votevote: quorum call:

mr. cornyn: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be

rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nominations, federal energy regulatory commission, norman c. bay of new mexico to be a member. cheryl a. lafleur of massachusetts to be a member. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate prior to the vote to invoke cloture on the bay nomination. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. a senator: madam president, i have eight unanimous consent

requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to, that the requests be printed in the record. and i also ask unanimous consent that time be yielded back on the matter currently pending. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of norman c. bay of new mexico to be a member of the federal energy regulatory commission. signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is: is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of norman c. bay of new mexico to be a member of the federal energy regulatory commission shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

quorum call: vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the yeas are 51, the nays are 45. and the motion is agreed to. under the previous order, -- under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate prior to the vote to invoke cloture on the lafleur nomination.

who yields time? without objection, all time is yielded back. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we did undersigned senators in accordance with provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close on the nomination of cheryl a. lafleur of massachusetts to be a member of the federal energy regulatory commission signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is: is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of cheryl a. lafleur of massachusetts to be a member of the federal energy regulatory commission shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 85, the nays are 10. and the motion is agreed to. under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until 2:15 p.m.

>> being able to get behind the wheel of his own and cruise down lakeshore drive this in chicago. you know, without a giant

motorcade. well, i felt badly for him and on the freeway this morning, we did come pretty close. because i know it was new technology that lets cars communicate with other vehicles and even infrastructure like stoplights. [applause] that's right. our engineers here are proving that talking cars are not just science fiction, that they're right here. and soon they may be on the road too. i won't go into too much detail right now, but the vehicle to vehicle or what we call v to v or vehicle to infrastructure technology or v to i, that technology's being constructed here and has the potential to stop crashes before they happen,

it also can cut greenhouse emissions. that sounds pretty good to me. now, i wish i could say -- [applause] i wish i could say this kind of progress is happening in every corner of america's transportation system, but unfortunately i can't. there are a lot of places where our infrastructure is a relic of another era, and is we need to fix -- and we need to fix it. in fact, yesterday the white house put a report online so everyone can see how many of their states roads are this less than good condition, and the answer is, too many. about 65% nationwide. if you look at all the structurally deficient bridges in this country and lined them up end to end, they would stretch from the front door to this facility to just about the president's house in chicago. that's not who we are. so we've got a lot of work to

do, and what we need is a long-term funding bill like the one this administration introduced called the grow america act. [applause] we need policies that help us cut red tape ask help build projects faster. if there's one thing we need that we already have, that's the man to help us see it through. president obama may not have been behind the wheel of a real car, but he knows the direction we need to go. and ladies and gentlemen, i am proud to introduce to you president barack obama. ♪ ♪ >> hello, everybody! [cheers and applause] everybody have a seat, have a seat, have a seat. good afternoon. thank you, secretary fox be, for

that introduction. i just got a tour of a lab where automakers and government researchers team up to create new technologies that help cars communicate with the world around them ask with each other -- and with each other. they can tell you if an oncoming vehicle is about to run a red light or if a car's coming around a blind corner or if a detour would help you save some time and gas. and i got to test all this a simulator. it was sort of, sort of like knight rider. [laughter] i have to say, though, it was a little disorienting, i haven't driven in about six years, and i'm going down the highway, and, you know, i think i had a little bit of a lead foot. i was starting to hit 90. [laughter] and then like right next to me, the press pool is standing next to me, and they're kind of traveling with me at 90 miles an hour, and it got me a little

queasy. [laughter] but i've recovered. therenow, as the father of a dar who just turned 16, any new technology that makes driving safer is important to he. and new technology that makes driving smarter is good for the economy. one study shows that americans spend 5.5 billion hours stuck in traffic each year which costs us $120 billion in wasted time and gas. that's $800 per commuter. then you've got outdated roads and bridges that mean businesses pay an extra $27 billion in freight costs which are then passed on to consumers. so all told, transportation eats up more of the typical family's household budget than anything except the rent or a mortgage. which means that the cutting edge research that all of you are doing here helps save lives

and save money and leads to new jobs and new technologies and new industries. and that's why america has to invest more in the kind of job-creating research and development that you're doing right here at the highway research center. [applause] i'm also here today to talk about why america's got to invest more this building the infrastructure these cars will drive on. because with it will create better jobs and better position america for the future. we know that in a 21st century economy businesses will set up shop wherever they find the best roads and bridges and the fastest rail and internet, the smartest airports, the smartest power grids. first class infrastructure attracts first class jobs. and right now our investments in transportation are lagging the rest of the world.

if washington were working the way it's supposed to, congress would be fixing that. we'd be with -- be investing in the things that help bring more jobs to our shores. instead, here's what's going on in the washington. there's something called the highway trust fund. i suspect this crew is familiar with it. it helps states support transportation projects. if congress tails to fund it -- fails to fund it, it runs out of money. that could put nearly 700,000 jobs at risk including more than 17,000 right here in virginia. more than 100,000 active projects across the country, projects where workers as we seek are paving roads and rebuilding bridges and modernizing our transit system. those projects would be slowed or stopped, and some states have already had to put some projects on hold because they don't trust congress to get its act together. so remember that the next time you see a job site sitting idle.

now, the good news is there are bipartisan bills in both the house and senate that would include a short-term fix. i support that. at the very least, congress should be keeping people on the job who are there right now, but this sets us up for the same crisis a few months from now. so congress shouldn't pat itself on the back for averting disaster for a i few months, kicking the can down the road for a few month, careening from crisis to crisis when it comes to something as basic as our infrastructure. instead of barely paying our bills in the present, we should be investing this the future. we should have a plan for how we're going to headache sure that our roads -- make sure that our roads, our bridges, our airports, our power grid, our water systems, how all those things are going to be funded and do it in a responsible way so that people can start planning. that also means we can save more money, because we're not doing it in stopgap measures.

so that's why earlier this year i put forward a plan to rebuild our transportation infrastructure in a more responsible way. it would support millions of jobs, it would give cities and states and private investors the certainty they need to plan ahead and hire more workers, it would help small businesses ship their goods faster, it would help parents get home to their kids faster, it would mean less wear and tear on your car, it would mean less money on gas, it would save people money, it would support cutting edge research like the work that you're doing here which could end up cutting back on the number of traffic fatalities. and my plan would not add to what is already a rapidly shrinking deficit. we've cut can our deficit, by the way, by more than half since i came this office, and we would -- [applause] we wouldn't be adding to the deficit because we'd pay for

this transportation project in part by closing tax loopholes for canes that ship jobs -- for companies that ship jobs overseas and avoid paying their fair share of taxes. so far house republicans have refused to act on this idea, and they haven't presented their own idea. and i think that's wrong. we shouldn't be protecting tax loopholes for a few companies that shift massive profits overseas, we should be creating jobs rebuilding the roads and bridges that help every business right here in the united states. that is a question of priorities. and what i keep hearing from folks all across the country is that if congress would just shift its priorities a little closer to working americans' priorities, we could help a lot of families right now. this is not an abstract issue. and it shouldn't even be a partisan issue. republicans, democrat, independents, everybody uses our roads. after this last winter, you've got potholes everywhere. [laughter]

wrecking your car. i mean, how many here, how many people here have had the experience of you're driving along and suddenly your car's wrecked? and you pay for that out of pocket when you are in traffic congestion because of poor planning and bad infrastructure when you could be at home reading to your kid or catching their ball game. that's a cost to you. everybody cares about that. it doesn't heart what your political persuasion is. and after the worst economic crisis since the great depression, our businesses have created nearly ten million jobs over the past 52 months, the unemployment rate is at its lowest point since september of 2008. we've made huge strides this energy independence, for the first time in more than a decade business leaders around the world are saying the best place to invest isn't china, the best place to invest is the united states of america.

but you've still got a lot of middle class families all across the country who are working harder than ever just to get ahead. they need a break. they need some help, and having better roads and less delays, that helps. and meanwhile, republicans in congress keep blocking or voting down some of the ideas that would have the biggest impact on middle class families and working families. not just creating new construction jobs, they've said now to raising the minimum wage to equal pay to fixing our broken immigration system. i want to work with everybody, republicans and democrats, to move this country forward. but i can't just stand by while politics threatens all the hard work of millions of americans because we've just got gridlock in washington. so what i've tried to do is take a range of actions this year to help working americans with my own legal authorities from speeding up big infrastructure projects to raising wages. i'm waiting for congress to act,

but in the meantime, i've got to go ahead and do what i can do. and in response, their plan so far has not been to join he and say, all right, mr. president, you're right, we do need to rebuild our roads, we do need to spruce up our airports. instead, their big idea has been to sue me. that's what they're spending time on. a political stunt that wastes america's time and taxpayer dollars. keep in mind, it's your money that they're going to be spending on these ridiculous pursuits instead of just getting some work done. and i'm not interested in playing political games. i'm interested in making sure the economy grows and we're creating more jobs and we're helping more middle class families get ahead. we need to invest in america's infrastructure. you guys are helping to show us how to do it in a really smart way. we need to invest in american innovation, this research and development. we need to invest in american manufacturing. we should be training more of our workers for new and better

jobs. we should be raring every child for a -- preparing every child for a world class education. we should be making sure hard work pays off with greater work flexibility and health care and childcare. all these things would make a difference in people's day-to-day lyes. the -- lives. the point is, we could do so much more if we just rallied around a sense of economic patriotism that says, you know what? the parties compete t, but every once in a while we've got to actually do some work instead of worrying about elections or trying to score points on cable tv. and we can start by investing in our country. because historically, you know, eisenhower built the interstate highway system. working with democrats and republicans. this isn't a partisan issue. and when we, when we treat some basic investments as something that we do as americans, whent(e

rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, things work. and nobody can beat us. and that's the spirit that all of you show here. that's why i'm going to keep on fighting for you every single day. i'm proud of you. i want you to keep on doing what you're doing. we're going to try to make sure congress actually does as good of a job at what they're supposed to be doing as you guys are doing on yours. if if you do, then you're going to have some parents who are getting home a little earlier, folks who aren't going to have to go to the body shop quite as often, you're going to be seeing millions of people across the country saving money at the pump. we're going to see airline delays reduced so when you plan that thanksgiving trip, you're not spending the whole time in the airport. all that can make a huge difference. but the american people have to demand that folks in washington do their job.

do handgun. that's my big motto for congress right now. just do something. and if they don't like the transportation plan that i put forward, at least come up with your own plan. and then we can compromise. but don't just sit there and do nothing. we don't have time. america's on the move, ask part of it's on -- and part of it's on the move thanks to all of you. really appreciate it. god bless you. god bless america. all right. [applause] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ there are. ♪ murk publish are. ♪ >> the u.s. senate is this recess right now, they'll return at 2:15 eastern for debate and vote on two nominees for the federal regulatory energy commission. we'll have live coverage when members return here on c-span2. former vice president dick cheney discussed a number of topics with politico's chief white house correspondent mike allen yesterday including the current violence in iraq and the upcoming midterm elections. he was joined by his wife lynne and is daughter liz at a politico luncheon. this is about an hour. [applause]

>> thank you so much for be doing this. thank you for doing this. mr. vice president, thank you for being here, appreciate it. [applause] thank you very much for joining us, mr. vice president. you draw quite a crowd. [laughter] >> what makes you think it's him? [laughter] >> so we're a month ahead, on august 29th the cheneys will be celebrating 50 years of marriage, and -- [applause] and when we were backstage, mrs. cheney said, okay, now, if we're to come out here and have a family squabble, that would be your dream. laugh so we'll see how i do with the family squabble. we're going to start here with a question from marching relate carlson, the great margaret carlson who always knows the

right thing to ask. i'm doing to have each of you chime in, and then i'm going to plunge in with mrs. cheney. the question is, starting with mrs. cheney, are you more like the bushes who didn't discuss politics at dinner or more like the kennedys who always did? >> when the family is alone, liz and mary and lynne and i, we usually end up telling old war stories about cam pages we were involved in -- campaigns we were involved in. it's always funny, it always involve train wrecks. the funniest political stories are the train wrecks, and we had a lot of train wrecks along the way. >> and, mrs. chain think? , your -- >> that's a good description. i think the level of enthusiasm for political life varies. when dick was asked to be vice president, he thought that was a great idea. [laughter] i was not so sure, you know, give up your job, give up your house and move. we weren't dead broke, excuse me. [laughter]

[applause] but liz and mary was even more reluck about the than i, duh liz, we like to joke, was out in the back yard painting yard signs. >> any actual fights? >> oh, sure. none we're going to talk about today, mike. [laughter] no, but i want to say seriously, though, it's a real tribute to my mom and dad that we did talk politics at the dinner table. we talked about what was happening in the world, and we talked about what was happening on the news, and, you know, they treated mary and he very much like adults who had something worthy to contribute from an early age, and i think it was something that clearly sticks with you. >> mrs. cheney, you're just out with a best selling book, "james madison: a life reconsidered." >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> you know, it was funny -- >> four more years! tour more years! [laughter] >> i was chatting with the vice

president backstage, and i was saying i bet that never gets old, and he said, keeps me -- >> feel right at home. [laughter] >> we're just going to give her a few minutes to finish. [inaudible conversations] >> okay. all right, we've had our fun. >> [inaudible] >> back strategy -- [laughter] >> never gets old. >> never changes. [laughter] >> all right. in james madison: a life reconsidered, we were chatting backstage, and, mrs. cheney, you said james madison would have loved gridlock. >> you destroyed iraq as you're destroying this -- >> you know, james madison would actually have thought this is a triumph of the republic, though,

that we have free speech. i'm not sure he would have put up with it for quite this number of minutes -- [laughter] but he thought in general it was a good principle. one of the things i took away from the madison book was his firm commitment to limited government. he honestly believed that the constitution gave the congress certain rights, certain responsibilities but that we shouldn't go beyond those. and when he saw government, alexander hamilton moving the government in another direction, he sounded the first political party. he took the lead in doing that with the idea that when the government is going in a direction that you don't like, you need to plant your feet firmly and protest. and i think that he didn't see the end of the republic as passing legislation, but as each of us taking a firm stand and keeping the government on the right track. >> you did, you did a little investigative reporting in this

book. you were one of the first scholars to take seriously the idea that james hadson may have -- madison heavy had or certainly had epilepsy. how sure are we of that? >> well, what he describes, and i certainly wasn't the first call lahr ever -- scholar ever to see the manuscript -- it's at princeton. i wasn't the fist to see hand you script, but i was the first to take it seriously. to talk to neurologists which was that he had suffered with sudden attacks resembling the nature of epilepsy and suspending the the intellectual function. and it's quite an amazing thing when you think of all he accomplished; the constitution, the bill of rights, leading the congress, serving as secretary of state during the louisiana purchase, being the first president to take the nation to war under the constitution. and yet he had this, he described it as a disability that he at no time let stand in -- he didn't let stand in his way. and so that made me admire him

more. >> so the aspen ideas the pest value -- [laughter] finish festival. and walter isakson that out there you got a fantastic response that you taped a series of full lessons in american history. how did those go? >> oh, it's an interesting idea. >> this is from the khan academy. >> thecap academy. [laughter] >> i wondered why the line was so long. [laughter] [cheers and applause] you know, i worry about education. it's long been a concern of hine, and the khan academy is kind of like a wikipedia for learners. it's there, it's online, you can find it on youtube, and they have people giving lessons in everything from advanced calculus to the constitution.

so i was happy to participate. >> and one more on james madison -- >> i can't believe you're devoting all this time. i was afraid i'd be the bump on the log. [laughter] >> anybody never saw crossfire in the day. [laughter] my favorite sentence in here, you say over the course of a long life, madison learned to learn. when experience proved that his opponents' ideas had merit, he incorporated them into his own. what would james madison think of dick chain think? >> well, let me just finish that sentence. [laughter] when he saw that his opponents' ideas had merit, he incorporated them into his own, though like any good politician, he didn't advertise he was doing so. well, james madison. one of the things -- i'm not going to answer your question, but this is a pretty good evasion. [laughter] one of the things that strikes me is how current madison is, how current the constitution is, how current the founders are, though our world has changed so much. there was a recent supreme court

decision about whether the police should be able to search your cell phone if they stopped you for a traffic violation. now, think about this. this is something the founders couldn't have imagined. cars? cell phones? but the decision was head on the basis of the constitution -- was made on the basis of the constitution about whether this amounted to unreasonable search and seizure, words from the constitution, and the justices decided that it did. so i like to think that even though our world is very different and in some ways our politics are different, the founders would have a deep and penetrating understanding of what we're about. >> liz cheney, you've just started -- or you go by cheney. [laughter] >> i'll answer to either, mike. >> as part of the legal doctrine, you have changed the family name. you just started the alliance for a strong america. you and your father co-authored two recent pieces, one in "the wall street journal" where the headline -- and you didn't even

need to write the article -- you said rarely has a u.s. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many. but as you know, the main reaction to that piece was people saying takes one to know one, including you sitting next to your father having megyn kelly on fox news -- no enemy -- just really lighting into y'all. >> well, i guess -- >> to the point that he called her reagan at one point. >> yeah, well, i guess i'd say a couple of things about that. i don't think you could say that was the main reaction. i think the you -- depends on if you're talking about the mainstream media -- >> but there's no question that there's plenty of people wondering why you are lecturing us about iraq. >> well, i think that you, those folks ought to go back and read the "weekly standard" article and "the wall street journal" piece. it's not about lecturing. it's really about saying why are we where we are today? right now, today, as we sit here, i think there is complete agreement, frankly, or almost --

. >> our problem at the time, we'd had 9/11, we'd had 19 guys armed

with airline tickets and box cutters and kill 3,000 americans, take down the world trade center, blow a big hole in the pent gone, and the problem in the after math of 9/11 was that there was a conviction of a follow on of mass casualty attacks and the next time it would be armed with something far deadlier. fast forward -- >> i'm going to stop you there. you made the comment about box cutters the other day when you were on this week with jonathan carl, you said armed with something much worse, what do you fear will be next? >> something i said, mike, clear back april of '-- [inaudible] april of '91 before 9/11. i was asked -- it was an article, i think, in new york magazine. what i feared most, and it was the idea of terrorists armed

with weapons of mass destruction; chemicals, biological or nuclear capability. now i look at the situation today. we have a rapid spread of terrorism. the rand institution, rand just put out a report a few weeks ago that demonstrates there's been a 58% increase in the number of al-qaeda-type groups in a four-year period from 2010 to 2015. it's exploding. it now ranges geographically from west africa, mali all across north africa through the middle east all the way around indonesia. the same study estimates there's been a doubling of the number of so-called salafi jihadists, equivalent to al-qaeda. we look at what's happened today now with respect to the isis taking over eastern syria and a big part of iraq, establishing a caliphate, trying to, and they are very well off financially,

they are attracting thousands of followers from all over the world flooding into syria and that part of the world to join in the jihad. and from our perspective we look at that, i think that by itself looks like a serious -- >> [inaudible] >> but wait a minute, let me finish. [laughter] the other dimension that i worry about, weapons of maas destruction. -- mass destruction. well, if you look now today we are faced with a proliferation of nuclear capability, nuclear technology especially in that part of the world. so when we went into iraq, we made sure saddam wasn't going to develop -- not debating what he had at the time. when we took him down, five days later moammar gadhafi surrendered his materials, then we took down a.q. khan who had been the supplier of nuclear materials to libya. we had syria with a nuclear reactor built courtesy of the north koreans. we have already had testimony from khan himself that the

pakistanis sold technology for enriching uranium to the north koreans. it's a calderon out there of potential -- cauldron out there. now add iran. iran gets a nuclear weapon, there will be others in the region who get it. so we're creating the situation partly because of our own determination to get out of the area, create a situation where you have a hell of a lot of terrorists and a lot of nuclear including in pakistan. taliban active there, had an attack on the karachi airport, killed 34 people. a lot of terrorist activity inside act stand proper. and what i -- pakistan proper. and what i worry about very much is you're going to get an enemy of some kind, one that has access to or the ability to get their hands on the deadliest weapons on the face of the earth. our response to it at this point

appears to be dismantle the military and withdraw from the area so there's no longer an ability to influence that part of the world. >> how much of that cauldron is president obama's fault? >> well, you can't blame him for the entire problem developing. the problem that i think he's guilty of is, first of all, he's never admitted there's a problem. he loves to run around, only recently may have said a few words about it, loved to run around telling us al-qaeda's dead, terrorism as a problem is gone. he's dramatically reduced the military. we've got 40 brigades in the united states army, and today four of them are combat ready. we're cutting now in the last few days, we're delivering pink slips to officers in the united states army who are deployed in come watt overseas. that is -- combat overseas. that is an absolute outrage. it's also a reflection of a policy that's totally unwise. the world's getting far more dangerous all the time, and we are rapidly withdrawing from that portion of the world where

that danger's going to emerge from. and the policy, i think, is his responsibility. it's not to say that there wouldn't have been developments in al-qaeda and the jihadis and so forth or anyway. there may well have been, but he has created a situation in this which our friends in the region are scared to death. they don't think they can trust us, and we prove be it to them on a regular basis. >> there's been a lot of reporting about administration fears because of weapons makers in syria that there is a clear and present danger to u.s. air travel. do we need to have tougher restrictions on people who travel on u.s. airplanes? >> we've got pretty tough strictures already, i think,ically. i think -- >> so you're not worried about planes. >> well, i fly on them all the time. [laughter] yesterday the one i was on coming in from wyoming i had a good chat with the air marshal onboard. he came over and introduced himself. so i, i am, i am less concerned

about that than i am this notion that we can sort of wish away the rob. the problem. that barack obama can go out and say the war's over, just declare it's over with and, therefore, he's bringing home the troops like afghanistan and like we've already seen happen in iraq. i think the very first step in getting a policy in place, a set of policies that will let us deal with this emerging threat is to recognize there is a threat. and right now an awful lot of people don't want to hear it. people are, quote, tired of war. we've got folks who are, simply don't want to be bothered, and it's been a long time since 9/11. but the bottom line is i think realistically if you take a look at studies like the rand study and other developments out there, you can't conclude anything but that there is a growing emergent threat to the united states, and in terms of trying to deal with it on a global basis, we're the only

ones who can lead that effort. nobody else can, nobody else will. >> what do you think of secretary kerry's work on iraq, afghanistan, israel? >> depends on the problem and issue. i think what he did just in the last couple of days in getting, in effect be, a recount on the afghan election, i think that's a plus. my travels out there, liz and i made a swing through the region just a couple months ago and saw a lot of my old friends that i've known for 25 years going back to the days of desert storm. and arab and israeli, didn't matter who you talked to, they all were wringing their hands at their inability to trust the united states of america, the folks that have traditionally relied upon us, assumed we were there, that we had their back if there was a problem. in israel, for example, or with others in the region. no longer believe that. they're absolutely convinced that this president doesn't understand or chooses not to recognize the nature of the

threat that's emerging out there. they all have joined together. we had talked to the israelis and arabs, they're much closer than either one of them is to the united states. we no longer are the ability to influence events even among our friends because they don't trust us. >> mr. vice president, we're going to do a rapid round here. whose judgment do you respect more; bill or hillary? [laughter] >> oh, boy. well, i didn't vote for bill, and i don't expect to vote for hillary either. [laughter] >> liz, how would you answer that? >> oh -- >> you or me? >> no, you. thank you. [laughter] >> taken in its totality in terms of in all aspects of how one conducts themself, i'd have to go with hillary. >> over bill clinton? >> uh-huh. >> ms. chain think? >> i'm not sure there's a

difference. >> mr. vice president, condi rice or colin powell? whose judgment do you trust more? [laughter] >> that is an interesting question, mike. i'd never thought of it in those terms. i have during the course of my career had good working relationships with both and also places where we fundamentally disagreed. and i won't go beyond that. >> rick perry or rand paul? [laughter] >> i don't plan today to endorse any candidates for president. >> liz, you get to answer that one too. >> well, obviously, senator paul leaves something to be desired with respect to the national security policy, and so i think that, you know, when you look at

sort of without endorsing anybody, i think that, you know, i've got some big concerns about the extent to which senator paul seems to think we can be safe if we just come home and try to build a fortress america. that's clearly not going to work. >> so i should have asked you why do you trust hillary more than bill in totality? is. >> because i said in all areas of life. [laughter] i think i'll just leave it there. [laughter] >> all right. last one, mr. vice president. obama or kerry? [laughter] >> probably kerry. and, obviously, i disagreed in major ways and campaigned hard against john kerry. he gave us a gift, like i voted for it before i voted against it. so i, you know, we're not close by any means. but i think he's got a world view that's more consistent with what i think of as

republican/democratic consensus in the postwar period; that the united states has to lead. that's within maintained by presidents of both parties until now. and i really don't think obama has this his mind the same world view that most of our presidents, republican and democrat alike, have had for the last 70 years. >> and just for fun, obama or biden? [laughter] >> joe's got my airplane. [laughter] but i'm going to pass on that one. [laughter] >> can we pick julia louis-dreyfus? [laughter] >> mr. vice president, byron york in the washington examiner who's been no point over the years said with the worsening emergency in iraq, the architects and advocates of the iraq policy -- and he said cheney is the highest ranking member of the group who bears particular responsibility. is that fair? >> um, i certainly played a

major role in it, and i thought it was exactly the right thing to do at the time, and i still do. >> your former friends have had some very tough things to say. i remember when i was covering you, i remember that there was one newspaper that was banned from air force two. >> that was temporary. [laughter] >> but maureen dowd, who's very excited that you're back in the news -- [laughter] her headline was actually "my head's exploding." [laughter] she says ask whether cheney was immoral or amoral -- >> there's a close friend. >> former. >> that's a joke. [laughter] >> replied, amoral. and he said immorality is something that can be ferreted out, checked and balanced. amorality is an altogether different affair especially when you're exploiting the politics of fear in order to carry out state purposes which is what

dick cheney did. >> i'm going to answer. which one of the things you learn as a historian is that there is an easy way out x there's a tough way out when you're writing a book. what you want is contemporary testimony, you know? you want what people said about james hadson at the time. but -- madison at the time. but what i quickly learned is you have to evaluate what that person was, what their interests were and why they had, you know, a side east for or -- either for or against him. and i think that's really important for journalists too, mike. just to pick a quote from someone, whoever it might be, and suggest that there is objective truth in it really doesn't work very well. you have to consider that person's past history, that person's total record, and then you given to understand if the comment or the query is really a good one. now, if you were asking a question or making a comment that ether baker said, i'd --

that peter baker said, i'd pay attention to it, but not general will kin soften. >> he's a colonel. >> colonel. >> oh, my god. >> funny you should mention peter baker who's the author of the best selling "days of fire: bush and cheney in the white house." >> did you hold my week -- my book up? >> i did. i did, i did. in fact -- [laughter] [applause] >> there's a lot. [applause] >> >> peter baker, who wrote days rea front page story in "the new york times" with the headline: cheney's back." peter's here, i think he may have a question. >> no? >> we can hear you. we'll repeat it. >> sorry. >> thank you very much for answering questions. quick questions for the panel,

mr. vice president, the speaker of the house is talking about suing the president for, in his view, abusing executive authority. you were always a very strong proto point of executive power when you were in office. i wonder if you could tell us are there things that president obama has done that you wouldn't have done -- not just policy, not in terms of choices, but in terms of what he went beyond what you would define as the limits of what the presidency can do? ms. cheney, i wonder given your book -- congratulations on that, it's gotten a lot of great reviews. there's been a lot of talk lately about impeachment, i wonder if if you could talk about what james madison would have thought about that, when it should be used, when it shouldn't? ms. cheney, good to see you too. i wonder if you can tell us, you spent a lot of time as a child riding around in the backseat of a car through wyoming listening to the carpenters, i wonder if you could tell us what lessons you brought from your experience as the person out in front, as a

candidate, and whether you might think about doing that again at some point. >> well, obviously i disagree with a lot of policies procedurally. the effort by president obama to ignore major parts, for example, and alter parts of the obamacare prop decision where -- proposition where he, in effect, has just deferred in enforcing certain key parts of it. i think the bill was so bad it should have been appealed, but at the minimum, it should have been amended. there needed to be a substitute to deal with all those problems that have surfaced over the course of the last year or two, and he's just chosen by himself to set certain parts and provisions aside. i do think he's exceeded in limits -- the limits of his constitutional authority. >> well, i totally agree. it's also the unwillingness to enforce some laws that he doesn't believe in.

and it's not just a one-off thing. there's a whole school of thought now in our law schools and, of course, president obama was a law professor that the constitution doesn't heene what the founders thought -- mean what the founders thought it meant, the constitution means whatever we think it should mean. and, indeed, one of president obama's recent appointee toss the d.c. circuit has written extensively on the power of the president to shape the constitution by exactly these things. not enforcing laws, changing laws. james madison, were he here today, would point out to us that the constitution requires the president to faithfully execute the laws, not to alter them, not to make them and not to refuse to enforce them. >> i would also just add the irs to what they've mentioned, and, you know, what is becoming clear every day, every time, you know, we see some new e-mail, the latest one i think by lois lerner suggesting people should

not use e-mail to communicate back and forth in terms of what they're doing. there's very little question at this point that there's an attempt to subvert and to use the irs to go after political enemies is a real threat to the constitution and the threat to our freedoms. in terms of your other question, peter, you know, look, it is really easy to read the newspapers and become really cynical, and it's really easy for people who are outside of washington to watch the battles that go on here. and, you know, you sort of throw your hands up and say, my gosh, you know, are they never going to get anything done? but one of the things that i feel very, very blessed about was having been able as a child to see this process and to see the nobility in this nation and to see the nobility, you know? we live in a republic, and we live in a place where we can make a difference.

frankly, in a situation like the one we're in now, we have an obligation to make a difference and an obligation to speak out. and i think that a the experience of not just sort of, you know, hearing, oh, politics is such a dirty business -- and it certainly can be, and it can be be a hess -- but it's to serve a much higher purpose of being a full citizen in our republic. and i feel very blessed that i had that opportunity. i was very proud and honored to have the chance to show my kids some of the same things. and i'm going to tell one story from the campaign trail even though my mother's sitting here and tells me not to tell this story, but we're a close group of friends here today, so i'll share it. we were at the wyoming state fair parade in douglas, wyoming -- >> oh, no, not this story. [laughter] >> and we had all of the kids with us -- >> oh! >> and we decided, our youngest

two were then 7 and 9-year-old little boys. so we had a convertible, and the kids had candy that they were going to throw as we rode down the parade route. and we decided we really probably needed to have a briefing with the kids about how this was all going to work. and so we gathered them around, my cousin's little kids were there too. we said, okay, now who knows some of the rules about being in a parade and throwing candy? and my older son raised his hand, and he said don't throw the candy at anybody's head. he said, right? that's important, don't cothat. does anybody else have any rules that they think are important to know before we embark on this parade route? and one of my cousin's little girls said don't throw it too hard at people. that's really good. does anybody else want to contribute any rules of behavior for being in a parade and, you know, throwing candy, things you need to remember? and my youngest son who is my father's name sake raised his hand. i said, okay, richard, what's

your rule? he said, no farting. [laughter] that's a good one. good life lesson. there are -- so, but the truth is i felt very honored to be in that race, and it's something i feel very strongly about in terms of -- it's a very or not part of our system and our process. >> that was collateral damage in that race was your relationship with your sister, mary, which very publicly played out in a split. you are against gay marriage and were very much so in the campaign, she was for it. by the way, we invited mary to attend today to, and she responded, hi, mike, thank you for the e-mail and the invitation. it sounds like a great event. unfortunately, i'm going to be in colorado next week, so i won't even be in d.c. for the event. i'm sure i'll get a full rundown from my mom. best of luck, mary. nelson patterson wrote in and asked me to ask you, are you and mary and heather simpatico now? >> i love mary very much and heather and the kids, and this

is an issue we disagree about, and i don't have anything new to add to that. >> okay. tell me why you are right about this issue, you are against gay heroin, and why your -- marriage, and why your father is wrong? >> i'm not going to add anything to the issue. >> i'm asking you why -- >> i know, but i'm not going to talk about it. if you want, we could go back to fox news, we could talk about that a little bit, mike. >> okay. >> my point on fox news, you know, sort of the notion of because be fox news criticized us that the message, you know, i keep thinking that i tell you all the time fox news is not always right, you just need to, you know, understand that. [laughter] >> ms. cheney, does it bother you that a political issue has created such a rift in your family? do things get too political in this family? >> you what you know what? i'd like to go back to fox news too. [laughter] the underlying assumption of your question was that if you ask tough questions of a public figure, that must mean you're being critical. well, i just think it's your job

to ask tough questions. it's megyn kelly's job to ask tough questions. what a poor thing journalism would be if we didn't ask ask tough questions of both parties, of all candidates and anybody who happens to be wandering by. >> last question on this very public split in your family over this. do you regret that? >> you talking to me? >> i am. you're the mom. does this worry you? do you think things got out of hand? >> you know, i think the best thing about being a mom is having terrific children, which i do, and wonderful grandchildren, which i do. and if i were those grandchildren or those chirp, the last thing -- children, the last thing i would want is my mother in a public forum commenting on personal differences in the family. so that's it. [applause] >> mr. vice president, what do you think are the chances that mitt romney will run in 2016? >> well, i was a big supporter of mitt's last time around.

one of the first things i did after i got my heart transplant a couple of years ago was we held a big fund raiser for him in jackson. i thought he was going to win. i haven't signed on with anybody, literally, with respect to 2016. i hope we'll have a wide field of candidates out there to choose from, and so i'm going to restrain myself from saying anything that might be viewed as being supportive or opposing any possible candidate. >> so we're not going to be southernive or against -- supportive or against, we're just going to be really clinical here -- i'm sorry, go ahead. >> let me add one other thought. you mentioned earlier the alliance for a strong america that liz and i have started. one of my great concerns is we've gotten to the point where within our own party we have sort of an isolationist strain developing, and i want to headache certain and do everything -- make certain and do everything i can, and that's the purpose of this alliance that liz and i have started, is

to make certain these national security questions are front and center in the campaign. when it's time to debate policy and for candidates to be actively involved in it, we've got a lot of domestic concerns, that's legitimate. there are a lot of major differences with the obama administration, but i want to do everything we can, and we want the organization we've set up to be part of that to make certain that the issues of national security, the threats we face in the middle east today and so forth are front and center in the debate and dialogue going forward between now and in this year's election and the election two years beyond. so that's partly what we're -- >> taking what you just said there, would rand paul be dangerous as president? >> i have said i didn't want to get into enforcing or criticizing -- [laughter] i did express the view that i think isolationism is crazy. anybody who went through 9/11 who thinks we can retreat behind our oceans and we'll be safe and secure is, i'm sorry, but

they're out to launch. the fact of the matter is we saw on that day the worst attack on the united states since pearl harbor. when you lose 3,000 people, the world trade center, get a big hit on the pentagon, we would have lost either the capitol or the white house if it hadn't been for the courage of the passengers on united 93. that's an act of war against the united states. it's committed by 19 guys who got their training in afghanistan. and came over here and used some of our own technology and modern jet liners against us. and there's no way given today's technology and capabilities and the dangers and threats that exist out there in the world that we can afford to buy into the notion that it would just stay home and not get involved overseas, not have a presence militarily or from an intelligence standpoint or relationship standpoint with those key parts of the world where the threats are emerging, then we're in wig trouble here. and i would -- big trouble here.

and i would have trouble supporting, obviously, an isolationist lank within my own party. >> you know, i'll just to redirect the conversation for a minute -- [laughter]b[ madison, as part of republicanyq theory, you know, the founders such as jefferson and madison were deeply steeped in what was called republican theory, how you make a republic succeed. and to both of them -- and madison in particular -- the idea of a standing army was a threat to liberty, you know? it might be turned against the people. and so was a navy. adams, john adams when he pushed the idea of building six frigates through the congress, he did so in madison's, to madison's opposition. so madison didn't, he believed that, you know, a republic was just this wonderful or and nice thing, you didn't need armies, you didn't need navies. but as you've quoted are from book, he learned to learn. and by the time of the war of

1812, and particularly after the burning of washington, he understood that no nation can exist be in a state of weakness. that weakness invites attack, and you do need a strong military to turn back even the notion of such an attack. i worry that, you know, we've not learned our history and that we aren't teaching it to our children. that somewhere along the line young people who are responding to senator paul's message, young people who are, you know, like the idea that we would never go to war again haven't learned the lessons of the past. we need to do a better job of telling them about world war ii, for example. >> mr. vice president, you've been warning about the rand paul view for several months now, and what some people may not know here is that you and senator paul have a history. as you know recently on youtube, it was posted a speech speech that senator paul

gave in 2009 speaking to republican students at western kentucky university. he's talking about the evolution of your views on iraq. he says dick cheney then goes to work for halliburton, makes hundreds of millions of dollars, their ceo. next thing you know he's back in government, and it's a good idea to go into iraq. that's a remarkable accusation by now-senator paul. >> i don't remember the accusation from senator paul. i do remember the allegation that i was making money because i'd been head of halliburton and benefit once i became vice president. that was the charge that pat leahy made on the senate one day shortly before i i -- [laughter] suggested what he might do. [laughter] it was totally fallacious then, and i've worked for halliburton, it's a good company, had a good time doing it, but, you know, we

didn't, quote, go to war in iraq so halley burr taan could make money. that's just a lie. >> what do you think of bob woodward? >> i like bob. i've worked with him from time to time, a couple of times we've crossed swords on specific things, but i haven't read all of his books, but i can remember cooperating with him on one or two of them, and so i think he adds a lot to the journalistic profession. >> so you're -- >> and why do you ask? >> in, two days after your former boss, president ford -- who you'd been his chief of staff -- two days after he died bob woodward published an embargoed interview he'd had with president ford, spent four hours this colorado. and president ford there said he was very much opposed to go to the decision to go into iraq. did that give you pause? >> no. >> why not? >> well, because i disagreed

with him. [laughter] >> and has there ever been a time when, let me ask this differently. given what's happening in iraq now, is there anything that you could have done as vice president that would have foreclosed that or put us in a better place? >> listen, what's happened in iraq now is a direct result -- remembering that with the surge in '07 and '08 that we got iraq to a good point by the time we left office. and the events, i think, recent events stem from two primary sources. one, i think maliki obviously bears a significant part of the burden because of his failure to maintain a coalition government and having purged the military of some of its best leaders who happen to be sunni. but the other problem has been, frankly, the obama administration, president obama who did not follow through with the stay-behind agreement. and there was never any expectation that we'd go to zero

presence in iraq. we've got, i think, 40 status of forces agreements around the world. 40 of them. it's something we've done all over the world, and that needed to be negotiated and implemented, and i don't think obama ever had any intention of leaving anybody behind, and he was perfectly happy to have the talks break down. he rejected the advice of the military in terms of the numbers of troops that needed to be left behind. but i think what you had to have was a competent military capability with the stay-behind u.s. forces providing things like intelligence and logistics and air support and so forth that were crucial to making it possible for iraq to maintain its integrity as a territory. we had defeated al-qaeda in iraq. they were virtually gone by the time we finished our tour of office, and i think between hall key's failures and -- maliki's failures and obama's failures, we've got a huge mess on our hands today. >> you're advising the next president, what do they to do now? >> first thing, one, recognize you've got a problem.

>> i think we're there. >> two, rebuild the united states military. what's being done at the pentagon today is absolutely outrageous. it's not just a symbol of a bad way to treat people, the cuts that are being made today, the cuts that are being imposed are going to restrict the ability of future presidents 10, 15 years down the road to do what needs to be done with some future crisis. so, absolutely, turn around the whole trend with respect to the united states military. that ought to be our highest priority. your number one responsibility as president is to support and defend the constitution of the united states. he's the commander in chief, and he is absolutely devastating the united states military today. announce that you're not going to pull all the forces out of afghanistan. take the policy he tried to implement this iraq and wants to implement in afghanistan, turn that upside down. four, reaffirm to our friends and allies in the region, the jordanians, the egyptian, the united emirates, the israelis and the saudis, all of our friends that we're with them.

we recognize they're in the front line in the war on terror, and we're going to do everything we can to support them. there's four, i'm sure i can come up with some more. >> when you look at saudi arabia, jordan, which government are you most worried about falling? >> i don't want to -- i don't think it'd be a benefit for me to make a statement about a particular government. i have hone the and worked with them all over the years, and i think they all live in a very dangerous area, an area that's threaten not only by the rise of a caliphate, if the you will, in iraq and syria, also threatened by the ongoing efforts by this administration with respect to the iranian nuclear program. they're all very, very concerned. not just the israelis, but everybody else that lives in the region that the current negotiations are a sham, they've

been put together basically to put a band aid on the problem before the obama crew leaves office. we're not going to get any meaningful agreement out of iran that is, in fact, going to diminish or block their emerging threat. it's a huge problem, and so i, i think we need a radical change in direction. >> now, the one person in the world who's had the titles white house chief of staff, congressman, secretary of defense. as former secretary of defense, the other day on charlie rose john mclaughlin, the former cia director, said arguably the most dangerous place in the world today is -- do you know what he said? south china sea. do you agree? >> well, it's certainly a dangerous place. i don't know if it's the most dangerous. >> put aside pakistan, what would you say is the most dangerous place? >> put aside pakistan -- [laughter]

well you've got to remember in the middle east its national boundaries increasingly don't mean that much especially given the ideology of the rising threat of the groups like isis. you've got to start looking at it on that basis. and i believe that the most dangerous threat is what is now developing as i would describe it in the middle east but, you know, it slops over into north africa. but i really, i believe in pakistan, in developments in iran, north korea's prior involvement. you've got to remember what north korea do? well, they provided a nuclear reactor to one of the worst terrorist sponsors in the world, syria. the israelis, thank god, took it out in '0 7. when we took down saddam, as i mentioned before, gadhafi decided to give up his stuff. but that's the part of the world where you'll get the nexus between terrorism on the one

hand, caliphate, whatever you want to call it, and on the other hand, somebody with a nuclear weapon. and the whole notion that's governed relationships in that area since the end of world war ii, mutually-assured destruction and major states being responsible with respect to their acquisition of technology, that all dose out the door because -- goes goes out the door because you're dealing with north korea and pakistan and iran and formerly libya. and that is the place from which i think we will see merge terror arist-armed nuclear weapon. and that is a huge problem for us. anybody thinks we can ignore that is smoking something. >> mr. vice president, four years ago you believed you were dying. this your book -- since we're holding occupy books here -- "heart," which you wrote with your heart surgeon and liz cheney, you said by the beginning of june 2010, i was approaching end stage heart failure. i found it increasingly difficult to carry out any