tv 2015 Congressional Year in Review CSPAN December 31, 2015 8:00pm-12:01am EST
>> tonight, on c-span, a look back at the year in congress. and then, a discussion of the top political stories of 2015. afterwards, a congressional hearing on the future of automotive technology. on the next washington journal, a look at the year ahead. the challenges and priorities of congress in 2016, the november elections, and domestic and international issues. conversation by phone or on twitter.
welcome to c-span's year in review. the year started with republicans taking control in the u.s. senate. he became majority leader in january, mitch mcconnell laid out his priorities. mcconnell: the american people have had enough as president. this november, they had their say. the message they have sent is clear, if voters hit the brakes four years ago, this time they have spun the wheel. they have said they want the administration to change course and moved to the middle. -- move to the middle. this november, the american people did not ask for a
government that tries to do everything and fails, and they did not demand a government that aims to do nothing and succeeds. they asked simply for a government that works. they want a government of the 21st century. one that functions with efficiency and accountability, competence, and purpose. they want a washington that is more interested in modernizing and streamlining government been adding more layers to it. and they want more jobs. more opportunity for the middle class. and more flexibility in a complex age with complex demands. that is why we plan to pursue common sense jobs ideas. including those with bipartisan support. things like reforming a broken tax system to make it simpler and friendlier to job creation. opening more markets to american made products so we can create
more jobs here at home. and moving forward with bipartisan infrastructure projects, like the keystone xl pipeline. americans are changing this congress and this president. what they are saying to us, they are challenging us. this congress and this president to work for them. they are challenging lawmakers and washing to work for jobs for americans, not just jobs for themselves. seems simple enough. but in the end, in the era of divided government control, we are going to have to work hard to meet expectations. and we are going to have to work together. step one is getting congress functioning again. that means fixing the senate. last session, the house sent over countless common sense bipartisan bills. too many of them died right here without so much as a hearing.
and senators from both parties with ideas for jobs and growth were routinely set -- savage. we need to return to regular order. we need to get committees working again. we need to recommend to a rational, functioning appropriations process. we need to open up -- open up the legislative process in a way that allows more amendments from both sides. sometimes it is going to be mean, actually, working more often. sometimes it is going to be meaning it will be working late. but restoring the senate is the right thing to do. and it is the practical thing to do. because we are only going to pass meaningful legislation when members of both parties are given a stake in the outcome. that is the genius of regular order. that is the genius of the
senate. >> christina marcos joins us for the year in review. it begins with mitch mcconnell lang out certainly a lot of optimism, talking about a return to regular order and the things he would like to pass. what sort of roadblocks did he encounter early on. >> just like his predecessor, harry reid, refusing filibusters to bills they did not like. very early on, we saw these repeated votes where senator mcconnell wanted to prove to house republicans who are eager for the showdown that, no, in fact the votes were not there to pass a spending bill. so they had these multiple votes over a series of weeks. and because democrats proved yet again that republicans didn't have a super majority.
host: did he at all think the minority leader was in a weakened position? certainly he had some issues with his vision. i cannot remember exactly when he announced his retirement, but you think they thought this was an opportunity for the republicans to take advantage of that at all? ms. marcos: certainly coming out of the midterm elections, republicans thought they had a mandate because they had control of both chambers of congress. so they felt they had this mandate from the public, at least, to move forward with their priorities. certainly, democrats had smaller numbers at the start of the congress. i think some republicans were also hopeful, too, that's when hughes was majority leader, harry reid prevented any amendments on bills. and so i think republicans were hoping that maybe democrats might be more willing to play ball. but as we saw, it did not quite work out.
host: one of the major legislative debates was over the nuclear agreement reached between the six major world powers and iran. in the spring, president obama signed legislation that would allow congress to vote on whether to block that agreement. and in september, the house and the senate debated that resolution. >> this is an historic occasion for the house, and a very emotional time for me because, unfortunately, i have known war, i have known the horrors of war, and i speak for all of those that had this prevent this experience to say that we should always give diplomacy a chance before we put any american in harms way.
i do not think any of us with any degree of certainty have any idea whether this agreement is going to hold. or we can contain the criminal and human ambitions of the leadership in iran. what we do know is that the international powers, not just of china, not just of russia, but of the united kingdom, of france, germany, and the thinking of the united states of america truly believe that this is the best possible way to avoid war. it would seem to me that now is not the time for us to engage in exchanges that separate and bring us apart as a nation. the rose of the house or senate
make it abundantly clear, but whether you like it or not, this is going to become the policy of the united states of america. this will not be the policy of president obama, of democrats or republicans, but the policy of our great nation -- it pains me as i am about to leave service in this body that we have people in this chamber that have such hatred and disdain for the leadership of this country that they would put this feeling above what is the best policy
for the security of this great beloved nation of mine. i know that if the president of the united states was able to walk on water, there would be people in this chamber that would say, see, we told you that he could not swim. and so what i am saying -- i don't think i can do that because you said that china and russia supporting this because they want to sell arms to iran -- and i think that is despicable because that includes the united kingdom, that includes france, that includes germany, that includes people that are talking about this is the best way we are able to do this. and so what i am saying is this.
14 years ago, a terrible thing happened to my country, to my city, when terrorists struck on 911. -- 9/11. now we have the opportunity to bring our country together now the way we did then. there were no democrats, there were no republicans, there were americans that said we have to come together. this is the policy of the united states of america, or soon will be. should we not be saying what is the enforcement? what are we going to do? what happens if they violated? are we here to embarrass presidents, republicans, or democrats? >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. >> or are we here for the -- to preserve the dignity and the integrity of the united states of america, no matter who is the
president? if ever there was a time for us to come together and support the policy, the time is now. thank you so much for giving me this opportunity. >> [applause] >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> speaker, i give myself 15 seconds. the oldest trick in the book, if you cannot win a debate on the merits, is to impugn the other person's motive. people who are opposing this agreement are opposing this agreement because it is a terrible agreement, and there is no other reason. i yelled one and a half minutes to the gentle lady from tennessee, mrs. black. >> the chair reminds a persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the house and
any manifestation of approval or disapproval his proceedings -- his proceedings of the house rule. >> this deal is not much of a deal at all. it is a gift to the iranian regime. for starters, we gave them sanction related to the tune of $150 billion in exchange for temporary enrichment restrictions. mr. speaker, the ayatollah calls the united states a great satan, and just this week said that israel will not exist in 25 years. imagine the evil that regime can carry out when they cash in their billions. iran will undoubtedly become the central bank of terror. with this deal, we sure got the opportunity for true anytime, anywhere inspection's. instead, we gave iran an opportunity of at least 21 days to slow walk their investigations and conceal signs of comply meant.
-- compliance. and under the secrets ideal, we learned that iran will be allowed to self inspect. so to be clear, members of this body who vote for this agreement will be voting for a deal that they have not seen in full. mr. speaker, i am not prepared to tell tennesseans that i represent that the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism without knowing every last the. -- deal. we cannot and should not leave anything to chance when it comes to the security of america and our allies. i will be casting my vote on behalf of tennessee's sixth district. i yield back. >> the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. >> i yield another two and half minutes to mr. lewis from georgia. >> the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> mr. speaker, i rise in support of diplomacy, a pathway
to peace. for many months, i have thought long and hard about this decision. i attended briefings, read documents, and met with citizens of my district. i even had a long executive section with my staff. i reflected on the words of dr. martin luther king jr. when he called upon us to rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter, but beautiful struggle for a new world. the way of peace is one of those principles. i believe that this is a good deal. no, it may not be perfect. but do not let -- [indiscernible] i remember standing on this very floor several years ago, and speaking against a war in iraq. i have said it then and i'll say it again today, war is messy. it is bloody. it destroys the hopes, the
aspirations, and the dreams of a people. the american people and people around the world are sick and tired of war. we do not need need -- more violence. missiles and guns. when you turn on the news, when you read the newspaper, you see a mass dislocation. too many people are suffering and many are desperate for a chance at peace. i believe in my heart of hearts that this may be the most important vote that we cast during our time in congress. to put it simple, it is nonviolence or nonexistence. it is my hope that my vote today, along with the votes of others, will be a down payment for keys toward a world community at peace with the -- a down payment for keys toward a world community at peace with itself.
maybe we can come together as a family of human beings. mr. speaker, we have a moral obligation, a mission, and the mandate to give use a chance. give peace a chance. thank you. i yield back. >> the gentleman from wisconsin. >> i would like to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from ohio. >> the speaker of the house is recognized for one minute. >> let me think my colleague for yielding. my colleagues, later today, we are going to cast two. these votes will be among the most consequential holds that some of us will cast in our careers. our founding fathers charged but the president and the congress with providing for the common defense for good reason.
it is the core responsibility of our federal government. it is the key to our freedom. and for all of our opportunities. and that is why at the front of the oath every member takes, it states, i do solemnly swear that i will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic. so as we consider this agreement with iran, it is our duty to determine whether it will keep america safe. sadly, this deal is far worse than anything i could have imagined. why? because the president and his negotiators broke every one of their promises. does this deal dismantle iran's nuclear program are shut off their path to a nuclear weapon as they promised it would? no. instead, it allows iran to keep thousands of nuclear centrifuges spinning, as they are today. and within 10 years, in the best case, it allows iran to achieve a nuclear status.
was this agreement built on verification? no. it appears this ideal will deal will a side entrust iran to self inspect a key site where the regime conducted tests a nuclear detonators. of course, we have not seen that actual side deal. does this agreement allow inspectors to have anywhere, anytime, 24/7 access as they promised it would? no. inspectors will have to wait of the 24 days for access to its spacious -- suspicious sites. will sanctions snapback? no. the administration admits that nothing at the u.n. happens in a snap.
does it shut down the ballistic missile program as they promised it would? no. actually, the agreement lifts the arms and missile embargos in five and eight years, respectively. and it allows iran to build icbms capable of delivering a nuclear warhead right here to the united states of america. does this affect iran status as the world's leading sponsor of terror? yes, it does. it hands iran billions of dollars to support more of their terrorist activities around that part of the world. and it gives amnesty to the commander responsible for the deaths of hundreds of american troops in iraq. and this is all without iran cheating. that is right. this is such a bad deal, the ayatollah will not even have to cheat to be just ups away from a
nuclear weapon. from a nuclear weapon. today, we are going to cast two votes. these votes are aimed at stopping obama from unilaterally lifting sanctions on iran. my colleagues, in pursuing this deal with iran, president obama refused to listen. he ignored the concerns of the american people, national security experts, and a bipartisan majority here in the congress. and now he is preparing to enforce this deal over our objections. never in our history has something with so many consequences for our national security been rammed through with such little support. today is september 11. the day for all americans to come together. and for us, to keep the oath we swore to our constitution. so our fight to stop this bad deal frankly is just beginning. will not let the american people
down. i yield back. [applause] host: looking at the senate side on this iran debate, democrats had the power and the minority to prevent this moving forward to a vote on this resolution of disapproval, which the house had already moved on. what tactics do they employ? ms. marcos: the senate need 60 votes in order to advance legislation. and they were prevented from reaching that threshold. with the iran review act that was signed into law, democrats made the point that, you know, the iran review act did not say things only had to be an up or down vote. so they can justify that the legislation allowed them to make that move. >> in keeping with the iran review act, a bipartisan majority is wishing to have the
opportunity to vote on the substance of the deal. what is happening -- and my friend, the minority leader is here -- he began saying and august that he wanted to filibuster this. and my understanding is the administration has supported that. so what we have now is a partisan minority of people that are keeping the spirit of the iran review act from coming into play by blocking our ability to actually vote up and down. so that is what is happening. i want to make sure the american people understand that. i want to close with this. at every occasion, when there has been an opportunity for this to devolve into something that was partisan, and there was concern on the other side of the
aisle about certain things that were occurring, at every point, the majority leader has acquiesced and agreed for things to progress and away that the minority would feel that this was not a partisan effort. i want to also point out that the majority leader, when we brought to this motion to the floor, filled the tree. he filled the tree. my friends on the other side of the aisle did not want a bunch of amendments. they wanted only to vote on a motion of approval or disapproval. in this case, since there is a bipartisan majority in support of disapproval, that is what we are hoping to be able to vote on. but unfortunately, what is happening -- again, it appears tonight -- but just last week, 42 senators blocked the ability of the senate to end debate and vote on the substance of the deal. so i hope that changes. i hope tonight at least two senators on the other side of the aisle will give us the
ability to express ourselves on the substance of the deal, not block a bipartisan majority who wants to express themselves through a vote of approval. >> mr. president. >> the senator from illinois. >> i respect him. i have said it on the floor and i've said it in private. i want to the record to make it clear, though, senator reid and the democrats said there will be no courts are necessary -- cloture necessary. we had an opportunity to obstruct, block, whatever you want to say, and did not do it because what we believe that what we had heard repeatedly that this would be a 60 vote was ultimately going to be the
standard grade there is nothing in the -- going to be the standard. there is nothing that a limits the 60 vote requirement. there is nothing that does that. when your site discovered they did not have 60 votes, which was the beginning of last week, they changed the standards. so that was your decision based on the fact that now 42 democratic senators see this issue differently. we have had eight weeks on this issue, and we should have taken eight weeks on this issue. and every senator, i think, should stand up and say where they stand on this issue. every senator has to it up and announced where they stand on this issue. this has not been glossed over. we have not made light of it. people are not trying to find some sneaky way to avoid responsibility. each person is on the record. i know where you stand, you know where i stand. so what are we doing tonight? why are we going through a replay of what we did last week? and now with the threat of
amendment. they want to be on the iran agreement per se, which was the underlying statute, but could be on something else. but to say that we have not taken the time, don't put this in a bipartisan way, don't with it in a serious way, we have done it and we have cooperated in doing it. you don't let the results? i have been to believe it is a result where we should be as a nation. i support the president. we should stop iran from developing a nuclear weapon, stop america from going to another war in the middle east. that is what i want to achieve. but it is subject to inspection, it is subject to reports. and if the iranians decide they want to breach this agreement, then we start back on the sanctions. but i would say to the senator from tennessee, as he has faced the votes on the floor about war and about the deaths associated with it, i conclude, first, try
diplomacy. if diplomacy does not work, then you have to pursue whatever is necessary for security. but i believe, we have said 42 out of 46 democratic senators, we support diplomacy. and to argue that this is somehow partisan because 4 senators the differently -- i think there may be some partisanship in the fact that not a single republican member supports the president's decision. i think there may be some partisanship and the fact that 47 republican senators on march 9, 2015 send a letter to the ayatollah in iran and basically said stop negotiating with united states of america. and has never, ever, ever happened in diplomatic history. but the senators would prejudge a situation under the president of the united states. they announced in march they
were against the agreement no matter what it said. i do not know why we are going to keep repeating these votes over and over. we have nine legislative days left until this fiscal year ends, and we end up closing down the government. i think it is time for us to move on to important issues that should command the attention of the senate. >> mr. president. >> the majority later. >> i am going to proceed under my later time. -- leader time. i want to start by congratulating the chairman of the foreign relations committee for an incredible job in giving the senate and opportunity -- an opportunity to express itself on what the president has described as an executive agreement. i think it is important for everybody to understand the next president is going to take a new look at this. but the president did not want
us to have anything to do with it at all. and the chairman of foreign relations committee skillfully negotiated with the other side to give us an opportunity, as elected representatives, to express our views on his unilateral action. we proceeded, as the senator from tennessee pointed out, in a matter that respected the process and gave the senate the opportunity to vote on that deal own, even though technically it was open for amendment. and yet we have been denied the opportunity to get an up or down vote on the agreement that the corker-cardin bill give us an opportunity to express ourselves
. i want to congratulate to the senator from tennessee. it has been an extraordinary legislative performance. the senator from tennessee is someone who admires and respects and is willing to talk to the other side. and frequently good things come about as a result of it. but we are where we are. this evening, senate democrats will have one more opportunity to do the right thing. and end their blockade on a vote of the deal. host: in the end, senate democrats blocked a vote. and the agreement went into effect a month later. just days after the iran debate wrapped up, pope francis arrived on capitol hill in late september. he became the first pope to ever speak before a joint meeting of congress. house speaker john boehner had worked 20 years to see a people address to congress -- a papal address to congress.
pope francis: all of us are quite aware of and deeply word ried by the disturbing social and political situation of the world today. our world is increasingly a place of violent conflict, hatred, and brutal atrocities. committed even in the name of god and religion. we know that no religion is immune from forms of individual delusion or ideological extremism. this means that we must be especially attentive to every
type of fundamentalist, whether religious or of any other kind. a delicate balance is required to combat violence perpetrated in the name of religion and ideology, or in economic system. while also safeguarding religious freedom, intellectual freedom, and individual freedom. [applause] francis: i think of the march, which martin luther king led to from selma to montgomery 50 years ago as part
to actions, to participation, to commitment. dreams which awaken what is deepest and good in the lives of the people. in recent centuries, millions of people came to this land to pursue their dreams of building a future and freedom. we, the people of this continent, are not fearful of foreigners. because most of us -- [applause] pope francis: because most of us were once foreigners. [applause]
pope francis: i say this to you as the son of immigrants, knowing that so many of you are also descendents of immigrants. [applause] pope francis: tragically, the rights of those who were here long before us were not always respected. for those people and their nations in the heart of american democracy, i wish to reaffirm my highest esteem and appreciation.
those first contacts were often turbulent and violent. but we know that it is very difficult to judge the past by this criteria of the present. [applause] pope francis: nonetheless, when the stranger in our midst appears to us, we must not repeat the sins and the errors of the past. [applause] pope francis: we must resolve now to live as nobly and as justly as possible.
as we educate new generations not to turn their back on their neighbors and everything around us. visiting a nation calls us to recognize that we must constantly relate to others, projecting a mindset of honor to adopt one of reciprocal subsidiarity in a constant effort to do our best. i am confident that we can do this. our world is facing a refugee crisis of a magnitude not seen since the second world war.
this presents us with great challenges and many hard decisions. on this continent, thousands of persons have left in search of a better life for themselves and for their loved ones. in search of greater opportunity. it is not what we want for our own children. [applause] pope francis: we must not be taken aback by the numbers, but rather view them as persons. seeing their faces, and
listening to their story. and try to respond as best we can to the situation. to respond in a way which is always humane, just, and fraternal. we need to avoid tension. let us remember the golden rule. do unto others as you -- [applause] pope francis: do unto others as you will have them do unto you.
this rule points us in a clear direction. let us treat others with the same passion and compassion with which we want to be treated. let us seek for others the same possibilities which we seek for ourselves. we would grow. in a world, if we want security, let us give security. if we want life, let us give
stage of its development. [applause] pope francis: with conviction which has led me from the beginning of my ministry to different levels, the global abolition of the death penalty. [applause] pope francis: i am convinced that this way is the best, since every life is sacred. every human person is endowed with a dignity. and society can only benefit from the rehabilitation of those
convicted of crime. recently, my brother bishops here in the united states renewed the call for the abolition of death penalty. not only -- not only do i support them, but i also offer encouragement to all those who are convinced that a just and necessary punishment must never exclude the dimension of hope and the goal of rehabilitation. [applause]
pope francis: it goes without saying that the path of this great effort is the creation and distribution of wealth. the right use of natural resources. the proper application of technology. and the harnessing of enterprise are the essential elements of an economy which seeks to be more andrn, inclusive, sustainable. [applause] pope francis: business is a noble vocation.
directed at producing wealth and building the world. it can be a source of prosperity from the area in which it operates, especially if it seeks the creation of jobs as an essential part of the service to the common good. [applause] pope francis: this common good also includes the earth. a central theme of the encyclical which i wish to enter into the dialogue with people about our common goal. we need a conversation which
includes everyone, since the environmental challenge we are undergoing, and each human is concerned with the facts. [applause] pope francis: i called for a courageous effort to redirect of the environmental deterioration caused by human activities. i am convinced that we can make a difference. i'm sure. [applause]
[applause] pope francis: being at the service of dialogue also means being truly determined to minimize in the long term and end the many conflicts that harm our world. [applause] pope francis: here we have to ask ourselves, why are deadly weapons being given to those who untoldnd inflict suffering on individuals and
society? sadly, the answer as we all know, is simply for money. money that is drenched in blood. often innocent blood. in the face of the shameful and culpable silence, it is our duty to confront the problem and to arms trade. [applause] francis: i cannot hide my concern for the families which perhaps as never before, from within and without,
for the relations are being called into question on the very basis of marriage and family. i can only reiterate the importance, and above all, the richness and this beauty of family life. [applause] pope francis: in particular, i would like to call attention to those family members who are the most vulnerable -- the young. for many of them, a future filled with countless possibilities beckon, yet so many seem disoriented and
aimless, trapped in a hopeless maze of violence, abuse, and despair. their problems are our problems. [applause] pope francis: we cannot avoid them. we need to face them together, to talk about them, and to seek effective solutions rather than getting boggled down. at the risk of oversimplifying, we might say that we live in a culture with pressure.
young people cannot start a family because they lack possibilities for the future. yet, the same culture presents others with so many options from which they are dissuaded from starting a family. [applause] francis: a nation can be considered great when it defends liberty, as lincoln did when he fought a culture which enables people to dream of all rights for all brothers and sisters, as martin luther king sought to do. when it strives for justice, as as cause of the oppressed,
dorothy did by her silent walk, which becomes dialogue and soothes peace in the contemplative style. in these remarks, i have sought to present some of the richness of the culture and heritage of this place of the american people. it is my desire that this place continues to develop and grow, so that as many young people as and dwellan inherit
balconyto the crowd -- to the crowd that had gathered outside. boehner, as he is known, was emotional. the next day, speaker boehner announced he was resigning from congress. john boehner: my, oh, my. what a wonderful day. [laughter] john boehner: i like to sing that on my way to work in the morning. my mission every day is to fight for a smaller, more accountable government. and over the last five years, our majority has advanced conservative reforms that will help our children and their children. we are now on track to cut government spending by $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years. we made the first real entitlement reform in nearly two decades. and we have protected 99% of the american people from an increase in their taxes. and we have done all this with a democrat in the white house.
so, i am proud of what we have accomplished. but more than anything, my first job as speaker is to protect the institution. a lot of you now know that my plan was to step down at the end of last year. i decided in november of 2010, when i was elected speaker, that serving two terms would have been plenty. but in june of last year, when it became clear that the majority leader lost its election, i frankly did not believe it was right for me to leave at the end of last year. and so my goal is to leave at the end of this year. so, i planned, actually on my birthday, november 17, to announce i was leaving at the end of the year. but it has become clear to me that this prolonged leadership turmoil would do irreparable harm to the institution.
this morning, i informed my colleagues that i would resign from the speakership and congress at the end of october. now, as you have often heard me say, this isn't about me. it is about the people and the institution. just yesterday, we witnessed pope francis addressing the greatest legislative body in the world. and i hope we will all heed his call to live by the golden rule. last night, i started to think about this and this morning i woke up and said my prayers as i always do, and i decided today is the day i'm going to do this. as simple as that. that is the code i've always lived by, if you do the right things for the right reasons, the right things will happen. and i know good things lie ahead for this house and this country. and i am proud of what we have accomplished, especially proud
of my team. my 25th year here, and i've succeeded in large part because i put a staff and a team together, many of which have been with me for a long time. you can't be a great member and a great speaker without a great staff. i want to thank my family for putting up with this. all of these years. girls, 37 and 35, their first campaign photo was in july of 1981. and so, they've had to endure all of this -- it is one thing for me to have to do this, i have thick skin -- but the girls in my life and my wife had to put up with a lot over the years. let me express my gratitude to my constituents, who have sent me here 13 times over the last 25 years. you cannot get here without
getting votes. often, people ask me, what is the greatest thing about being speaker? about being an elected official? i said, it's the people you get to meet. i have tens of thousands of people in my district i would never have met other than that i decided to run for congress. over the years as i traveled on behalf of my colleagues in the party, i've met tens of thousands of additional people all over the country. and you meet rich people, poor people, interesting people. probably a few boring ones along the way. but i can tell you that 99.9% of the people i meet on the road, anywhere, could not be nicer than they have been. it has been wonderful.
it has been an honor to serve in this institution. with that, junior, go ahead. reporter: speaker weiner, you were-- speaker weiner, you -- speaker boehner, you were noticeably overcome with emotion. boehner: really, what a surprise. [laughter] reporter: you reached this decision last night? did pope francis lead you to this decision? john boehner: was i emotional yesterday? i think so. i was really in an emotional -- i was really emotional at a moment that no one saw. the pope and i were getting ready to exit the building. we found ourselves alone. the pope grabbed my left arm and said some kind words to me about my commitment to kids and education. the pope puts his arm around me and pulls me to him and says,
please pray for me. well, who am i to pray for the pope? but i did. reporter: if it wasn't the pope, what was it? john boehner: there wasn't any doubt as to whether i could survive. i don't want my members to go through this. i certainly don't want the institution to go through this, especially when i was thinking about walking out the door anyway. it is the right time to do it, frankly, i am comfortable doing it. reporter: mr. speaker, i've heard you say before that a leader who doesn't have anybody following him is just a guy taking a walk. john boehner: i have plenty of people following me, but this turmoil that has been churning now for a couple of months is not good for the institution. if i was not planning on leaving soon, i would not have done this.
may, there are people who are on the right in your caucus and even outside this institution who have been wanting you to step down for some time who might feel that they have a victory today. do you feel that you were pushed out? john boehner: no. am glad i madei this announcement at the congress with all my republican colleagues. it was a good moment to rebuild the team. listen, i feel good about what i've done. day, i'vet i, every tried to do the right thing for the right reasons. reporter: how can there not he a moment of turmoil?
john boehner: i will be here for another five weeks. and i'm not going to sit around and do nothing for the next 30 days. there is a lot of work that needs to be done. and i plan on getting as much done as i can before i exit. , does thats a result make it easier in some ways to make some tougher decisions? maybe a line with a democrat -- align with a democrat? john boehner: i will make the same decisions i would have made regardless. reporter: what about your frustration that some members and outside groups use words like knuckleheads and some other words he probably can't use on television? john boehner: probably. reporter: when will it be enough? john boehner: that's not it at all. when you are the speaker of the
house, your number one responsibility is to the institution. having a vote like this in the institution i don't think is very healthy. and so, i have done everything i can over my term as speaker to strengthen the institution. frankly, my move today is another step in that effort to strengthen the institution. reporter: >> how will washington be different to kaz you leave because you are leaving this institution? how can the house go forward if you are not here? john boehner: if the congress stays focused on the american people's priorities -- the goal here as one of the leaders is to find the common ground. i've talked to president bush and president obama this morning, i've talked to all my legislative leaders who i have a
very good relationship with all of them. at the end of the day, the leaders have to be able to work with each other, trust each other, to find the common ground to get things done. if the congress stays focused on what is important to the american people, they will get along just fine. reporter: talk about how your conference reacted to the news? john boehner: they were shocked. [laughter] reporter: more on that, maybe on how the leadership reacted? john boehner: i told mr. mccarthy about two minutes before i spoke. i told him five times because he did not believe me. [laughter] reporter: should mccarthy be the next speaker? boehner: listen, i am not going to be here to vote. that's up to the members. having said that, i think kevin mccarthy would make an excellent speaker.
reporter: who was the first person you told and what did they say? john boehner: i told my wife. reporter: what did she say? john boehner: good. [laughter] my chief of staff and i talked late yesterday. i told him i was thinking today might be the day, and i would sleep on it. so, before i went to sleep last night i said, i just might make an announcement tomorrow. what do you mean? what kind of announcement? that is time to go. this morning i woke up and walked up to starbucks as usual and got my coffee and came back and read and walked up to pete diner, saw everybody at pete;'s. and had gone home and said, yes, i think today is the day. my senior staff was having a meeting at 8:45.
kind of walked in before i opened the house, told them, this is the day. it's can happen someday. why not today? reporter: do you know when the election might be held? john boehner: no. reporter: what advice do you give kevin mccarthy to avoid the same pitfalls you have come across? john boehner: i told kevin his number one responsibility is to protect the institution. nobody else around here has an obligation like this. secondly, i tell him the same thing i've told you. you just do the right thing every day for the right reasons, the right things will happen. you all know me and my colleagues know me. i am always straight with them. they may not like the answer they get, but they will get an honest answer every time they come to my office. it's an easy way for me to do my job. reporter: you originally planned to announce this on your birthday?
if it was not the pope, what factors weighed in now? john boehner: just all this stuff i read about in the paper, you know it's -- i don't want the institution hurt, or my colleagues hurt. i don't want to put my colleagues through this, for what? mr. speaker, what will you miss? john boehner: pardon me? reporter: what will you miss? john boehner: of course all of you. [laughter] i don't know what i'm going to miss because i haven't missed it yet. i will certainly miss the camaraderie of the house. let me tell you another story. it was really kind of interesting. maxine waters and i, democrat from southern california, came here 25 years ago in the same class. now, there is nothing about my
politics and waters' politics that is anywhere yesterday at -- that is anywhere close. yesterday at 5:30, she called my office. i called her back. she said, i've watched you for 25 years here. she says, i want to tell you something. i'm really proud of you. i've got the best relationships on both sides of the aisle because i treat people fairly and treat them honestly. and i'm going to miss my colleagues, yes. certainly. reporter: go back to the scene of trying to stabilize the institution. how do you think you can become more stable? some said they don't think a new speaker will mean any new outcome.
how could it become more stable? john boehner: the fact that i did this with my colleagues this morning, then we proceeded to have an hour and a half conversation, i thought was a unifying moment. and between that and the pope's call for living by the golden rule yesterday, hope springs eternal. reporter: talk about what you think your legacy is. what are your most important accomplishments? and what will you do on november 1? are you moving to florida? [laughter] john boehner: i was never in the legacy business. you have heard me say it, i'm a regular guy with a big job. i never thought i would be in congress, much less ever be speaker. people know me as being fair, being honest, being straightforward, and trying to do the right thing every day on behalf of the country.
i don't need any more than that. reporter: you seem very relieved. john boehner: zippity doo-da. [laughter] reporter: what are your plans next, and have you talked -- john boehner: when you make a decision this morning, you haven't had time -- i have no idea. but i do know this. i'm doing this today for the right reasons. and you know what? the right things will happen as a result. thank you. [indiscernible] announcer: the story of john boehner's resignation started two months before, when mark meadows filed a motion to vacate the chair. >> the motion to vacate the chair is a procedure that allowed in the house rules but has never been used in history.
and what it does is, technically, if you say the house were to approve a motion to vacate the chair, that declares the speaker's chair empty. and so, if that were to succeed, that would result in needing a new election for speaker. host: the day after congressman meadows filed his motion to vacate the chair, speaker boehner seemed confident in his position as speaker of the house. john boehner: this is one member, right? i've got broad support among my colleagues. it isn't even deserving. reporter: have you spoken with congressman meadows? john boehner: i have not. why? host: two months later, speaker boehner announced his resignation. >> that took everybody by surprise. covering congress always feels like a train that is close to being off the tracks but it never quite does. that was one of those days where it was just --
host: went off the tracks? >> yes. no one saw that coming. host: after the surprise announcement, the race was on to find a new speaker of the house. he announced his resignation, and what happens after that, kevin mccarthy comes in as the next heir apparent as speaker. >> right. everyone saw the kevin mccarthy -- he is a relative newbie on capitol hill -- the he would be the next speaker. as the weeks unfolded, it was clear that he would encounter the same problem that boehner did, wherein the conservatives primarily in the house freedom caucus that formed earlier this year, that they would not support him either. when the freedom caucus announced they were going to back daniel webster, ran against boehner on the floor in january , he only got 12 votes,
including himself. he wasn't a real viable candidate for the vast majority of the conference, but as long as the freedom caucus kept endorsing him, that prevented anyone else from becoming speaker. host: in the short period after john boehner's announcement, kevin mccarthy goes on fox news and is talking about the benghazi committee. his comments indicate the political nature of that committee. how badly did that damage him among the congress? >> very bad. mccarthy had been known for not necessarily speaking in the clearest way at times. but when you're the speaker of the house, not only are you your party's leader but also the highest-ranking official in congress. and so, once he made that gaffe on national tv and was subjected
to much higher scrutiny than he had been in the past, that really demonstrated that may he wasn't quite ready for it. host: take us over to the rayburn building. he's got some challenges out there. the conference is going to meet in a large meeting. i guess it's the ways and means meeting room. that is underway. reporters are outside, c-span cameras are on and all of a sudden the doors bust open and there's news from that as well. what happened? >> right. just imagine the scene. maybe at least 100 reporters gathered in the hallway outside the ways and means. we were waiting for this result we were expecting. kevin mccarthy emerging as the next speaker. instead, within about 20 minutes after the meeting began, you saw members starting to file out. all of us are wondering, why are you coming out so early? they announced mccarthy dropped out of the race.
majority, we are servants. we should put this conference first. and i think there is something to be said for us to unite, we probably need a fresh face. i will stay on as majority leader. but the one thing i found in talking to everybody, if we're going to unite and be strong, you need a new face to help do that. so, nothing more than that. i feel good about the decision. i feel great to have my family here, my colleagues. i think we are only going to be stronger. we fought hard to win this majority and turn this country around. and this will be the best foot -- best step forward. >> you were going to run for the speakership, why change it at noon? what happened in those four horuurs? kevin mccarthy: you know, we had our conference, and there's calls into the district. i don't want to make voting for speaker a tough one. i don't want to go to the floor and win with 220 votes.
i think the best thing for our party right now is you have 247 votes on the floor. if we're going to be strong, we have to be 100% united. and i think, you know what, let's put the conference first. because that is what we are going to do. look, i have been talking with a number of members. we have been thinking about this throughout the week. i think it's best we have a new face. >> your comments about benghazi last week, did that play into the decision to step aside today? kevin mccarthy: that wasn't helpful. i admit, i could have said it much better. the benghazi committee was created for one purpose, to find the truth on behalf of the families for the 4 dead americans. i should not be a distraction from that.
and that is part of the decision as well. >> thank you very much, guys. >> the letter put out by congressman young? kevin mccarthy: no. come on. i think the congress should be able to decide. thank you. host: christina marcus of "the hill" after the surprise by kevin mccarthy, you said speaker boehner did not tell anybody. certainly, kevin mccarthy did not tell anybody. the name of the ways and means chair, paul ryan, is floated out there. and how does he get elected as the next speaker? what is his path? christina: within minutes after mccarthy announced he wasn't going to run for speaker, there was utter pandemonium that erupted outside this meeting room. paul ryan issued a statement saying he wasn't interested in the speakership or any
leadership position, essentially saying leave me alone, guys. but that changed in the days after, after boehner personally called paul ryan and implored him to run for the sake of the party because a lot of people felt that paul ryan was the only person who everybody could coalesce around. host: but he did not want to do it unless the freedom caucus endorsement. christina: one big factor for ryan also was he did not want to sacrifice too much time with his young family. he has three young children. when they returned, paul ryan made an announcement in the conference meeting that he would only run if he had the endorsement of the three main factions within the republican
theference -- centrist group, republican committee, and the ultraconservative freedom caucus. everyone understood this was implicitly aimed at the freedom caucus. they were expected, the other two, to back paul ryan. but it all hinges on whether the freedom caucus would get high behind him. paul ryan: tonight, i shared with my colleagues what i think it will take to have a unified conference, and for the next speaker to be successful. i made a few requests for what i think is necessary and i asked my colleagues to hear back from them by the end of the week. first, we need to move from an opposition party to being a proposition party. because we think the nation is on the wrong path, we have a duty to show the right one. our next speaker has to be a visionary one. second, we need to update our house rules so that everyone can be a more effective representative. this is the people's house.
but we need to do this as a team. and it needs to include fixes that ensure that we do not experience constant leadership challenges and crises. third, we as a conference should unify now and not after a divisive speaker election. and the last point is personal. i cannot and will not give up my family time. i may not be on the road as often as previous speakers, but i pledge to try to make up for it with more time communicating our vision, our message. what i told members is, if you can agree to these requests, and if i can truly be a unifying figure, then i will gladly serve. and if i'm not unifying, that will be fine as well. i will be happy to stay where i am at the ways and means
committee. here is how i see it. it's our duty to serve the people the way they deserve to be served. it's our duty to make the tough decisions this country needs to get our nation back on track. the challenges we face today are too difficult and too demanding to turn our backs and walk away. global terror, war on multiple fronts, persistent poverty, flat wages, skyrocketing debt, but we cannot take on these challenges alone. now more than ever, we must work together. all of us are representatives of the people, all people. we have been entrusted by them to lead. and yet, the people we serve, they do not feel that we are delivering on the job that they hired us to do.
we have become the problem. if my colleagues entrust me to be the speaker, i want us to become the solution. one thing i've learned from my upbringing in janesville is it nothing is solved by blaming people. we can blame the president, and we can blame the media. and that is fun sometimes. we can point fingers across the aisle. we can blame each other, dismiss our critics and criticism is unfair. people don't care about blame. people don't care about effort. people care about results that are measurable. results that make a difference in their daily lives. i want to be clear about this. i think we are still an exceptional country, with exceptional people, and a
republic clearly worth fighting for. the american idea, it's not too , but we are running out of time. and make no mistake. i believe that the ideas and principles of results driven common sense conservativism are the keys to a better tomorrow, a tomorrow in which all of god's children will be better off than they are today. the idea that the role of the federal government is not to facilitate dependency but to create an environment of opportunity for everyone, the idea the government should do less and do it better, the ideas that those who serve should say what they mean and mean what they say, the principal that we should all determine the course of our own lives instead of ceding that right to those he who think they're better than the rest of us. we will stand and fight when we must, and surely this presidency
will require that. a commitment to natural rights, a commitment to common sense, compassion, and cooperation. when rooted in genuine conviction and principal is a commitment to conservativism. let me close by saying that i consider to do this with reluctance. and i mean that in the most personal of ways. like many of you, jen and i have children that are in the formative foundation years of their lives. i genuinely worry about the consequences that my agreeing to serve will have on them. well they experience -- will they experience the viciousness and incivility that we all face here on a daily basis? my greatest worry, my greatest worry is the consequence of not standing up, of someday having my own kids ask me, when the stakes were so high, why didn't you do all you could do? why didn't you stand and fight
for my future when you had a chance to do so? none of us want to hear that question. and none of us should never have to do so. i have shown my colleagues what i think success looks like, and how my family commitments come first. i have left this decision in their hands. and should they agree with these requests, then i am happy and i am willing to get to work. thank you. chad? reporter: you put out a mccarthy,after kevin you have concern about congress. is that the underlying issue? ryan: it is. i came to the conclusion that this is a very dire moment not just for congress, not just for the republican party, but for our country.
i think our country is in desperate need of leadership. reporter: do you think you can get the capabilities of going after john boehner, going after kevin mccarthy, what assurances do you have that you will not be the next one? paul ryan: i laid out for our conference what i think it takes to unify the congress. it is in their hands. i will leave that up to congress. reporter: would you want a unanimous vote? paul ryan: i laid it out today with our conference about all the various groups having their endorsement. i'm not going to get into that now, that is something that has got to be done as a conference as a whole by consensus. thank you very much. i appreciate it. >> how big was his vote in winning the caucus?
>> he won the speaker vote quite easily. the freedom caucus, they did not make an official endorsement of him, but put out a statement saying we won't object to him, there are some of us that will support him. >> this is the people's house, this is the people's gavel, and the people same. it is my privilege to hand this raffle to the speaker of the house, congressman and honorable paul ryan. [applause] paul ryan: thank you, nancy. [applause] paul ryan: thank you. thank you very much. thank you. thank you. [applause]
thank you. thank you, madam leader. before i begin, i would like to thank all of my family and friends who flew in from wisconsin and all over for being here today. in the gallery i have my mom betty, my sister janet, my brothers stan and tilden, and more cousins than i can count on a few hands. [applause] thye're all over. most important, i want to
the offices he held, the laws he passed. what really sets john apart is he is a man of character, a true class act. he's without a question the gentleman from ohio. please join me in saying one last time, thank you, speaker boehner. [applause] now i know how he felt. it's not until you hold this gavel, stand in this spot,
lookout and see all 435 members of this house, as if all america is sitting right in front of you. it's not until then that you feel it. the weight of responsibility, the gravity of the moment. as i stand here, i can't help but think of something harry truman once said. the day after franklin roosevelt died, truman became president and he told a group of reporters, if you ever pray, pray for me now. when they told me yesterday what had happened, i felt like the moon, the stars, and all the planets had fallen on me. we should all feel that way. a lot is on our shoulders. if you ever pray, let's pray for each other.
republicans for democrats, and democrats for republicans. [applause] and i don't mean pray for a conversion. pray for a deeper understanding. when you are up here, you see it so clearly. wherever you come from, what ever you believe, we are all in the same boat. i never thought i would be speaker. early in my life, i wanted to serve this house. i thought this place was exhilarating. here you can make a difference. you could improve people's lives.
the boundless opportunity to do good. let's be frank. the house is broken. we are not solving problems, we are adding to them. i'm not interested in laying blame. we are not settling scores, we're wiping the slate clean. [applause] maynor the members are satisfied with how things are going. we need to make some changes, starting with how the house does business. we need to let every member contributes, not once they have earned their stripes, but now. i come at this job as a two-time committee chair. the committees should retake the lead in redrafting major legislation. [applause] if you know the issue, you
should write the bill. let's open up the process, let people participate and they might change their mind. the neglected majority will -- minority will gum up the works. a respected minority will work in good faith trade we need to return to regular order. -- faith. we need to return to regular order. i know this sounds like process. it's actually a matter of simple. we are the body closest to the people. every two years we face the voters and sometimes face the music. but we do not echo the people,
we represent the people. we are supposed to study up and do the homework they cannot do. when we do not follow regular order, when we rush to pass bills and a lot of us don't understand, we are not doing our job. only a fully functioning house can truly represent the people. if there's ever a time for us to step up, this would be that time. [applause] america does not feel strong
anymore. the working people of america do not feel strong anymore. i'm talking about the people who mind the store and grow the food and walk the beach and pay the taxes and raise the family. they do not sit in this house. they do not have fancy titles. they are the people who make this country work, and this country should work for them. here is the problem. they are working hard, they are paying a lot, they are trying to do right by their families, and they are going nowhere fast. they never get a raise, they never get a break. the bilski piling up and the taxes and the debt. they're working harder than ever before to get ahead and yet they
are falling further behind. they feel robbed. they feel cheated by their birthright of their birthright. they are not asking for any favors. they just want a fair chance. they are losing faith that they will ever get it. then they look at washington, and all they see is chaos. what a relief to them it would be if we finally got our act together. what a weight off of their shoulders. how reassuring it would be if they actually fix the tax code,
put patients in charge of their health care, grew our economy, strengthened our military, lifted people out of poverty and paid down our debt? [applause] at this point nothing could be more inspiring than a job well done. nothing could stir the heart more than real concrete results. the synnex will scoff grade they will say it's not possible. you better believe we are going to try. we will not duck the tough issues, we will take them head on. we are going to do all we can do so that working people get their strength back and people not working get their lives back. no more favors for the few.
opportunity for all. that is our motto. [applause] i often talk about a need for a vision. i'm not sure i ever said what i meant. we solve problems here, yes. we create a lot of them too. we vindicate a way of life. we show by our work that free people can govern themselves. they consult their own problems, they can make their own decisions, collaborate and get the job done. we show that self-government is not only more efficient and more effective, it is more fulfilling. it is that struggle, that hard
work, achievement itself that makes us free. that is what we do here. we should not hide our disagreements. we should embrace them. we had nothing to fear from honest differences honestly stated. [applause] if you have ideas, let's hear them trade i believe that a greater clarity between us can lead to greater charity among us. there's every reason to have hope. when the first speaker took the gavel, he looked out at a room of 30 people, representing a nation of 3 million. today as i look out at each and everyone one of you, we represent a nation of 300 million. when i hear people say that america doesn't have it, we are done, i don't believe it. i believe with every fiber of my being that we can renew the american idea.
our task is to make us all believe. my friends, you have done me a great honor. the people of this country have done all of us a great honor. now let's prove ourselves worthy of it trade let's rise to the occasion. when we are done, let's say that we left all of the people more united and happy and free. thank you. [applause] >> we are back with our year in review look at congress with christina marcos.
looking at the october 22 appearance of hillary clinton before the select committee. >> filler clinton and the benghazi committee and republicans had been trying to work out the time for her to appear before the committee and testify about what happened on the night of the september 11, 2012 attacks. >> how was she treated in that hearing? >> it was an extremely partisan affair. you have republicans who had very pointed questions aimed at her purely decide to create easy soundbites for television. there was one, asked her if the ambassador had her personal e-mail, while noting that her friend had access to her e-mail.
he was trying to make the point that perhaps the ambassador did not have the same access as some other people. in while democrats asked questions clearly aimed -- clearly decide to be easy answers for her. >> democrats also made an effort to de-legitimize the committee in terms of getting the committee disbanded. this was all happening about the same time as the whole speaker upheaval. >> october was a wild month on capitol hill. democrats on the benghazi committee were quoting whether they should even continue to serve on the benghazi committee. they were arguing that it had devolved into such a partisan affair, perhaps designed to undermine hillary clinton, particularly in the aftermath of majority leader mccarthy's comments that partially derailed
his speaker bid, suggesting the benghazi team was created for hillary clinton. >> i understand, duck people in both parties who have suggested that this investigation is about you. this investigation is about 4 people who were killed representing our country on foreign soil. it is about what happened before, during, and after the attacks that killed them. it's about what this country owes to those who risk their lives to serve it. it's about the fundamental obligation of government to tell the truth, always, to the people it purports to represent. madame secretary, not a single member of this committee signed up to investigate you or your e-mail. signed up to investigate, and therefore honor the lives of 4 people that we sent into a
dangerous country to represent us. and to do everything we can to prevent it from happening to others. our committee has interviewed half 100 witnesses. not a single one of them has been named clinton until today. you were the secretary of state for this country at all relevant times. of course the committee is going to want to talk to you. you are an important witness. you are one important witness. i understand you wanted to come sooner than today. let me be clear why that did not happen. you had an unusual e-mail arrangement which meant the state department could not produce your e-mails to us. you made exclusive use of personal e-mail on a personal
server. when you left the state department, you kept the public record to yourself for almost two years. it was you and your attorney who decided what to return and what to delete. those decisions were your decisions, not our decisions. it was only in march of this year that we learned of this e-mail arrangement and since we learned of this e-mail arrangement we have interviewed dozens of witnesses, only one of whom was solely related to your e-mail arrangement. that was the shortest interview of all because that witness invoked his fifth amendment privilege against incrimination, making sure the public record is complete is what serious investigations do, so it was important and remains important that this committee have access to all ambassador stephen's
e-mails, e-mails of other senior leaders and witnesses, and it's important to gain access to all of your e-mails, madam secretary. your e-mails are no less or no more important than the e-mails of anyone else. it just took us a little bit longer to get them. and garner a little more attention in the process. i want you to take notes during this hearing how many times congressional democrats call this administration to make long-awaited documents available to us. they won't. take note of how many witnesses congressional democrats ask us to schedule for interviews. they won't. we would be much closer to finding out what happened in writing the final definitive report if democrats on this committee had helped us just a little bit pursue the facts. if the democrats on this
committee had their way, dozens of witnesses never would have been interviewed, your public record would still be private, thousands of documents never would have been accessed, and we would not have the e-mails of our own ambassador. that may be smart politics, but it's a lousy way to run a serious investigation. there are certain characteristics that make our country unique in the annals of history. we are the greatest experiment in self-government the world has ever known. part of that self-governance comes self scrutiny, even of the highest officials. our fellow citizens expect us to pursue the truth wherever the facts take us. this committee is going to do what we pledge to do and what should have been done a long time ago, which is interview all relevant witnesses, examine all relevant evidence, and access all relevant documents.
we are going to pursue the truth in a manner worthy of the memory of the four people who lost their lives. and worthy of the respect of our fellow citizens. we would like to do it with our help and the help of our democrat colleagues. make no mistake, we're going to do it nonetheless. understanding what happened in benghazi goes to the heart of who we are as a country, and the promises we make to those we sent into harms way. they deserve the truth, they deserve the whole truth, nothing but the truth. people we work for deserve the truth. the friends and family of the >> lost their lives to serve the truth. we are going to find the truth, because there's no statute of limitations on the truth. >> set of this select committee with no rules, no deadline, and
an unlimited budget. and, they set them loose, madam secretary, because you're running for president. clearly it is possible to conduct a serious bipartisan investigation. what is impossible is for any reasonable person to continue denying that republicans are squandering millions of taxpayer dollars on this abusive effort to derail secretary clinton's campaign. in the chairman's interview, he tried to defend against this criticism by attempting to catch himself as the victim p complained about the credibility of this elect committee. his argument would be more compelling if republicans weren't leading the charge. as we all know, representative kevin mccarthy, speaker boehner's second in command, and the chairman admitted that they
established a select committee to drive down secretary clinton's phone numbers. democrats did not say that. the second in command in the house said that, a republican. republican congressman richard hanna, that the select committee was quote, designed, designed to go after secretary clinton. one of the chairman's own investigators, a self-proclaimed conservative republican, said that he was fired for not going long with the quote, hyperfocus on hillary clinton. these missions reflect exactly what we have seen inside the select committee for the past year. let's take a look at the facts. since january, republicans have canceled every single hearing scheduled for the entire year, except for this one, secretary clinton. they canceled numerous
interviews they had signed with the defense department and cia officials. instead of doing that, they said what they were going to do, republicans zeroed in on secretary clinton. her speechwriters, her i.t. staffers, and her campaign officials. this is what the republicans did. not the democrats, but speaker boehner established the select committee, he justified it by arguing that it was quote, cross jurisdictional lines. i assume he meant he would focus on more than just secretary of state. madam secretary, you are sitting there by yourself. the secretary of defense is not under left. the director of the cia is not on your left. that's because republicans abandoned their own plans to question those officials. instead of being called
carly fiorina said secretary clinton has blood on her hands. mike huckabee accuse her of ignoring the calls from dying americans inman ghazi. in then ghazi. -- in benghazi. lindsey graham tweeted, where the hell were you on the night of the ben ghazi attacks. everyone on this panel knows these accusations are baseless. from our own investigation and all those reports. yet, republican members of this committee remained silent. on monday, the democrats issued a report showing that none of the 54 witnesses the committee interviewed substantiated these wild republican claims. secretary clinton did not order the military to stand down and she neither approved nor denied requests for additional security.
i asked that our report included in the official record. >> without objection. >> what is so telling is that we issued virtually the same report a year ago. the same report. when we first joined the select committee asked my staff to put together a complete report and database setting forth questions that have been asked about the attacks and all of the answers that were provided in the eight previous investigations. i asked that this report be included in this record. >> without objection. >> the problem is that rather than accepting these facts,
republicans continue to spend -- just been new -- to spin new theories that are outlandish and inaccurate. the chairman recently tried to argue that sidney blumenthal was secretary clinton's primary advisor on libya. this past sunday, representative pompeo claimed on national television that secretary clinton relied on sidney blumenthal for most of her intelligence on libya. earlier this week, the washington post fact checker awarded this claim four pinocchio's. it's worst rating. select committee has spent 17 months and $4.7 million of taxpayer money. we have held four hearings and conducted 54 interviews and depositions. yes, we have received some new e-mails from secretary clinton, ambassador stevens him and
others. yes, we have conducted some new interviews. but these documents and interviews do not show any nefarious activity. in fact, it is the opposite. the new information we have obtained corroborates the facts we already knew from eight previous investigations. to provide more detail but they do not change the basic conclusions. it is time now for the republicans to end this taxpayer-funded fishing expedition. >> the terrorist attacks at our diplomatic compound and later at the cia post in benghazi, libya on september 11, 2012 took the lives of four brave americans. ambassador chris stevens, sean smith, len doherty, and tyrone
woods. i'm here to honor the service of those men. the courage of the diplomatic security agency and the cia officers who risked their lives that night. and the work their colleagues do every single day, all over the world. i knew and admired chris stevens. he was one of our nation's most accomplished diplomats. chris' mother liked to say he had sand in his shoes because he was always moving, always working. especially in the middle east that he came to know so well. when the revolution broke out in libya, we named chris as our envoy to the opposition. there was no easy way to get him
into benghazi to begin gathering information and meeting those libyans who were rising up against qaddafi. he found a way. to get himself there on a greek cargo ship just like a 19th century american envoy. his work was very much 21st century, hard-nosed diplomacy. it is a testament to the relationship that he built in libya that on the day following the awareness of his death, tens of thousands of libyans poured into the streets in benghazi. they held signs reading, thugs don't represent benghazi or islam. sorry, people of america, this is not the behavior of our islam or our prophet. chris stevens, a friend to all libyans. although i did not have the
privilege of meeting sean smith personally, he was a valued member of our state department family. an air force veteran. he was in information management officer who had served in pretoria, baghdad, montreal, and the hague. tyrone woods and glenn doherty worked for the cia. they were killed by mortar fire at the cia's outpost in benghazi, a short distance of the diplomatic compound. they were both former navy seals and trained paramedics with
distinguished records of service including in iraq and afghanistan. as secretary of state, i had the honor to lead and the responsibility to support nearly 70,000 diplomats and development experts across the globe. losing any one of them as we did in iraq, afghanistan, mexico, haiti, and libya, during my tender was deeply painful. i was the one who asked chris to go to libya as our envoy. i was the one who recommended him to be our invested or to the president -- to be our ambassador to the president. after the attack, i stood next to president obama as marines carried his casket and those of the other three americans off the plane at andrews air force base. i took responsibility and as part of that, before i left office, i launched reforms to better protect our people in the
field and help reduce the chance of another tragedy happening in the future. what happened in benghazi has been scrutinized by a nonpartisan, hard-hitting, accountability review board, seven prior congressional investigations, multiple news organizations, and of course, our law enforcement and intelligence agencies. >> i want to say a few things. it your a looking at an e-mail you sent to your family. here's what you said. at 11:00 that night, proximally one hour after you told the american people -- you say to
family, two officers were killed in benghazi by an al qaeda like group. you tell the american people one thing, you tell your family and entirely different story. on the night of the attack, a call with the president of libya. here's what he said to him. claiming responsibility. interesting. one of the guys arrested and charged belonged to that group. most significantly, the next day, within 24 hours you have a conversation with the egyptian prime minister. you told in this. we know the attack in libya had nothing to do with the film. it was a planned attack, not a protest. we know, not we think, not it might be, we know the attack in libya had nothing to do with the film.
it was a planned attack, not a protest.
state department experts knew the truth. you knew the truth. that is not what the american people.. got. why did you not tell the american people what you told the egyptian prime minister? >> i think if you look at the statement i made, i said clearly it was an attack and there were some who try to justify on the basis of the video congressman. >> calling it an attack is like saying the sky was blue. of course it was an attack. a statement on benghazi and you say vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material on the internet. if that is not pointing to the video, i don't know what is. >> there was a lot of conflicting information that we
were trying to make sense of. the situation was fluid, fast-moving. there was a claim of responsibility by on sarao sharia -- by al sharia. i said this was a claim of responsibility by a group that was affiliated or wanted to be affiliated with al qaeda. sometime after that, the next day, early the next morning after that, on the 12th or 13th, they retracted their claim of responsibility. i think if you look at what all of us were trying to do -- we were in a position of trying to make sense of a lot of incoming information and watch the way the intelligence community tried to make sense of it. >> madam secretary. there was not conflicting information the day of the attack because her press secretary said if breast there is no connection -- there is no connection. here's what i think is going on. one more slide.
this is from victoria nuland. she says to jake sullivan, subject line reads, romney's statement on libya. e-mail says, this is what then was talking about. i assume ben was ben rhodes. this e-mail is at 10:35. 27 minutes after you told everyone it is a video while americans are still fighting because the attack is still going on. your top people are talking politics. it seems to me that night you had three options. you could tell the truth, like you did with your family, like you did with the libyan president, like you did with the egyptian prime minister, tell them it was a terrorist attack.
you could say, we're not quite sure. don't really know for sure. you could've done that. you picked the third option. the video narrative. the one with no evidence and you did it because libya was supposed to be this great success story for the obama white house and clinton state department. a key campaign theme that year was bin laden is dead, al qaeda is on the run. now you have a terrorist attack. a terrorist attack in libya just 56 days before an election. you can live with a protest about a video. but a terrorist attack will hurt you. you cannot be squared with the american people. tell your family is a terrorist
attack, not the american people. you tell the president of libya and not the american people. you can tell the egyptian prime minister it is a terrorist attack but cannot tell your own people. the truth. madame secretary, americans can live with the fact that good people sometimes give their lives for this country. they don't like it. they mourn and pray for those families that they can live with it. what they cannot live with is when their government is not square with them. mr. chairman, i yield. >> you are welcome to answer the question if you would like to. >> i wrote a whole chapter about this in my book, "hard choices," i would be glad to send it to you. i think the insinuations that you are making do a grave disservice to the hard work that
people in the state department, the intelligence committee, the defense department, the white house, did during the course of confusing and difficult days. there is no doubt in my mind that we did the best we could with the information that we had at the time. if you would actually go back and read what i said that my -- that night, i was very careful in saying that some have thought to justify. in fact the man that has been arrested as one of the ringleaders of what happened in benghazi is reported to have said it was the video that motivated him. none of us can speak to the individual motivations of those terrorists who overran our compound and who attacked our cia annex. there were probably a number of different motivations.
i think the intelligence community, which took the lead on trying to sort this out, as they should have, went through a series of interpretations and analysis. we were all guided by that. we were not making up the intelligence. we were trying to get it, make sense of it and to share it. when i was speaking to the egyptian prime minister, or in the other two examples you showed, we had been told by ansa r al-sharis that they took credit for it. 24 hours later they took -- they retracted. we also knew because my responsibility was for what was happening throughout the region. i needed to be talking about the video because i needed to be putting other governments and other people on notice that we were not going to let them get away with attacking us as they did in tunis, khartoum. in tunis, there were thousands of demonstrators that were there only because of the video. i was calling everybody in the
tunisian government i could get and finally the president sent his guard to break it up. there was example after example. that's what i was trying to do during those very desperate and if occult hours. -- and difficult hours. >> i am not insinuating anything. i'm reading what you said. plain language. we know the attack in libya had nothing to do with the film. that is as plain as it can get. why didn't you just speak plain to the american people? >> if you look at my statement as opposed to what i was saying to the egyptian prime minister, i did state clearly and i said it again and in more detail the next morning, as did the president. i'm sorry that it does not fit your narrative. i can only tell you what the
facts were. >> the chairman has said that this will be the final, affinity of report --definitive report. there will be nothing final about this report. whenever we finish, we do not know what we are looking for. there will not be a final conclusion. there will not be anything definitive about the work of this committee because unlike the accountability review board that operated in a nonpartisan way, it is unlikely the majority here will even consult with us on what their final report looks like. those who want to believe the worst will believe the worst. those that want to believe this is a partisan exercise will believe it. as i said from the beginning of this investigation, the only way this committee will add any value to what has gone on before is if we can find a way to work
together and reach a common conclusion. it is plain that is not their object. the chairman might say ignore the words of our republican leadership and ignore the words of our public and members. ignore the words of our own gop investigator. judge us by our actions. but it is the actions of this committee that are the most damning of all. they have been singly focused on you. let me ask you, briefly. i want to expand -- i want to expand on what i think is the core theory and give you a chance to respond to it. as a prosecutor we are taught that every case should have a core theory and all the evidence and witnesses go to the core theory. i wrestled as i listened to my
colleagues today, what is the core theory of their case? what are they trying to convey? i have to say, it is confusing. i think the core theory is this. that you deliberately interfered with security in benghazi and that resulted in people dying. i think that is the case they want to make. how many investigations that found no merit to that, that is the impression they wish to give. my colleague pointed to an e-mail suggesting that you were not aware we had a presence in benghazi so if you were not aware you had a present -- we had a presence, i don't know how you could interfere with security. nonetheless, i think that is what they are aiming at. i know the ambassador was someone you help pick. i know the ambassador was a friend of yours. i wonder if you would like to comment on what it is like to be the subject of an allegation that you deliberately interfered with security that cost you the
life of a friend. >> it is very personally painful accusation. it has been rejected and disproven by investigators but nevertheless, continuing to have it bandied around is distressing to me. i would imagine i thought more about what happened than all of you put together. i have lost more sleep than all of you put together. i have been racking my brain about what more could of been done or should have been done. so when i took responsibility, i took it as a challenge and an obligation. to make sure before i left the state department that what we could learn, as i'm sure my predecessors did after beirut and nairobi and after all of the other attacks on our facilities, i'm sure all of them, especially where there was loss of american life, said, what must we do better. how do we protect the men and women that we send without weapons. without support from the military into some of the most dangerous places in the world.
i will continue to speak out and do everything i can from whatever position i'm in to honor the memory of those we lost and to work as hard as i know to try to create more understanding and cooperation between the state department, our diplomats, our development professionals from usaid, and the congress. so that the congress is a partner with us. as was the case in previous times. i would like us to get back to those times, congressman. whereas i think one of you said, beirut, we lost far more americans not once but twice within a year. there was no partisan effort. people rose above politics. a democratic congress worked
with a republican administration to say, what do we need to learn . out of that came the legislation for the accountability review board. after we lost more americans in the bombings in east africa, again, republicans and democrats worked together and said what do we need to do better. i am an optimist. i'm hoping that will be the outcome of this and every other effort so that we really do honor not only those we lost but all those who as we speak are serving in dangerous places, representing the values and interests of the american people. >> you wrote in your book "hard
choices" that you were directing the state department response the night of september 11, 2012. you also stated you left office on the night of the attacks and went to your home in northwest washington because you said you knew the next few days were going to be taxing and the department was going to be looking to you. i want to talk about a few things. you have a skiff in your home? >> i did. >> where you alone? >> i was alone. >> the whole night. >> yes, the whole night. [laughter] >> i don't know why that is funny. >> a little note of levity as 7:15. >> what is the future of the benghazi committee? when will they wrap up their investigation? >> right now there is no expiration date. the committee is expected to continue throughout 2016.
>> congress passed a major education law this year replacing the no child left behind law with the new version, every student succeeds. it was rarely front-page news as it worked its way through the house and senate education committee's and the law was finally approved in december. >> the bill gets done at the end of the year. is it largely a product of this senate? >> it largely reflects the senate bill. the version out of the house was more conservative and included his visions that would -- included provisions that would allow students to opt out and testing for the students. that position was ultimately left out. >> the united states senate, congress, and the president by the end of the week, will have a christmas present for 50 million children and 3.4 million teachers in 100,000 public schools across this country. something they have been eagerly
awaiting. today, the senate should pass by a large margin our bill to fix no child left behind. a lot has been said about how the bill repeals the common core mandate. how it reverses a trend toward a national school board that has gone on through the last two presidential administrations and how it is the biggest step toward local control in a quarter of a century. local control of public schools. that is all true. the legislation specifically prohibits the united states secretary of education from specifying in any state that it must have the common core standards or any academic standards, not just the secretary but future secretaries. it gets rid of the waivers the
department of education has been using to act in effect as a national school board. causing governors to have to come to washington and play mother may i if they want to evaluate teachers or fix low performing schools or set their own academic standards. it is true that it moves a great many decisions at home. it is the single biggest step toward local control of schools in 25 years. this morning, as we come to a vote which we will do at 10:45, i would like to emphasize something else. i believe that the passage of this legislation and if it is signed later this week as i believe it will be by president obama, will unleash a flood of innovation and excellence in student achievement across america, community by community, and state-by-state. why do i say that? look at where innovation has come from before. my own state, tennessee, was the
first state to pay teachers more for teaching wealth creating a master teacher program in the 1980's. of florida came right behind. at the not come from washington. the democratic farmer labor party in minnesota created what we now call charter schools in the early 1990's. that did not come from washington. the governors themselves met with president george h w bush in 1989 to establish national education goals. not directed from washington, but with governors working together with the president involved in leading the way providing pulpit support. the governor since that time have been setting higher standards, devising tests to see how well students were doing to reach the standards, creating their own state accountability
systems, finding more ways to evaluate teachers fairly. my own state has done pretty well without washington post supervision starting with a master teacher program. tennessee pioneered to relate -- donor gratis and realized that our standards were really low. we were kidding ourselves so he working with other governors pushed them up higher and our current governor, bill haslam, has taken it further and our children are leading the country in student achievement gains. the states themselves have been the source of innovation and excellence over the last 30 years. we have learned something else
by the last 10 to 15 years. too much washington involvement causes a backlash. you can't have a civil conversation about common core in tennessee or many other states. the number one issue in republican primaries even in general elections. mainly because washington got involved with it. now washington is out of it and it is up to every state to decide for themselves what the academic standards ought to be. the same with teacher evaluations. i was in a year and a half brawl . it came by one vote in our state senate. when i came to washington a few years ago people said, senator alexander is going to want every state to do that. they were wrong about that. the last thing we should do is tell states they must evaluate teachers and how to evaluate
teachers. it is hard enough to do without somebody looking over your shoulder. too much washington involvement has made it harder to have higher standards and harder to evaluate teachers. i believe we are changing that this week. i had dinner with a democratic senator last night who plans to vote for the bill. he said he would have given me five to one odds at the beginning of the year that we would not have been able to pass this bill. why are we at the point where we are? where we are likely to get votes in the mid-80's in favor? we worked on it in a bipartisan way. i have given credit to senator murray from washington, d.c. for suggesting -- from the state of washington for suggesting how we do that. i see senator mikulski from maryland. our committee work and it bipartisan way. so did the house of representatives. the president and staff members and secretary duncan have been
straightforward in dealing with us and i'm grateful for that and we knew from the beginning and said to the president, mr. president, we know we can't change the law, we can't fix no child left behind, unless we have your signature. he dealt with us in a straightforward way. and then we found the consensus and once we found that consensus it made it difficult problem a lot easier. we keep the important -- parents teachers and schools will know how parents students are doing. 17 tests administered from the third grade to the took great, keep those report the results, and then leave it to classroom teachers, school boards and states, the decisions about what to do. that should result in better and fewer tests. that consensus underpins the success we have had. six years ago in december we had
a disagreement in this chamber. we passed the affordable care act with all the democrats voting yes and all the republicans voting no and the next day the republicans went out and started trying to repeal it and we have not stopped. that is what happens with that kind of debate. this is a different kind of day. if the president signs this bill as i believe he will, the next day people are not going to try to repeal it. governors, school board members, teachers, are going to be able to implement it and they will go to work doing it. they will be deciding what tests to give, what schools to fix and how to fix them. what kind of tests should be there. it will be there decisions. from the day the president signs this bill. it only lasts for four years
until it is supposed to be reauthorized but my guess is this bill and the policies within will set the standard for policy and elementary and secondary education from the federal level for the next two decades. mine. once i go from the time i was at everyian rick perry why superintendent thing about start from scratch. schools, that is a lot of it. schools were teacher have more read him and parents have more choices.
the problem is giving low income parents or choices in for the children. they have opportunities that are off than parents do. i thought it was a very good idea. mandaten option, not a to get scholarship to low income children. the coolfollow them to their parent shows. that is not part of the bill. we can fight about that and this is that another day. today, i think we celebrate the fact that we version. while it does repeal the common core mandate. biggest death towards
local control, would think me is i believe will fund innovation and will in secondary education. presentbe a wonderful were 50 million children in 100,000 public. thank you. the yield. senator from maryland. >> i want to get the words in the bill. today will be a great day in the united and it. bill a actually pass the result of bipartisan effort. " in the job of guiding the
committee. purging open debate. consultation with members. sometimes quite icy. that's the way the congress also be. showsk their dedication that in the senate week knowledge the work of the ranking members. the former president of the university. murray. she is honest many lessons in our office. come with the rewrite of the bill that target the years ago when lyndon
johnson wanted to have a war on poverty. it was the first time that the federal government was going to be involved in it asian. they wanted to ensure that there were no resources to help the children of poverty. many of us agree with the great former secretary of a condoleezza rice. education is the civil rights issue of this information, because education is what opens doors today. todaygislation we passed will make sure we recognize of the and do the right thing in the future.
the first thing i have is what are we doing right? what do we doing wrong? i need to do to get the heck out of the way? the problem in washington is we have a one size it's all mentality. washington wants to write the name law applies in new york ocean toapply it to the marilyn. you cannot have a 15 it's all for every district in the united of america. the second thing the seventh yes, you need accountability. you do need metric. what we'll come up with is over testing. it still does not result in high-performance. i locked in a bipartisan basis
with the leadership to do what allould go one size it's all decisions made in watching in. should be racing to the. joining us for the year in review is christina marcos. it was really more than just the usual floor speeches. there was debate on issues like immigration and refugees. ' i. what came off of the health or nuclear. guest: less than a week after the terrorist attacks, house leaders singled out the bill and security screening.
like on friday, the world watched in horror. my thoughts and prayers go to the citizens of ram. it is certain the french value liberty. the president yesterday reminded the world the france of the country of read him. -- of freedom. 41 been murdered in beirut. the direct threat to attack watching. the president should change course to eliminate safe haven or islamic radicals. together tot protect the values.
i especially appreciate our friendship with the citizen of ram. france is the latest direct target global war on terrorism. is with a heavy heart that i rise today to honor bright student. she was in paris for a semester abroad studying the street college of design. she was in my district and whittier. she was a first-generation american student who is
passionate about design of life. inspired into the lives of many. she had a break sure of her. i know it is not enough it will never be enough. i hope your family and friends can find some solace in the loan for immunity. at this time i would like my colleague take a moment to honor her and the other victims. within a few days of the attack, the debate turned to refugees. like more than half of our nation's governors have
demonstrated their concern. many members of congress of both parties have raised as well. given all this and given all this happened in paris, it makes sense to take it back now depressed but we can determine the five. that's the most responsible thing with the administration to do right now. balancedreasonable and thing for the administration to do right now. we should also not lose sight of why we are in the position to begin with. the ultimate solution to the problem is to make area roughly the syrian people can continue to return to.
but the administration has never had a coherent draghi to settle the conflict. every single one of us knows that eiffel offensive threat to the homeland. il presents a threat to the homeland. develop ao have to areas and workable strategy that can train and wins from my part or. it is a shame to see someone shun the american tradition. frankly i've been to my republican industry. cannot repeat the darkness of the night 30's when many americans were to turn around -- turn away refugees.
remember. syria is mostly muslim but there , pray forhristians the republican party. we are at war with islam. should be shutting down houses of worship in america. " my. two of my friends in the house of representatives are proud that religion has made them better. now we are suggesting we should reject refugees. that is not america. that is eight.
the propaganda bonanza. host: the its u.s.. refugees is one they're not done with. guest: majority leader has indicated that still make now. members of congress remember the unabated gun control. speaker, they i rise of the heavy heart. in this terrorism attack, in the wake of this terrorist act, our san bernardino community speaker, today i asked my colleague fellow americans and those who view
this message around the world pray for the families of the 14 big. the speedy recovery of the 22 injures and the countless first responders to the that they area in the aftermath, i've seen firsthand the tenacity and. . we've said loudly as one community is entity, the final will not divide us. will not be afraid to come together and fellowship to work together to learn together. across the and across cultures we will support one another in this time of need. san bernardino has been faced to before.d to face
we're san bernardino united. to speaker i am joined by my colleague and a asked the house deposit moment of silence in honor of those affected. >> the house will observe a moment of a. like -- host: one of the immediate reactions was to strict tales to people identified on the no-fly list. people in theby senate. likeave any traction? democrats see you on that
a day of or. horror hits home. horrific. just one word. mass murder. these are from papers all over my date and a couple of national headline. my heart broken. led theis rampage that tragic loss of life, so many injuries and much drama and pain for the people of san bernardino. i want to thank the medical personnel who are working as we be. on orsonrave arranges officers arrest the scene. we know that the victims in this attack or county employees.
career as a county supervisor. i know how dedicated the county of lee's are. they're right there. and the facility was really dedicated. so for this to happen in a holiday party where these employees gather in friendship. it's a shot. this details about despicable attack are unknown, as we do know. usedse these killers military style weapons, 14 people died in 17 people were
wounded in a matter of minutes. the purpose of these done to kill a lot of evil very fast. zone.ked like a war there's a reason for that. design these weapons are for the military. i have to be honest with you are, i have never heard one displays the argument about why anyone else need to have this type of weapon. these weapons of war don't belong on read and in our communities. 59 yearsgue, senator has been pushing physical legislation that would be fees off our street. her acrossstand with the line.
it is so discouraging mr. president that we can't even -- it isslation here not enough for a 60 -- we need to take action now for something like this happened than yours eight or in my a. office, wheref that we will protect and defend the american. when we allow the effect of weapon against the wrong hands we are not protecting them. there is one mass shooting every single day. people killed by gun every day. america.
this does not happen in other industrialized nation. 31 people die every day from gun violence. after 10 years of the vietnam war, we lost nearly 2000 american and people were in this their. we lose more than that to gun violence in less years in this great nation. if anything else caused the year,of 30,000 american a every single senator would be in their chair demanding action. that my friends is an epidemic. people deserve to think in their community. i don't understand it. they deserve to feel safe on the holiday argue work. safe sittingto be
in these galleries. they deserve to be they and there's when there is years old or fit teen or 26. they deserve to be a and there were place. at a shopping mall. the restaurant. and health clinic. this is our job to keep our people they. aggressive home. we need to do both. we need to protect our people abroad from front the broad and progress at home. the very best way to honor the the nonviolent extensible that that are supported by the american people like universal background check keeping assault weapons in the hands of our millet very and our belief.
keeping guns out of the hands of people were unbalanced and able. then we can prevent these tragedies. chastity?event every no. it's a lot easier to get away from the night them -- then an automatic weapon. i'm crying out today for support for visible gun law. regardless of motive, we need to make sure that military weapons belong in the hands of the military and leave. pretty straightforward. our people are not they.
san bernardino is a beautiful place. i don't live far from their area people deserve to feel safe in our community. i send my love and my rares. the family and to the first responders. everyone there. together like all of these communities to what we need to prevent these things happening. if we don't, we are liable. we know what feeling equal every day. gun violence. and we know it. -- i'm not a lawyer, but
i have a lot of family members who are lawyers. think once you know something is happening and you do something about it you don't do something about it, you are liable. them, i hopel we're going to come together around this. i think once you know something is happening and you can do something about it, and you do not do something about it, you are libel -- maybe not in a legal sense, but a moral sense. so, i hope we are going to come together around this. every time the press comes and asks me after tragedy, after tragedy -- will something happened now, and after sandy hook i said absolutely. we will come together. we did not. i want to close with this. in california we have tough gun
laws. i do not know how these weapons got where they were. we will find out. people say you have these gun launch -- look at this. we have had a 66% reduction in gun violence since 1993 in my great state. we have taken action. this is one nation under god. somebody comes from a nearby rate, from north, from east, and they have a gun. so, that is why it is so important for us to work together and have sensible, national laws -- universal background checks. almost 90% of the people support it. the majority of nra members support it. what is wrong with us that we cannot do that? what are we afraid of? and these military, assault-style weapons that kill so fast, and so many people, we should make sure they are in the hands of the military and the police. mr. president, my heart is heavy, and it will remain so. this was supposed to be a great day for a lot of us that worked long and hard on a highway bill. this is a moment we were waiting for, and that is what life is
about, you know? there are moments that you savor, and moments that you wish to god you never had to talk about or experience, and that is the kind of day it is for this particular senator, and i know senator find time feel -- senator feinstein feels the same way. thank you. i yield the floor. >> thank you, mr. speaker. since the terrorist attacks in san bernardino, leftist politicians have called for more gun control on americans. they have opened the doors to immigration from hotbeds of islamic extremists. the most effective defense against an armed terrorist is an armed american. if one person in that will in san bernardino would have been able -- in that room in san bernardino would have been able to return fire, many innocent -- innocent lives would have been saved, but californians are subject to the most difficult gun laws in the country, making it difficult for individuals to
exercise their right to defend themselves, and in a society denied its right to self-defense, the gunman is king. the most effective defense against an armed terrorist is an armed american, yet the president and his followers seem to increase the number of terrorists entering through porous borders and lax immigration laws, while at the same time looking to decrease the number of armed americans. it was to the point of disrupting the work of the house. in the president's words, "congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list should be able to buy a gun." he asks, what could be the argument against that? while serving in the california state senate, i discovered i could not check in. when i asked why i was told i was on this government list. the expense was kafka-esque.
my first experience was to ask why i was on the list, what criteria do you use -- that is classified. how do i get off the list? you cannot. i soon discovered another california state senator had been placed on the list. a few months later, u.s. senator edward kennedy found himself on the list. i at least had the office of the starch -- sergeant at arms in the state senate to work through, something an ordinary american whatnot. even so, it took months, working with that office with repeated petitions to get my name removed from the list. the farce of it all was this -- i was advised in the meantime to fly under my middle name, which i did without incident. in my case, it turned out it was a case of mistaken identity with an ira member the british government was mad at. this could happen to any american. during this administration, the irs has been used extensively to harass and intimidate or americans for exercising their first amendment rights. the president proposes is on the
whim of any federal bureaucrats, an american can be denied their second amendment rights as well, with no opportunity to confront their accuser, contest the evidence, or a valve themselves of any of the other due process rights under the constitution. the concept the left is seeking to instill in our law is that mere suspicion by a bureaucrat is sufficient to deny law-abiding american citizens their constitutional rights under the law, and given the left's demonstrated hostility to freedom of speech and due process of law, it is not hard to see where this is leading us. i said -- would support the proposal if it would establish a judicial process where an individual could only be placed on the list once he had been accorded his constitutional rights, to be informed of the charts, given his day in court, accorded the right to confront his accuser, contest the evidence against them, and submit himself to a decision by a jury of his peers, and that is the furthest thing from the left -- by the left agenda -- from the left's agenda. the terrorists were not on any watchlist.
one was admitted from saudi arabia after vetting the president keeps assuring us was rigorous and thorough, and several of the guns were not even acquired directly, but rather through a third-party. of course, the american people do not want terrorists to have guns. the american people do not want terrorists in our country in the first place, but the president policies have left the nation's good wide open while he seems to take from americans -- big wide open, while he seems to take from americans their means of self-defense. i and where i began -- the best defense against an armed terrorist is the armed american. it is what the second amendment is about. our constitution is the best defense of all, and it must be
defended against all enemies, foreign and domestic. are you back. host: the last items on the agenda were extending several tax breaks and passing a $1 trillion spending bill for 2016. this came after the regular appropriations process broke down in the middle of the year. once again, the end of the year ended with an omnibus spending bill. how did things break down in the house in particular? >> in the house, they brought appropriation bills under a process known as an open will, where lawmakers can offer as many amendments as they want. there is no limit. so, this worked for six of the bills that passed, but once they got to spending for the interior, this was right around the time of the shooting in charleston that was racially charged at an historically black church. so, at the time, when the nation was having the debate about the display of the confederate flag,
democrat started offering amendments regarding the display of confederate flags in national parks. originally, these memos were adopted. then, when seven states found out about them, leadership tried to go back to undo the amendments. at that point, they realized they would have to take these potentially highly embarrassing votes on the house floor because there were a good number of republicans that did not want to measures to pass. host: so, at what point do you think the leadership thought it was going to go to an omnibus, this is the way it is going to be? ms. marcos: right -- essentially at that point, even because they knew they would likely have to go to an omnibus in the first place, they were doing individual bills for show, really, a way of showing house republicans were allowing
regular order and rest -- an open process in the house, but once it was clear it would result in this highly toxic vote in the wake of the charleston shootings, they likely encountered a lot of criticism if the state took the vote, so at that point republicans decided to cut their losses. host: the year-and taxing and spending legislation ended a 40 year van. it expended credits for wind and solar energy, and permanently extended the research and development tax credits. both democrats and public and saw the legislation as a victory for that -- their side of the aisle. senator paula -- representative pelosi: it will create jobs, strengthen the future, and grow the paychecks of the american people. we have finally renewed the 9/11 health and comprehensive
national and [applause] announcer -- representative pelosi -- it is such an account -- a competent. congratulation to than native -- ranking member, to whom 9/11 was a priority, for all of us, but for new yorkers, this is your day. because of your leadership, we passed the best possible, under the circumstances, appropriations bill. i think our success with our members is in the republicans obsession with the oil and export ban. they really gave away the store. the democrats were able to strip out scores and scores of destructive poison pills, some which they had to have, which they ended up not having.
they are called poison pills because they have a toxic effect, not only on the legislation, the number of votes, they could get or not get, but because of what they do -- they wanted to dismantle women's health, eliminate the clean power plan, prevent oversight of wall street, sabotage finance -- campaign finance reform, and devastate organized labor in our country. i had my own problem with the oil, but i decided i could not empower big oil to overcome the successes in this bill. the tax credits we entered in limiting about 10 times more carbon pollution than the exports crude oil will add. of course, the omnibus was a
compromise. we came a long way. it is a monumental improvement over the special interest-ridden appropriations bills that house republicans were offering this year. this is a big win. i am very proud of the votes we had with our members, once they saw what was actually in the bill. with that, i am pleased to yield to our distinguished with, who played such a big role in the distiller's vote. mr. hoyer: thank you, madam leader. as leader pelosi has said, it was a win for the american people. was it perfect -- i said on the fort was not perfect. we do not pass perfect bills. we passed bills reach to cover my stupid democratic process, this was an extraordinarily big victory, in my opinion, as i said, for the american people. i want to congratulate leader pelosi. i want to congratulate ranking member lowly. i was on the phone with them a lot. i know they were working around the clock to reach the objective that we got to. congress has now approved the omnibus appropriations bill that will keep the government open, but more importantly it will increase investments in two important domestic priorities that will help our economy and our people.
what members return to the hundred 14th congress second session in january, -- when members return to the 114th congress second session in generate, we have to fix our broken immigration system, and restore voting rights protections. we ought to proceed in the same bipartisan, cooperative fashion, that allowed us to reauthorize the highway bill, the elementary and secondary education act, passed the export/import bank we authorization, and pass the bill which will try to make america safer. so, if we could do those things, surely we could address additional priorities in the year to come. we also must take action on puerto rico. it should have been in this bill.
leader pelosi fought hard to have it in this bill. nydia velasquez, luis gutierrez, jose serrano were indefatigable in fighting for it. it should have happened. i am glad that paul ryan has said he will address it next month when we return. it must be addressed and done. the last several weeks saw a number of bipartisan successes, which i mentioned. now, 2016, if it is going to be successful, america needs to replicate that, and again, i want to thank nita lowey, david, her staff, the staff worked around the clock. i also want to credit the white house, who worked, as leader pelosi would say, shoulder to shoulder, making it very clear that we would not take riders -- not just the poison pills -- but they would undermine the health, safety, and security of our country. i want to join you and wish as i close, all americans, especially those serving overseas, and the famines, a joyous holiday season and a happy new year.
senator mcconnell: by any objective standard, i think the senate is clearly back to work. we had a dysfunctional body in previous congress is. one measure to -- one way to measure dysfunction is how many votes you are having on a minutes. 15 in all of 2014. right at 200 this year. another way to measure dysfunction is not passing a budget, which is required by law, five -- four of the last five years the previous majority did not pass the budget. admittedly, some would say that is a low crossmark, but that is the beginning of ending dysfunction, and we have done that. the other thing that was important in ending dysfunction was to quit the marginalization
of members. how do you do that? you bring most of the bills through the regular order, members work on bills in committees, they become invested in the bill, and then they want it to pass. divided government is not unusual. we have had it more often than not since world war ii, and i said in my own reelection in louisville, what i want us to be is a responsible, right of center, governing majority. one of my favorite former colleagues, phil gramm used to say never take a hostage or not prepared to shoot, and it seems to me a pretty obvious lesson from previous efforts to shut down the government or to default on the national debt, that is a hostage you are not going to shoot. it is a hostage that is not worth much. i wanted to and those, kind of, rattling expenses the american people do not like. it never produces a positive
result anyway. i took goes off the table the day after the election, and we began to figure out how to get the senate working again. now, the evidence of the senate working again is things like that keystone pipeline, the trade for motion authority, a rewrite of no child left behind, a multi-year highway bill, cyber security, a lot of things that have been languishing around here for quite a while. i am told -- my democratic colleagues came in here a few moments ago, and took credit for a number of things. let me give at least the followership of the democratic side the credit. i will be the highway bill as an example. senator boxer and i found that we actually agreed on what all to be done here.
the democratic leadership, schumer, read, and the white house, try to torpedo the way we were doing the highway bill, but senator boxer, with her skillful way of an -- skillful knowledge, it allowed us to move the highway bill across the floor. i think the way you get the senate working again is for members outside the leadership level to begin to have confidence in each other, work on bills together, think it is worth passing, and work to make it happen. as we end the year, by any objective standard, it has been a year of significant a competent, and i want to thank the democrats that did cooperate. senator murray was spectacular on education. senator boxer was unbelievably good on highways. senator feinstein was good on cyber security. obviously, having the cooperation of the other side in a body that requires 60 to do most things is essential, and that is the way to good results in the senate. host: thanks for watching c-span's congress year in review, 2015.
the house and senate are back for pro forma sessions on january 4. the senate is back january 11. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] congress begins the second session of the 100 working congress in january. one of the items on the agenda, a budget deal that would defund land parenthood. the senate has already approved the legislation. the president that he will veto it. the senate return the following week. overcky senator ran all iran on it of the federal reserve. c-span,up next on
discussion of some of the year's top stories. later, i in pain event presidential candidate bernie sanders in love to get. -- in las vegas. >> three days of feature programming that she -- this new year's weekend on c-span. >> the first and i think i'm very reason for prisons this defendant -- to punish people for antisocial behavior. whether they're going to rehabilitate the prisoner or deter future crime, i think those are secondary burns. the primary purpose of a prison system is for people who are not of interest. >> saturday night, a race
relations town hall meeting with elected officials from areas experiencing racial tensions with leave. let's they do that job saying i am protecting the public. their idea of the public are those who gave them the marching orders. we need to look at all of that. we need to look at the trend in the. the rules that they have and start using to gauge themselves with our communities. evening, a discussion on media coverage of muslim. and nine, young people from across the u.k. gather in the house of commons discuss issues important to them area >> the issue is so much more than trains and then. child, i couldn't wait
for spring to go on a train journey. however, when we grow up trains lose the smiley face. we forget to notice pushing in the honking while we worry about weekend. >> for our complete schedule go to our what type. -- our website. next, claire page of the chicago review talk top stories of 2016. >> we want the welcome back opinion makers. this is now the third time the two of you have been here together on c-span. with one of the
top stories of this year. this typifies the distressed me many immunities and police officers. -- many communities and police officers. people returning and announcing yet today that there will be new lease training. -- new police training. and tasers were wired for all $12,000 first. -- officers. --there's a terrible tragedy series of tragedies go. encounters between police and civilians that made national headlines. reminded of the tragic case in oakland california of young
man believe were wrestling to the ground. to grow the gun that of the taser and killed him. i think it's important to have proper training with tasers well. it's a step in the right direction. click is what we seen in other communities of well. >> i think it's a good idea. emphasize the police are in a dangerous situation. to stop they situation that may be, that makes sense. >> the hill is pointing out the us year will be another record year for government regulation. pagesg close and 90,000
in the federal register. can you explain? >> you talk about worse. look at detroit. 93% of were not proficient in reading and 94 in math. high schools are failing largely. you have a classic example. the cost of government to not working. inexorably because of the structure, social security medicare and medicaid -- government is growing. the debt is growing. i think taxpayers eventually will get you where you.
>> we talked with senator lamarr allen inder who is of the or -- senator lamarr alexander. >> i don't think it will significantly change. no child left behind is altered by john boehner and identity. signed into law by george w bush. -- we had a significant increase in education. much outlined on the national. personally i think it should happen that should happen on the local level. communities they let you get the choice let's give parents a choice. pupilount of money for let the parents take their child any school he want. a religious nonsecular i've it.
baltimore detroit and watching it. -- in washington. i've come around on vouchers over the years. cities.n to milwaukee. they have a wonderful -- a cooperative program. every child learns differently. one-size-fits-all education plans have the problems. we should have as much flexibility and choice as we can. -- if my parents that have a appellee, ourd -- school district john boehner's
district in fact in the 50's and these we had a lot of profit rarity. -- prosperity. the college was much cheaper. the fact is those opportunities are short. education is more important than ever. >> he made the decision to step down. this tell you but with a few he is? >> i think it was emblematic of the bigger phenomenon in american politics. no fundamental change in the direction of the government. be --k you're going to
going to the paul ryan go >>ough the same thing area you think you will need a speaker? >> you saw in the ominous spending bill essentially the debt limit or 2017. beyond the election. both parties decided they want to have a status quo 26th. they don't want any significant public policy by. you don't want significant change if they are in power they want to they empower. i think we see that being spoken about in different ways. have heard a lot of headlines. i've never said these two words together. donald trump and pootie-poot
>> that was george bush's nickname or in areas he did not use that in public. recentcolumn is about work about donald trump. he gives as he gets to complement him the government right back. -- he complement right that. that column is looking at the similarities of the two personalities. three byessly in figures like these two. >> their heavily focusing on this, now accepting applications president.
preparing was worth out of the race for number of reasons. -- rick perry was forced out of the race for a number of reasons. this took people of much on the national polls. is newally matters now hampshire and south carolina. primary voters in small they take very recently -- very serious the. we will see what happened of your a first. >> marco rubio one of the lead contenders. york hostne from new apparently when he was the
majority with of the house of representatives, he recommended that his licensor be restored. failte mention that the former coke dealer was married to his duster or staying in his miami >> you will get a very carefully the fact that our. >> i agree. i think this was almost inevitable. of isf our media vetting an opportunity to go back and
brothers that had flamboyant reputations or whatever. people do look at how people handle things inside of their family in relation to their public life did it doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to hurt them. host: and todd harris in the story from the "new york post," saying that his brother, orlando, made some very big mistakes, but paid his debt to society. another story saying jeb bush chris christie taking aim at marco rubio. i do think that is true. if you look at what is going on in iowa and new hampshire, you see trump has been trending down recently. cruz has been trending up in iowa. win in iowa, it
think it significantly changes the dynamics of the republican race. you are likely to have cruz conservative candidate. rubio would clearly be at the top of that list. host: clarence page of the "chicago tribune," and terry jeffrey who is the editor in chief of cnsnews.com. focused on bill clinton, who is back on the campaign trail next monday. he was paid $1 million for an two appearances -- for two appearances sponsored by the obligor be government back in 2001 -- by the abu dhabi government back in 2001. they have a long list of the other speeches and his fees over
the last 10 years. guest: i think it does raise serious questions. the former president of the united states is reaping massive amounts of money from foreign interests. that clearly is a question. and i think it should be examined. the something worthy of public debate. guest: government needs to be examined, and it is not a new story. among democrats i have talked to, they tend to view bill clinton as a guy involved in international foundation work. so there are different ways of looking at it. guest: that money went to him, though, right? guest: like a said, there are many different ways of looking at it. host: again, the complete list -- let's show this from the "wall street journal."
you can see here athletic -- af lec and the speaking fees. let's take your phone calls. dorothy in baltimore, the democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to make two comments about medicare and social security. but what i want to say is that medicare and social security have a surplus, but you put it in the general fund. our government put it in the general on and they are still spending it. in order for them to pay for these trillions of dollars we own now, they need to take the rest of our money. that is what they need to do and use it in a general fund for this government to run. we needed independent board to look at this -- need an independent board to look at this.
donald trump, if he gets the president will either be arrested or in pizza. merkletrump talked about on the front of "people" magazine. he can't represent us. he is a good motivational speaker, or president of the united states and he is going to show anybody who says something he doesn't like or disagrees with them -- how in the world can we handle that? host: ok, we will get a response. guest: what she says about social security is correct in that when they are running surpluses, the government took the money and immediately spent it. not just immediately spent it, they went out and borrowed more money. there is public held that, which -- debt, which is mostly things that we can buy. now on anurity
ongoing basis is running in the red often. they are drawing down the intergovernmental debt -- intra-governmental debt. and this is at the core of what the united states i believe is heading towards a major financial crisis. guest: [indiscernible] guest: there were a few years where he had a budgetary surplus. there was a republican congress and a democratic president. but i would argue that the underlying forces of medicare, social security, and medicaid were inexorably driving the government towards this moment, unless they were reformed. administrationy has a special group to look at medicare, medicaid, and social
security, which are the biggest items in the budget after the defense department, of course. i blame our politics. it is still too easy to promise people more in terms of spending and promise them lower taxes at the same time. and you can't do both. host: and you make reference to vladimir putin. in his own words. made reference to donald trump, calling him bright and colorful, talented without any question, and the absolute leader in the presidential race. guest: [laughter] believe in realistic foreign policy. do in terms of our dealing with foreign leaders should be predicated on the dallas whose that what preserves
our liberty preserves our security and advances our prospects. sometimes he is doing things that are in our interest, sometimes he is doing things that are against our interests. i don't think you romanticize them, i don't think you demonize him paired -- jim. host: robert, henderson, kentucky, the independent line. caller: good morning, gentlemen. particular, -- has said many of the things that donald trump has said, not as a bombastic type of a rhetoric, racist rhetoric, but i'm talking about going into libya. he said it was a mistake to go into iraq. many things that have come out to be true. mr. trump is -- [indiscernible]
-- for a lot of the things he said it mr. trump wants to not allow muslims into this country. does that mean he is going to arrest a muslim who has been here 82 years, nonviolent , selfing responsibility responsibility? catalyst to bridge the gap between muslims in america and christians. host: we will get a response. thank you. guest: he has done that in the black community. it is intriguing how much -- try to find similarities between the minister and donald trump in that they have both found constituencies that are discontent with what is going on , feel left out of the process,
like washington is not talking for them, and looking for somebody to express the anger and frustrations they feel. blue-collar white males, in particular, are feeling dispossessed. the they have seen structural changes in our economy and have left them behind. if you do not have some school behind high school, your ability to have any wage increased in the lifetime is greatly reduced. like donald trump said, what the hell is going on? that is a new mantra out there. it just so happens that the ministers constituency is smaller than -- minister's constituency is smaller than trump's. back in thee
post-civil rights, he became a spokesperson for blue colored -- blue-collar people in particular. guest: the absolute number of manufacturing jobs in the united states today is fewer than there were in the late 1960's. according to the census bureau, the real median income of households who graduated from high school but didn't go to college is lower now than it was in the late 1960's. i think this is a very serious problem. and i do believe it is part of the driving force behind the disk and see. guest: it is not new. we have seen it with my buddy pat buchanan back in the 1990's. and we have seen ralph later, for that matter -- ralph nader, for that matter, having an appeal to blue-collar voters. there has always been these voices for discontent out there,
what will we are lacking is a real program for addressing. -- addressing the culture. factor is another that back in the late 1960's, you had single-digit number of kids in america were born to unmarried mothers. in recent years, you had 40% of kids born in america to unmarried mothers. for ak it is very hard person being raised in a nontraditional family to get through school and graduate. host: terry jeffreything or two about pat buchanan, serving on his campaign, previously with human events, and he now serves as the editor in chief of cnsnews.com. at work available online townhall.com. who is ance page,
author, and is, of course, is syndicated columnist for the "chicago tribune." this is a comment from gene, who is a regular tweeter from all hell. he says let's stop blaming government for everything. it is the politicians who run our government. go to andy, kentucky, the democrats line. good morning. caller: hey, good morning. i would like to wish you all a happy new year. with the things -- education department, i think there should be -- it should be done away with and given back to this date. and this common core is not good for education. it is downgrading our students. there are not learning anything with common core.
then for president, i like ms. clinton. if you look at the clintons, when president clinton was in office, we did have a surplus while he was in office. so he did a good thing. and on the republican ticket, the three that i like would like to see one of the three come out and win would either be ted cruz, walk over be a, or mike huckabee. rubio, or mike huckabee. i would not walk across the street to vote for donald trump. he is a joke. host: andy, thank you for the call. guest: on the education comment, common core is something the obama administration have, with a new program, but, core was put together by -- but common core was put together by the governors. likethis is the latest --
no child left behind -- the latest program to try to reform education in the country, which has had some successes and some setbacks. snowden,ma, clinton, the top list of 2015 tweets. online,ne available president obama, who says today is a big day in a much towards equality. gay and lesbian couples now have the right to marry, just like anyone else. is this issue off the table in 2016? guest: no, i think so. all of the republican presidential candidates have said they are not in favor of same-sex marriage. thomas'ook at clarence dissent committee thought is ultimately going to leave the questions of religious liberty. i do not doubt that is already the case.
i mentioned how the traditional family is breaking down. another factor is historically we were rooted in religion andan natural law. and i honestly don't think you can argue that if there is a right to same-sex marriage, this is all right people are endowed with by their creator. guest: i am surprised at how much public opinion has shifted on this issue in favor. left tothe 1990's, the be arguing about the military, and that has been done away with a lot because it was generational change. are playing with the general society now. i agree, same-sex marriage is still an issue out there, but not as much in 2004 when it
proved to be critical for the bush campaign. -- support same-sex marriage legally, but when it comes down , things likeund this involved public schools, private schools, religious were stillthat is have disputes that are going to have to be ironed out. host: let's go to robert joining us from brooklyn, new york. the democrats line. caller: i have a comment i would like mr. paige to respond to. for rahmve called emanuel and others of the city of chicago to attend to the razak nation. i don't want to see them give their resignation. i would like to see them indicted as assessor is after-the-fact.
if i paid $5 million in hush money, i would be indicted. host: robert, thank you for the call. and that is what you wrote about. guest: that is what the caller is addressing, the $5 million refers to the money paid as a settlement to the family of laquan mcdonald, who was shot 16 times by a police officer and caught on video. the settlement was asked for by the mayor's office, and his corporation counsel attorneys, and approved by city council without the alderman being fully informed or being shown the video, etc. and there are people who claim he said he didn't see it. the state attorney, however, is also in trouble. people calling for her to resign. and she is facing a primary in
march where she is expected to have a real problem beating her challenges. rather manual was reelected -- rob emanuel was reelected earlier this year when the public had not seen that tape. and aldermen are upset that they were not fully informed. protests calling for emanuel to resign. i do not think that is going to happen, but i think what we are seeing is he is going to have problems trying to get anything passed through city council unless he takes some tracks the -- some drastic means to reform the police. [indiscernible] i used to cover police into cargo back in the 1970's in my reported this. it was better than it used to
be, but it can still be better than it is. host: in springfield, illinois, tony, good morning. caller: good morning. i would just like to make a comment. i think the top news story is the continuing lack of the media to educate the people, the disintegration of the fourth branch of government, with the people. perhaps we should heed certain words of our forefathers because i think a nation that forgets its past has no future. abraham lincoln said we the people are the masters of the fourth branch of legislators. not to overthrow the government, but overthrow those who covered the constitution. and perhaps his speech should be read at every single of and.
the news media, the top story is the continuing lack to -- misinform the people or distract the people. they have not got to the roots of the problem. host: we will get a response. guest: i think the caller makes .ome good responses i believe the role of the press is to work as an adversary against government to keep government honest, and in my view to keep it small. that too much is an advocate of government. i also agree about abraham lincoln's speech. americakids all across should learn what abraham lincoln stood for and what was in his speech. they do not know our history, including what was the argument
that abraham lincoln made when he was running for president. why do we have a monument to him in washington dc? in of the greatest things this town, go down to the lincoln memorial and read his second inaugural address. it is a powerful and brief statement carved in marble, and people need to remember what he said. host: let's turn to foreign policy again, and your reference to pooti poo. did george w. bush have a nickname for you? guest: the first time i met tim, he mistook me for walter williams, a well-known black conservative syndicated columnist. and notas very gracious awkward at all about it, but i owed to him all the way to washington dc on that plane we're riding in to say the least. i didn't talk to him again until a couple years later. he was president and i was on
the receiving line of the newspapers convention. i saw his hand come over the crowd to me, and he said my old travelmate, how are you doing? host: let me go back to vladimir putin. i want to get your sense on where this is heading in 2016. has been sliding, down 26% this year. russians fearful over jobs and income. and in his prediction section, what is the next up for vladimir -- it's prediction -- its prediction section, what is next for vladimir putin? guest: the federal reserve has more data than anybody else. after that it is china and japan. but the russians own a significant amount of u.s. debt. we are six and a half years into a quote unquote growth cycle.
at some point, we are not going to have another recession here, we are going to have an economic downturn and other major economies. and that will spell political problems i believe. host: let's go to indiana, the republican line. with clarence page and terry jeffrey. good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say that i left the city in 1982 because of the patronage, the ongoing corruption. it is not just chicago. it is indianapolis, detroit, st. louis. wherever you have a fully funded through the democratic party, you are always going have this problem. this has been going for 50 years. with the schools, with the education system and how they dumb down all these children and don't teach them anything.
back andou want to go start living history like we used to, we might have some of these problems off. but because of political incorrectness, you are never going to get any of this done. my suggestion is term limits, and every other year you have a report card. the scripture going on, it all stems from term limits. that would help a long ways towards strengthening this country out if we could do -- straightening this country out if we could do term limits and reports cards -- report cards. host: do you want to respond? guest: i think term limits on a federal level would be a good thing. they want a status quo year because there highest good is staying in power. they come in, they are very
principled, they are very connected to the voters that put them in. after a few terms, they start to move away and become more of a part of the washington establishment. you might lose a little bit on that, which is an important thing with term limits, but on bettergin he will have a federal government with term limits. guest: calls for term limits are in expression of frustration when government isn't working. but there is a lot of irony surrounding the issue that you do lose experienced people and then people say, oh, we have term limits. if you have term limits on capitol hill, it would empower the staffers. i remember when newt gingrich became leader of the house back i'm sorry, the 1994
election. after that, one of the promises they made was term limits in terms of seniority -- yeah, chairmanships. and as soon as they got in, there were efforts made to try to undermine those term limits. i want flexibility and government, but what we have seen recently is we do have term limits, they are called elections. guest: you mention that story about bill clinton and the $1 million he got, there is another phenomenon in washington here. they get elected, they come here, and they end up being lobbyists. you have big business interests that have an interest in making sure all the tax laws and other regulations work to their interests. and they form sort of a coalition here in washington dc
that works against the interest of small government and american liberty. perhaps that is one wall for the press to show how that works as what they arehow doing within the walls of congress. host: leonard, the democrats line. caller: good morning and happy new year to you all. mr. page, they talk about entitlements. could you explain to us what welfare for the states means when presidents lincoln cited for all the slave states? and mr. jeffrey, there is a word that is going around, white people. have you ever seen a white person in your life? and when did the white people become grouped as a whole nation, a whole group of people here in america? host: you need to explain that a little bit better. what do you mean by that? caller: i was a veteran and i
had the opportunity to meet veterans from a different -- from different countries. and i said why people. and he said, only people in america call themselves white. why does that not mean the , thens, the russians french, the greek? why do people run away from that? guest: well, i think he has a good point. i believe what martin luther king said that we are a colorblind society. we don't want to be divided by skin color, we want to be one people, united by a certain set of values that guide us in our personal lives and our government. when very sad thing that has been happening recently is people are beginning to be more polarized than they were a decade ago. and that is not good. guest: i agree with you to a certain degree,