichols to get the services to work together in powering the combatant commanders to be able to have a say. the pentagon has to be reformed. we must have somebody that runs the building and brings the team that's not too tough the bureaucracy will run the other way and not too easy so that they can be run over. somebody i can just get it done right with the president but constantly looks over that building because any of the dollars that we waste our dollars that are not going to
support our men and women in the military. can we ever fixed it? i don't think so. can we improve the building, no question. we need to do it it anytime we have a significant increase in the amount of dollars that we put in the national defense. ronald reagan came in with a clear understanding of the challenges and institute a program had instituted a program of national defense and military revitalization that continues to provide for the defense is even now. as i've noted we need to build a strong bipartisan team to implement his innovative policies. we've got to do that again and think about what the future is. i've also proposed an economic plan to provide the growth we need to be strong economically and also militarily. my plan will balance the budget because i have balanced the federal budget in the united states working with some of my colleagues and i balanced the budget in ohio for the last five years. we can't keep adding to the
national debt particularly when other countries we have to deal with are paying our bills. we lose our leverage and let me just suggest to you that this function that we see in washington, the inability to solve problems, what kind of a message do you think that sends to the world? it sends a message we don't think we can get done and it says what happened to america, they can't chew gum and walk at the same time? that is in the united states of america. blatant partisanship and self-interest has to be overcome. can it be? absolutely. leaders communicate a message. it's about you know what you have to do even though you don't want to do it but we are going to do it and we are going to do with together to solve our problems, rebuild our economy and strengthen the united states
of america. unfortunately, there's also new dimensions that have been added to the national security, and one on the doorstep today we need is the large and growing a large and growing threat to the information security called the cyber threat. the $20 billion in estimated cost of cyber crimes in the u.s. economy, they are hacking everything from our companies to the banks to the government. the actual scope and scale poses a significant threat to individual privacy and security and the individual competitiveness and national security. we need to make cyber defense and integral component of the national security strategy. we must strengthen the defenses and deter cyber attacks to recover from such attacks when they occur and respond swiftly and decisively to identify the attackers.
i'm told we do have it in the nsa we just don't have policy. we don't have a direction. we not only need to defend against these attacks, but we need to make it clear that we have the counter capability to identify and destroy those systems that are attacking the united states. the increasing availability for the connections posing a growing challenge to the nation's defense and furthermore the generation of the strong encryption is rapidly approaching. let me just explain the new of four or more individuals who our security people have been watching. the couple in san bernardino, it appears we are communicating with those people but because of strong encryption we didn't
detect it. let me also say in the case of san bernardino there were some red flags. neighbors that might have suspected something. we need to watch and report about encryption technology when people can hide in the station they play for or they can use the encryption encryption that's that on our own phones to avoid detection and has to be solved, but it isn't easy because the minute you begin to solve the encryption problem by getting the security officials and the ability to get in the back door it opens the possibility. those that want to harm us to use the same backdoor to exploit access to the encrypted technology. we sit down with people in the technology community and amanda
hutchence community and the legislative community and you fix it. there isn't a single problem that we see that cannot be fixed if you get smart people in the room with good intentions, you can fix it. i've seen things fixed in washington of which i've been a part alan xing budgets, changing welfare entitlements, and in ohio a move from the loss of 350,000 jobs and 8 billion local to the $2 billion surplus in the growth of 400,000 jobs and how does it get done, smart people solving problems. if you get in the room and you get the best people you can to fix it. after 9/11, i was invited to a meeting with secretary rumsfeld and suggested at that point because of our technology we bring people from silicon valley to help some of our technical problems come in for a number of years, i was able to be a person
to lead a group of the best and brightest from silicon valley to deal with our problems and they were there to help. but you know as congress moves to put more rules and regulations of the smartest and best in society say i don't want to be involved anymore. let's use common sense to figure out how to solve problems in the world of technology and basically restructuring the government. intelligence agencies must continue to have the authority to monitor foreigners on what belief the potential security threats and we must intensify the cooperation. it would be critical to all we do. friends in europe have been ignored and after c-charlie with a million people standing in the town square in paris, the united states didn't see fit to see an see a major official to mourn with the people of france is
inexplicable. and ally like israel, the prime minister to the united states, and he will have a meeting. maybe we won't have 50 cameras that we are not going to disrespect our ally. the most meaningful alliance relationship isn't just about on common interest but they are shared in the universal values and respect for human life and expression of real agenda and the right of every person to have the chance to grow and achieve. they've guided the civilization for years and trying in the magna carta and the constitution and in the constitution of so many other nations around the world as well as the universal declaration of human rights. some consider. in the political mainstream i
don't believe i know america is exceptional america's exceptional and i won't equivocate on the matter. it's rather simply a statement of the obvious. we are exceptional because of our uniqueness. america isn't a language or ethnic group or religion as a melting pot of everybody in the world so when france hurt, we heard. they recognize this uniqueness as he wrote in democracy in america in 1831. that's part of the normal give and take. we have internal disagreements why it is designed to work this agreement is a hallmark of freedom, but you know at all times throughout history we unite as a nation. we are so much stronger when we are together. republicans and democrats,
liberals and conservatives and independents. together, we stand together and with the unity we have power and confidence. i believe we are in such a time today. a lot of the changes i'm talking about, some of them are large unleashing the economy, strengthening the alliance is engaging our adversaries and if all else fails being willing to project force works nicely. but i'm confident we can do it because that because america's national security transcends partisanship, and we've done it before. we should use that power to keep our people safe and willingness to strive together to sacrifice to serve one another, those are the essential strength is to keep us safe and restore the standing and the leadership will come together and forge a consensus around a realistic and sustainable vision for the
future national security and the tools with which to implement it. thanks for your attention and i will stand for a few questions. [applause] >> thank you, governor, for a very detailed look at the foreign policy. you didn't mention donald trump's national security committee banned all muslim immigrants. is that because you saw the need of contempt or is it something that isn't very proud that republicans like you should take head-on? that i've been attacking donald trump's ideas that divide this country for very long time and i'm glad to provide a little but of cover for those that are beginning to wake up and that are running for president. whether it is the plans to
attack hispanics, muslims, databases can insult to women so far to make fun of a reporter with a disability. this is and isn't what leads to a strong america. i mean now the latest declaration, look, people don't buy this. there may be a few but this doesn't represent what we are. but you know when you're in the primary, all kinds of crazy things happen to be honest with you. >> it's certainly not the way we function as a country area we've never been stronger focusing strong by focusing on things that are designed to divide us. look, i've been encouraged by the number of moderate muslims have come out and said their region has been hijacked, they said that they have condemned
aggressively the role of the attacks all over the world. and bernard lewis wrote a book called what went wrong when he talked of the need for islam to reclaim itself and i see signs of people wanting to fight for what their religion is all about. >> you came up with a passionate and a detailed reason but i want you to explain to me how you would persuade. what happened when you came up against the boots on the ground area? >> if they wanted to help us fight i would welcome that it doesn't change my view on ukraine or eastern europe. there can be times in which we can work together for a common purpose but it doesn't let somebody off the hook when they invade another country or are innovating in eastern europe.
we spent a little bit of time before we came out here talking about this. if you take a look at the number of attacks throughout europe and the year about some of them that have happened that we don't really see because some are larger than others, but this is an attack on all of them. these are not going to go away. whether it is in all of the countries who would have dreamt that we are seeing what we were seeing in brussels? its everywhere so there's two ways of dealing with it, you have to go where the problem is and my view is you don't have to lecture but you have to talk to prime minister prime minister's and leaders in the country and talk to them privately. we all have to be part of it. when we are not leaving they are doing and we can convince them. i remember in the first gulf
war, the first gulf war was nothing more. we are talking about about an ex- essential thread on everybody now. >> what do you think the family thinks in saudi arabia and in the gulf state to cover what do they think in egypt for a while now we almost had a muslim brotherhood government. they are next so i think that it's possible to put a coalition together if we lead and if people can count on us. the red line was devastating to us. so it's important that you are not on the ground it isn't going to work. a lot of this is what should we have been doing we should have been supporting the rebel forces
early on. i believe we ought to continue to come and he has to go at the same time i just think we've got to have a coalition but it isn't going to happen now because the president thinks his policies are working. >> you think you can sell that in toledo? >> i've been talking about this since last february. i just saw the leaders that run on the basis are not leaders. we have enough focus groups and i put a finger in the air and when i was governor in ohio i went in in the first year we were devastated and at the end of the first year i was the most unpopular governor in the country by 186 out of 88 counties when people saw the results to lead that's what we want out of our political leaders we want leadership. we've got to be smart about it and have the right tone and no two encourage people and put your arm around them and you need to be the one out there
doing the leading. i'm told more and i am told more and more people understand this threat. people want this dealt with. >> going straight to questions is there anything in a policy that you out of my admire and want to keep? >> he has done some things to send a message to the chinese are clearly not enough. i would say that would be one thing that would stand out that he recognizes that problem. and i don't spend all my time adding that the things i disagree on except he has a different view of the world and i do and than i do and he leaves we ought to -- we ought to lead from behind. that is a new way in the 21st century to define leadership but he has a different view and thinks america bleeding is a
negative and i think that american leadership is frankly indispensable to world peace and our ability to deal with these problems as it has been accelerated. >> two brief questions. you mentioned donald trump yesterday the former governor in pennsylvania, and security secretary tom ridge said if trump was nominated he would support or vote for him. how about you if nominated will you support and vote and question number two, the defense establishment has said recently climate change is a national security problem. do you the lead in it or take it seriously and do you think it is a national security problem and if so, what would you do about it? >> the president said we are going to fight terrorism by giving climate change. i never understood that at all
korea do i believe that human beings affect the climate? i do. the degree to which, i am not sure. in posing the goals and rules that may not even be able to be achieved while displacing people in the workplace isn't my idea of how you would handle this issue. i may be neither in renewables but i believe in the whole series of the energy resources and i think they need to be exploited. second, i signed a pledge. that's why you have to be careful with pledges to sign and i would support the republican nominee. is it possible that you change your mind? yes. it takes something extreme to do it but i will tell you there is no way donald trump is going to be president. i have been saying that for weeks and i don't take it seriously because he isn't going to win.
maybe we can all learn a lesson from this. >> thank you. allen in the washington center. in the last ten years, over 300 americans have been killed by terrorism, but in the same puke over 100,000 americans have died from gun violence. would you support a ban on small weapons and support closing the loophole on gun shows and support a ban on weapons availability to those that are on the no-fly list? >> one thing you have to be careful of is we stop able in ohio that are on the no-fly list with a terrorism watch list and the one thing we don't want to do with people on the terrorism watch list we want to make sure they know what they are doing and follow them and understand it and then when you look at the no-fly list, my concern is you could be on the no-fly list and we have to made sure the people
that are on the no-fly list of people that shouldn't fly on airplanes. and if we determine they shouldn't be on airplanes, then i think if they have some due process i don't think they should be able to purchase firearms but let me also tell you i don't think if you take guns away from all of the law-abiding people like the bumper sticker says, bad people will still have guns and we won't. i have 216-year-old daughters in the beautiful wife, and i want to be able to defend myself if somebody is going to do me harm. but let me suggest something. talk about the a mass shooting site. if you noticed. you notice a reading on mental illness? i have an extensive program on
an emergency beds and treating the mentally ill but we need to look deeper at some of the causes of what happens here when people are isolated, mentally ill, their lives have no meaning, they can do crazy things to harm others. i think we need to go deeper and we need to get to the cause of what's happening in our society and what is it that we are not doing to strengthen families and neighborhoods to be in the position of dealing with the serious problems of mental illness. >> can you identify yourself please? stomach if the governor invites you to join the ticket as president would you refuse? >> i'm not running for vice president. i got the second best job in
america. don't be thinking about the vice president. it's not going to happen, mark my words because i think i canhn win. we know new hampshire is going to be important. keep your eyes on the ball and then we will see what happens. >> can i ask you a question in terms of the way that you look at the foreign-policy what kind of people would you want to bring in as the guru? >> but i have learned for the many years of dealing in a national want to kinds of people, you want the traditional military people come and those that think differently. there's always been a struggle between those that belief in the sort of traditional military operations and those who have spent more time and things like special forces. you want a divergence of opinion between the traditionalists and
those that are not. and the same should hold true in the civilian advisers though it is those that are the traditional sand those that are not. my chief advisor is the former national security adviser of president ronald reagan. i have other people that i listen to and i will give you one example but i say when i talk about them on traditionalists. i asked one person with a record in the cia if they thought the cia was comfortable targeting and you remember when we launched the drone strike and hit the wrong target this person person observed a long time in the cia said i don't think the cia is a great target. i think this is something that ought to be done inside the pentagon. i like that guy because i like to hear divergent opinions about how to do things. so you want a variety of opinions. the same is true when you say how many forces on the ground black it's not the job come after don't know anything you might think you should answer
that but it's not the job of the president to determine the levels it is the job of commander-in-chief to decide where we are going to go, give me a program and let sit down and aggressively discuss the alternatives so much of what we do in the presidential campaign today is i have to give you a little answer. things don't get solved with little answers. we talked to the problems of the no-fly list or the encryption or the cyber warfare. these things don't lend themselves to some tiny little sound bite. it requires smart people with good intentions intellectually honest in solving problems. if i find somebody that i work with but doesn't operate that way, i don't keep them involved. you know, most people want to contribute to something greater than themselves and that's the way that i would do it.
>> austin texas. can you expand further how you work with israel? >> sometimes we are tougher on our families than on people that we know. the same is true in the international relations we are tougher on our friends and our enemies. it's kind of human nature to think that way. israel is our great ally if i have anything to say to them that i don't like what they are doing i'm going to do it in the back room where no one else can hear me. they are a great ally and their existence when i was somewhere somebody said what are you going to do about the peace process when you have to go to saudi arabia and egypt to get to
israel you can't find israel on the map why don't you have the world recognize the right to exist. some of the radicals change the way way why do we undermine them, let's work with them we have things that we can do that contribute to a solution. it's in regards to israel and the problems there. there are no final answers. the approach to me in the middle east with regards to israel is how do we achieve stability. there are some simple resolutions to the challenge that we have there. can you still use israel as an
ally? i don't think about sitting in the chair across from him. i think they made a very big mistake when they refused to allow turkey be a part of their economic program. they don't need to be let go to the east. they can be a bridge to the middle east. now people have told me -- i saw his picture on the wall. he is a tough character clearly. one thing i would tell you is i don't understand when the russians -- some people said it went in briefly and they shouldn't have shot it down. but what i know is when somebody
invades your air space and to take action you don't apologize to the country that invaded the airspace. you did this this, they entered your air space and we support you. i think the economics may be a way to be able to get their. we have to deal with turkey when it comes to the resolution of the kurdish issue. they live in fear of the independent kurdistan but the reality is they will have to have some place for the consideration. i don't know. but we have to think about it and work and spending a lot of time with them and understand what we can do to move them our way. i don't think one precludes the
other and we need to work on this. public diplomacy has been at an all-time low and i believe around the world model may should we have a military presence and general jones the former commander and head of the marine corps has said we need military, we need a diplomatic, we need to have our business friends and partners around the world say something also. he knows more about putin and the entire state department. we understand they have a bias. we know that. but they are also americans and they have a lot to say. as a public diplomacy, i have friends in columbus ohio that opened a company in turkey. it would be interesting to hear what they have to say that we don't to lose them. we want to bring them towards the west in my opinion and i
would work aggressively to try to do that. >> spinnaker governor, you made your mark in washington on the federal budget of somebody that knows it inside and out great so i would like to ask if you could explore a bit with us the financial implications of your foreign-policy vision on them on military hardware side do you see the investments we make in diplomacy, in the state department and international development aid and things like the younger presidents healthcare initiatives etc. with a un peacekeeping in africa as an important contributor to the role in the world, is that something we need to expand with the defense spending for the future or is this where we have to economize to keep the budget in balance? >> i get a budget that balances
us in eight years but i am not promising flat taxes. let's grow up, let's be real about what's going to happen but i would bring the top rate down to 28 like ronald reagan, and in a simplified system to capital gains and 15. in addition to that in the error and income tax credit people have an incentive to work and in the corporate world we bring the rate down to 25 having accelerated depreciation and at the same time i would bring all the money back from europe five or 6% tax and after that no more double taxation that would provide a point of economic growth. i would also be strained government spending and and free as the freeze the nondefense discretionary for the period of time, but i would move welfare, job-training, transportation, and medicaid out of washington into the states with greater flexibility with some guard rails and then i would increase
defense spending by $100 billion i would freeze all federal regulations for one year except for health and safety and make an effort to try to reduce the over regulated society and all that adds up to about 3.9% growth which would get us to the balanced budget that would probably happen sooner than we projected that i could be realistic with you in terms of international diplomacy i haven't checked lately but the international development was supposed to take people from developing to developed in the history of their existence nobody has ever gone from developing to the developed. in 1998 or 99 i was the one that took bono and worked with ted kennedy and jesse helms. and bill clinton and pat robertson to pass the first test release manager. why? because when they fly over the african village and the men are
shaking their fists, i want the women to say the united states backs a the needed my children. so the deal is it is important, diplomacy is critically important and the foreign aid that actually goes to help debug him and i think what president bush did that we are getting credit for is a follow-on on what had started so it is clean water and things like vaccination they are important but you can't come in there and create a project that puts money in somebody's pocket and then you you displace the people in the village and all you do is create anger and antipathy towards the united states. toward the united states. so of course there is a big role play hope you will also listen to what i said or suggested about the war of ideas. i believe that they have to be defended. you have to realize who are these people to join isis who
try to make their way, who are they? whenever people lose meaning in their lives, whenever they think of their lives do not matter, whenever they become helpless and frustrated, bad things happen. drug addiction, the turn to radicalization. we need to tell them that their lives do matter and they can't change the world, that in fact we have to live lives bigger than ourselves and we are for the quality and science and civilization we have to communicate that in every way we can to the people out there that is on the fence and hear the propaganda from isis and the foreign aid and diplomacy is all a part of it. >> the lady in red in the back.
>> if you were forced to live somewhere outside of the united states or five years where can you see yourself living in a society that you think does it well and my second question how would you fix a problem? >> those are two great questions >> i have a hard time imagining living outside of america. honestly i couldn't imagine living in another country. aside from all the rhetoric, his father was a coal miner, they would come up and say look at the coal that i cold i brought up and he would say that's not cold and it would rip them off day after day.
i'm told by my uncle george that my dad and my uncle went to school including made out of flour sacks. my uncle can't even believe what happened to his nephew. my mother's mother was a croatian. she couldn't speak english. i never met my grandfather on my father's side. i am at the council of foreign relations these days. this is a big deal. i am asked the council of foreign relations that used to be the head of the economist. [laughter] >> she would have been very end for old with your accent.
i'm going on here. i took my wife to prague couple of years ago she's much younger than i am and it was unbelievable to think about the struggles and the beauty of the city that would spare the bombings of world war ii. we were standing at one of the last pieces where the wall is. i had been there as a member of the committee and standing at the wall there is a woman on the carriage that this is just recently standing on one side of the wall and her son who is was kicking the ball around was on the other side and i became emotional. and my wife said what the heck is wrong with you. i said think about this.
before it came down if you lived over here you had a wife and if you lived over here you lived in a big prison. we bought that wall down. we don't often think about what we are able to achieve and what i am saying is we went to paris. what's better than verse i.. i like louis xiv and know 14 and know how to use executive authority. and i love to travel but i'm not leaving america. i'm not. even if the browns when i am not leaving america. >> i'm afraid we have gone out of the way for donald trump's progress. [applause]
we are live link back they are voting on the road for two measures they will consider today. one of which is the short-term spending bill with current government funding, short term funding set to run out tonight at midnight. there has been a fine doublet carried through the middle of next week and that's what the house will debate this afternoon actually late this morning. and also, the trade promotion authority the trade customs enforcement bill the customs enforcement of the last of the
>> [inaudible conversations] we are getting word that the democratic leaders will get underway we will have it on c-span2 16 starts. the votes underway r. d. laing and everything. we will show the briefing from yesterday from the house speaker paul ryan before the senate. the voice vote approval of the short-term spending measure the house will take up the measure later today.
>> good morning everybody. hopefully this is the last one of these that we will do this year. hopefully. with that in mind i would like to talk up at the top priority for 2016. last week at the library of congress i outlined my vision for a confident america here at home and abroad. the current approach isn't getting us there so we need to offer an alternative in the form of a progrowth agenda. this morning i told the members and conference this will be the focus of the year. i asked each member to bring their numbers to the table to get started. over the last six weeks i believe we've made a very good down payment on the project. we enacted the first long-term transportation bill in more than a decade and enacted the biggest reform of the education system in 25 years driving power back
to the states, school districts and students. we enacted a bipartisan defense bill that requires the president to put forth a plan. tomorrow we will pass the customs enforcement bill, this is though i've negotiated in the ways and means chair and it's the most comprehensive rewriting in a generation. this will help the workers and businesses compete on a level playing field. we have done all of this while opening up the process and returning to regular order. it talks about how the committees have been in the species here in washington. well, with the customs passing tomorrow, that will be the third conference report passing in ten days. let me put that in perspective in the entire last congress only three have become law in total. only three have become law and we've done three conference reports in ten days so we are
getting real results and we are getting the house of representatives back to functioning as the people's house as people's house as we move forward we need to raise the game and aim higher than trying to meet deadlines. we need to treat this like the generational dividing moment it is so that we can get the people in this country a choice, that is what 2016 is going to be all about and with that i would be happy to answer questions. >> earlier this morning they were in negotiations on the table to improve the current deadline. did you have any response to that? >> i won't negotiate in the media. we are in the middle of an enormous ominous appropriations.
those negotiations are ongoing right now while we speak. the last thing i want to do is negotiate through the media. >> [inaudible] the leader of the party he ran for national office resolve. what's going on right now? like period is at 35% of republicans that supported donald trump about what's going on? >> i'm not going to comment on that. i weighed in on a comment made in the presidential campaign because i think that needed to be commented on but i won't spend every day talking about the go between what's happening in the presidential election. >> look, you know what's going to get this place working, we put out an agenda in 2016 and showed the people of the country
here is a better way forward and doubled agenda, and you choose what kind of country you want to have. we don't like the direction america is headed. we think the country is headed in the wrong direction and most people agree with us so we have an obligation and a duty to lay that positive vision out for the country and that's what we are going to do. >> what happened when the plan had the dough out over the last weekend for the house into session to go back 24 hours now walk us through what happened. >> we want to get it right. we don't want to push legislation legislation like the omnibus appropriations. this is something i've inherited from the last regime and i don't want to rush things through. i want to get it right.
we've always had the third week of december on the calendar as the week that we would potentially be in session so we didn't want to come up against an arbitrary deadline and rush them. we are negotiating. we didn't have to keep the members here on saturday and sunday while we continue to negotiate. >> i wasn't going to let december 11 p.m. arbitrary deadline that made us rush the legislation. we want to get it right. >> it seems every one of the spending bills have a sizable amount. the representative said that the those hurt the position to say you can only provide 80 votes. do you feel that way? >> i don't want to comment on negotiating strategies or what we are doing. i think the members understand the situation quite well. we aren't going to get everything that we want and the democrats aren't going to get
everything they want but i believe that we will successfully complete the negotiations. >> i don't want to comment on the rations of what's going on. not everybody gets what they want when we negotiate and divided government but i think that we will complete this again [inaudible] >> this is a trillion dollars we are dealing with. this is what the taxpayers work hard for worked hard for and we have to respect that so that's why we have to make sure that how we spend the hard-working taxpayer dollars are done in a way that we are scrutinizing every dollar and we are not going to rush it we are going to get it right so the deadlines come and go we want to make sure we get it right that's why we want to make sure we get these celebrations going in the right way with without having the
deadline. >> debra hall would have been number one or would you put another on the table? >> this is something we will be deliberating and after. i want to be dictating exactly how we assemble our agenda and what's on the agenda. i'm creating a format structure for members to come together and to participate in how to build a progrowth agenda so that is a decision that we will make as a conference. one of the things i'm trying to do in the position is to decentralize it so that all of the numbers of the conference have the ability to participate in the situation and in this agenda so that's why i'm not going to answer questions i don't have answers to because i'm not going to be the only one
in my institution, i want my colleagues -- speeds [inaudible] i'm not good to put a deadline on it because i want want to make sure these negotiations are done right. >> can you just give us a sense of where things are generally speaking the >> we are talking with each other and doing all the things that you would do. the appropriators into the leaders so we can reach an agreement. >> do you have tax spenders getting around can you give an insight how that is good to have been? >> they are simultaneously taking place at the same time. we posted a bill and that is the base bill. we will have that if we cannot get an agreement. >> what questions do you go in with and what do you hope to hear? >> i ask most of my questions on the fbi and other intelligence
officials. what i want to do is give all members of congress access so they can get answers to their questions. >> on the 2016 agenda of [inaudible] thank you by the way. how is that going to fit with the presidential candidates? as two independent avenues into the program you want to come up with that's pretty substantial. >> we put a lot of thought into the. i don't think we have the time to wait until the nominee arrives which could be as late as i don't know, june or july to come up with an agenda. they think we think that we are on the wrong track and we have an obligation to show a better way forward if we have something to say about it so i think we are going to do this earlier
because i think that it's wrong to wait that long. we don't have the luxury of waiting and what i learned in the presidential campaign is you have to start talking about these issues early and often so people understand what kind of choice they are being given. >> i just want to stack up something you said earlier in the week was that you would go ahead and support the republican money nominee. can you talk about that? >> as the speaker of the house i'm the chairman of the republican national convention, so i share the convention so i going to be neutral in the presidential nominating process because i'm a chair of the convention so i won't say who i am for or against our will support the nominee would be weird if the chair didn't support the nominees because i have a special roll