-- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com and, good evening, i'm erin burnett along with wolf blitzer tonight. and welcome to a special edition of "outfront" because we are following the breaking news, and a major development at this hour because we are just learning that kevin mccarthy will not run for speaker of the house again will not run. a major decision coming after he made history. the first speaker in american history to lose his job. his firing has plunged the house

into complete chaos, all work grinding to a halt. the party bewildered and uncertain what to do. no clear successor is in sight at this hour. but we do know that house republicans, as wolf and i are sitting here, are behind closed doors in a pivotal meeting, one that is sure to be heated, wolf, if what we've heard about recent meetings before all of this is any indication of where we are right now. >> we are standing by for details. mccarthy's removal puts an end to his term, which was just 269 days as speaker of the house. that makes his term the third shortest in u.s. history. we have a lot to cover over the next hour. and i want to start with cnn's manu raju. he's "outfront" live here in washington. manu, first of all, tell us more about what mccarthy is now saying to his fellow republicans. >> reporter: yeah, he's stunned, saying that he will not run for the speakership again.

i just talked to congressman ralph norman about this. he said that the members did not expect that, and the meeting abruptly ended. he did not endorse a successor, but indicating that he will not run for the speakership again. really, a fall for the speaker because kevin mccarthy had planned to fight this out. he had indicated that if he were to be ousted from the speakership, as he was today, that he would fight this or potentially go to the floor, be ready to grind it out. he had suggested that. but in recent days, he has not said explicitly. and coming to the realization that there is virtually no path for him to win, as long as those holdouts within his conference decide to vote against him. democrats are expected to vote for hakeem jeffries to be the next speaker. republicans can only afford to lose four republicans in order to be re-elected speaker. eight republicans today voted against him. that simply was not there for kevin mccarthy. we will hear more about his thinking in just a matter of minutes. he will speak to reporters.

but this meeting that members were trying to figure out what was next was a very brief one, as the speaker came in, said he is not running. mccarthy came in and said he is not running to become speaker again. and now republicans have to figure out what's next. they have to get behind a speaker. otherwise, the house will remain in a state of paralysis. no legislation, the committees can't move forward on their investigations, nothing can happen until this badly divided republican conference can come behind a consensus candidate. we'll see how quickly that emerges here, wolf. but a momentous decision during a historic day of kevin mccarthy being the first-ever speaker pushed out of office by the house, and now saying he will no longer be a candidate for speaker as this party tries to figure out where to go from here, wolf. >> and, manu, we're now expecting that mccarthy will emerge from this republican conference meeting where you are, and he will meet with reporters and answer their questions, a formal news conference coming up in the next

few minutes? >> reporter: that's right. we expect that around 7:30 eastern time that he will talk to reporters, answer questions, and perhaps provide some thinking about what happened here, what happened on the floor. and i can tell you, wolf, in talking to some of the mccarthy allies, they will be distraught about this decision. of course, he had the support of virtually all of the conference. just a handful of members, more than four could disrupt his speakership at any time. he tried to align with those hard-right members from the beginning of this congress. and after he was elected from 15 ballots, he had to make a whole number of concessions. but perhaps the one that sealed his fate was the big concession, allowing one single member to call for a vote seeking his ouster. and that's exactly what congressman matt gaetz did that forces the ouster today. now, as a result, kevin mccarthy is out as speaker, no longer will run, and republicans have to figure out what's next. >> we'll, of course, have live coverage of kevin mccarthy's news conference coming up this

hour. so everybody stand by for that. manu, thank you very, very much. >> and you see manu getting ready to speak with congressman garcia. we're going to be bringing the former speaker mccarthy's news conference to you live when that begins any moment. former congressman, you knew him. all right, this is congressman gaetz. let's listen to gaetz now. >> on our appropriations bills in electing a new speaker. i was very disappointed that mr. mchenry said that we won't be engaging in the people's work until next week, until tuesday of next week. i think that's burning a lot of time. >> so he said that the house is leaving town until next tuesday? >> yeah, it was very disappointing. i think we should stay, we should work. i think we should have a speaker election this week. i think we could easily come together as a conference to do that. and, so, i just hate when we pause the clock. i hate when we stop our work and don't do the people's business. >> reporter: who are you going to get behind as a candidate? >> i don't know who the

candidates are. >> all right. when manu -- manu can't hear me right now. i do want to get some more clarification as soon as we can on that. because -- okay, manu, can you hear me now? >> reporter: yeah. >> what did congressman gaetz just tell you, that patrick mchenry told him that there isn't going to be a vote on this till tuesday? >> reporter: we're live on cnn right now. mr. gaetz just told us that mchenry just said that the house will not be in session until next tuesday. at that point is that when we expect the speaker's house? >> what mr. mchenry said was that candidates would have the time, opportunity to make their intentions run for speaker known, and to socialize that and to meet with folks, and we would come together tuesday evening to have a candidate forum for those who are interested and that we would hope to vote on a speaker on wednesday. >> reporter: so the speaker's

race on the floor will be wednesday. >> he said we would have a meeting tuesday night to have a candidate forum and allow those candidates to make their case. and then we would hopefully, use that term, hopefully vote on a speaker on wednesday. and i don't know if that would mean within conference wednesday or within conference tuesday night or on the floor. so, the certainty was tuesday night for a conference meeting to have a candidate forum. >> reporter: what is your reaction being one of the eight members who pushed speaker mccarthy out, his decision here to not be a candidate again for speaker? >> i thanked speaker mccarthy for his service. my position on the situation was well-documented. >> reporter: but do you feel like you're going to be marginalized within this conference? you were one of a very small minority who set this into -- >> i believe it was best for the country. i will say there has been a blow dealt to the status quo, and if americans are concerned that things don't seem to change in washington with 33 trillion

national debt, a $2 trillion deficit, a federal government they believe is weaponized against them, oppressing them, not working for them, and that things, again, just seem to stay the same, i think this is a step in the right direction. thank you. >> reporter: i don't know if you're still with me here, erin. >> oh, i'm with you. >> reporter: just to break down all of this developing news as we hear it. so, according to both congressman good and congressman gaetz, two of the people who pushed kevin mccarthy out of the speakership, the house is going to be out of session, essentially, until next week as candidates will emerge to become the next speaker of the house. it sounded like republicans will meet again on tuesday and then come wednesday is when they would expect there to be a vote. it's unclear based on what good just said about whether or not there will actually be a full vote in the full house for a speaker's race or simply if the gop conference would nominate their candidate for speaker. but typically what happens in

leadership elections, first there is a nomination process among the conference. in order to get nominated speaker, you'd have a majority of votes within your conference, and in this case that would be a majority of the 223 members in the house gop conference. but the trick is you need to have a majority of the house to become elected speaker. that is what kevin mccarthy ran into. 218 members of the full house, as democrats will vote for hakeem jeffries, and 218 members of the 223 house republicans vote for the next speaker candidate. that is an open-ended question. as you can see here, there is no consensus candidate at the moment. there will be candidates that will emerge that will try to get support from their own conference. but that is something that will begin to play out now that kevin mccarthy has made that very significant decision of not running again for speaker of the house after being ousted on this right-wing revolt led by congressman matt gaetz as a result now republicans are trying to figure out what's next as they head into critical votes

next week. >> yes, critical votes, there's nothing else being voted on. manu, very much. to make the point clear here, there is no speaker, there is no business, there is no nothing. and they have just admitted, congressman walsh, that they have no plan and nobody ready and to the extent that they are going to go away for a whole week and have no congress because they can't get their business together. >> and it sounded like a candidate forum, it sounded like they were having a bake sale next tuesday night. erin, the entire conference is in shock, all sides. and i think the only thing that makes sense to me in doing this, in waiting a few days, because the house is closed now, is there can't be a fight for speaker. there's got to be one vote, one ballot, and it sounds like they want that all tied up by next week. >> what they're admitting, though, alyssa, is that they

know they're nowhere close. >> the stunning lack of urgency, i think, is going to just send shock waves through the american public, let's take a week to sleep on this, to socialize. heaven forbid something like a natural disaster happens that requires an emergency declaration by congress or some sort of business that needs to be taken care of. listen, i think we can kind of expect what we're going to see. i would keep my eyes on elise stefanik. she's got the conference chair title so she's got a big staff behind her. she's a big fundraiser. donald trump likes her. keep your eyes on steve scalise. the person who would make the most sense is someone like a patrick mchenry, he's an institutionalist, he knows how to count votes, let's just keep the ship running. i don't think that's what it's going to be. and donald trump has remained silent on all this, or largely silent. i think at some point he's going to have to put his finger on the scale of who it's going to be there, and they're going to spend the next week rather than doing the people's business,

jockeying for that endorsement. >> we've all said it a million times, the house is shut down. they're not going to do anything. >> no impeachment inquiry continues. you can't have declarations of war. these are big things. it is interesting, and i want to mention here that we are waiting any moment the former speaker of the house, kevin mccarthy to speak to reporters. the way manu described it, he walked into this room, stunned his colleagues, said not running, not endorsing a successor, abruptly ended the meeting. >> why would he do anything more? he's probably looking at everybody and saying, my god, look at what you did to me. but he did it to himself. we saw this coming. everyone that watched it saw this coming that there's no way that he could be able to hold onto this position which he was seemingly flayed 15 times to be able to actually assume that position. and i have to say this, what did democrats do today? what democrats did today was open the door for a black woman to be sworn in as senator,

laphonza butler. that's governance, that is a peaceful transition of power. and that is democrats saying, you know what, we know how to govern, we are the party of good governance. they made history today in a way that republicans -- >> and she was, of course, sworn in to replace dianne feinstein from california. >> republicans made history in a very different way today and they have put the american people in jeopardy because no business is getting done in the meantime. >> one crucial thing that keeps coming up is the reality that the reason kevin mccarthy was in this position was that he gave up one crucial thing. he said that one person alone would be able to bring up a vote on whether to oust him as speaker. usually in a negotiation once you give something up, it's really hard to get it back. how do you ever take that away? how does the next person who wants this job say, well, i'm not willing to give that up? when that's already been given up. >> well, there's the old saying that we can never blame our enemies for doing what they will expectedly due. when you give up that type of power to effectively light fire

to the people's house, then you can expect this result. i do think that if you're looking at what happened today, two things happened. i think, number one, mccarthy, in his own way, demonstrated how he was able to become speaker of the house in the first place by suffering 15 times, to be able to hold that community together. then, once again, putting the american people first. because if you look at it through that perspective, if democrats decided in closed conference to effectively let it burn, the it that is burning is not just republicans. republicans are parcel and part of america. it is america that is burning. and in many ways -- >> and in that sense you're seeing that on capitol hill right now and the anger and frustration among democrats and republicans, many of whom manu raju is speaking to. manu, we saw you speak to congressman good, congressman gaetz. you got a chance to speak to congressman jordan. what are you hearing from others as they come out of that room? >> reporter: i tell you, this is actually an interesting interaction that i just had with

congressman jim jordan. i asked him will you be a candidate for speaker of the house. he said that is a decision for the conference. now, why is that significant? because before when kevin mccarthy was running for speaker, he flatly ruled it out. he said i only want to be the house judiciary chairman. clearly not ruling out the possibility of running for speaker. congressman jim jordan, someone who has a sizeable amount of support with this, particularly among some of those hard-right members, the same members who pushed kevin mccarthy out and has the support of a lot of mccarthy allies. jordan himself was a staunch mccarthy advocate. he just told me that he thought what happened to mccarthy was very, very unfair, but, notably, not ruling out the possibility of running for speaker. there will be candidates who emerge. we'll see if steve scalise who is the number two, was the number two before kevin mccarthy, was pushed out, he is

seen as a possibility. tom emmer, the current republican whip, what will he do? elise stefanik, another member of the republican leadership team. we'll see if mr. roy, are you considering running for speaker at all? >> right now we just got to figure out what we're going to do. >> reporter: who do you want to run? >> we just got to move forward for the american people. >> reporter: so, roy there, i don't know if you caught that, but he basically said that we're going to have to have a discussion with the people. this is really the situation that we're in, that there are just -- so much uncertainty about who can lead this conference, who has the support to do it, who can go after -- handle some of these members, those same holdouts. i talked to one congressman. i'll see if -- do you have a candidate in mind for speaker right now? >> i don't. i'm waiting to hear them. >> reporter: scott perry, he's a chairman of the house freedom caucus. >> they just say waiting to hear, manu? >> reporter: yeah, he's waiting to hear. he was also eating a piece of

pizza. he said that he was waiting to hear. i said do you have a candidate in mind. he said, i don't. there is a ton of uncertainty about how this will play out, what candidates will emerge, who eventually will get the nomination to become the next speaker of the house. but there is just also so much anger. i talked to one congressman austin scott, who railed on what he called eight anarchists. he said the next speaker needs to go after these eight anarchists, members of those republicans who voted to oust speaker mccarthy, that is just the sentiment amongst so many mccarthy allies here who believe that he was traded unfairly, undercutting everything they were trying to do as a republican majority, this chaos right now worried about the impacts on the majority, their ability to hang onto it and keep their own. and also the basic essence of governing. and that's why it is so critical electing the next speaker of the house. if you don't have one, nothing happens in this chamber. the question is who will emerge as that candidate?

>> manu, what i find amazing in each of these conversations that you're having is the person they kicked out as leader, they all look to, to lead in that room and said, see ya later, i'm not running again, go figure it out. and then patrick mchenry says they're coming back in a week, next tuesday night to have a little meeting, a forum he called it, and then maybe a vote the next day. but it's unclear what that was. i mean, is it stunning to you, manu? are they stunned coming out of that room finding out that there is no plan, there is no person, they have no idea, and congress is going to shut down for a week? >> reporter: i mean, the problem with it, and in talking to a lot of these republicans, there are a lot of members who simply don't want to run this conference because they know they can be very much in the same position as kevin mccarthy. they had to do some of the basic things such as keeping the government open by mid-november. that is a basic function of

congress. there is no clear sense on how that could get done. what mccarthy did ultimately ended him out of the speakership. so they hadn't really made any contingency plans even though it had become clear for days that mccarthy didn't have the votes to stay as speaker, because there were questions about whether mccarthy would fight this out. he kept saying -- mr. comer, who do you want to see run as speaker? do you have a candidate in mind? >> this is all so sudden. i want to get with the members of our conference and try to get a consensus because we've got to work together as a team. we've got a lot of things that we need to accomplish. we've accomplished a lot. there's a lot yet to be done. >> reporter: is the impeachment inquiry stalled until there is a speaker? >> absolutely. we're going to continue to read emails, text messages, put together timelines, try to get people to come in. >> reporter: but you can't do anything until there's a speaker. >> well, i think we can. we're going to keep working like we've been working and continuing to follow the money.

>> reporter: are you considering running for speaker yourself? >> no. i'm lucky to be in congress. >> reporter: what did you think of what mccarthy, his comments in there, and what is your reaction to everything that went down today? >> well, i mean, obviously i supported mccarthy. one of our criticisms of what was about to happen was what is the plan. so obviously there was no plan. it's unfortunate. i came in when paul ryan was speaker, and i can tell you for transparency, there's more communication, we're working together under kevin mccarthy. my colleague thomas massie said it best on the floor, i agree with everything he said, i didn't serve with boehner but i served with paul ryan and i think we had made some positive changes. at the end of the day, and i said this on newsmax last night, i'll say it on fox tonight, it's hard to get to 218. it is hard to get to 218. and, for me, i would vote for the most conservative spending bill anyone could put forward.

but if you can't get the 218, then you have to adjust. so the problem with the 6 to 11 is if you can't get to 218 in the house, it's a problem. >> reporter: can anyone run this conference? >> i think we're going to have to be a little more realistic. but there are a lot of people that can run the conference. we're all replaceable. >> reporter: there are members who will just never go along with certain things. >> we're going to have to. and i think that people will go home and hear from their people. and at the end of the day, people want us to govern. we've done a good job governing. we just have a disagreement on spending. there are people that want to make significant cuts. i consider myself in that category. and there are people that want to increase spending. so, at the end of the day, part of governing is coming together and forming consensus. that's not something the people on the far left or the far right like. but that's just the way it is. and i think kevin did the best that he could. we averted the shutdown.

we had some positions that i think should've been suitable. jim jordan led on a continuing resolution with the border issue. i thought that would have been good. that's one issue that i think even in blue cities they agree we have a border crisis. >> reporter: but you don't have a candidate in mind right now? >> i don't think anybody does. this is all uncharted territory. >> reporter: so, as you can see, erin, a lot of questions still including from the chairman of the house oversight committee. him not being a candidate, but who is still a question from all these members who are emerging from this meeting. >> congressman comer seems confused as to whether an inquiry can continue. of course it cannot continue without a speaker. as manu continues to talk to congresspeople walking by in the hall, and we are anticipating a press conference from former speaker kevin mccarthy. i'm joined now by republican congressman warren davidson from ohio. he did vote to keep him as speaker. congressman, i want to ask you about that decision in a moment given what's happened in just

these past few hours. but you just came out of the meeting with the speaker. were you as stunned as others have described themselves by how abruptly he ended it, announcing that he will not run again? >> no. i expected that if he did not succeed in the motion to vacate, if he came up short of the votes, that that would probably be his reaction to it. i consider kevin a friend. i'm very thankful. i think he did make a very good faith effort to unite the conference. and i nominated him in january. i voted for him on the floor today. and, as i've said, i will fight alongside republicans to do anything. but i'm not going to surrender the agenda, you know, go alongside anyone. and, frankly, that's how kevin went out. democrats approached me about cutting a deal, i'm not cutting a deal with the far extreme people that just moved this. that was his words or a description of it. and i think he went out on his terms. i think his point is the agenda

has to be bigger than one person. so surely there is somebody in our conference that can unite 218 people and say -- and that's where it goes. it's more important than who the person is. it's what is it that we are committing to work together to accomplish. and i think if we focus on that, we can get this done. >> so a couple questions. congressman comer just said i don't think anybody does when manu asked him if he had any who would be the next speaker. chip roy i'm waiting to hear. people seem pretty stunned in that they don't have an idea where this is going. do you have a preferred person that you think should be the next speaker? >> well, i think my point is i think that's the wrong sequence. i think what we have to come together with is what exactly is the mission that we're committing to. and then we choose who's the best leader to accomplish that mission. and i think that really is the path to uniting us. people aren't taking this well across the conference. there's a whole kind of sense of loss in grieving. and i think the challenge, part

of what i said to colleagues, i tried to broker a compromise between matt gaetz and kevin mccarthy sunday and monday. and unfortunately that didn't work out. i really feel like we do risk our agenda. because if there's a deal cut with democrats, our agenda is gone to the wind. so we have to come together as republicans. and so let's agree on what that agenda is. and if we can do that and the person that kind of helps unite the conference in that, that's probably who will emerge as the leader. >> one thing i have to ask you, congressman, though, about your role in all of this, and you're talking about how you tried to broker a deal between gaetz and mccarthy. fair enough. you voted to keep mccarthy as speaker, ultimately when it came down to that vote, you voted to support him. but that vote wouldn't have happened if you had not also wanted to move forward with the resolution to oust mccarthy. do you regret that? did you think that that was just going to be sort of a symbolic vote? and then mccarthy was going to stay in place, because obviously you voted to -- >> i knew the vote count going in, frankly.

so my vote didn't change. there were two separate questions. and the motion to table is a parliamentary gimmick to avoid the underlying question. and the motion to vacate is a -- if you remember the speaker fight, it was prominent in the negotiations as to who would be speaker. frankly, in the conference rules going into november, december time frame, we had a debate about making it so that the conference could move to vacate, but only with a majority of the conference. what kevin did as part of the negotiation to become speaker was move to five people could move to vacate to ultimately one person could move to vacate. so the idea of avoiding that question would've left everything still simmering. and the reality is you could have the same bloc of people take down every single rule we put on the floor. so there really is no path to govern once you've got -- no you longer have the majority. we only have the majority as long as we work together as a party. >> so, the other thing that i think is stunning, and i think it should be stunning to the m american people, and i don't

know if you expected this or not, but patrick mchenry saying that congress is going to go home for a week to socialize so that possible candidates for speakers could socialize their candidacies. and then there would be a forum a week from tonight among republicans to discuss that. then maybe a vote the next day unclear whether that vote would be among republicans. do you think it's acceptable that congress basically shuts down for an entire week so your party can figure out who should be the speaker? >> it wasn't. that's why i didn't support the motion to vacate. and, look, i think patrick mchenry made a wise decision. i think a lot of people were caught flat-footed by that. people need to vent, and i think pat rick just decided that really isn't going to be productive. and when people are angry, they say things in a way that isn't taken well, and words kind of cause setbacks and divisions. and i think probably the right call, as i sit there and

processed it, i was surprised by it. >> but i think it was wisdom by patrick to say let's give us some time and space, let everyone go through this in their own way, they'll meet with their friends and colleagues, maybe they'll reach out across the aisle. and the person that can start to build that coalition might be the person that emerges as the person who can be the next speaker. >> congressman davidson, i appreciate your time. thank you very much. and of course, wolf, as they have those conversations just to emphasize, the people's business will not be done, congress will not be doing anything for the american people. >> truly an historic moment right now, all the chaos in the house of representatives. we've been hearing from a bunch of republicans. i'm joined now by democratic congresswoman elissa slotkin from michigan. she is joining us right now. first of all, let me get your reaction to the news that just came out a little while. and we're standing by for this news conference from kevin mccarthy, representative kevin mccarthy is no longer the speaker. if i have to interrupt you to go there, you will, of course, understand. what's your reaction to his announcement already to his

republican colleagues that he will not seek to k about the speaker again? >> well, i'm a little surprised because we had heard repeatedly from republicans as we left the floor today that he was going to try again, they were going to try and convince some of the republican colleagues to flip, that we were going to go through another round of votes for a long time to the point where people on the republican side were worried how long it could go. so, obviously he's decided not to go that way, and that's a surprise. >> what's your -- hold on a second. here he comes. here's kevin mccarthy. let's hear his statement, and then he'll take questions. >> you know, president abraham lincoln once said i'm an optimist because i don't see any other way. if you ever come to my office, you'll see the portraits of lincoln and reagan. and i firmly believe if reagan gave his advice, he would say if you believe your principles bring people greater freedom, you should be happy about it.

i've always been excited that i've been a happy conservative. but i've always believed that i've been so fortunate to be an american. my journey to this office was something people wouldn't understand. i grew up in a town in bakersfield, california, the son of a firefighter. the grandson of immigrants. parents worked hard, the youngest in my family. didn't have great wealth. i didn't have great grades. couldn't get a scholarship. went to community college. flipped cars to try to pay my way through it. went to visit some buddies. stopped at the grocery store to cash a check and i won the lottery. one of the first in california. this was before biden economics, it was only 5,000 but it went much further back then. took my folks to dinner, put the majority of the rest of the money into the stock market and did pretty well. the next semester i took a break

from school, i went to buy a franchise, but no one said they would sell me one because i was only 20 years old. but i learned then never to give up. so i opened my own business, selling sandwiches. three things i learned. first to work, last to leave, last to be paid. i wanted to finish my college degree. at that time no one in my family had finished a four-year degree. i now had enough money that i could pay my way through school as long as i went to cal state. i opened up the local paper and said be a summer intern in washington, d.c. with my local congressman. i did not know this man, but i thought he'd be lucky to have me so i applied. you know what he did? he turned me down. but you want to know the end of the story? i got elected to the seat, i couldn't get an internship for. i ended up being the 55th speaker of the house. one of the greatest honors. i loved every minute. and the one thing i will tell you is, doing the right thing

isn't always easy but it is necessary. i don't regret standing up for choosing governance over grievance. it is my responsibility, it is my job. i do not regret negotiating. our government is designed to find compromise. i don't regret my efforts to build coalitions and find solutions. i was raised to solve problems, not create them. so i may have lost a vote today. but as i walk out of this chamber, i feel fortunate to have served the american people. i leave the speakership with a sense of pride, accomplishment, and yes, optimism. from the day i entered politics, my mission has always been to make tomorrow better than today. i fought for what i believe in, and i believe in this country of america. my goals have not changed. my ability to fight is just in a

different form. you need 218. unfortunately, 4% of our conference can join all the democrats and dictate who could be the republican speaker in this house. i don't think that rule is good for the institution. but apparently i'm the only one. i believe i can continue to fight, maybe in a different manner. i will not run for speaker again. i'll have the conference, pick somebody else. i hope you realize that every day i did the job regardless of whether you underestimated me or not, i wanted to do it with a smile. i grew to enjoy you even on your toughest days and your questions. i could always tell what day it was based upon your question. monday you would ask if i could pass the bill. tuesday was whether the rule would pass. wednesday was the greatest challenge ever to my speakership. and thursday when we passed the

bill, you didn't think it was a very big deal. and it all started again on friday. you know, i wouldn't change a thing. i do believe i got a portrait of teddy roosevelt. you all know the man in the arena. one of my favorite parts of it, who errs who comes up short again and again. who spends themself in a worthy cause who knows the triumph of high achievement. and if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. i always like to take a risk. saturday, i took a risk for the american public. regardless of what anybody says, no one knew whether that would pass. the democrats didn't want that bill. yes, they pulled a fire alarm,

yes, they do their conga line, yes, they wanted to delay. but it was all for the american people. i could not look the troops in the eye and say i would not pay them. for those who spoke on the floor, i thank them for their positive talks. i don't know what those who voted against and said they were part of a deal. they were never a part of any deal. for those who said about what we accomplished, i'm proud of what we accomplished from the parents bill of rights to our energy bill. but if they want to hold me liable because the senate or the president didn't take it up, that's politics, for what i know. but the one thing i do know, this country is too great for small visions of those eight. to any child that are listening and who are coming to visit the capitol, this is a plate i want

you to visit. i liked opening the capitol back up again. i liked taking away the metal detectors. i liked committees being able to work. i liked people being able to visit. i hope you like being able to be back in. i think it was important that members actually show up to work as well. you know, to paraphrase lou gehrig. he said i might've given myself a break, but i was the luckiest man on the face of the earth. there is no country that you could rise to be the 55th speaker, not get an internship, and be able to fight for the american public. so it was my greatest honor to be able to do it. i love my conference well. i we won two majorities. as leader, i'm proud of the fact we only gained races, only gained seats.

i'm proud of the fact as a republican leader we elected more women, we elected more minorities, we expanded the base. i'm proud of the fact that for the five years i leaded two election cycles we gained five more election seats in california, five more in new york. the same thing you would underestimate me you always said we'd lose each time around. we kept gaining. i intend to make sure we gain and move forward in the next cycle as well. with that, i look forward to your positive questions. [ inaudible question ] >> i'll look at that. >> we've heard you say approximately 10,000 times that you never give up. so i'm wondering why make the decision to not try to grind it out? >> you need 218 for the rule, 218 to move forward. and i'll never give up on the american people. that doesn't mean i have to be speaker to do what i have to do

for the american people. there's a lot of things i could do for the american people. but, you know what's interesting, everybody's sitting there in today's world if you're sitting in congress, and you took a gamble to make sure government was still open, and eight people can throw you out a speaker, and the democrats who said they wanted to keep government open, i think you've got a real divide. i think you've got a real institutional problem. interesting, it was in this room after we had won the majority i had become speakerless. and nancy pelosi came to me. she was speaker at the time on the way out. and i told her i was having issues with getting enough votes. and she said what's the problem. i said they want this one person can rule you out. i had the power to call the vote on her. but i never would. i lost some votes because of it. she said, just give it to him.

i'll always back you up. i made the same offer to boehner and same thing to paul because i believe in the institution. i think today was a political decision by the democrats. and i think the things they have done in the past hurt the institution. they just started removing people from committee. and they just started doing other things. my fear is the institution fell today, because you can't do the job if eight people, you have 94%, or 96% of your entire conference, but eight people can partner with the whole other side. how do you govern? and for them to make a motion on me because i made a decision for the country, that they agreed with, but they choose to do the other. that becomes a problem. >> are you planning on endorsing

a successor? >> i might. i don't know who's running yet. i'll talk to people. >> reporter: and when you look back, is there anything you could have done differently? >> a lot of them i helped get elected so i probably should've picked somebody else. [ inaudible question ] >> you know, i love these 200. they've gone through so much. they're down in the conference. they say they're going to keep voting for me. i think you should put the country first. this job was never about me. i hope you felt that, that i always felt what can we do best to move forward.

i treated hakeem the way i wanted to be treated. i'd tell him things we were doing throughout so he never was questioned. i wanted to bring the body back differently. we created a select committee on china. i changed the intel committee. they just came back from m.i.t. where they all had bipartisan briefing on ai and quantum. republicans and democrats alike. we're far from solving that problem, but i'm proud of what we were able to do there. so we'll continue. yes, sir? [ inaudible question ] >> you know, not all thosing a, but these are the same people that never voted for me. they thought it was big they went to present after we went through 15 rounds. why do i do something for myself that can hurt the country? why create -- i'm not quite sure

those individuals are looking to be productive. it concerns me as a republican based upon watching what they do. i want to be a republican and a conservative that governs. and we're going to have to find a way to do that. the challenge is we had so many opportunities. these are the same people that sat on the floor and criticized me that we didn't get all 12 spending bills done. but we first had to do a debt ceiling that they didn't support. they held up every appropriation bill in the summer because they wouldn't let it come through. they stopped us from doing anything on the floor. when we had a continuing resolution that would do something on the border, when he voted against it. and then they wanted to challenge me because i worked with the other side so america could go forward and government could stay open. you know, if you have to lose

for something, i will always lose for the country. it is a much better battle to have. [ inaudible question ] >> change the rules. [ laughter ] >> do you regret a lot of the rules in place? >> do you think i let it? for the whole point, if you talk about like gaetz came to the conference and said we will never use this. this is a man that sat there on the 14th vote and said, okay, i'm going to vote for you next time and falls back. the trustworthiness of a lot of individuals makes it difficult. but i do not think regardless of who the speaker is that you should have that rule. everybody had it but pelosi. but it was never used until it started getting used against boehner. and if the entire -- if you can

always count on the other party to vote and bloc against it, then you're allowing four to five people to control whatever. so it doesn't matter even if you have 96%. so, that is not a government that works. that is chaotic. >> is there a -- >> go right ahead. >> i hear you talking about the challenge of being a republican. [ inaudible question ] >> i don't think it says about the republican party. i think it says something about people who are not a conservative. i mean, if you were a conservative and you only had one entity making the battle and you vote against securing the border, you vote against cutting funding, this wasteful spending and then you partner with all the democrats. now you'll phrase it all the other different ways. that's not a conservative. look, you all know matt gaetz.

you know it was personal. it had nothing to do about spending. it had nothing to do about everything he accused somebody of, he was doing. it all was about getting attention from you. i mean, we're getting email fundraisers from him as he's doing it. join in quickly. that's not governing. that's not becoming of a member of congress. and regardless of what you think, i've seen the texts, it was all about his ethics. but that's all right. >> clarification from the first question. are you considering resigning? >> he asked about that. i haven't thought about that, i said. >> you said the institution -- >> no, no. i'm not going to blame anybody. there's not blame anywhere. look, i give it as good as i get. you know the challenge, i knew going in, you would take a poll all the time, is he going to get

thrown out this week. but, you know what, if i lose my job over doing what i truly believe what's right, i'm very at peace with it. you asked earlier, like, when did i decide. i knew they would make the motion on me. it didn't make one bit a difference. i felt very comfortable in that decision. and i think the american public believed that decision was right. [ inaudible question ] >> that's the conference's decision. >> you mentioned that you were moving to -- in another way. would you consider having a position somewhere in congress, whether chairman -- >> no. there's a lot of great people in conference. there's always other people to do jobs. it is amazing the talent that we had. and the one thing i've always hoped as speaker that we lifted more of that talent up. i look at people doing a lot of different jobs and the different

opportunities. they are doing an exceptional job. we have so much talent. it is remarkable. >> is this kind of in your mind a little bit preordained from the beginning? a much more narrow majority than what you anticipated -- 15 rounds -- >> i made history, didn't i? >> well, you did do that, yes. but was that kind of always thought of because of the narrow majority and because -- [ inaudible ] >> well, would any of you think if it took that long and you had one person, you knew it was always a possibility, so that was fine. it didn't bother me, didn't change any decision i made. but what's interesting, i read a tweet the other day of matt rosendale. he goes to mass every day. but you know what he said his prayer was all last year? that republicans didn't have a big victory, that they had a narrow victory. when you have members like that

that are part of your team, you got a tough team. when i was in business, i got to hire and fire who worked with me. somebody else hires them, somebody else fires them. my job was to inspire them. i think we did some good work. and i think we'll continue to do great work. yes, sir? >> can you reflect back on 2010 when you, paul ryan -- >> and eric cantor. >> now, all three of you guys have been -- >> we're not that young anymore. >> -- has been pushed out by so, had called more conservatives? >> no, let's be fair and it's wrong that you ever say. they are not conservatives. they voted against, one, the greatest cut in history that congress has ever voted for. they voted against work requirements. they voted against nipah reform. they voted against border security. they don't get to say they're

conservative because they're angry and they're chaotic. that's not the party i belong to. the party of reagan was if you believed in your principles, that you could govern in a conservative way. they are not conservatives and they do not have the right to have the title. yes? [ inaudible question ] >> why do you say that? because your question doesn't hold true to history. when donald trump was president, we did tax reform. you can look at all of different successes. you may dislike the policy, but we've been very successful. you watched the abraham accords. you can go victory after victory. the price of gas, we were energy independent at the time. we had more businesses growing at the time. we didn't have to evacuate our embassies.

it's easy on its merit to see the difference of what biden has destroyed america to what the policies we're able to create. yes, sir? >> can i ask you, what conversation -- what did he ask from you, what are you asking from him? >> we didn't ask for anything. >> you didn't have for anything at all? >> no, no, no. and i have a lot of respect for hucking. he wants to win the majority. i heard what they said in conference, you know. why would they vote for me if i've won every time as leader? i raised 70% of all the money. it's an opportunity for them. the real question to the eight, why would you enable and allow the democrats to do it? that's the question. yes? >> you're making concessions to those -- >> what concessions did i make?

>> you could lean towards democrats. >> to what? [ inaudible question ] >> look, i'm not going to -- no. i'm a republican. i win by republicans, and i lose by republicans. it's not that way. and so did i work with -- i believe you should work across the aisle. i work across the aisle at times. do i want to make the bill the most conservative as possible? yes, that's the goal. it's difficult when you can't get 218 for the conservative bill. and then they want to challenge you when you went and solved and kept the goff government open. yes, sir? >> the last few months you've been a fireball as the debt ceiling crisis, the government shut down. >> we did pretty well, didn't we? >> how much do you a shutdown is in november without you as speaker? >> other people can do the job. you know, it's interesting. i've never received so many texts from so many senators about how big a play we just did the other day, how many

congratulations about the debt ceiling. i mean, if i would go back to days before the debt ceiling, none of you even thought i'd get a meeting with the president. all you'd ask me is it going to fall off the cliff. at the end of the day, we worked an agreement out. some of those people got mad about it. but 2/3, the highest number of republicans ever voted for a debt ceiling. when you had it, you only negotiated based upon the deal we win. that was the moment they wanted to good after. [ inaudible question ] >> negotiating -- >> he should. look, government is designed that you have to have compromise. you can't get everything that you want. you got a house. you got a senate. you had more to the question? >> my question was going to be so many criticisms leveled on you today by both democrats and republicans is that perhaps too transactional? >> in which way?

in which word did i not keep? name one thing did not keep? >> gaetz says there are several -- >> from -- no no, no. what did gaetz say? what did i not say in gaetz's mind? gaetz has never been part of a discussion. just because gaetz said something, it doesn't mean it's true. i haven't heard him say one true thing yet. on what? on what? >> the debt ceiling. >> that is not true. so, no, no, no, if you're going ask if question, tell me how i did something different on the debt ceiling bill, any of you. tell me what i did different on the debt ceiling that i didn't keep my word? >> you said it was -- >> is it not a ceiling? okay. this is the problem. no, no, no, no, no. when you agree to spending levels; that's the maximum amount you can spend. this is what is wrong with washington. because it's the height that you can spend, you can also spend less. we're a different body. so does any of you believe,

then, the senate broke their word on the debt ceiling? because they spent more than the limit. but somehow i'm wrong because i want to save the taxpayers' more money? we're we're own body. i have two children. if i give them each $100 for din. >> and one spends 100 and one spends 80, am i going to yell at the one who spent 80 and say oh my god, you've got to spend it all. it's not our money. and why am i getting criticized because i'm fighting for the american people that we can eliminate waste? and you know what? we're we're own body. so if we can pass the bills and the senate can pass the bills, but they pass them higher, but they haven't passed anything, somehow i'm wrong? i kept my word. i did not spend over the limit. they broke their word. >> you don't feel you're too transactional. >> okay, you use the words. how was i transactional? if you ask a question, i want you to show an example. give me an example. >> the definition is basically -- >> so what did i do this for

that? >> well, on the cr, talking about in, out, finally put down. >> no, no, you're making no sense. what transaction? did no transaction. i tried to pass a conservative stopgap measure that secured the border and actually cut spending. when that didn't go, the only bill that was going was sitting over in the senate that had a stopgap measure, disaster, and ukraine. i made a decision as speaker to keep the government open, and i put something on the floor. and let me get this straight to all of you. because someone -- 72-hour rule, i'm the only one who's lived by it. we're the ones who created it. we never broke the 72-hour rule. the bill i put on the floor was a suspension, which takes a 2/3 vote. and you know what? you can put a suspension on a rule. and you can waive it based upon the leadership. that's exactly what i followed.

so my question to you is when somebody says something, don't take it that it's gospel? why don't you ask them to point? when gaetz said i didn't, show me one place. you saw massey. thomas massey, who is the hardest line person say we followed all the rules all the time. he was in the room when the agreement was made, and then we surpassed what we said we would do. so if you ask me a question, i'm going answer back, because when it's not true, it's not fair. >> how important is it that the speaker of the house be a member of the institution? some members are -- >> they always float some. yes. okay. first of all, you got to be in the institution to understand how it works. look, it's legal to have somebody out. i do not think that would ever be good. do i regret?

you start with this question. i don't think you've ever been positive yet. come on. i have high hope. this going to be exciting. that's a good thing. >> but do you regret not reaching out to so many people like nancy, tim who sat down and condescending to him -- >> okay, let's get through this. i personally like tim burchett, and i called tim burchett, because i read his quote. tim burchett is a friend of mine. i'm kind of shocked by this. tim burchett in his quote said he's leaning towards no, but he is going to pray on it. i picked up the phone. i didn't think he was already there. i read your quote. you were going to pray about it. i wanted to talk about it. and somehow he construes that i'm a christian. i simply read his quote back. i thought there was still an opening. and i wanted the talk to him about it. he never mentioned anything when we were communicating like that.

he said nancy mace is a whole another story, okay. let's just be honest here. this is the one that i just got to text from her primary opponent saying why did you spend $3 million? i called nancy mace's chief of staff yesterday, and -- >> she didn't like that. >> because i called the chief of staff? >> she wanted you to call her. >> well, she was on "the view" saying i didn't keep my words. listen, i can't say this in a press, but okay. i -- i -- no, you keep it among yourselves, right? wait until my book. no. soive call her chief of staff because i don't know, maybe i don't connect her with someone else. i said to him, can you please tell me, i don't understand, where have i not kept my word. you know what her chief of staff said? you have kept your word, 100%.

members come to me. one thing, i don't like the idea a member comes and tries to leverage me. i don't go for that. i'll vote for the bill, that's not well. but if you have a problem with the bill, i want to help you. but i can't sit there and write your entire bill and work it all the way through committee. we just got one bill out. it came back. the other bill doing on guns just wasn't working. do you want to do something else? we did something else. i just don't appreciate -- look, i bite my lip. i let people say things that are not true, but it's not right. it is not right. our chief of staff told all of us we have kept every single one of our words. and he said he's told her that too. now somehow he gets fired, i'll still get him a job. i'm being too honest now? >> you argue the institution might -- not. [ inaudible question ] >> oh my god, no, bu