sort of is at the root of the last, you're talking about the last year and a half. so donald trump wins the election and a lot of women were pretty crushed initially -- >> we will leave this conversation at this point. you can see it in its target on our website c-span.org. going now to the annual legislative seminar on emigration infrastructure, taxes trade and health care. among the speakers house speaker paul ryan, congressman james clyburn and others. congressman adam schiff, this is hosted by the baker hostetler policy group and we joined it in progress. >> to selectively declassified in a very misleading way certain intelligence that we had received. now, it was one problem that this was a deeply misleading. it was a different problem that

it abused the intelligence that we were given. there is a bargain between intelligence committees and the intelligence community that you share with us your deepest secrets and we will handle them responsibly. will use them for our oversight but we will hold those secrets in confidence and we will respect the process, we will protect your sources. that compact is violated by the publication of this memo. and it will take time to regain the trust of the community, which we need. they are obligated to answer our questions, in some cases they're obligated to share intelligence with us if it involves a significant intelligence activity but, of course, that's a standard that is highly subjective. and depends a lot on that having the confidence of knowing they can share with us and we will deal with that in a nonpartisan and respectful way. so i would want to go, focus on

rebuilding their relationship with the ic, restoring comity among the members and the terms of the russian investigation, i think we were really want to see okay, what has been done by the time next year starts, what is been done by the more team, what is been done in the senate. what remains undone -- robert mueller team. i don't think we can prejudge at this point what that will mean, but i think those are the questions we should be asking. >> you to spend time on the fourth affairs committee. you have been involved in a lot of different fourth affairs issues. you are very knowledgeable and been very active on that front over the years. what is your sense of, i want to touch on north korea because this is sort of bouncing around in fits and starts it seems. there's a lot of jockeying and tweeting and statements by different members, both of our leadership and kim jong-un's leadership. where is this going? how do you think this place

itself out? and do you have any big concerns or are your fairly confident this can indwelt? >> i think it's very positive and very dramatic change of event that we even talk about having talks, , that we are even talking about the summit. we are obviously in a far different place than we were what was only a matter of months ago when we were comparing the size of our nuclear button. so i think that's a very positive that there's a window to see whether a different kind of relationship can be established and it's possible to move along the path toward denuclearization. that being said, the history of our negotiations with north korea is fraught. the north koreans achieved. north koreans play rope a dope and know what you go into this process thinking that this is going to be easy for the kim jong-un has had some epiphany. and i think in the euphoria over

the fact that we work in the early going to war with north korea and the north korean dictator was speaking in a very different way and we've seen only months ago, that we were ready to say wow, this looks like it's really going to happen. the old north korea hands counseled against that and they were of course right as a c with events of the last 48 hours. now, what kim jong-un has done in the last 48 hours is right of the north korea playbook. they will build up expectations. they will dash them. they will attempt to leverage what they can get before the negotiations, and once you in the negotiations they will use a variety of tactics to try to get all the economic relief they can't before they really have to put anything on the table. so we need to expect this is going to be difficult and it's going to take time. and it's going to need the most rigorous verification anything

we agree on even the north koreans track record. i am concerned in particular about one thing, and that is having walked away from the iran agreement. i think kim jong-un recognizes that our president may need this deal more than he does. otherwise, we have to nuclear problems now instead of one, and it may be why we see this otherwise inexplicable statement from the president on dte. you might ask how this is related. we just sanction cte for violating the north korea agreements sanctions. we sanctioned sanction them fot violating those agreements and sanctions, and what they were doing about it. we also found on a by person basis in a committee at our intelligence communities of the

same opinion that we cannot trust that cte technology will be used to spy on us. so why on earth would the president say in a 100-degree, 80-degree change of attitude we should help zte because otherwise time is going to lose these jobs. it was such a bewildering statement. this may have to do as much needing china on north korea as it has anything to do with the trade. and it concerns me that if the president is desperate enough to get an agreement with north korea, within a matter of weeks completely reverse course on this chinese bad actor, just what kind of agreement with you be willing to accept with north korea. now, if he is consistent, , and

again this is not the hallmark of this administration, but he will insist upon a denuclearization wishing for more stringent than what we got with iran. that's a pretty difficult and high bar, and i am concerned that out of desperation to get something he can call a win with north korea, that we get the appearance of a a deal, we gete appearance of denuclearization without any reality of it. and i think that's a real risk. >> let me pivot to in total democratic party politics. >> oh, boy. >> there's real opportunity, real chance the democrats will be in the majority in the house after this year's election, and a lot of democrats have talked about how there is sort of a generation of democratic leaders who have come potentially a

guest who have been sort of stymied by the current leadership of the democratic party in the house, leaders who have been there for a number of years, some of whom will be with us here later today. i could chat with them a little bit about that as well, but how do you feel like that lack of turnover in the leadership ranks of democrats in the house, how has that impacted folks, the next group of leaders, potential future look, you are ranking member at a leader of the party in many ways, but folks talk about people who could potentially move up in the ranks when that current leadership, generation retires or moves on, how has that affected some of the next potential leaders in the house? >> i may be in somewhat of a typical situation in that i was really brought on by leader pelosi in the sense that when i became the ranking member on the

intel committee i was not a senior member of the next senior member of the next senior number so i i was advanced at of the seniority system. anything that she is looked for people within the caucus to try to move up to leadership and try to essentially develop the team for the next generation of leadership. and i'm obviously very grateful for that. there will be a generational change i'm sure, just a question of when that takes place. i will say this, and i hope that, obviously we hope, i hope we take back the house and hope leader pelosi as our speaker. what people don't get to see about leader pelosi is what a masterful job she does of keeping the most diverse and disparate caucus ever assembled together on one page. now, it is really true that donald trump helps us with our

unity, but nonetheless, when you're in the minority and when you are struggling to fend off things that you consider deeply antagonistic to your values, it is easy to splinter as a party. it is easy to form a circular firing squad and be at each other's throats. none of that has happened. we have stayed completely unified, and it's largely because of her leadership. we are positioned to take back the house because largely of her leadership. and when that generational change takes place, whoever occupies a deposition next is going to realize just how damn difficult a job that is and how easy she made it look. now, you know, it's become a cottage industry to attack her, and i think this cycle in the

absence of any real legislative achievement to run on, the rncc is his fallback it on the tried and true, let's attack nancy pelosi. that didn't work in pennsylvania. i don't think it's going to work as a general matter, but are alternatives because there's not much of a positive agenda to be running on. we'll see more of it i'm sure. i don't think at the end of the day it's going to affect our view of our own leadership affect how voters perform at the polls. i am increasingly optimistic about november because what i think is going to determine the results in november is turnout. we debate within our party, within both parties indeed, how much of the campaign is focused on persuasion and how much is focused on turnout. i don't think there's any

question about the result is going to be in this election. it's going to be dictated by turnout. there was a fascinating article one of our leaders jim clyburn circulator recently that basically said general election campaign doesn't work anymore, that we are to vulcanized and polarized a nation. that you really can't persuade people to vote against party anymore. that you can do persuasion campaign and a primary where you are not choosing forcing people to choose between parties but in general election it basically has reached such day mission returned it's not worth it, that the strategy has to be turning your people out. and sadly, i think a lot of merit to that. this is i think probably the most crosscutting problem of all that our country is facing now and going to face going forward, which is now get our information from such different places. we live in different information

worlds, and i wish i could tell you what we can do about that, but it's not the problem i think most people think it is that there's some massive fan of civics education in the country. everyone gets civics education in the country. it's not like to teach civics in some parts and others. i think the problem is what happens after your civics education when we now inhabit one world by tuning on one station or inhabit another by tooling on another station. now by virtue the fact most americans get their news by social media algorithms designed our newsfeed. that is polarized as an vulcanized as an made our life i think very difficult. that's a big problem, but long and short of it is i think nancy pelosi is going to be our speaker. i fully support her in that because i think she's the best our caucus has, and even looking

for a close second you would have a hard time finding a close second to someone with her capabilities. >> you mention jim clyburn. he will be with us later today. i'll ask him about that article. it sounds fascinating. last question, superfast. you have a hard stop, a crazy schedule. we really appreciate you making time to be with us today. 15 seconds, who is your favorite republican in-house and why? >> my favorite republican in the house. well look speedy looking for a bright spot. >> i have always thought the word of tom cole. i think he's as smart as they come. i think he is both strong in policy and strong on politics, and i admire his ability. i think if there were a lot more in congress like him, we would be far more productive, could get things done it would be a far less partisan place, and so

he would be certainly on my list. but you are quite a lot of others that i really enjoyed working with. had a great working relationship with, and so i could happily give you a much longer list but we don't have time so help me thank congressman adam schiff for his time for being with us today. [applause] >> thank you for doing this. appreciate it. great to be with you. >> [inaudible conversations]

>> my college aged son just got an internship from senator blunt. we just work it out right here. i didn't even ask. he offered. i love it. thank you, roy. >> i know jack, and in spite of you -- [laughing] >> ease in her keys in. >> roy also knows mrs. ferguson which is why probably jack got his internship offer. senator roy blunt is our next guest it were delighted to have him here. he is the vice chairman of the senate, republican conference, the number four elected republican leadership position in the senate. he's a senior member of the appropriations committee as well as chairman of the subcommittee that funds that will healthcare,

labor programs. no small piece of the federal budget. senator blunt pray the service in the house. that's what became good pals. he was the majority whip. i served on his team. we worked on lots of things together and i can tell you other people that i stood within the house, there's nobody that i learned more from than roy blunt. it was a great opportunity for me to learn from one of the masters. i've said this to them before. we used up our weekly conference meetings were all the republicans would get together and talk about what's going on that week. each member of our leadership would have an opportunity to say a few words and talk about what was going on that week, and sometimes you can imagine you didn't feel like that was the best use of the tyvek sometimes you felt like you had a busy schedule, other things you needed to do, but i went every week because i knew that roy blunt was good at something mean for an important and interesting to say, that would make my week better and that would make that time for me better spent.

we are delighted that he has made time from his scheduled to be with us here today. let me kick it off because mentioned your work on the appropriations committee. you oversee hhs budget. hhs secretary alex azores pushing a series of reforms at president trump laid out last week. he announced last week similar trying to walk a fine line come on drug pricing of course similar trying to walk a fine line between reducing prescription drug prices in moving some inefficiencies in our payment system and also trying not to undermine innovation that goes on in the life sciences industry and world. congressional republicans seem kind of okay with what's been announced. the democrats, many democrats a physical point of to bring prices down for patients or taxpayers. what are your thoughts? what was your reaction to the

president announcement and the secretary's comments since then? >> we had them in for his hearing that week and he and i had a chance off-line to talk about that and then he called the right before the president announcement. it's a very complicated process. he clearly understands it. sector is a czar -- sector a czar on this front and mr. gottlieb at fda may be the two best people we've ever had running those two organizations. certainly in terms of their preparation to get their tickets very collocated. he understands how complicated it is. the difference in that area between list and that has gotten so much bigger over the last few years, and not many people know why but he actually does, and i think having the pharmacy benefit managers able to be only compensated on one side is a bigger thing than people would

think. a requirement that you would actually list, you would have to come in advertising, which are list price out there for people to see. will have an impact. the system didn't develop overnight and it will not be reformed overnight, but the one thing we really don't want to lose is mike, we don't want to lose the innovation opportunity, and particularly right now. the other agency in hhs that i will have a hearing on this morning with the national institute of health. and senator murray and i and congressman cole and congresswoman galore on the other side have come after 12 years of no increase in nih funding, eberly made that priority the last three years and vote on the pharmaceutical side and just generally the opportunity now that we know what we know about the human genome, we were at a cancer that last night where we're talking about how your own body has a

lot of what you need to fight off these things but may take a pill every day to enhance of that. i think we're at a very important time at a think he's a great person to be running that organization. >> do you see the president's plan is more of an administration play affecting the right infrastructure, or to see is congress going to be involved in this process as well on the drug pricing initiative? >> i suspect congress will have to be involved but this is thia thing were a lot of the drug pricing is driven by the biggest purchaser of drugs which is the federal government to medicare and medicaid, and i don't know how much of that requires medicare and medicaid changes as much as it just requires a regulatory change. but i can guarantee you that from an oversight perspective, the congress will be involved and i don't know yet how much legislation may be necessary but

the president made this out as a campaign promise. like a lot of campaign promises i'm sure what to begin to look at the intricacy of the, it's a lot more complicated than you think when you do say we're going to do this and will take care of everybody and it doesn't work out quite that will or that easily. but i just think he happens to put a team together in those two agencies, hhs and fda, that are likely to be able to get something pretty significant done. but we have a responsibility to watch that and make them public report about it as well as privately, , and we will be doig that. >> you mentioned your work with your hearing today, nih. it's an election year. you and i both know, you know as host anybody, it's tough to legislate in an election year. obviously you are an appropriator appropriations have to happen every year. sometimes it's more difficult

than others, but what do you expect might be accomplished legislatively in the year like this when you have midterm elections coming up, it's very volatile electorate, a lot of folks concerned about their races this year. it's hard to legislate in an environment like this. what do you see that might get done this year even before election day or perhaps a visit on a lame-duck other things that need to happen as well? >> i don't think we will see this as a groundbreaking legislative year. i do think what happened last year using the congressional review act, really the first time we used it was 2001 and that was the only time it'd ever been used until this year. we used it 15 times last year, one-time tissue to reverse regulations that were already being proposed, and a tax bill obviously a huge legislative

accomplishment, and we're not going to do anything like that i think this year. what we need to do this year, if we can do it, is just somehow break out of this dysfunction we got into how we spend peoples money and how we publicly debate that. we haven't had this process working the right way for almost a decade now. and both senator mcconnell and senator schumer are saying all the right things, but we need to begin to get these bills on the floor. for two with just the main work of the congress was to decide how you're going to spend the money available to the federal government, and you set policy like that. you directed the administration by that, and you did it pretty specifically. you know the horrible term earmarks, every early congress thought it was their job to decide how to spend the money

and the president's job to execute that direction, which is why it is the executive branch, not the decision-making branch we need to get back to that. i think we are going to try really hard. i know the appropriators are trying really hard to get budget out that are not needlessly controversial in terms of legislative issues involved and try to get back to where, tinges go both the house and the senate you bring one of these 12 bills or maybe a couple of them at a time to the floor, and every member, house and senate, to make any amendment they wanted you as long as they had an amendment that applied to the bill and they paid for it, if it was a spending amendment, by reducing some of the line in that bill. if we could get back to that, that would be the single biggest legislative accomplishment we could make to get back to where we had a pattern that people understood again.

>> there's a handful of folks who had served in both the house and the senate, like you i can't actually think been putting off the top of my head who is served in the leadership of the house and the leadership of the senate as you have. that's got to give you a pretty unique perspective on how the two bodies work together, or don't work together. just reflect on that for a minute. >> i hope it does. the early to give an history of the country that been elected leader in both the house and the senate, trent lott and me. which means, that may mean we are neither very smart. that could be part of it that we would do this again in the other legislative side of the building. but i just heard adam talk about this, relationships, individual relationships are better than you think. our appropriate committee we spend, after you take defense on

the table of the discretionary spending, , there still 11 committees left but the committee i chair as a third of the money that's left. that nondefense, and tom cole and rosa delauro and senator murray and i just had to figure how to agree. we actually have disproportionate influence there now because the bill never goes to the floor. except some big package at the end, the three or four things we can't agree to. if the four top leaders make those decisions, and it's really important that the four of us figure out how to work, house and senate, and you know, we don't agree on a lot of priorities but we have to forget what those priorities are. and i think we have been. you know, like with the nih increase, in the last three years we've eliminated or a

combined 32 programs, zeroed a bunch of them out and they'll let really good names but they just were not doing what they were supposed to do to prioritize at this unique moment. again, $7 billion increase in nih research after 12 years of not one penny. but it's such an unbelievable time to be doing that. i think all four of us, i think that would be fair to say that tom and i virtue said this is going to be our priority. i think all four of us have come to the conclusion that this is the right time to do this, and that house and senate things work. i think the regular dynamic though is so out of what was traditional, you know, the idea you have a a conference commit, almost unheard-of now. everything, everybody in this room would've learned in their

civics class or in their early how a bill becomes a law, almost none of that happens now. the house passed a bill, the senate passed the bill, they go to conference and try to come up with a compromise that goes back to both bodies. and we have fallen into this terrible moment that i i beliee we may be about to get out of where people would actually run for office a if i don't get exactly what i want, i'm not going to be part of anything else, which is a guaranteed definition that you're going to fail. in a democracy you are not supposed to get exactly what you want because it's not a democracy. i have never voted for a perfect bill. i figured just a couple perfect bills but i have never -- [laughing] >> you told me a video you introduce was perfect. >> i thought was better than wobbly what finally turn out to be the case, but i've never voted for a bill that couldn't be better.

we somehow, police have temporarily lost in many peoples minds that part of how the system is supposed to work. >> let me give it to the international scene. you and i travel to israel together. a big week in israel, big news with the establishment, moving of the embassy, u.s. embassy to jerusalem. obviously very popular in some quarters, i'm asleep in the pro is a crowd, and very unpopular in other quarters, controversial, violence we're seeing in some places obviously. how do you see that? what are your thoughts on that? how does that play into what we come we all hope is a peace process that achieves some sort of these longer-term in the middle east in that very, very volatile region? >> i am pretty supportive of the

presidents process on even more supportive of the goals that he's trying to achieve. i think what we have here is, after eight years of a government that largely viewed the united states as if it should conduct itself like we're any other country in the world, the results of that, which are lots of things, really gets in a dangerous situation. now, three administrations are responsible for where we are in korea, but some frank talk about korea, some sense that we're not going to let korea become a nuclear power and prepared to do whatever it may take to prevent that made a difference. same thing and iran. in israel, i was there, that was the tribute i were on. i was her when they were turning gas over to the palestinians,

and sharon was the leader maybe if anybody could get this done, sharon is the guy who might be able to get it done but a member we were done at the border watching sort of the movement back and forth of the turnover in august of the year that happen. so gaza is part of the problem, and uncontrolled part of the palestinian come so-called palestinian authority. as it relates to the embassy, overwhelming vote year after year in the congress to move the embassy to jerusalem. and every present have said they are for the. there's only so long you can continue say you are for something and people believe you might actually before it can tell you have to do something. so i'm supportive of what the president has done here.

we all would've wished that would've been a better way to handle the gaza border, but there is no country in the world that he get all kinds of people trying to rush across your border armed, and unarmed, you wouldn't do something about that. i think the president clearly has a set of fresh eyes on these problems, and in foreign-policy there were a lot of patterns, particularly that developed over the last decade, that needed to be broken and they think he's broken the pattern. >> he is broken the pattern on a lot of things. >> and i'm on the intel committee and we spent, north korea has been the biggest single issue we have dealt with on that committee for almost three years now. and seeing what was happening in the last year of the obama administration clearly, this new guy, you know, a person who has,

might act impulsively but clearly has a lot of confidence in itself and his ability to command the world attention and manipulate the press, sounds like another guy that we know. so be interesting to see what happens. i think the singapore some will occur next month, and hopefully the president is prepared to walk away if you don't achieve the number one goal here, which is the absolute denuclearization of north korea. and we were foolish to let iran get in a situation where they could become a nuclear state and have it approved by the rest of the world within the next decade. >> we are bumping up against the time you promised us. i get one last lightning question, 15 seconds. the senate as the house is full of a cast of characters really interesting folks. who is the most interesting u.s.

senator that you served with? >> most interesting u.s. senator spitters i left the vessel open. >> they are all pretty interesting. >> and impossible to pick against. >> it is. i was talking to actually senator hirono from hawaii and i were working on an adoption issue the other day. we were talking, i was looking up at the senate floor and i thought, and i said to her, i said there is so much talent to get i said you might come and i said you might pick five people here that are not all that talented, but it is all right, let's year that list. [laughing] >> but there's so much talent here it is such a shame we're not taking full advantage of it, and i do think, now, i had good across the line relationships in the house, the democrat with, steny hoyer, they got i certainly dealt with the most,

what am i really close friends. we didn't vote together very often but i do think senate generally, , the relationships e close to because there are so few of you and because the senate rules, you always have to have some interparty ability to get things done. i do think people are little more cautious about a limit dating relationships in the senate. in the house with 435 people you can make the decision, there are 200 or 100 people and just never going to talk to come in so to get away with that i guess. but you cannot do that in the senate. it would be hard. >> one hundred people, so interesting that you can't pick just one. that's how we summative. senator roy blunt, thank you for being with us here today. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> good morning. >> good morning. >> i'm paul. [laughing] i'm about to introduce paul. as you all know, congressman paul ryan is the 54th speaker of the house. he is now serving his tenth and final term in the house. he represents wisconsin's first congressional district. he previously served as chairman of the house ways and means committee and chairman of the house budget committee. he is one of the most thoughtful and respected members of the house on either side of the aisle. folks who agree with him or disagree with him appreciate his

integrity, his attention to detail, his concern and care about policy. and were delighted and honored that he has once again made time to spend time with us. please welcome paul ryan. [applause] >> so he made your announcements last month. you said you wanted to run right through the tape, which means even though you are retiring at the end of this term, that you're going to keep working as hard as you can come as you put it to me, , to make sure you get everything done that you can possibly get done. what are you going to try to do before you leave the house at the end of the and the speakership? >> basically complete a better wage and many of you may know we ran on a specific coherent agenda in 2016. we showed the country this is the engine we would enact it given a unified government.

where more than two-thirds the way to doing it but we have more to do. part of that agenda was our infrastructure bills. the faa bill which is air travel, airports. that's done out of the house waiting for the senate to pick that up. we are working on the water bill, water infrastructure bill and then a permitting belt after that. and that were i work for sea fg agenda. that was the last component of the better way agenda. that is career technical education reform, education reform, and welfare to work. that bill is on the floor right now introducing a requirement for job training requirement to able-bodied people on food stamps that do not have small kids. we cut 6.69 .69 job openings in america today. we have 12 million able-bodied adult right in our communities. who don't have small kids, or working age who are not working, not looking for work or not in school. so we really want to focus on

getting them on the letter of life, getting them in the economy, income into the workforce, getting them in school. so the bill that's on the floor now says that cohort, to that group of people you've got to put 20 hours of work in or look for a job or go to school and will cover the cost of it, to get you from welfare to work. we've had two pilot projects, one in maine and one in kansas that did this and it was phenomenally successful. people ended up nearly doubling the income within a year by going into careers and jobs. so with tight labor markets like web right now, which a good problem to have, we want to focus on closing that opportunity gap and the skills gap. so that and then starting the appropriations process. i think the budget process is very dysfunctional. having you can reset it between house and ascend to come up with the new process but in the meantime we would like to get out appropriations bills through and with a plan in the senate and the newly invigorated senate appropriations chairman to

actually get some of our appropriations work done. that is a a pretty big list ofo do for the rest of the summer. that i want to make sure we keep our majority. i feel good about that but the speaker thousands spent a lot of time on the road basically one of the reasons why i'm going to move on, having been there 20 years and a 13, 14, 16 16 you t home when you're only home basic one and have days a week, sundays and part of saturday. it's not the right life stage from. the rest of the i will be at the pace to make sure we keep a majority to those of the things i want to get up. >> we met 20 some years ago when you were working for jack kemp and we were young twentysomethings add a few years later we both elected to congress. but ever since i've known you, you live and breathe tax reform. this is something that is animated you since the first day i met you. did the passage of the tax bill factor into your decision? >> it did. it gave me a sense of

contentment and pride. it's the first issue i worked on as a policy person when i was a step economic policy analyst for jack kemp. it's the issue i've worked on the most. it's what i became chair of the ways and means committee to do tricks are getting that once in a generation tax refund on which i really believe fundamentally reset the foundation of our economy in a very strong and profound way, getting that accomplishment. also the poverty agenda i've been fighting for, that's in law not the opportunity zone which we use, enterprise zones, that's done, that's in law. what we call the conservative free-market approach to solving poverty importunities, we've advanced that ball very, very far. i am going to list and checked off a lot of things i came here to do. since things become since been so much time with the militant and our intelligence community i became gravely concerned for the state of our military and the

readiness crisis at this sequester presents, brought us to. and i really wanted to focus on getting the military into a place to be rebuilt and that's done as well. the one thing that got away is entitlement reform, health care and retirement reform. discretion is been today is lower than what was eight years ago, even after we did this budget to rebuild the military. the military budget is still small today than it was eight years ago. that isn't the culprit. the culprit on debt death is entitlements, particularly health-care entitlements. i'm proud house passed its bill to reform two of the three health-care entitlements regrettably, it failed by a vote in the senate. that's the one that kind of got away. not for the lack of the house acting or moving, but because all those other things that came to do i've gotten done, and at, you know my family, you know my kids, i want to be a full engaged dad. that's kind of why that did help to make the decision, made the

decision easy. >> i told you this the day you announced your going to retire from the house. you've got three teenagers. i have for teenagers. i did it. i get it. teenagers need that. >> would also find is there a deal we can suspend all of the time with you. [laughing] >> speak for yourself, paul. my teenagers love hanging out for me every second. >> they were not teenagers when it took the job with all these great weekends where it was all of us. it's not how they want to spend their time these days. >> humbling, isn't it? >> it is. >> let me talk another policy. president announced his plan for reducing the cost of prescription drugs last week. what role do you see for congress in this process? is there a congressionally? >> also go through congress. >> the president talked a lot of writing joint and executive

action. hard legislative these days. >> we very much believe in article one. we write the laws. i'm sure there's permitting, fda reform i think is important. speeding up the transmission of approvals. that's very important. we are working between the commerce committee and the judiciary committee on a compromise will be called creates, which is getting the generics online faster after patterns have expired pics i think there are things we can do in that area. the president talked about rebates. that something a lot of people talk about making a difference. but what we don't want to do is get in the realm of price controls only to scarcities or violating property rights and that something went to be very careful of. that means we won't have the kind of research and develop an and innovation that we've

enjoyed and that we're expecting to have two cure all of these diseases. >> let me ask about tray. you are a free trader. you made a mark on that and have been an outspoken free trader, a great advocate for free trade over your career. president trump's record on that in rhetoric of that is more of a mixed bag. it's not the traditional i guess what you or i would say traditional republican orthodoxy on trade. is the republican party changing? is the president leading a part of that change in the republican party? how do you see this? >> our party is big party, and are different views on trade. no two ways about it. what unkind to do is get us to where we all have consensus. when we have consensus is ongoing after unfair trade practices, what people or countries are violating the rules they agreed to play by. intellectual property theft, dumping, transit shipping.

most of that is china. so i think we should focus on the abuses of the rules. china entered the deputy over a promise to play by the rules of the devotee l and in many, many ways not just against america but against the world they are violating not just the spirit but the rules. so we should all people to get because free trade works if it is done in a rules-based system where rules are followed and applied or in force. so that free friedenberg and ts right thing to do because you don't have a rules-based traits system then it doesn't work. i think that makes more sense than he mercantilism approach where you're trying to sort of prop up industries or raise prices for temporary protection. that never really works. that's why for instance, i didn't like the 232. i'm glad they really slammed it down, exempted allies and more focus on surgical approaches to the actual abusers and set -- instead of raising the prices for market protection. i think they did in a much

better place. i would love to see them get a nafta deal done right now so that we can vote on it this year. the tpa law will say i i sent a letter. i didn't set that. the tv and law is on how long it takes to process a trade agreement once it's been agreed to. it asap as one now, we could process it by the end of the year. i don't know that's going to happen picketers look like it's going to happen but it would be nice if it did happen. so we could have napped in hand. an upgrade to match would be a quick thinker nafta was written before the internet existed was written before we will have an shale play with this amazing potential for north american energy market. so there's a great upside to having a new and improved nafta but he needs to be new and improved. it would be wonderful if we could get that done now. if not then it would just take longer time. i think people are nervous that

the next government might change and change their attitude. our hope and focus is to focus on the countries that are abusing the rules and not playing by the rules so we can hold them accountable. >> let me pipit to internal republican politics in the house. you said that you want leadership elections to figure out who the next leaders of the republican conference in house, you want those to be after the november elections rather than during this year somehow. we both know that leadership elections are perhaps the most unpleasant thing you do with as a member of congress. it's just friends against france. why do you want those elections to be pushed back until after the november elections? >> that isn't the schedule. that's the normal course of business. that's how it always works. it's not like a change from the rules. it's just sticking with the procedures. euros of leadership after the election. that's when we do things.

and to introduce the leadership election in the middle of a legislative session when you're trying to finish your java your agent would knock you off stride. it could take weeks if not months, like you say, interpersonal fights which when were trying to close our agenda and get our work done, it's the wrong time to have that kind of drama pixel that's why none of us think it's a good idea. also i think kevin mccarthy should succeed me. i have not been cagey about that. any good leader of an organization, in ceo wants to repair his succession plan. so i'm in the middle with kevin of trying to prepare a secession plan pending things over him. in. that's why we're teaming up this summer to crisscross the country map of house republicans to make sure that our majority is in good hands, is well-funded and that we have a seamless transition. that takes time to do and what

we don't want to do is have some kind of an ugly fight in the middle of summer while we are completing our agenda. >> some people suggested let's get the leadership elections over with so we get the fall election with that finished. but you have a different view of. >> only it's not that easy. it's not the one election because the other elections that get opened up. ..

what are the things you're most optimistic about when you think about the house and what you've accomplished and that's kind of looking backwards. in terms of looking forward, what keeps you optimistic. >> i'm optimistic. i do worry about 21st century technology, we're more-- and with this technology spread that occurs. even with that, i feel good about the economy and the state of our military and where it's headed so i feel that we're getting our fundamentals right. and entitlement reforms, i don't think that the people want a single payer government run and rationed health insurance. and i think we'll get there p. the point being, i think we'll

have another great american century and the reason that's so good because we're leading the world in freedom and opportunity and self-determination in the form of government and that's a good thing. so i'm actually very optimistic, the kids coming out of college will have great careers to choose from. we have wages going up, economic growth, we have businesses coming back to the country. we have investment occurring. so, i see a very good foundation for the economy. i see a strengthened foreign policy because we are strengthening our military. so, i think a lot of the key fundamentals are in place. i do believe that ultimately we're going to have to get health care fixed and get an entitlement issue, but one or two basics and there's no stopping us. immigration, we're dealing with that as well. but, a couple of big issues that have got to get fixed and will get fixed because they have to get fixed and i think we are going to be just fine. >> you mentioned immigration

and i've got to ask you about the discharge petition, more and more republicans signing onto that. >> from time to time. obviously we don't like discharge positions and we think it loses the floor. and nothing guaranteed to go into law. it would provide a vote, but the issue would be dead and wouldn't go anywhere. so, we're working with our members to address the votes that they're looking for, but to do it in such a way where we can have a shot at law. something the president would sign and we've had productive meetings with our members in the last 24 hours. i feel we can go in the right direction, address the concerns that our members have in this very big, broad conference that we've got. and do it in such a way that we get closer to law and not just make some kind of a point. >> there are-- i know i speak for a lot of people. certainly people here and across the country. millions of people who are deeply, deeply appreciative of the sacrifices you've made,

your family have made, your wife and kids made for you to serve the way you serve, particularly to serve as speaker of the house which you describe as incredibly time consuming, all consuming and we are deeply, deeply appreciative both of your service to the country and willing to share your thoughts and time with us today. speaker of the house, paul ryan. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] ladies and gentlemen, i want to introduce my colleague, baker

hostetler, congressman keith shuler. [applause]. [applause]. [inaudible conversations] >> mike, thank you so much. a great job, a great interview with a really great cast so far and thanks to the baker hostetler staff for the hard work in organizing this. this is a hard part, mike has done a great job, trying to juggle the time and obviously we've got a very busy schedule with a markup on the energy commercial and to have so many great energy and commerce members actually here today it says a lot about baker

hostetler staff and give laura and everyone a great round of applause. [applause]. >> our next guest here is anna represents the silicon valley of california, has served in multiple leadership roles in congress on the committee and subcommittee, energy and commerce staff. and this is the member that, you know, as you go through, you're in congress and you think about, you know, we probably didn't always vote alike. i was far more moderate conservative member, but there are always those few members of congress that would stand up a and-- in the caucus and say, you know, this is too difficult of a vote for some of our moderate members to take. and so, therefore, we either need to table this or we need to reconstruct this and it makes it much more palatable for them to actually cast this vote and anna was that member that would stand up for the

diversity within our entire caucus and say, that it's, you know, we have to come to some agreement 'cause, and it's a very diverse caucus with a lot of different policy coming from multiple different regions of the united states and different viewpoints. so from my perspective, always thought anna was a great leader, continues her leadership on the committee and so, anna, thank you for being here today and welcome. >> thank you, i'm happy to be here, good morning, everyone. >> how are you? >> obviously, today, we have a large markup today and that's always, you never know exactly what questions or what's going to be on the forefront, but do you see any issue with the opioid markup today and kind of walk us through and kind of give us an idea of what you see the end result today. >> well, first of all, thank you for inviting me, it's wonderful to be here with you, and to see mike ferguson who invited me and this is your 29th annual gathering, so, i

hope i'll be with you on your 30th. today is a very important markup and the markup is a writing of a bill, it's not a hearing, it's actually writing of a bill and there are some 35 to 50 bills that are being considered. that's a lot. so we'll probably go through the day and maybe to early evening. the topic is the opioid issue and it is a crisis in our country. it matters not whether it is a rural district, whether it's an urban district, whether it's a suburban district. so, there is a range, there are a range of bills dealing with everything from pain medications that are not opioids to help bring them to market, to how opioids are

reimbursed because there is the overprescription of opioids that are used to those that are addicted and what they need. so, it's a whole range of issues. that's real shorthand for a lot of bills. there are many bipartisan bills that are included in the package and then there are some that-- where the democrats don't degree with each other and i don't know if there will be total agreement on the part of republicans on every single bill. so, we'll see, but it's very important and it's important for us to address it. it's taking a toll on our country. a real toll on our country. many lives lost. more lives lost to opioid addiction than those that are killed in traffic accidents in our country. that's a terrible figure. >> i know, and in all of our

communities, the increase with the side, the numbers of the frequency of having to go to a home or a location where, you know, they've had these overdoses and that-- i know that -- the hearings they talked about the added burden and expense for them. >> it is. it's not only expensive, but it's taking a lot of lives. i think that for many people that don't know someone who has fallen into this, this is not just about heroin addicts, this is about people that have had surgery and they-- the number one surgery in the country is cataract surgery, number two, is hip surgery, and so this could happen to me, it could happen to you. there's a member of congress who's brother is very

successful business executive. he had surgery, protracted rehabilitation and they put him on opioids because his pain was so severe. he became addicted to it. so, it's about all of us. >> over the last few months, we've, you know, that multiple hearings that you had on the hill, talking about a consumer data protection, talk us through how, you know, is that going to be a regulatory side of it or is it going to be -- is congress going to act on some of these issues and how do you think that will play out? >> well, i think you're referring to facebook. >> yes. >> i don't think that this would have come up the way it did, were it not for cambridge analytica and how it was used,

how people that are facebook users, that their information went out around the world. in fact, in my questioning, i asked mark zuckerberg was any of your data stolen and he said, yes. that made big news. you never know what you say and how it's received by the media. i think that there is form for reform. i think that there's room for reform, and consumers want this. i know it just from my own district. and they are facebook employees. so, but i think what we need to do, we need to do this with a scalpel. we need to have -- we have to bring a lot of balance to it. i've always thought that privacy is in the dna of the american people. we don't like big brother.

we-- whatever private information we have, whether it's our health records or anything else, we don't want other people to have it. and so, how these platforms accumulate data, who they share it with. i think the consumer is the one that needs to drive that. and people do not realize when they go on-line what they -- what they are saying yes to. and i think that that needs to be very clear, upfront, across all of their platforms, including the third party platform. so, do i think that congress is going to take that up this year? no, i really don't. because it's enormously complex. and i think that members need to understand it better, need to understand exactly how these platforms work.

you can't work on something if you don't understand it. you have to understand something before you can accept or reject it. so, i think that consumers are looking for something that will speak to the protection of their information and in this ca case, where are the products? where are -- we're the product that's being sold and i don't think anyone here -- well, if you want that, you should be able to say yes to it, but you should be able to understand that when you're using a platform, how you are being used. >> that's great. cyb cybersecurity, formerly at duke energy when we were there, we received somewhere between 750,000, over a million hits per day trying to infiltrate our system. some of it was that our

customers data that they were trying to infiltrate, but most the time, it was, you know, trying to get a control to grid. how are you seeing that? often right now we're talking about the consumer issues, but the cyber security side of it is still kind of on the forefront of many of the corporations of which we represent here at baker hostetler. you know, what's being done from the government side? i know like at duke there was a lot of relationship. it was a hand in hand relationship with the federal government working with helping and they helped us identify areas and we were, you know, largest utility in the u.s. so we were getting hit very frequently. so we actually had a relationship. do you see that going forward, a continued relationship between the public and private sector? >> well, it's a huge issue. first of all, if you take the entire universe between public

and private, 80% of cyber security is in the private sector. 20% is the government. it's a very important sector, especially when you consider our intelligence community. and i served on the house intelligence community, committee for almost a decade. and what's changed is, the amount of attacks. so, we are constantly under attack, both public and private. there isn't a ceo that i've met with, talked to, gone to meet with, in silicon valley where -- and it may not have been the -- most of the time it wasn't a topic why i was meeting with them, but i asked them all the same question. what would you do? and the consistent answer on their part was the following:

there are two pillars related to cybersecurity that we need to do. one is you have to have a system that has excellent hygiene, excellent hygiene, number one and you have to invest in the management of the security of the system on a consistent basis, and so, that's prevention. now, the range in terms of the effect it would have on the overall system, i've been informed by them, is up to 90% prevention. congress has concentrated more on if you have been hacked that you have to be informed within 90 days or 60 days.

i guess that's all right, but then what do you do? i remember going through my visa bill to see if i had shopped at target between certain dates because, you know, their system had been hacked. so whether it was nieman marcus or wal-mart or wherever we shop, it's a common occurrence. so i have a bill that spells out, and would place into statute, what i just described. and orrin hatch is the lead in the senate. do i think it's going to move? not very much is moving. it's an election year and people don't like to hear that, but it's a reality, and this is a sophisticated audience. what i worry about is our nation's infrastructure. and you're talking about duke energy and we've had attacks at

a major power center in the san jose area, and if they had been 100% successful, it would have taken down the entirety of silicon valley. so, we have some -- we have more work to do in this and-- but there's no question that we are-- in some areas, i think we're wide open. i don't like saying that, but i think that it's a fact. but i'm struck by what i've been informed we need to do. maybe it hasn't-- maybe it seems too simple. maybe it seems too simple, but i think that i wouldn't set the standard. the bill states that miss would set the standards. you have a good housekeeping

seal of approval and then people would be able to pick that up and go with it and it costs some money to invest in security management side of it. i know a very large health provider, a huge health provider, a dear friend of mine from years ago, it was the ceo and i hadn't heard from him in a while and i called to check in, how are you, what's happening, when are we going to see you in southern california, i'm in northern california, he said it's been a nightmare. and he started to describe it and i said two things, is the system clean? did you invest in the security management? he said it was part of an older system that they had and they were hacked and very, very sensitive information went out on people. so-- >> let's talk about prescription drugs again.

the president, obviously, has said that he wants to cut costs of prescription drugs, very high costs for our seniors and across the board. that's been a message for democrats over the last decade or two. how do they work with the president? has there been collaboration with the administration at this point? >> no, there hasn't. i've read and reread what the white house has put out and i can't describe it to you. i really don't know what it is. i really don't know what it is. we do have an issue in our country and the reason we have an issue is because there is -- it's very expensive to bring to market a prescription drug. it takes enormous resources.

there are a lot of, what, valleys in this and so it takes a lot of investment. companies are not going to invest money unless they're going to make money. >> you all have read about them, i don't need to go through them. i think a good place to start would be where the republicans have created a new program to cover prescription drugs for seniors. start with that, with part d. negotiate part d. and that would put steps in the right direction. i think it would be anyway, but there isn't any question in my mind that it is-- it's an expensive part of people's budget, there's no doubt about it. you have to be very careful

with this and i would say use the scalpel again. and there are colleagues that wouldn't agree with me on my side of the aisle on this, but we can't snuff out innovation in our country. we lead in innovation on so many fronts and i'm always sensitive about that. and certainly when it comes to biotechnology, we need to make sure that there's always something in the pipeline. whether it's on the pharma side or the biological side and by logics, they're very sophisticated, successful in many fronts and so we need to bring a balance to that. but i think that the-- the abuses that some engaged in really sickened the american

people. and there are many that feel that they're being taken. and so, we need to address that. we need to address it. >> so turning to politics now. the-- everybody is saying that the democrats have a really good chance of taking over the house. tell me, you know, first of all, how you get there. i mean, because i mean, i'm looking at a lot of the districts. they're going to be very tough races and some of the, you know, coming from a very moderate district, unless you win those moderate districts, you can't win. but some of the messaging continuing to come from the hierarchy of the democratic party is messaging that does not fit in those moderate districts. how do you, you know, being in this for such a long time, i mean, someone with your influence, you know, how do you go to those, the hierarchy of the democratic party and say

you're sending the wrong message. if you want to win back the house, the message you're using does not fit those? >> first of all, these are mid term elections. i think that overarching national messages are in a presidential election. congressional districts are, i think, far more local. they really are. and i think where you see the manifestation of the differences under a very large umbrella, democratic party, republican party, is in the recruitment of candidates and what i see on the democratic side are candidates that fit the profile of the district. so it's not one size fits all.

it isn't. i think that many assume, especially in washington, especially in washington d.c., like, well, this is the leadership structure. this is what nancy pelosi said today. this is what steny hoyer said and so, therefore, it's not a national election. it's not a national election. and what i see in the candidates on the democratic side is the following, they clearly match their district. not my district, their district. the hard thing is, is that once people are elected, as you said before, you come together under a large tent and you have all of these different districts and you have to stitch together what's going to work on whatever side of the aisle you're on. so i'm encouraged. there are so many more women

that are running and we saw tuesday night that pennsylvania's going to change. it's not just going to be an all guys club in pennsylvania. all, from their governor, their-- >> the pennsylvania corner will change on the house-- >> the congressional delegation, it was all male. now there are going to be women in that delegation. so i think it's very important in recruitment that -- and i see it, that the -- those that are running fit their district. i'm the first democrat in the history of our country to ever represent the congressional district i represent. so it's -- i guess i was a fit for the district. some didn't think so, but something good happened, i'm

still here. i always thought that good policy is good politics. and there is -- there are a lot of issues that are at hand, t too. i think the president is the best organizer for the democrats. >> before klaus comes on stage, what's your over/under for the midterm election. a narrow margin of victory for the democrats. a narrow margin by republicans. if you were guessing told, i mean, a lot of people say it today, but we all know in politics, it's a very long time between now and november. >> absolutely. in politics, you can have a 100-year sea change in 24 hours or less. and i think that there's right now an overconfidence.

i'm rather conservative about projectio projections, but the indicators are -- favor the democrats. there is an ingredient that no money can buy, passion in campaigns. and no one should ever forget that. it may even sound odd to you. >> we saw that even in the presidential. >> absolutely. the passion is on the democratic side. i see it not only in my congressional district, i see it throughout the bay area. i see it in california. i see it in places across the country, and some of the test cases, as it were, the special elections-- >> we are going to leave this event at this point and go live to the u.s. senate. our cameras do remain at this conference and we'll show it to you in its enty