freedom to be free of violence. whether at the hand of another person or the bullet of a gun. [applause] >> you can watch the rest of his speech online. take you live now to the floor at the u.s. house of representatives. about to gavel in. members beginning the day with general speeches. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the sproot, washington, d.c., -- the speaker's room, washington, d.c., october 20, 2015. i hereby appoint the honorable john r. moolenaar to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 6, 2015, the chair will now recognize

members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour ebate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip , but in o five minutes no event shall debate continue beyond 1:50 p.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, this weekend i learned that there would be no cost-of-living adjustments this year for those living on social security. not only will social security recipients not see a cost of living increase this year, but also dess abled veterans. there are over 131 -- disabled veterans. there are over 131,000 veterans in north carolina. they are having a difficult time making ends meet and it's not fair that the federal

government continues to waste money with failed policies like afghanistan. it is disgraceful. mr. speaker, we will be raising the debt ceiling of this nation for years to come because of wasteful spending. this means we will be borrowing more money to continue spending more than we take in. our annual federal deficit is still over $400 billion a year. the american people are sick and tired of our wasteful spending, and i know they are frustrated. once ge gwen, our fail policies in -- once again, our failed policies in afghanistan is an example of the waste, fraud and abuse of the american taxpayer dollar, but it continues on and on for years to come. in the recent house-senate conference bill, congress included $38 billion for the overseas contingency operation which is a slush fund used to get around sequestration spending caps for the department of defense. we have already spent over $685 billion in afghanistan since

2001, and according to the congressional budget office, we will be spending at least $30 billion a year in afghanistan for the next eight years, and congress has never debated the policy of afghanistan. this slush fund goes to fund our never-ending wars in iraq, syria and afghanistan. we continue to spend money on fool's errand in the middle east. meanwhile, our disabled vicious at home cannot keep up with -- veterans at home cannot keep up with the rising cost of daily living. mr. speaker, with president obama keeping 10,000 troops in afghanistan through all of next year and at least 5,000 thereafter 2016. years ago, i reached out to a former commandant of the marine corps who i knew, and i asked him to give me his advice on afghanistan. many times he has given me his best advice but one that has stuck with me for years is this, and i quote the

commandant. what do we say to the mother and father, the wife of the last marine, soldier killed to support a corrupt government and a corrupt leader in a war that cannot be won? mr. speaker, that is afghanistan. it is a waste. how ridiculous it is that congress and the administration think we can change history. the history of afghanistan has shown that no outside military force has ever changed it, and alexander the great to the british to the russians. it is truly the grave yard of empire and i hope we won't have a head stone there waiting that will say, welcome, america, to the graveyard of empires. mr. speaker, this poster besigned me is the reminder of the cost of war in afghanistan. there's a little girl holding her mother's hand as they are waiting to follow a cast sign down to bury the little girl's father and the wife's husband.

no, congress, wake up. we're headed for collapse in this country. let's not continue to spend and waste money, blood and limbs in afghanistan. with that, mr. speaker, i ask god to please bless our men and women in uniform, to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform and, god, please bless america, and please wake up the congress before it's too late. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. walker, for five minutes. mr. walker: thank you, mr. speaker. we have a problem in making sure that all of our senior adult population is treated with the utmost respect and proper care. h.u.d. section 232 program was intended to provide federal loan insurance for loans covering the needs of nursing homes and other elder care facilities. however, while h.u.d. requires these applicants to submit their latest quality ratings,

which is a one star to five star rating from the center of medicare and medicaid services, or c.m.s., the quality rating is not a deciding factor. this has allowed nursing homes that provide routinely poor care to receive repeated taxpayer insurance loans. seen the rs, this has rise in the number of one star facilities that received h.u.d. insurance each year from 2009 to 2012, but also reports over two decades from g.a.o. and h.u.d.'s inspector generals. clearly, h.u.d. steps have not gone far enough to provide real reform to ensure that taxpayers' dollars do not go to nursing homes that consistently provide poor care to our seniors and to our needy. we must ensure that taxpayer support is going to nursing homes that provide quality care for their residents, not facilities that provide continually deficient care. by linking quality ratings to

loan eligibility, the nursing home accountability act ensures that new federally backed loans go to nursing homes with a demonstrated commitment to quality care for their residents. bottom line, what my bill states is this. under c.m.s.'s five star quality rating system, if a nursing home receives a rating star -- rating of two stars or less for 30 consecutive months, the nursing home will then be ineligible for any future section 232 loans. after nursing home becomes ineligible for future 232 loans, under this act, it can become eligible once more for future loans if the facility maintains a rating of three stars or more for 30 months. regarding ratings, all nursing homes receive a blank slate when this law is enacted. and h.u.d. is allowed to continue to service previously issued loans under this law. i would also like to say thanks to our local affiliate for researching the gross

mismanagement of federal funds and bringing a greater awareness of this important matter. overall, i look forward to opening the national conversation of how we can better focus this program on the quality care provided to our seniors and to the needy. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house 2:00 p.m. ntil today.

>> next, a conversation of partisanship from this morning's "washington journal." h from 2005 to 2009. guest: thanks. great to be with you. host: how do you describe no labels to people who ask you about it? guest: it is a movement that is reshaping the culture of politics around problem-solving as opposed to the nastiness, the finger-pointing, the acrimony, the division that marks politics today. the american people deserve so much more, in this country is capable of so much more if we can only get our political act together. it is not to say we are some third party alternative movement.

we recognize we live in a two-party system. it is about getting them to do what we have always been able to do in the past. that is to set goals, american goals, and then move through our respective political channels in getting there. we have done it before and we believe we can do it again. in the meantime, we are missing a lot of low hanging opportunities to make this country the very best it can be. host: given example of one in political history we have done it before and why is it not taking place today. guest: i would argue back to ronald reagan working with tip o'neill. they set a goal of fixing entitlements. they worked on it and made progress. tax reform is another example. the end of the cold war could not have happened without those both sides working together. we had a balanced budget under bill clinton's term in the 1990's. newt gingrich have the same goal. they set that goal.

it was a transcendent overarching objective for the government. they got there and proved you can make government work when both sides set goals that are american goals as opposed to partisan goals. we just got out of that practice. meanwhile, we have numbers that are out of balance.we are missing a lot of opportunities in a hypercompetitive 21st century to be the best we can be. we have other countries nipping at our heels who want to take away market share, who want to innovate faster and better than we do. they want great research abilities. they want political systems that work. host: you had a recent event taking a look here at the presidential candidates in new hampshire. that prompted a response by the editors of the new hampshire waiver.

guest: that's right. host: how would you respond? guest: you do not have to shed your political responsibility to do that but we have a compromise to make the system work. copper mines has become a dirty work, synonymous with treason -- compromise has become a dirty word synonymous with treason in some corners. you do not have to compromise at the end of the day in some places. you have to sit down with people, figure out the issues and a goal you are working toward an uncompromised to get there. it is the way the system has always worked. every other aspect of life operates that way with the exception of politics in washington. host: you talked about the budget numbers. why do you think compromise is not achievable in that context? guest: you have special interest politics putting ultimatums on the table and making it impossible to break away from the presuppositions. --break away from

the preset positions. that raises problems. host: you meet outside groups? guest: all of the above. you go down the street and you see special interest politics that raises money, a lot more money than they used to. they put out ultimatums, pledges. now they expect candidates to sign. if you do not sign, you do not play ball. you are not a member of the team. if you do sign, you are expected to be in a dug in position. that is not good for the situation long-term. aboutwhat do you think the influence and how politics? guest: it is hard to govern by gangs. that is what is going on in congress. we have gains here and there as opposed the two overarching leadership pursuing transcendent goals.

if you were to sit down with a member of congress and say what is the goal as a nation? what we try to achieve that is good for the american people in the 21st century? i am hard-pressed to think you would get consistent answers and there lies a big problem. if we have a president willing to sit down with our house and senate leadership, both parties involved, and say here are the goals we have to shoot for. they are american goals because this is what the american people want us to do. let's see if we can make that happen. the labels has put forward a national strategic agenda. we spent a lot of time on it listening to the voices across america. big goals part of our national strategic agenda. not we think we have to do but with the american people like to see us do. it includes things like a balanced budget, a jobs agenda, energy self-sufficiency, and doing something about entitlements. these are american goals.

republicans and democrats should want to do the same thing. this is what we are hearing from americans. i expect the house caucus will say that is their goal also. guest: let us hear about it. any other caucus will have to work to make it possible because this is what the american people want to see happen. there is no gang that can get their own way. i don't care whether it is in business or politics. you cannot survive as a gang. you can stir up trouble and run from the law as a gang but you cannot achieve a big goal. to do that, you need a leadership and a focused set of political attention around goals. that is missing right now. host: jon huntsman is our guest, the former governor of utah, the current cochair of no labels. you want to ask them questions? you can call him on the line. if you want to tweet him, you

can do that or post on facebook. what is the political makeup of no labels as far as membership is concerned? guest: i would say if you were to look at our problem solver caucus on capitol hill, we have an army of problem solvers with people. half republicans and democrats. i cochair this movement with senator joe lieberman. we have vice chairs people like al, matt, who was president clinton's chief of aaff, charlie black, well-known political figure going back to ronald reagan's first run. it gives you a sense of balance we have at the top of no labels governance. it is both sides with a focus on setting goals and reaching those goals.

host: would you say those legislators get a voice in the current political makeup of congress? guest: i think increasingly they will have a very powerful voice. you cannot take a group of 70 or 80 members of congress, even know they are fairly new to power in the house of representatives. you have to factor them into the decision-making. one of the reasons they have not been is we are not pursuing a big goals. we are engaged in trench warfare for the most part. it is gang on gang warfare for the most part. as soon as you set the goals, in theblem solver caucus house of representatives and increasingly in the congress will be instrumental in moving us to what we are talking about. host: our first call for you is from arthur in new orleans, louisiana. go ahead, please. you are on. caller: good morning, gentlemen. host: are you there? i think he hung up. guest: sorry arthur.

we will catch you again. host: one of the people that spoke about compromise was donald trump. he had his own definition of copper mines or what he thought it should be. i want you to listen to it and get your response. [video clip] >> the work of mice is not a bad word to me as a negotiator and having to read the article the deal and make deals all my life. i like the word copper mice. we need compromise. it is always good to compromise and win, meeting let us compromise -- meaning let us compromise and win. guest: that is the mantra donald trump uses in his meetings. he is a negotiator and has put a lot of deals together. he has worked in complex metropolitan environment. we talked about it backstage before he went up to speak for the no labels group. he has had to optimize his entire career.

he understands what a good negotiation is and how to get to the endpoint. that is what we are missing right now. how do you get to the goal? host: do you think it is wanting to compromise but as far as the people out there that elect these legislators, what do you think about their desire to come from ice? -- we in a highly g and have taken element of competition out of politics when you make blue districts or rent district. -- red districts. what happens when competition disappears from anything?but atrophies -- it atrophies and dies. it is no surprise that you have town hall meetings that are all red or blue. we have to get redistricting efforts to bring a more 50-50 approach to congressional district making that refuses politics with competition.

you want people in town hall meetings who represent the american ideal. as republicans and democrats and independents, they bring their background to the table and talk about how to get things done that matter to american lives in the 21st century. that we are not getting. we are getting a more partisan gathering that engage in critical rhetoric. you see members of congress that -- partor those lines. parrot those lines. host: we have james on the line. caller: the problem is we are too enamored with the two-party system. if we had no parties, we would be much better off. people representing the district as opposed to a party idea. i think that is what has gotten off-base.ry on base -- guest: the point is well taken.

in an environment where you are not working to a transcendent toional objective, we fall the moment and get pulled down. the rise of the tea party, which happened when i was in china as , we had anssador economic storm that passed through this country. we are just now beginning to feel some recovery. not much, but some recovery. jobs are coming back a bit. wages are stagnant for the most part. people became angry when their bank accounts disappeared, retirement was diminished, home values sunk. they became angry and took it out on the political class for better decision-making. you had the rise of the tea party and occupy wall street. that is a symptom of what we find ourselves which is an environment that is not setting these and send in old that the american people can really see a

representative of their interest. tags and labels. i do not think they mean a lot in the end. together as americans whether you are republican or democrat. we have to have our respective ideologies. we bring that to the table. what we are failing to do is remember that we are all americans and are in pursuit of american objectives at the end of the day that would allow you to roll up your sleeves and get some things done. i think labels are probably less relevant in politics today, although we are organized around labels and people fund based on labels and that is holding us back to some extent. host: jon huntsman with us to talk about no labels.

202-748-8001 for republicans. democrats.0 for don in california on the independent line, go ahead. caller: i just wondered if there discussionent or about someone being on the no labels conference. guest: we are open to everybody who wants to embrace this type of approach to problem-solving. is bringinglessing an issue he feels passionately about to the table which is campaign finance. andas an important issue one that i think is at the center of many of our problems and challenges on the campaign front.

that is not necessarily the net amount of money in politics whether it is $7 billion or $8 billion in that is not bother me as much as the concentration of sources of the money and the control they have over the agenda. $7you can take the billion dollars and spread it around the grassroots, we like individuals more invested in the $10 and $15 level. that would strengthen democracy as opposed to cause democracy to atrophy. it was the in 2014, worst turnout in this country since world war ii. to have to go back 75 years see a lower turnout and participation rate. in a day and age when we need people stepping up and expressing their desires and opinions and using their voice, we are not getting enough of it. that is a sign of democracy that is atrophying for all caps of reasons.

young people feel disenfranchised for the most part. they are not turning out. this is what they have to be most evolved. , one of you say that the reasons is exposure that you can get a lot of exposure at the debate. what you think about his decisions and independent third parties to get things done to work on specifics like campaign finance or work on other avenues that are important to people in politics? guest: i think that is inevitable. we may be one election cycle or two from an alternative or third-party movement of consequence we had them in the past. . theodore roosevelt ran as a bull moose. he ran his own party. you can imagine if theodore roosevelt got 20% or 25% of the vote and have the power of the internet.

and more recently ross perot. when you match that aspect of an independent run or alternative run, we are now 42% unaffiliated as the voter class in america. 42% unaffiliated. people are basically signing up for none of the above. we have never seen numbers that i. high.t i think we will see things that are consequential. if you are not delivering something that the american people are looking for, you will go out of business eventually and someone will tak move out ad take her place. we have a strong history of two-party politics in america. i am not sure we are built for three parties. there are a lot of structural barriers in the way. say that the two

parties that currently exist are built to hang around forever? the marketplace does not lie. people will make that determination in time. host: frederick from brooklyn, new york. you are on. go ahead. caller: how are you doing? guest: how are you? great to hear from you. caller: i just wanted to say even though i am a democrat, i feel like you are the only republican that would have given obama a run for his money. on the side those of your party got swallowed up in the process. i just wanted to let you know that. guest: i appreciate that. you made my day. we had a great run. we took third in new hampshire, which was not quite good enough. if we took second, we could have gone on to south carolina where we had the endorsement of a state newspaper and a terrific

group on the ground. i had to make a decision as we were running. i had a track record of decisions and policy initiatives as governor. some of those things were not as popular in the post-lehman republican party as they were beforehand. you can either change or you are forget you have done certain things or you can embrace it and say this is who i am and i would rather stick to my authentic self and be true to what i tried to do for the people i have represented in the past and go down in flames of i have to as opposed to being the shape shifting type of politician that is why i think you see some of these other candidates that are doing pretty well, they have a sense of authenticity. they will do it their way. we had to make that choice. our choice was the stick with who we are. we did not get a lot of lift. we did, ultimately in new hampshire, take third place.

that, unfortunate was not good enough, but we love every minute of it. host: was it a difficult decision? guest: not at all. i respect the president. i want to work for his a administration as a republican because he asked. i was raised -- host: ambassador china? .uest: ambassador to china i had been national cochairman inhis opponent, john mccain, 2008. i got a call to serve for china, which is an area that i have been involved in for decades. i have lived in asia for different times. i thought, ok, i have two sons in the military. they do not have the luxury when they are deployed to ask what party they're president is.

they do not have a luxury. they salute and serve. i thought, when i was having conversations with the white house, i have a choice, i can do what my ancestors always did, which is salute the president, whether you disagree or agree 100%, and i did that. i did a beating for that, when i got back, within my own party. i was probably predictable. when i do it all again? of course i would. i did the principle of putting your country before your party is strong. regardless of the president, people step up and serve. host: barbara, your next with governor huntsman. caller: i would like to know when we became and why we became instead of acan't, country, "we can." we can't fix the broken

immigration system. we can't fix the income inequality. we cannot fix the broken social security system. we cannot secure our borders. it seems like the only thing we could do any more to agree on as a country is go to war. .uest: thanks, barbara your point is so very well taken. i would say, part of the "yes we or, "i want to be a theyr, not a divider," failed to mention the , which is the most important part. be a uniter,ing to not a divider. when we come from a country of soundbites, without the how-to, for success, and is sense, what we are doing at no labels is the how-to, the formula, the recipe for the substance that the american

people are looking for. say, the negative commentary in politics is a lot easier sometimes than the positive commentary. somebody, when you say something is a failure, and you're going to get rid of it, whether it is obama care, or anything else, you get an in certainlause political gatherings. it is a lot harder to say how you will get something done, and achieve a goal. i found, when running for president, you have some candidates that come before crowds, and it is a never ending series of putdowns. everybody cheers. having a conversation about what we really need to get done in the country, about the issues that matter, that is not how they talk. it is necessary, but in politics, it is tough to do.

they do not result in sexy, snappy soundbites. host: "wall street journal" did some pulling not only for a presidential candidate, but the candidate for the house eager. -- house speaker. survey said ithe was more important to find a successor who would stand up for principles, rather than seek compromise, even if that meant less work would get done. what do you think of the first part? as far as the idea of compromise. guest: i think they are pulling one segment other property. this could be what you have 42% of people today registered as unaffiliated. they have had enough. it is none of the above. the attitude gets us nowhere. it is why we do not have budgets, we do not get the big things done. no one is paying attention to entitlements.

i don't care if you are bred or blue, the problem with entitlements is basic mathematics. sending at a certain level, you will go off a cliff, and if you go off a cliff , that hinders your ability to put a budget together. this position of to nothing, just stand behind principles -- principles matter, and you should take those in and argue your case, right up until the end, when you have to fix things. instead of fighting, let's do more fixing. that means we have to sit down together at the same table, democrats and republicans, look at the same objective, as americans, compromise a bit, negotiate, get things done. and raising seven kids. not much gets done in a family

without some old-fashioned compromise at the table. everybody brings a different wishes, desires, at the end of the day, they cannot all get what they want. you have to create a pathway with some overarching goals for your family. atwe all stood on principle the dinner table, we would be throwing food at each other at the end of the day. host: let's hear from eric from michigan. caller: thanks for being on, mr. huntsman. i personally have friends in all .olitical aspects i have friends of all different religions. thato recommend them national sovereignty is not as important as getting some of these trade deals done in order to have the world order that we are all looking forward to? guest: i'm not sure what new

world order you are looking for. trade is a key aspect of nationhood. it is a key aspect of who we are. i'm not sure what you're talking about. trade is a way, as always has been, to facilitate the give-and-take of a commerce, the exchange of goods, the facilitation of investment. we have done a lot of trade investments. we have done the mostly with smaller markets. we have not seen the uplift potential that trade brings. canada is our largest trading market, and is soon to be eclipsed by china. as china develops more of a purchasing class, you better believe, they will be buying a ,ot more from the united states and our export potential and opportunities will be genetically increased.

that is good for the country. it is a job creator. it is something that every community and every state should be planning some export strategy around. that is around the bend over the next 10 years. i think it will be an important part of economic growth in this country. host: as someone who saw firsthand how china is doing economically, what is your impression of the transpacific partnership? guest: the transpacific partnership represents 12 it goes from the united states to vietnam on the lesser end of the spectrum. the agreement that has been struck is not perfect. it includes aspects of trade that are very difficult to get negotiated -- labor, environment, intellectual property protection. these are difficult, tough things. then you get into agriculture, pharmaceuticals, autos.

i have done this before as a trade ambassador. they are really difficult to by laterally, then you get in the multilateral context, and it is times 10. it is nearing completion, we will see what congress does, they will have the chance for an up-and-down vote. that vote could happen anytime soon. i would suspect late next year would be the soonest. then, china will have to say, what do we do with this transpacific partnership that brings together some of the and oureconomies, friends, i would say, andy asia-pacific region. that is a good thing. it is better to be with friends than not. we have to show some signs of life in the asia-pacific region too, we have not for long time. ,hina will have their own block where the standards are not as high. for china to be part of the

tpp, they have to up their game. they will have the of the game in terms of market access and openings, particularly around financial services. they will have to give up this innovation drive with a favor, companiest indigenous and state owned enterprises. they have a lot of work ahead of them. i think longer-term, it would be good to link up china with the transpacific partnership. i think it would be better for experts in the united states -- exports in the united states. host: in terms of the compromise, were you surprised by the reactionary a got, particularly from the house and the senate democrats, republicans somewhat supporting it? breeze apprised by the political reaction? what does it say about the nature of compromise and trade? guest: i think trade promotion authority was a pretty good example of two parties coming together and expressing the aspirations of the american people. trait has always been really

tricky. i remember when we got trade promotion authority back in 2002, when i was deputy trade representative. it came down to a to vote margin -- two vote margin. president bush was calling, arm-twisting, and everything he could to get the trade deal over the top. he did, but the margin was about two votes. then, you go back to clinton, and his fight for nafta, which was also a harrowing journey. .hese things are never easy there are sensitivities that go with trade. they need to be debated. industries need to understand what they are in for, what it means to them. beyond just the rhetoric that you hear from the respective corners of politics, you need to sit down and understand what this is going to mean. i don't think enough people do that. generally, trade has been a bipartisan thing in this country, and by and large, it has been good. host: colin, democrat line,

hi. earlieryou had talked about millennial's that basically lost faith in the system. , i believe i am a millennial, i was born in 1995, theink the biggest issue is system is set up towards a two party system, and towards favoring incumbents. congress has i think like a listing.pproval i think the biggest problem is we are using an outdated system of the electoral college. in this day and age, there is no elect theectly

president or congressman. guest: i think the point of the incumbents having a built-in advantage is correct. what happens is you are rewarding bad behavior. morethat result in outlandish behavior? of course it does. , and's no competition sometimes they have to go back and face stuff comp and -- tough competition. i would say that is a problem. millennial's understand that, a good many of them, as represented by this caller. they have to get out there and fight for more competitive system. we need not just economic

reform, not just adjusting inequalities that exist, and i say that as a republican, we have to step up and recognize that too. structural, some electoral reform as well. been a believer in term limits. i said, if i did my job right, you would not want me more than two terms. and, if i've not done in two terms, what i should do, i certainly should not be old to do it by the third term. i think we have to address the byle term limits thing congress. pac's are really an abomination. it is a cancer growing in our

democracy. the way we fashion congressional districts, we have to take the lead of states out west. i think there's something that can be learned as they begin to experiment a little bit. there are really important electoral reform steps that we need to have a conversation about in this country. dan from maryland, thanks for waiting, go ahead. caller: i was going to talk about something else, but i will jump in on trade. trade deals make it possible for a company to contract their manufacturer. in the past, they owned a factory, andg -- they had to treat them half decent. now, it is a market price.

now, no one wins, not even the worker in other country. to prove it, look at some goods that coming from overseas, and look at the country of origin. a lot of times it is a different place. i richly came from massachusetts. i remember when the factories left massachusetts. they went to factories in the carolinas, and they still had protected people in the way. now, there is no -- the company has no labor problem. big airline companies, and manufacturers, are waiting to be able to contract our work in india, and places like that. it is the worst thing you can have. it is marketplace labor. it is no good. increasinglyk training and skills are going to

be increasingly important. we have talked about off shoring. i think we are in for a period .f on showing -- onshoring that is putting our people to work. the training has to be world class. i think we've gotten out of the practice in this country of skills acquisition, vocational skill development, and that step after high school, and getting people properly trained, not for the 20th century, but for the 21st century. there are now industries in this country that can manufacture product and send it to china, cheaper than they can make it in china. argument of people going offshore, i think with the energy revolution that is occurring in this country, we're just seeing the early phases of that. i think that will change the economics of manufacturing. you will see in the automobile sector, my money is right here on the united states, as far as

the competitive capacity, going forward, and what it will mean for workers. that does not say we cannot do a better job, when it comes to training. a lot of people, who were in their 50's, who have young the skill setuse is lacking. shame on us for letting that happen. host: when it comes to building copper must, especially among leaders, how do you think president obama has done? a sorry think it is chapter in american history. his willingness to engage the other side has been sorely lacking. i think the attempt to sit down and negotiate with leadership in congress is something that he has not done. would you do? you rely on your own party, you rely on a second order to get things done.

the fact that health care reform went through with a single -- without a single republican vote. we learned about health care changes, insurance, affordable, portable, accessible insurance policies, and how to take cost out of the system, which is the biggest problem we have. it was the perfect opportunity for republicans and democrats to come together, even at the state level. that just did not happen. it totally blew my mind that we had something that was a straight up partisan vote. that is representative of the operating style in the white house. i thought the nuclear deal with the same, a straight line party vote. government, you get a straight line vote without the opposition party, they will likely not serve the people well because they are tilted, or biased, in one direction, and

therefore unrepresentative of the people at large. host: what about the leadership of the house and senate? guest: listen, there's nothing more powerful than the bully .ulpit of the presidency, t when you're calling people to higher aspirations, to work on things together, and then you have to sit down with them, take , dry to, your motorcade capitol hill, and sit down with them, i think that has a multiplier effect. in encourages people to want to do that. anyone who is governor knows you want from one end of the capital of the other, you sit down with those in your party, and those are maybe not in line with your thinking, and you can move the political market. that,es that leadership if left without, you are just going to have the status quo prevail. the status quo is what we have

today. from indiana, here's laura. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say i really appreciated your presence in the last election. you were one of the few youticians i thought showed cared more about country them party. thank you for that. guest: i appreciate that. caller: my question is about campaign finance reform. it is a really big issue for me. i don't think it is discussed enough. campaignike to see finance reform to get all of the corporations and unions out of donating. i think money should come from individuals. if we could have campaign-finance reform where you could only donate to a candidate for which you could vote, i really resent outside

into my state, influencing campaigns. if it was all transparent, and no limits, people could give as much money as they wanted, but only for candidates for which they can vote. guest: i think laura brings up a really good point. outside money. free-speechve , and theons, and all supreme court has spoken, but if you could not give to someone, unless you could vote for them, imagine the change that would have on grassroots electoral politics. wouldhat simple premise change the dynamic of how we go about funding and raising money for campaigns. it is a bigger, deeper issue that gets to what no labels is trying to advocate around big goal setting.

the amount of time is wasted raising money, as opposed to focusing on the issues at hand, and developing strategies, and building coalitions for the american people, we get a balanced budget to fix entitlements, self-sufficiency -- so much time has been spent raising money. talk to anyone on capitol hill, and they will tell you of the three days they spend on capitol hill each week, how much of that is that on the phone for raising money. i think the american people would be completely shocked at how little time is actually spent on the issues and challenges at hand. that then gets to what we are advocating. in order to get some of these big things done -- i'm not talking about stretch goals. what we're talking about are the tuneup aspects that need to be done to keep the v.a. running and keep us competitive

and it's 21st century. how can you focus long enough on those big issues when you're spending more time raising money? host: from new jersey, mary lou. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i want to talk about labeling. i do not like labeling either, mr. huntsman. unfortunately, labeling often defined to be are in how we think -- and how we think as a society. for example, to conservatives do not believe in abortion on demand. they believe in traditional marriage. they believe in rule of law.

we're expected to all think of that and that is the gay rights issue now. if you don't go along with the way these people think, you are punished severely, especially for your religious beliefs. so unfortunately labeling often is necessary. thank you and have a nice day. guest: thank you. i think labeling is a part of politics whether we like it or not. and we're not saying dispense with your labels. all we're saying at the end of the day is we are all americans, we should probably get a few things done. as for many of the issues that marylou talked about, listen, i'm a believer in federalism. they ought to be handled at the state level. have those debates at the state level like we did. they're going to be ongoing because people will differ. they ought to be duped out at the state level. as for congress here, there are a few things that really are absolutely essential for us to survive in the 21st century.

and not everything you have to get done but you have got to get a few things done. you have to balance budgets. you have to fix entitlements. you have to deal with the energy opportunities where if missed it simply means we are not able to turn on an engine of growth which is all about jobs and how we can afford our future. so labels, tore sure. they are always going to be around. there is nothing you can do about it. they exist in every realm of life. in the end, we have to get things done in this country, too, that matter to the economic growth prospects that play right into our ability to succeed so we can continue to have those debates at the state level. but right now i'm concerned that the engines that really fuel this country and provide for growth and jobs are weak and the prospects for them firing up are lessened because they are not just doing the fundamentals. host: from michigan, dave, go ahead. caller: good morning, governor. guest: hey, dave. caller: you should have been

the nominee in 2000. guest: i didn't catch it. host: go ahead, dave. keep going with your statement or comment. caller: you should have been the nominee in 2012. you can express -- you were able to form -- host: dave, i think you are a bit on delay. let's put you on hold. maybe you can try your question or comment, again. from twitter, governor hutsman, they would oppose any or everything you proposed? guest: well, you have those factions when you are governor. that doesn't mean you can't engage them and shouldn't engage them. of course you should. but right now we don't have any end point in sight because we have no goals. we have no overarching american objectives. we have no strategy. and so you're going to have factions that behave as they do on both sides.

as a governor i always tried to have goals. goals for education, goals for tax reform, which we did. we developed a flat tax in our state. probably the first of its kind in the country. goals for how we use public lands. and then you bring people together and say, here it is. we have to make it happen. and generally people in that kind of environment work -- work toward some end point. josh: fortunately we have a day game so we'll try to get this moving along so we can -- i know how interested all of you re in game four. i think first pitch is at 4:00. so not that anybody is keeping track. actually do not have nything at the top, tar -- darlene. darlene: will you give us the canadian election results?

josh: well, speaking of things happening in canada, i guess. the united states and certainly president obama

josh: at this point i don't know that. if an invitation is extended we'll let you know. reporter: does the white house think relation was canada will get a little easier under the rime minister. josh: i think it would be shortsighted to reduce the connection between our two countries. there are a whole range of issues between the united states and canada that worked effectively together to advance the interest of both countries. an canada made a substantial and important contribution to our counter isil coalition. we know that canada has been an important part of making the transpacific partnership a reality. canadian negotiators engaged in that process in an important way, and made an important contribution in bringing those talks to a conclusion.

and we believe that completing that agreement and implementing it would be in the best interest of certainly the u.s. economy and u.s. middle class families, but we believe it will have a positive impact on economies across the partnership, including in canada. canada's also made a substantial and important commitment in advance of the paris climate talks. by believe it's possible there is more canada can do, but the fact they are stepping up and indicating -- making a commitment is an indication of the important role that canada plays not just in the relationship with the united states, but in terms of their leadership around the world. the united states is fortunate to have such a strong and close partnership with the country like canada that does have 24 global -- this global influence. our bilateral relationship has

enhanced the security and prosperity of the american people and we certainly are appreciative of prime minister harper's efforts to strengthen that relationship. we look forward to building on that kind of progress when mr. trudeau takes over the prime minister's office. reporter: you said earlier today -- seven hours seems like a long time to spend with one person. sh: comment on your -- [laughter] reporter: aside from the presidential daily briefings, the lunch they are having this afternoon, meeting the cabinet secretary, public appearance, how would you account for the rest of the time?

josh: certainly it's not unusual for the president to convene broader national security meetings or other domestic policy meetings. i think the meetings you just ran through would account for just about three hours every day. so it's not unusual for the president to have another hour or two of meetings on his schedule that would also include the vice president. now, this is also subject to the president's travel schedule and the vice president's travel schedule. this is not a daily occurrence, but the timing window that he laid out seems generally accurate to me. based on my reading of the public schedule. reporter: josh, follow up on that canadian relationship. now that it's over, is it clear the last remaining hrdle on the keystone pipeline? josh: my understanding is secretary kerry addressed this earlier today. it's appropriate because the secretary of state leads the agency that's could be ducting

-- conducting the revule of this projefpblgt my understanding secretary kerry indicated that the completion of this election would have no impact on either the timing or the final determination of the project. this is a review that is still under way at the state department. again, based on what secretary kerry said, it doesn't sound as if the canadian election will have an impact on the timing. reporter: does the white house van expectation when you would like to see that recommendation delivered? josh: at this point, no. i think the president has already said that he is expecting that he'll be able to complete the policy process prior to his departure from office. but that's still 15 months away or so. hopefully we'll get it done well before then. reporter: you mentioned that the united states -- josh: if for no other reason we can stop talking about it. reporter: you mentioned that the united states would like to see

canada do more with climate change. the president said during his campaign he wanted to set up a national standard for carbon pricing and a northern american agreement on clean energy and the environment. do you see this new leader as -- and the results of this election as an opportunity to engage on some of those ideas and perhaps get further commitments from canada on climate change? josh: i think it's >> early judge -- to judge exactly how mr. trudeau will follow through on some of the policy debates that occur in the context of the campaign. ail confess didn't follow those policy debates particularly closely. but the united states and the president has played a role in the conversation -- let me put it this way. in each of the conversations the president has been having with world leaders of late, he has been making clear that he considers commitments in advance of the paris conference a high

priority. and he's been encouraging the leaders of those countries to make an important contribution to success. in paris. obviously that was part of the discussions with president park when she was here. this is part of the discussion the president had with president chi when he was at the white house a couple weeks ago. obviously this is something that was a part of the pope's visit to the white house. and the president spent a lot of time talking about this in context of the united nations general assembly. just off the top of my head it seems that in each of the significant engagements he's had with world leaders over the last several weeks, this has been high on his agenda. and i'm confident that will be the case when he speaks with mr. trudeau as well. reporter: lastly from that campaign, mr. trudeau said he would withdraw canada's air force in the fight against the islamic state in iraq and syria. how does the white house feel

about that? josh: obviously the obama administration and the united states will be in talks with our canadian partners about their contribution to our counter isil effort. they have made an important contribution thus far, and we are obviously deeply appreciative of them leaving their talent and skill and expertise in that effort. and we hope that we can continue to count on their ongoing support for this very important mission. we certainly value the contributions that we have received from the canadians thus far in terms of our strategy to ultimately destroy isil. we certainly are hoping they'll continue to play that important role they have played thus far. reporter: josh, winter now begins to bear down on eastern europe and the migration refugee crisis there, has the president had any updates, any new conversations with the leaders,

including -- in terms of additional support? we know that u.s. is number one in providing that kind of monetary support. we have discussed that. but is there any new initiatives that the white house is beginning to prepare for? josh: i don't have anything new to announce at this point, j.c. the united states continues to be the largest donor for humanitarian assistance to this effort. and the president continues to be concerned about the significance of this humanitarian crisis. the scale of this crisis is historic, even. and it certainly should stir the conscious of people -- conscience of people around the world responding to it. the u.s. government has stepped up to make a substantial contribution. the white house recently did organize this online portal so that if there are private u.s.

citizens who are interested in making a financial contribution to ongoing humanitarian relief efforts, there is information about that on the white house website. essentially will steer you toward a charitable organization that is involved in responding to this crisis. reporter: some of the past hatred in that part of the country since the 1930's are coming out. again. resurfacing. i know the president is aware, does it cause him any moral pain when he sees this kind of thing coming back again to face europe and face this country? josh: well, j.c., i think part of it there is a natural human reaction that i think does not reflect in any way the majority of the prevailing opinion of either across the united states or across europe about the fact that these individuals who are

fleeing violence in syria are human beings. they have the same worries and concerns and dreams and ambitions that other human beings do. and our humanity calls on us to recognize that humanity inside of them. and that certainly is reflected in the policy approach the united states has pursued. and i think it's reflected in the kind of reception that most europeans have offered when these individuals have arrived in europe. that's not to diminish the significance of the challenge in providing for the needs of these individuals and making sure that it doesn't -- at least minimally disrupts the good order in those countries and the day to day life of the citizens. but to diminish or ignore the humanity of these individuals

fleeing desperate situations, fleeing terrible violence in their home country is something that i'm glad that only a small minority of people have done. reporter: in the debate with mitt romney in 2012, the president said that vice president biden had advised him against going after bin laden. the vice president has now changed his story on that. is the president similarly changing his recollection? josh: george, i was not in the room when these decisions were being made or the president was consulting his advisors. about this very difficult foreign policy call that he made. they have there have already been books written about this. i'm confident there will be more. there will be more books in which we'll be able to read about this moment in time in

american history. i'm going to leave the dissection and oral history, if you will, of those days to those who were actually there and to the extent that there's some greater clarity you would like to seek, maybe you'll have an opportunity at some point to ask those who are in the room. reporter: as far as you know the president is still sticking with what he said in the debate with romney? josh: i don't have any new insight to share with you about the president's recollection about those days. reporter: just a simple question on the subject. vice president biden said that he advised the president to go forward with that raid. is that true? josh: john, on many occasions i declined to provide insight into the private conversations between the president of the united states and vice president of the united states other than to tell you that the president deeply values that advice. i'm not going to get into the substance of their conversations. reporter: you can't tell me whether or not the vice president today was telling the truth when he advised to go forward with the bin laden raid? josh: i'm telling you i don't

have any insight to share with you in the private conversations between the president and v reporter: what do you make of he fact that his -- leon panetta said point-blank in his book that biden came out firmly in favor of waiting for more information. robber gates said biden was against the operation. hillary clinton said biden remained skeptical. biden himself has said that he was against the decision. he said point-blank that, mr. president, my suggestion is don't go. what are we to make of the fact that all these people said exactly the opposite, including biden himself? josh: listen, i'm not going to be able to provide a lot of insight into private communications between the president and vice president. reporter: let me ask you about something else that wasn't private communications. the vice president said that the president said you have veto power over anybody in my cabinet.

is that true? did the president give vice president biden veto power over all cabinet nominations? josh: again, i am not aware of he kinds of conversations that then senator obama had with then senator biden about him coming onboard as the running mate. so i don't have any information about that. reporter: let me ask you. you worked on the campaign. you have been working in this building for six years. have you ever heard any suggestion that the vice president has veto power over cabinet nominations? josh: again, i'm not privilegecy to all the conversations between -- privy to all the conversations between the president and v you have to take it up with one of the two of them if they are willing to talk about if publicly. reporter: what do you think we you should make of the fact as today we are waiting for biden's decision, talking about spending seven hours a day to the president, veto power, talking about being in favor of raid he

previously said he was against. what is going on? josh: well, again, you guys are the one who is can read the political tea leaves, to searnings tent that's part of your job. what i'll say from my perspective is that the fact that we are spending a lot of time discussing the presidential prospects of candidate who is seengsly saying that he would get in the race -- essentially saying that he would get in the race that he would try to advance the president's agenda, that's a luxury for me not a burden. if we spend this much time talking to people bound to block the president's agenda, that would be more difficult for me than having an opportunity to and possibly able influential a candidate can be by running saying he wants to advance the kind of agenda we have been fighting for here for

seven years. reporter: you just called him a candidate, you know something we don't? josh:. i guess i meant potential candidate. reporter: were you surprised when you heard vice president today say that he advised the president to go forward with the bin laden raid? josh: i wasn't following it closely. i was following it on twitter. reporter: were you surprised when you saw it on twitter? josh: not particularly. april. reporter: josh, follow up on ohn. josh: i think the president himself when talking about their relationship has talked about vice president biden being one of the most consequential vice presidents in the history of the country. i think if you take a look at the contribution he's made on a range of domestic policy issues, including the implementation of the recovery act, and his influence on range of foreign policy issues, particularly in managing like ukraine, clearly

vice president biden plays a real important role in conceiving of and advancing the agenda of the obama administration and the obama white house. there is no denying his significant influence in this building. reporter: it was announced here at the white house that many are awaiting for his decision as well as the american public? josh: that's within true -- been true for months. reporter: i'm understanding that -- that you're waiting to hear what he says whether he goes one way or the other. run or just move on. josh: well, i feel confident that we are -- i think the president himself has acknowledged that he has no immediate plans to offer endorsement of any candidate for president. that could change down the line.

that's what he said. he's made clear that that's going to be his position regardless of the decision that vice president biden makes. i'm not sure that, yes, there is an element of, like all of you, waiting for the vice president to make what is intentionally a personal decision about whether or not to run for president. but it's not as day-to-day impact on the important work that goes on around here. reporter: another subject. on the benghazi hearing, today i understand that david kendall, attorney for hillary clinton, as well as trey gowdy and elijah cummings, will set the ground rules for thursday. josh: i had not heard that. breaking news, everybody. eporter: trey gowdy is proposing to follow the person of this meeting that he wants each member of the committee to have four questions, which would

lead up to eight hours. what do you -- what does this white house want to do when it comes to this very sensitive hearing, thrick as it relates to benghazi, not the emails, but benghazi to the family of those who died want answers still amidst all this controversy? josh: well, i think what we have seen from a lot of families is not just desire for answers but desire to not see this terrible tragedy used for partisan political gain. unfortunately that's exactly what we have seen from the committee. you don't need to take my work for it. there are two republican members of congress who arrived to the same conclusion, including the majority leader. i do think, as i mentioned yesterday, that republicans on the committee are going to be under intense pressure to justify their very existence, to justify the existence of this committee, and to prove to the american people that this committee is not just another arm of the republican national committee.

you would hope that something this serious and this important would not be so freely subjected to partisan politics. unfortunately, that's precisely what's occurred. and given that pressure that i'm sure republicans on the committee are feeling, they are going to come loaded for bear. with re going to come out aggressive questioning of the secretary of state. trying to further the goal that leader mccarthy laid out, which is driving down the poll numbers. it willl be -- i expect be something that will be closely watched by people in this room. and again i think republicans on the committee will be engaged in a very vigorous, aggressive effort to try to justify the continuing existence of the committee. reporter: the president's job is

under a microscope as well when this hearing takes place on thursday. josh: not any more than every other day. reporter: thank you so much, osh. would the administration give military aid to pressure the parties into an agreement? josh: connie, i'm not aware of anything like that being contemplated at this point. the u.s. position has been is that a two-state solution is the best way to resolve the conflict between the two parties. the only way to arrive at that kind of negotiated settlement that results in a two-state solution is for the two parties to sit down face to face and negotiate directly. as you know secretary kerry and many secretaries of state before him have expended significant effort and energy to try to bring both sides of the table and bring them to conclusion

around those conversations. unfortunately that's not occurred. i say unfortunately because we believe it is both clearly in the interest of our closest ally in the middle east for the situation to be resolved in this way. we also believe it would be in the interest of the palestinian people to resolve this conflict in that way. resolving the conflict would advance the national security of the united states. i'm confident that both sides, the leaders, the palestinian people anti-leaders of the nation of israel -- and the leaders of the nation of israel are under pressure from their citizens, from their people, end heir constituents to this conflict. neither side is well served by it. it's taken a toll on the economy. it certainly has taken a toll on the security in both palestinian and israeli neighborhoods. and it's -- the significant loss

of innocent life is just tragic. and hopefully both sides will be able to summon the political courage at some point relatively soon under the table and finally make the kinds of tough political decisions that will be required to resolve their differences. reporter: the unesco amendment floating around essentially strips israel of any rights, including the western wall, does the administration have any statement. josh: i would refer you to the u.n. ambassador's office for a comment on that. reporter: you said that you would consider it a luxury and not a burden to have someone running for president who would uphold the policies of this administration. josh: but, yes. another one. reporter: you don't see any circumstances under which joe biden gets into the race could make it more difficult for the democrats to win the white house? josh: i think there's lots of

political analysis that has been done and probably will be done around that specific question. reporter: no concern around the white house that could happen? josh: again, the -- i think the view around the white house is is that the democratic voters across the country will choose the person that is best positioned to represent the democratic party in the next presidential election. there's a lot of confidence here in the white house and ability of democratic voters to do exactly that. and you can be sure that whoever the democratic nominee is, both someone who will understand the importance of building on the important progress that we have made over the last several years, but it's also a candidate that can count on the strong support of the incumbent president of the united states. and i'm confident that we'll spend a lot of time this time of year next year advocating for that democratic presidential candidate.

reporter: you have not wanted to consistently and said you weren't privy to any conversations that the vice president and president are having about this topic, but if the president -- is the president staying out of this, essentially? josh: the president is staying out of it if that he understands that the vice president has to make his own personal decision about this. and the president's staying out of it with regard to his understanding that this is only a decision that vice president biden can make for himself and for his family. i think the president's sympathetic to how difficult a decision like this is to make. but ultimately the president understands this is a decision that can be made by vice president biden and by vice president biden alone. reporter: which is not to say he's not offering advice? josh: i'm not going to get into their conversations. obviously they are having lunch today, maybe even right now. i wouldn't be surprised if questions of politics came up.

but i'm not privy to the details of that conversation. reporter: let me ask you about another topic. a high percent of adults want strict restrictions. [inaudible] i'm wondering the president stood right where you're standing after the horrific oregon shooting. will not stand, cannot stand. what is the white house doing actively? josh: well, you heard the president in the news conference he did a week later, acknowledged his team was going back and scrubbing through the law to determine if there were additional authorities that could be used by the president of the united states to try to have an impact on some of these rules. the president's made clear he'll do as much as he possibly can within his power to try to

prevent those who shouldn't have guns from getting them in the first place. and the president believes strongly that we can do that without undermining the fundamental constitutional rights of law-abiding americans. the most important impact that we could have in this area would be for congress to pass a commonsense law that would close the gun show loophole. ensure everybody who tries to purchase a firearm even at a gun show would be subjected to background check. reporter: is there active work going on with unflue wention members of congress in this regard? josh: as it relates to congress, the president has been quite clear about what would be required before we see significant change in congress. we are going to need to see the american people step up and to make their voices heard. you have mentioned this latest polling data. there is ample data out there and has been for quite some time to indicate that a vast majority of the american public holds this commonsense view.

it won't be until that common sense view is strongly conveyed to members of congress and until members of congress understand that the votes they expect of their constituents will be contingent on them holding that same commonsense view. and until that political effort has been mobilized, we are unlikely to see congress take the kind of action that the president certainly believes is long overdue. reporter: love to comment about some of the republicans, final question donald trump said last night that president obama is working on an executive order to take americans' guns away. do you want to respond to that? josh: i think the president has made no bones about this afpkt he's prepared to use every element at his administrative authority. to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. i think the president's track record makes clear that he doesn't just respect but actually is willing to protect the basic second amendment rights of law-abiding americans.

those are just the facts about the president's record. those are the facts about the president's priority. and we certainly would welcome others who share that commonsense view from making their voices heard. i have no idea what donald trump is doing. reporter: i have a couple of things. first back on the biden thing and ask if possibly you could talk to the president or vice president about this because there is a white house spokesman commenting on this very issue, jay carney, among the people who say that vice president did advise the president not to go after bin laden. i'm wondering it was said from your podium. josh: i think what i'll probably do the next opportunity you guys have to ask the question of the president or vice president you can ask them directly. if so, you won't have to rely on

me. reporter: i wanted to ask about c.i.a. director. obviously there are reports email was hacked but also the hackers were able to obtain sensitive data forwarded from the white house email address. putting sensitive information in the public. i'm wondering if that has led to any investigation here at the white house about his use of his white house email and transferring sensitive date why from thinks white house email to the personal email? josh: i haven't seen those specific reports. i'm certainly not aware of any ongoing investigation. i feel confident in saying that director brenyanian understands as well as anybody in the federal government the need to handle sensitive data with the appropriate level of caution. clear is thatt is

this underscores the importance of government officials, it sounds like director benian did, using their official government neem address for official government work. but it does highlight the risk that all of us face when it comes to the security of even our private email. certainly this is the kind of environment, sishe security environment, we are currently operating in, is one that requires vigilance, not just on the part of those of us, all of us that have private email addresses, but also on the part of the companies that are responsible for administering security around those private email systems. many of the best practices that this administration has

advocated are the kinds of things that would bolster cybersecurity not just in the government's face but also the private sector as well. reporter: i want to ask if you could preview the meeting later this week. i know that the president kind the need referenced to-- inaudible] if there are other agenda items the president hopes to raise during the meeting. josh: i don't have a comprehensive preview of their discussions at this point. obviously as i mentioned yesterday the united states has some important security relationship with pakistan. that our security forces have in a variety of ways been able to effectively coordinate our efforts in a way that enhances the national security of both the united states and pakistan.

bviously there are extreatment inside pakistan that have committed terrible acts of violence and terrorism inside of pakistan. i have on previous occasions read condolence statements on behalf of the american people to the pakistan people because of those extremist elements. i cite that only to note that this is a shared priority of our two countries. that this risk that we sense emanates from this broader region is a risk that -- is a threat that pakistan has had to deal with first hand. it underscores the importance of our security relationship with the pakistanis. reporter: the only other thing the president mentioned was the need to push the taliban back. -- if you put an

end to that contact. top taliban official whether that's a carrot or stick and how does that fit? josh: one of the early rounds of reconciliation talks between the afghan government and the taliban was actually hosted by the pakistani government inside pakistan. that's clear that the pakistan government recognizes how important those reconciliation efforts are. we are pleased they have stepped up in trying to facilitate onstructive conversations. the treasury, refer you about the individual that sanctioned and what activities earned that individual this special designation. reporter: a couple other things the vice president said today. he said, every vice president's job in relationship to their

president defined by a president. do you agree with that? josh: well, again, based on what i saw on twitter, which can be a little dangerous, that's -- reporter: the president defines your job if you're the vice president. josh: i would agree with what the vice president said. a lot of the authority and influence that's derived from the offers of the vice president is based on the relationship between the president and the vice president. i think all of you have observed the closeness and respect that's included in that relationship between this president and this vice president. reporter: this vice president's role is defined by the president. josh: it sounds like that's exactly what he said. he would know better than i. reporter: you would agree with that. josh: it's hard for me to disagree. reporter: if the vice president runs and he's already beginning to differentiate or in a very robust way describe his role, and there's no other person that we can ask directly other than

the president and you about what he did and what he didn't do. this is going to put you potentially in the position of litigating what his role was here vis-a-vis the secretary of state or secretary of state of clinton or anybody else. what i'm going to lay before you is are you going to take up that role? try to dance around this because he's not a candidate. if he becomes a candidate, are you going to take these questions and answer them as directly and fully as you possibly can? josh: i think what i will do is this, this may be getting ahead of ourselves, this is what i would do is what i should say. each of these candidates, thrick secretary clinton and if he should become a candidate, vice president biden, will be responsible for going out there in public and making 24ir own affirmative -- their own affirmative case. if there is an instance where the president's interests are at stake, it's my responsibility to go out there and make sure that his interests are properly and well represented. in a debate like this one that has emerged based on the vice

president's public comments today, it's raised questions among all of you about the president's role, what his views were at the time, those are all questions you can ask the swrp or his spokesperson. i have had lots of positive things to say about the vice president because of his important contribution to our nation and our administration's success. but if he chooses to become a candidate for vice president, he will have ample opportunity to make his own public case about why the american people should promote him to the top job. reporter: when he said, as he did today, when he travels around the world, world leaders know that i'm speaking for the president. is that true? reporter: i think that is true. i think those world leaders know when they are receiving the vice president of the united states they are receiving him because they know that the president's asked him to go. reporter: and that should be interpreted yes or no as him being a more significant voice than the secretary of state or defense secretary? reporter: i josh: i think the same thing

could be said about the secretary of state or any other senior u.s. official that's representing the interest of the u.s. government before another government. they are there to represent the interests of the american people. and they are there to represent, to try to advance our priorities. i think that's true -- reporter: the vice president suggests he was speaking more powerfully on behalf of the president than anybody else in the president. josh: i think when people are receiving the vice president, they are receiving somebody who has a very close purge relationship with the president and somebody that has a detailed understanding of the president's views and priorities. so i understand why other countries are eager to have the opportunity to receive the vice president. t i guess to that extent that's the significance of the vice presidential viss to the another country. reporter: when they were asking

you about what to make all this, you let us read the political tea leaves. when he was asking about was operational debates or advice or things that were said within the confines of this white house. it wasn't a political question. i wondered why your answer went to politics. do you think that this has become a political debate even whether it goes to what the vice president said to the president? or what his role was in regards to cabinet or veto power? those are operational questions. they are not innately political questions. josh: i don't remember exactly john's question in which i gave that answer. i do believe it was a question about the political consequences of it all. look, when we are talking -- a couple of important things to separate out. yes, these conversations are operational and that's the reason we talk about them. even in the immediate aftermath of the successful completion of the mission. what's also true is the reason they are talking about it now is because of politics. separating that out in some

cases may be in the eyes of the beholder. what i will do moving forward is what i have done in the past which is to do the best that can to try to help you -- that i can to try to help you represent the president's interests when they come into question. if it's a question purely of politics that only has transagainst interest or impact on the president, i'll be less likely to weigh in. we'll see how this works going forward. reporter: jim clyburn said today it was his opinion and point of view the vice president should not announce that he was going to run for president. he should say he's available if necessary. what do you think of that? josh: that is creative. everybody's entitled to their opinion. certainly somebody like mr. clyburn, who has been a close observer of presidential politics for decades now based on his -- prominence his home state has in the process of shoozing a democratic nominee,

mr. clyburn certainly knows what he's talking about. with all due respect to somebody as significant and as sophisticated as mr. clyburn, there is only one person that matters. in this case it's the vice president of the united states. reporter: is there a feeling back on pakistan from the administration that they are not doing enough to tamp down the extremists interests in that country? how would you describe u.s.-pakistani relationships now? are we frenemies? le is there any lingering fruit? -- friction over the bin laden raid or anything? josh: i think that it's been well documented that there have been some peaks and troughs in the relationship between the united states and pakistan when it comes to our -- the relationship between our two countries. i think something similar could

be said about the united states and their relationship with countries around the world over the last dumb couple of decades. -- couple of decades. what the president hopes to do is to strengthen the relationship between our two countries based on our shared interest. as i mentioned either to major or chris, there is a shared interest. the united states and pakistan have in countering extremist forces in that region of the world. there are -- this is something that pakistan has to deal with on their doorstep. to the extent the united states can be helpful, in that regard, we would like to be. principally because we believe that it's in our interest for pakistan to succeed in their fight against those extremist elements and to make their country safer. and we have been supportive of their efforts to do that. reporter: there is not a feeling they haven't done enough?

josh: again, i'm confident that this is true with even our closest allies. that we are always encouraging them to do more. even our nato allies, we regularly get into this debate about how much more of a financial contribution we would like to see out of nato allies make to their defense budgets because we believe there is more they can to to strengthen our alliance. i'm confident the president will come to his meeting with prime minister sharif with some ideas about what more the pakistanis could do to strengthen their relationship between our two countries and advance the security interest of our two countries. reporter: has the president met justin trudeau? josh: that's a good question. i'm not aware, off the top of my head i'm not aware of any individual meeting they have had. reporter: appreciate that. now that trudeau is leading canada and australia and france also have progressives leading the way, what does that say

among. e joblet so major economies in the world? josh: i think it's hard to compare those broader trends. i think ultimately these are citizens that are casting votes based on the political climate in each of their political countries. i think it's hard -- maybe there is somebody who knows more about current international politics than i do that might be able to draw a line between all of those elections. but misme sense of politics is each of these -- my sense of politics is each of these electorates are responding to dynamics inside their contry. reporter: keystone, we talked a great deal about, does this tamp down that division or divisiveness between this administration and the canadian administration now that trudeau will be moving into power? josh: my sense is that strength of the u.s.-canada relationship

is based on all those areas where we have been able to effectively work together to advance our shared interest. whether that's making commitments to the climate process in paris, to fighting isil in iraq and syria, or working cooperatively with 10 other nations in the asia pacific to advance our economic interest in the context of the transpacific partnership. even of those represents substantial areas where the united states and canada have been able to pursue our joint interests. reporter: not a big deal, kind of what you're saying? josh: what i'm saying is all three of those other things i just named are a much bigger deal. ultimately a decision will be rendered on the keystone project , but i'm not confident that regardless of what that final decision s. i have confidence and will continue to have confidence in the strength of the u.s. - canada relationship.

reporter: jim webb steps out of the race on the democratic side. do you feel like his is a voice that has a place in democratic politics? why do you feel like he didn't resonate for whatever reason? josh: well, again, i'll let you speculate on the -- on what senator webb may have been able to do differently to try to get a little bit more traction inside the democratic presidential primary race. obviously senator webb is somebody who has made a substantial contribution to our nation's national security both his service in our military in vietnam to his service in the reagan administration, but also his service in the united states senate. he's had quite an interesting career. i think like many people i'm quite interested to see what he's going to do next. reporter: making his way here perhaps as soon as this evening? is that your understanding? josh: that's my understanding t could come in the next day or two. i'm not sure exactly how to what

to attribute the delay in delivering the legislation to the white house. maybe some of our republican friends on capitol hill could explain that. i think we all know the outcome here. reporter: you talked about this biden question and i think you said today may be having some transagain shall importance. the reason it's so interesting because it's different from what we have heard from other people before. it goes directionly to, a, what happened that night exactly. who felt what about it. and what kind of pressure the president was under. and the president himself talks about it in that context. when he said even the vice president wasn't for this. is there any reason to doubt that what the president said when he said those words wasn't accurate? josh: no. i don't think i'm trying to indicate a change in the president's view. i think what i'm suggesting is that the people who were in the

room at the time are the ones who should be consulted. but ultimately the decision that mattered was a decision made by the president of the united states to carry out a mission against osama bin laden. thanks to the courage and professionalism and effectiveness of our men and women in the intelligence community and our men and women in uniform, that mission, that daring mission, was successful. reporter: again it's interesting because the people who were in that room are saying all kinds of different things. today the vice president said that there were only two people who were definitive in their views. but that's different than what we have heard from hillary clinton. when the vice president said that today, is there any reason -- he was in that room, is there any reason to doubt what he said? josh: i think historians could possible probably tell you this is not the first time that a significant political event has prompted differing rex collections from people who participated in it. that's not to call into question the integrity or veracity or

honesty of anybody who participated. i think it is an acknowledgement that particularly when the stakes are really high anti-pressure is on that in hindsight the situation looks different. you have to talk to people actually in the room. reporter: this being one of the most important moments in the president's term and something that he's talked extensively about, is there a concern that there might be some misremembering going on here on the part of the vice president? josh: again, for an accurate accounting of what happened, you have to talk with people in the room. reporter: in general, let's just say generally speaking here, if somebody was going to jump into a presidential race at this point -- reporter: just anybody. numbers were showing about a third of all democrats didn't think it was a great idea and another third didn't care. would you ever think it was a good idea for that person to get

in? would you not possibly think it might be bad for the party for somebody to -- josh: i don't think it's bad for e party for somebody who has spent a career fighting for and advancing the priorities of that party and of the country for making a decision to get into the race. but ultimately the vice president will have to decide for himself if that's the right call for him personally and for his family. reporter: thanks, josh. follow up on the n.d.a.a. speaker boehner indicated he's going to sign that bill today. does the white house have a sense when president obama will actually veto the bill? josh: i don't he. -- i don't. reporter: will it be a pocket veto? josh: i would not anticipate we'll wait around 10 days even if republicans waited 10 days to

send it up here. reporter: josh, are republicans in congress friends the way the vice president said yesterday or enemies the way hillary clinton said last week in las vegas? josh: well, i guess they had their own individual views on this. obviously you have heard pea talk quite a bit about how disappointing it has been to see republicans in congress engage in a strategy to reflectively oppose strictly for partisan reasons everything the president has tried to advance. in some cases that has led republicans down a path of actually opposing ideas they previously supported. i think what republicans found in the short term that ended up being a particularly effective political strategy. after all they won some significant congressional elections as a result of it.

t did not, however, succeed in accomplishing leader mcconnell's stated goal at the time, which was to ensure that president obama was a one-term president. so in that regard that strategy failed. and i think when you look at the longer term national prospects for the republican party, this strategy has been quite corrosive. to say nothing of the impact it has had on the broader country. so that all said there have been some areas where the administration has been able to work with republicans. the most recent example of this would be, i propose, the trade promotion authority legislation that passed over the summer. that paved the way for us reaching an agreement on the transpacific partnership we hope will be approved in a bipartisan fashion in the congress. i think the enact that the president is championing an agreement we expect will get

strong support from republicans in both the house and senate indicates the president's willingness to actually work across the aisle to get something done. this is a priority that is held by more republicans in congress than democrats. yet the democratic president is aggressively pursuing it. think that is a quite clear illustration of the president's willingness to work with republicans to advance shared objectives, even if the republicans are not willing in general to extend him the same curtcy. reporter: what do you think the vice president meant yesterday when he was talking about darrell issa in the context of clean energy? seemed to make a note of it that republicans are friends, these republicans could be useful -- josh: i think that -- didn't see his actual comments. i can speak to the president's view. that simply is this is an era of divided government. the american people in their wisdom elected a republican

majority in both the house and senate. and that means if we are going to advance the nation's priorities, we have to find a way to do it in a bipartisan fashion. we are going to have to choose policies that can get the support, i believe some republicans on capitol hill, and the support of the democratic president. that means the democrats and republicans have to work together to advance our shared interests. the president has long been committed to that principle. seen too ly we have many republicans on capitol hill long resist that principle. that's been a disappointment to the president. it's not been good for the country. i think over the long term it's not one that has advanced the political interests of the republican party. that's my opinion. reporter: is it friends without too many benefits? josh: i don't think i'm going to go there. reporter: thank you, josh. just back to justin trudeau, i wonder if you would clear something up. while is he a progressive, his position in the campaign was he

was for going ahead with the keystone x.l. pipeline. no different from prime minister harper. save for the fact he wanted new environmental standards that he thought would bring president obama and the administration along. but do you say that that will have no effect on the report from the state department or the administration's position? josh: secretary kerry has indicated that the timing of the election and outcome of the election would have no impact on the timing or outcome of the ongoing review of the keystone pipeline at the state department. i take him at his word on that. reporter: the other thing is, a few weeks ago i know you made very clear the administration's opposition to politically based riders that would try to debunk planned parenthood. -- defund planned parenthood. congressman mike kelly is calling on the i.r.s. to audit planned parenthood, different

from the defunding effort. what's the administration's position on that? josh: the i.r.s. is an ndependent enforcement agency. the administration has worked hard to ensure that the i.r.s.'s activities are not influenced by the political debate. that is a principle that we have worked aggressively to uphold and certainly one that i believe that every member of congress should respect. reporter: at a recent town hall in new hampshire hillary clinton acknowledged her evolution on he issue of smex marriage. -- same-sex marriage. she didn't declare her support until 122013 when she left the administration. josh: i'm not but i didn't work at the state department. i wouldn't have some of the most

keen sensitivity to what pressures she may have been under in that role. can you check with her campaign and they can give you their sense of it. reporter: do you think it's fair to glean because she did not say anything about the issue she did not support same-sex marriage even after president obama came out for it? josh: i don't know what her views on the topics are. reporter: one question. that is do you think that -- given the president's own evolution on this issue, do you think her changing views on marriage should be seen differently than her other positions that have changed such as keystone? josh: i think there is an understandable tendency to want to try to make all those things the same or try to divine some element of her personality by looking at her views on arranged topics. when it comes to her views on same-sex marriage, i take her at her word.

that she -- that her views on this topic underwent the kind of change that a lot of people's views have over the last several years. i think many people have noted the significance of this changing debate in our country and changing debate in our political system. and the president certainly believes that it reflects important progress as our country has made. thanks a lot, everybody. n fun -- >> a tweet from bloomberg with a picture of jim webb who held a press conference earlier this hour to announce he's ending his run for the democratic presidential nomination. and his campaign tweeting portions of his speech during the press conference saying i fully accept my views on many issues are not compatible with the power structure and nominating base of the

democratic party. we'll look at part of his announcement. >> over the years i have worked with democrats or republicans and my basic beliefs, principles of leadership, and love of country have never changed. i proudly served for four years in the reagan administration. as rabble. i proudly served in the senate as a democrat. we need to be honest here because the very nature of our democracy is under siege. due to the power structure and the money that finances both political parties. our political candidates are being pulled to the extremes. they are increasingly out of step with the people they are supposed to serve. poll after poll shows that a strong plurality of americans is neither republican nor democrat.

overwhelmingly they are independent. americans don't like the extremes to which both parties have moved in recent years. and quite frankly, neither do i. i know i'm going to hear this so let me be the first to say t i fully accept that my views on many issues are not compatible with the power struck sture and nominating base of the democrat -- structure and nominating base of the democratic party. that party is filled with millions of dedicated hardworking americans, but its hierarchy is not comfortable with many of the policies that i have laid forth and frankly i'm not comfortable with many of theirs. for this reason i'm withdrawing from any consideration of being a democratic nominee for the presidency. it does not reduce in any way my concerns for the challenges facing our country. my belief that i can provide the best leadership in order to meet

these challenges. or my intentions to remain fully engaged. >> the u.s. house of representatives about to gavel back in. legislative work today includes debate on six bills including one to let foreign citizens of certain countries through u.s. agentcies over violations. ll be our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. as the members return, we ask your blessing on all those, who are discerning significant options about leadership here in the people's house. may a spirit of freedom and public responsibility prevail among the other voices competing in the conversations and debates that ensue. bless all members with