♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: paul ryan is here, of the reelected speaker house earlier this month, winning the support of all but one house republican. representing wisconsin's first district. the new york times described him as the steward of conservative policymaking. gop lawmakers have an ambitious agenda as they work toward a unified republican government. their focus is on reversing obama administration policies, starting with dismantling and replacing obamacare. other items including replacing regulations, and immigration reform.

i am pleased to have speaker ryan back at this table. welcome. speaker ryan: thanks for having me back. good to be with you. rose: we are at historic moment from one president to another. give me your assessment of how barack obama holding his press conference. speaker ryan: my assessment of the obama presidency? from a conservative standpoint, i like the man i know. he would be a great next-door neighbor. i just don't like him as president. [laughter] charlie: he would make a good neighbor. speaker ryan: yeah, he is the guy that would shovel your walk for your kids in a snowstorm. he is a good family man. i think that is important. this is a presidency of massive mispotential.

he came in with a track record of being an ideologue, very left progressive, so it looks like that is what he could become. he ran his 2008 campaign as a total moderate. there was a lot of promise that he would be a moderate president, with his incredible gifts. no one can communicate like him. he had an opportunity to be more of a unifying president, if he were to become a centrist, but he stayed hard left. his view of government and the constitution is not one in keeping with our limited constitutional republic. i think the policies he put in place did not work. as a human being, i like the man. i don't like him as a bears fan. [laughter]

that is my primary assessment. charlie: is it obamacare, something about that identifies him as too far to the left? speaker ryan: that is part of it. he got sectors of the economy more involved than they should have been. i think dodd frank was an example. he is a diehard progressive, a legitimate progressive, which believes the constitution goes from national rights to writ large bureaucracies that can micromanage and harmonized society for good intentions. it doesn't work. it leads to corrupt government and disrespects civil society. charlie: dodd frank? speaker ryan: i am talking about obama's philosophy. that is apparent in his health care, in dodd frank.

charlie: according to a new poll, cnn-- speaker ryan: oh, of course he is popular. charlie: 60%. speaker ryan: he is a likable, articulate person. our economy isn't terrible. it has a lot of mispotential. charlie: a lot better than other countries in the world. [laughter] speaker ryan: i say that we are the healthiest horse in the glue factory. we've got big problems in this country. i think they are completely fixable. charlie: john boehner said you will have the same problem he had as a speaker, with the same caucus you have. speaker ryan: he did say that to me. [laughter] our caucus is more unified than ever before. i only lost one vote for speaker. that is pretty darn rare.

it's two things, as i see it, i spent all of 2016 getting our members to agree an agenda, to run on and implement it in 2017. 2016 was a unifying moment to come up with our principles and apply them, with an ideas and an agenda. that in itself is unifying. now that we have this opportunity with unified government to put in place is extremely unifying. we don't have divided government where you have a lot of frustration coming to the top like we had when john boehner was speaker. charlie: your relationship with the president-elect. speaker ryan: it is very good. it is getting better. charlie: how is it getting better? speaker ryan: in the campaign we did not get along.

[laughter] charlie: do i need to remind you? speaker ryan: no no. i am a boy with thick skin. i have run on the national stage. criticisms don't affect me at this stage in my life. we constantly communicate. that constant communication has done a lot to build trust, and know each other much better. i shook his hand once in new york for years ago, but i really met him for the first time three weeks after he got the nomination. charlie: after he got the nomination? speaker ryan: that was the first time i really had a conversation. so i didn't know the guy. he didn't know me, i didn't know him. we did not speak frequently during the campaign. we had our differences and since the election, we have worked hard to make sure we are talking all the time.

charlie: what is the conversation between him and you? speaker ryan: almost always about the agenda in place. mitch mcconnell and i spent the last two months on piecing together a legislative strategy for 2017 to make good on the promises we made to the public. how are we going to execute that? all of my conversations revolve around that, the plans, sometimes it is personnel, because he is populating a cabinet. it is about how to fix these problems, how to deliver on our objectives and goals. charlie: so this relationship is healthy. speaker ryan: very healthy. charlie: he has used the bully pulpit to talk about jobs and bully corporations into not taking manufacturing overseas. is it a good idea? speaker ryan: i think people want an american president fighting for american jobs.

charlie: it resonated in the campaign. speaker ryan: i ran on a national stage. we did not win. he figured out how to do this. charlie: what did he figure out? speaker ryan: i think he figured out how to connect with people on an individual basis. everyone talks about twitter, how he handled this stuff. he learned how to go around the media, and to give a voice to people who feel that they have not been heard. i think in his unique communication skills, which are novel, he has tapped a vein and given voice to people who feel like they have not been represented. that basically gave us a winning coalition.

wisconsin is a perfect example. reagan in 1984 is a good example -- we are pretty much typically a blue state. how is it that donald trump wins wisconsin? he got disaffected blue-collar voters that are traditional union households to vote for donald trump. we together emerged forces on the end. we got the unified republican party. we got the college educated suburban republican voter that said, i like the unified republican government. charlie: including women. speaker ryan: we got them to come home. we got the reagan democrats to come over. i don't think the obama coalition produced for hillary. that coalition just did not turn out nearly like it did for barack obama. he is unique, as you said,

and it did not translate to her. those things i would describe as this victory, but donald's role in this ia tapping into a frustration and relating with people. charlie: what do you make of the people that say the election was one part that, one for james comey, and one part of what the russians did against her? speaker ryan: i think those are on the tangent. charlie: you don't deny them? the russians did interfere with the election? speaker ryan: no one disputes that. i don't think it had much of a bearing on it. only did was reinforced the existing story. james comey and the russians did not tell anyone to put a server in her basement, or put things on anthony weiner's laptop. those were already out there. this was just more of that. what she did not do was connect with people. she did not connect with people

in the way that her predecessor did. donald trump did. here is the other point, back to your earlier question. barack obama is a popular man. i don't think his policies are popular. we will get into the affordable care act i assume. my point, people say, i don't like the direction our country is going. look at the polls. post people don't believe the country is headed in the right direction. why would they follow a president that says we're going to keep us following the right direction? people want to change, and they need and deserve change. charlie: he also says she did not campaign in the states. speaker ryan: as someone who knows wisconsin politics, it is mindnumbing. we have to see you and feel you

and touch you. to ignore michigan, political malpractice in my mind. we already have the law on the books to have a physical barrier on the border. the way we look at this is whatever conditions warrant or dictate on the ground, that is what we should build. i have been to parts of the border where they suggest, we should have a long, or on these mountains it should be a fence. it is going to be a physical barrier. in some places it will be a wall because that is what conditions on the ground dictate. charlie: mexico will pay for it? [laughter] speaker ryan: the current plan is we are going to front the cash up front. charlie: the plan is, you are going to find the money, and he is going to find a way for mexico to pay you back? speaker ryan: that is right. charlie: is that feasible?

speaker ryan: actually it is, if you define paying it back in a broader way. i can go into tax reform-- charlie: how mexico will pay it back? speaker ryan: there are more ways we can get money coming in from mexico than the current status quo, in excess of whatever cost it would be to finance a wall. charlie: republicans are in favor of free trade. speaker ryan: i wrote the authority to go get trade agreements. charlie: so he is in favor of trade deals, but good ones. do you think that the transpacific deal was a bad deal? speaker ryan: i think president obama cut a bad deal in certain areas. i worked with his team during

the tpp negotiations. i think they wanted more to the left than we would have liked. they did three or four things that we could not live with. currently as constructed, it is not a good deal. i like multilateral agreements. they have to be quality agreements. charlie: the president of china was in davos, and he said trade war will destroy everybody's economy. speaker ryan: yeah, we don't a trade war. charlie: isn't that what the president is threatening? speaker ryan: no, i don't think so. first, the man is a negotiator and a businessman. he has a long ball view. this is not just episode and anecdotal. i think he has a longer-term vision. we are getting taking advantage

of by the chinese in areas of trade. they steal our intellectual property rights, subsidize to compete unfairly in violation of trade rules. not to mention dumping goods onto our country -- we call that transshipment. we have to enforce these agreements. we need to make sure they get treated just like we do. charlie: he said to have a 25% tariff on anything that comes in from china. speaker ryan: we are getting taken advantage in certain areas. the last thing that we want is a fortress america and a trademark. test does not mean we should lie down and say to other countries, we will play on a unlevel playing field with you.

the purpose of our trade policy ought to be to level the playing field. on a level playing field, the american worker can compete with anybody. charlie: you believe there can be a resurgence in american manufacturing? speaker ryan: absolutely. charlie: americans have not priced themselves out of the marketplace? speaker ryan: there are other factors other than bidding down wages. we don't have to play the weight -- wage arbitrage game. make america the place you want to build things in and export to, make america a energy powerhouse. we can lift those regulations and give them regulatory certainty. we can become an energy giant. in north america, we can have the kind of energy exportation that can rival-- it can rival opec.

if we get our regulatory policies right, we can see a change. charlie: what kind of tax reform are you in favor of? is it what donald trump wants? speaker ryan: if you want to look at it, you can go to our website. we have it up there. 22% is what the house plan is. he said he would like to do 15. we just have to get the numbers to add up. charlie: if you reduce it, you have to figure out. where to get the revenue speaker ryan: that is revenue neutral tax reform. charlie: that means you have to reduce the exemptions. speaker ryan: we plug loopholes,

which means more income subject to taxation, which makes us more competitive. why are we suffering from this tax system we have today? the industrial world, only industrialized country's average tax rate is 23% on businesses. our tax rate is 35% on businesses. that is only 25% of american businesses. the rate on individuals who file is a small business, that is 44.6%. we are killing ourselves. charlie: are these people were getting killed by obamacare? speaker ryan: yes, and regulations. most of our jobs, from small, new, and medium businesses. we have this goofy system that is out of sync on how we tax ourselves internationally.

it tells american businesses, you are better off becoming a foreign company, you are better off making things overseas and selling into america. if you sell something overseas, you can't bring the money back because of our tax system. 35%. we have this goofy system that is so out of sync with the rest of the world and uncompetitive. there are $2 trillion to $3 trillion that is american money that has been made and earned that is not coming back into our economy because of our tax laws. fixing that alone will bring in so much more to the american economy. we tax our businesses that rates higher than other countries, we lose, and that puts our economy at a huge disadvantage. we want to fix that. we want to get rates down, encourage businesses to buy

equipment in this country, and put us on a level playing field with the rest of the country, so that you make it in america, keep it in america, and sell it all over the world. this is the primary purpose of tax reform. grow the economy, more wages, higher jobs. that is what we are trying to accomplish. charlie: he said, anytime i hear border adjustment, i don't like it. [laughter] i don't love it, because usually it means we are going to get adjusted into a bad deal. speaker ryan: it is a very simple system that is very complicated in the way that it is described. let me describe it very clearly. the rest of the world has consumption taxes. when they make something in their country and so it overseas, they take the tax off. when something comes into their

country, they tax it. we do the exact opposite. take harley davidson in milwaukee. we tax it if it is written in wisconsin and we tax it if it is sold in japan. it is text if it leaves, and it is taxed if it enters into japan. let's take honda, a cycle that competes with the harley. honda makes this motorcycle. they take the tax off as it enters america. our motorcycle is taxed twice. charlie: you can't be competitive. speaker ryan: it is an unlevel playing field. it is getting us in sync with the rest of the world. let's take the tax of of our exports and put it on our imports, so we put our products on a level playing field with

the rest. it changes our taxing based on consumption, so it gives american companies and enormous incentive to stay in america. it will make it more profitable to keep that factory in this country, an export it. it makes it more profitable to stay in business, because your foreign competition is now on a level playing field. ♪

charlie: i spoke to the vice president elect this morning, mike pence, and he said we have this repeal, and then create a new program. he said in the next couple of weeks he will have a new program together. speaker ryan: we have a draft. we ran on a plan, by the way. you can go look at it on our website. we intend bringing this forward at the same time. for legislative reasons, they can be in the same bill. that is a procedural challenge we have. we intend burning all of our bills to show what we would repeal and replace. we would show not just a lot of the reveal, but the replace.

this law is collapsing under its own weight very quickly. charlie: meaning people are abandoning it? speaker ryan: insurers are pulling out, premiums are skyrocketing. it doesn't even feel like insurance. i give you a quick back story. they sold this law saying if you like your plan, you can keep it in the end it will bring down prices in premiums. it did not do any of those things. charlie: it did mean a lot more people were insured then they had not been before. speaker ryan: 11 million people were supposed to be on subsidies. it was supposed to be 22 million. the way they went about it, they went in the most prohibitive and expensive way to do it. it hurt health care for everyone else in america. and those plans now are going away.

humana pulled out, united pulled out, aetna pulled out. 5 states have only one insurance choice left. that is a monopoly. 30% of all counties in america, only one thing left. we are being told by insurers -- we will have zero plans left. charlie: you just said go to your website. they want to know what you want to replace it with, and they want to know where the money is coming from. that is the point. speaker ryan: it comes from obamacare, because it is built on a house of sand that is quickly collapsing. we want to take those resources and directed towards what we think is smarter policy. what do those things look like? one, health savings accounts could help people with deductible spending. re-think the better way with pre-existing conditions is subsidize their care through risk pools.

x-rays tell us it is about 8% of the under 65 population are under that category. let's just pay for their care. by doing it that way, the rest of the pool of americans don't have to cover those losses. we stabilize the insurance rates for everyone else. by having taxpayers focus on the risk pools, subsidizing cares for those with catastrophic illness, those losses don't have to be covered by everyone else and we stabilize their plans. we think a refundable tax credit is a way for people to buy insurance they like and can afford. a federal tax credit means you get assistance regardless of your ability to buy care. we want more insurance competition and more choices. that is why we want interstate shopping. let insurance compete across state lines. we have flo selling us home and auto insurance. why can't we have a vibrant

marketplace for health insurance? charlie: does medicare work? speaker ryan: it works, but it is just going bankrupt. medicare, it is arguably the most important program in the federal government. i would say arguably because social security is right up there. more than half of medicare's financing is on borrowed money. it goes bankrupt in the next decade. charlie: because there are so many of them-- speaker ryan: the baby boomers will crush the system, and we will have an insolvent system. the medicare reform guy in congress for many years. think the smart thing to do is guarantee coverage that currently exists.

we need to reform the program for my generation and down, the younger people, so that we can cash flow the commitment for the current seniors, and that our generation has a plan when we retire. charlie: where is your freedom caucus on all of this? speaker ryan: they are doing well. i think we have ourselves reunified. because we had an agenda we all took part in assembling, and now we are executing it and putting it together, that has been an enormous unifying factor in congress. john boehner never experienced his speakership on the kind of unified government we get to enjoy now. charlie: meaning he did not have the white house. speaker ryan: that was conflict. you know the story on that. as we have a chance at making a big positive difference in all these people's lives, we have a lot of unity in our caucus right now.

charlie: one less thing is infrastructure. how big is the bill going to be? speaker ryan: we have to find the fiscal -- we have to cut spending elsewhere to pay for infrastructure. you hear this trillion dollar eye-popping number. that is not coming from federal taxpayers into the transportation system. that is the total amount we are shooting for that leverages private-sector dollars. there are a lot of products -- charlie: how much is federal financing? speaker ryan: i don't know that. charlie: i bet you do. speaker ryan: i don't. charlie: of all the numbers that you know? speaker ryan: there is $40 of private-sector spending for those projects. we want to leverage is much

private-sector dollars to maximize the fixing of our infrastructure. that is harbors, bridges, canals. that is central to the economy working. we all agree on that. we have to figure out how to get echoing in a fiscally responsible way. so much of the money that gets through the system is wasted on bureaucracy and overhead. we have to clear that up. that is why we think leveraging goods is a wise start of taxpayer dollars. charlie: what about children coming in a legally? speaker ryan: we should strengthen the border for those coming in a legally. we should not be satisfied that we have no solution to an illegal immigration problem. that is what border security is

about. you are asking about people already in the country where the -- who are not documented. that is an issue we have to get to the country gets serious and secures the border. i don't think we have faith we can fix this problem without fixing the core problem, which is an unsecured border. charlie: banning muslims, where is the president elect on this, and where are you on this? speaker ryan: this is one of our differences in the campaign. [laughter] i subscribe to the view that we should have a security test coming into this country, not a religious test. i think that comes in face with -- charlie: what is on a security test? speaker ryan: if they pose a risk to the country, don't let them in. and if we aren't certain, don't let them in. a religious certainty test, just a whole category of people on

their faith, that is antithetical to our first amendment. i don't think we can or should do that. charlie: what does he think? what is interesting is that you have been party to changes in evolution of his thinking. speaker ryan: i think he is here now, what he calls extreme vetting, which we agree with. charlie: why does he say that? speaker ryan: let me give you an example for syria. we have tried to fix this rubik's cube of refugees back and forth. our agencies have told us, we can't vet these people. we know that isis has infiltrated the refugee population. we know that is coming.

charlie: and we know that as they lose territory in terms of mosul and syria, there is higher emphasis on that. speaker ryan: and when we take refugees, we often have a third-party to talk to. there is no syria to talk to. we can't call bashar al-assad's government and say, is this guy who he says he is? there is no way to verify. we are running a huge risk with refugees from this crisis. this is why our latest appropriation bill says no mike to bring them here, but money to set up refugee camps in the area to get them out of harm's way in jordan and other areas. by the way, most refugees want to go back to their homes. bringing them to the other side of the world only to bring them back after peace has occurred doesn't make sense.

charlie: this has created real political problems in europe. speaker ryan: big time. they have 1.1 million refugees that came in? they could not verify a whole proportion of them. i don't have the statistics in my mind. it is a huge chunk where they don't know what their background is. escorting your national security in jeopardy. we don't want to do that. charlie: you said at a townhall meeting "russia is a menace." that does not sound like the president elect to me, it sounds like the speaker of the house. do you have a basic difference between how we should engage russia? speaker ryan: i don't know the answer to that.

the people he is putting in his cabinet generally share the view that i have. charlie: rex tillerson as secretary of state. jim mattis. speaker ryan: they i would categorize as russia hawks. i think the president-elect has a long ball strategy in mind with relationships on russia. charlie: everybody wants to know that very question. here is what i would like to know. speaker ryan: i can't answer that question. charlie: but you are the speaker of the house, and you are having conversations with him. when you want to say, tell me your long-term -- wouldn't you you want to say, tell me your long-term diplomacy? speaker ryan: i think he believes in carrot-stick diplomacy. i think it has worked very well. he has made a difference already before he got into office.

i think that is nontraditional. i will go out on a limb. i think this will be a nonconventional presidency. [laughter] on russia, i think they are a malevolent actor. i will say he does believe they are a malevolent actor. charlie: is he prepared to, as he said, he will reduce sanctions, if they do something we do not like? speaker ryan: i can't speak to what that is. one he says that he is they are up to no good, and he knows they don't share our interests. that is clear. russia tries to frustrate our interests. i think the obama policy brought i this about. i think it was appeasement. they gave away missile-defense. charlie: can't you stop beating him up?

in [laughter] speaker ryan: they did bush for 8 years. give me a few months. you russia is due to a number of will russia is due to a number of factors. they have their own problems. their oil economy is not healthy. it is not a democracy. it is a thugocratic dictatorship. we have to be forceful in asserting our interest. we have to be showing there are consequent is, and we have to show ourselves and allies to guard against this 21st century asymmetrical cyber attack russia is trying to leverage on other countries. they are not a legitimate democracy in my opinion. i think they are trying to delegitimize the other real democracies.

charlie: therefore they are trying to delegitimize other countries. speaker ryan: think there is some of that involved in this. we need to prevent that from happening. charlie: did the intelligence community make a mistake in summarizing the dossier? speaker ryan: i think so. they took a document full of total unsubstantiated rumors produced by an opposition research firm for a political opponent in in a campaign. charlie: who then hired a british firm. speaker ryan: normally i wouldn't comment what is or isn't classified documents. it's now out. by putting it in proximity with other products of the intelligence community -- charlie: they didn't do that, did they? they didn't put it together.

all they did was summarize it, and said we ought to give it to the president of the united states and president-elect. speaker ryan: i think they have contributed to the confluence. it is not legitimate. we should not be conferring any legitimacy to this thing. i think that was a mistake in judgment. because i am second in line, i get the same kinds of briefs. charlie: you mean, vice president, and then you? speaker ryan: write. i'm involved in our intelligence community. i charlie: do you respect them? do you think they are competent? speaker ryan: yes. charlie: do you think the president-elect shares that view? speaker ryan: you just start reading these briefings. there are the men and women who are career, who are putting

their lives on the line for our country that are outstanding professionals that produce really good work. then on top there are political is appointees who work in the west wing's that can produce a difference. what donald trump has is the opportunity to put these people in place. mike pompeo, one of the smartest guys i have served with and congress. charlie: number one in his class at west point. then went back to kansas to be a politician. speaker ryan: yes, to get elected to congress. [laughter] a room the point is, donald trump is staffing himself with high-quality individuals who will work with this intelligence community and i believe serve him very well. and he realizes and sees the

quality they are producing -- i think they already have his will respect, but they will have more of his respect. charlie: when he gets there. speaker ryan: yeah, every administration's political. the obama one was more political than i have ever seen before. you charlie: what was the most egregious thing they have done in your mind? speaker ryan: i think they micromanaged the military too far. they took away too much i confirmed our from the secretary of defense, from secretary of state, and have a lot of unconfirmed 28-year-old stranger run foreign policy when better experts were out there. the amount of micromanaging from a the nfc was mindnumbing and frustrating to the men and women trying to do their jobs.

i think that is something donald trump will do to fix. ♪

charlie: today in his final press conference, he raised concerns about a two state solution in israel slipping away. speaker ryan: i don't see a two state solution in the offing anytime soon. charlie: the further you get from it, the more it seems like

we will have to face the choice between, are we are democracy or a jewish state? speaker ryan: i don't see that coming. charlie: that is the fear the president raised. speaker ryan: i think the president made a colossal mistake. charlie: in the security council? speaker ryan: it made peace harder. we abandoned our long-standing commitment to stand by to israel and the security council. they have given legitimacy to claims that aren't. that make harder for these sites to come together. i think we need to do more to support our friends in israel. charlie: the israelis will say they get more support militarily from this administration than any previous administration.

speaker ryan: we just renegotiated a new m.o.u. i am not going to argue with that. i think the obama administration undercut our ally out of the door. a two state solution works if both sides want a to stay solution. that doesn't work if one side doesn't think you should exist. they don't think israel has the right to exist. how can you have a two state solution when the people on the other side of the states-- charlie: that is not everybody, come on. that is hamas. speaker ryan: it is in their charter, and they are part of this coalition government. you need a respect to a right to resist. charlie: you said paul ryan is not a neocon. what are you?

speaker ryan: in the old days, a neocon used to mean a lot of things about foreign policy. i am less of an interventionist than what you would subscribe as that. we need a moral in principle-based foreign policy. we need to defend our values and views, but have to be cautious and judicious in our use of force. you it has allowed a level of him engagement such that our him national security interests him and are at risk. that in my mind rises the level of troop commitment to a high burden and threshold of proof, all the while we have to project and defend our principles. it doesn't mean we have to use troops. it should mean we have a moral

foreign policy. i don't call myself a realpolitik guy, with a laissez-faire foreign policy. we need to help the rest of the world with this. i think we have to be very cautious. charlie: a question about that, either you have to go to something important. speaker ryan: home to wisconsin. [laughter] charlie: doesn't the speaker has a fleet of planes? speaker ryan: no, i turned them down. charlie: there are questions about america's entrenchment, and enough playing the role that it has, that it must respect in the world. nothing offends the president of the united states more than that. he believes that is what he did, he built america's respect around the world. speaker ryan: i see it differently because of the hollowing out of our military. i see syria is a mistake.

charlie: notwithstanding that they got the gas out? speaker ryan: in 2012, he made such a prominent declaration. he said, here is a clear line, and they crossed it, and never enforced it. that did more to degrade our standing in the world with respect to the value of our word. you combine that with the hollowing out of our military, what i would call this recent appeasement policy with russia, combine that with not agreeing to arm the ukrainians. charlie: appease russia? speaker ryan: he gave them missile defense with nothing in return. we could have done much more to help the ukrainians, and he did not do that.

i look at the green revolution in iran. he did nothing to support the revolution. he hurt the green revolution by passively supporting the mullahs. if we are going around the world, i think the iranian deal is the worst of them all, which i believed it image to our standing in the world and our national security. we basically said, you are going to have a nuclear weapon and will be a legitimate nuclear power. charlie: at the time that deal was being negotiated, they were two or three months away from having a nuclear weapon. because of that deal, now they are a year away, and have turned over a lot of the things that are necessary to make the material. speaker ryan: we went above and beyond what the deal requires. john kerry has been like the tehran chamber of commerce.

we have lessened sanctions. i think we effectively paid ransom for hostages. charlie: so you don't want boeing selling planes to iran? speaker ryan: no, i actually don't. i think we need to be tighter on iran. charlie: the would like the sanctions to be still there. speaker ryan: of course. they are the largest terror sponsoring the world. a charlie: to go after us, primarily? speaker ryan: absolutely. what will happen in your judgment to the iran deal in congress? what will the consequences be? speaker ryan: the question is, where do you go from here? how much toothpaste can you put back in the tube to put iran back into account? i think iran is bullish and on

their way to becoming a nuclear state. charlie: you don't think this deal put them further away from becoming a nuclear state? speaker ryan: but it says at the end of this window, they can have nuclear weapons at the end of this window. i am convinced of that. that thing they made this mistake in putting this deal together, absolutely. this isn't a reformed iran. they writes on their missiles, "usa and israel" and finance terrorism more than any country in the world. charlie: do you think congress will dismantle it? are there people that have found fault with it who will say, don't do it? speaker ryan: we have to do more analysis on making this better, bringing iran to account, and tightening sanctions, because they are still being a bad actor.

there are a lot of things we still can't undo. the multilateral sanctions are gone. too much of this is outside of our control. i charlie: other than seeing the packers win, which would make it you happy, would you like to see paul ryan president? speaker ryan: no. it is not an ambition that i have harbored. when mitt romney asked me to join the ticket, you think about the factors involved. i thought about whether to run in this cycle. at the end of the day, i always came back to the same conclusion, which is that i enjoy being a policy maker in congress, but most of all i like being a normal person living a

normal life with a normal family, and can go back to the normal life when i am done with public service. i see this as a vocation to make the best difference in people's lives as i can. that is why i have never harbored these presidential ambitions. i have presidential sized policy ambition. i just don't have presidential sized personal ambition. charlie: we would like to be president, but you don't think it is worth the toll it takes. speaker ryan: i want to do this job. i didn't want to be speaker of the house, i wanted to be ways and means chair. i have learned to like this job. i have found it a high honor, and there is no other job i am looking for. charlie: thank you. speaker ryan: you bet. go packers. [laughter] charlie: thanks for joining us. see you next time. ♪

i am shery ahn with an update of the top stories. donald trump has promised to unify america when he moves into the white house. on the eve of his in a generation, the president-elect said america has voted for change and vowed to carry out his campaign pledges. he said he would secure america's borders and old up the military. china's growth accelerated for the fourth time in two years. gdp increased 6% from a year earlier. year expansion was at its slowest pace si