gingrich, senator elizabeth warren and senator brown from ohio. on newsmakers is the air force secretary debra lee james. questions -- h today.eciate your time i want to begin with the comments of the president last thursday at the air force graduation ceremony. he said,? "when you look at the world , guided by clear eyed assessment and based on assessment, facts, and judgment" -- was that a reference to donald trump? sec. james: i took the president's words literally. facts, evidence, and what is going on today. he pointed out we are prosperous nation. we are, in the eyes of the world, those who always wish to emulate us in other countries.

that has been my experience as we have traveled. we have challenges and need to remain focused. steve: he did make references to isolationism. was that a reference to the donald trump campaign and the republican likely nominee? sec. james: he did not mention donald trump, or anyone in particular. that is why i took him word for word. presidents throughout the years have counseled we need to be an engaged united states on the world front. isolationism is not a good choice for us at this point in time, or has it been for decades. tom: i would like to talk about the fight against isil that the air force has taken a lead on. can you give us an update and if the air force has required assets and airmen that it needs

to prosecute the fight since it has gotten more aggressive? sec. james: the fight against isil is proceeding at pace. we have said from the beginning that this would be a fight that would take years to prosecute. we are 2 years into it. we in the air force have then in the lead. we are not the only ones. it is a joint fight, a coalition fight. the air campaign is one element. we need partners on the ground. looking back 2 years ago, we have retaken 30% to 40 percent of the territory from isil. we have hit them with high-value targets, their leadership. we have taken out command and control posts, their sources of revenue. we are making progress. ultimately, we need partners on the ground, and ultimately we need a political solution in this part of the world. tom: you also need more equipment. in december, there was a

requirement for more bombs because you were running through stockpiles. sec. james: you are right. we are in the process of replenishing those. with a respect to the number of people, i am an advocate in making the point that we need to increase the numbers of people in the air force. we are stepping up to the plate and getting the mission done, but we are deploying people over and over in a frequent way. that takes its toll on people. we need to gradually bring up our strength. tom: you need more airmen? sec. james: i believe so, yes. richard: on the issue of more people, you will have 317,000 airmen by the end of fiscal year 17? sec. james: that's right. richard: the house and senate are proposing more money for defense giving you 331,000,

more. the pentagon has resisted more money because of the way it is being provided through the wartime account. you have readiness concerns with the air force. why resist congress when they say "here is more money to improve readiness to get more people"? sec. james: i appreciate the sentiment from some in congress that believe we need to improve readiness, improve modernization, and, for the air force, increase modestly our strength. i think the sentiment is in the right place. my concern is that anything that could undermine the bipartisan budget agreement could possibly return us to the days where we would lurch toward a government shutdown and ultimately not get things done. the top thing that we need's we need our bills to be passed on time, by the first of october. and ultimately, we need to keep focus on lifting cyclist ration, which will return in fiscal year 18 if -- lifting sequestration, which will return to us and fiscal year 18. those are the top things to me.

richard: the increases would be in wartime spending, which are not bound by budget caps. why not do it that way? the base budget is bound, wartime spending is not. sec. james: i'm not an expert, but if there is an approach to accelerate our needs in terms of manpower, readiness, and modernization without undermining the bipartisan budget agreement, i am very interested. if we lurch toward government shutdowns, and if the government ceases to work, that to me is far worse. i would rather do it gradually and not undermine what is a bipartisan agreement. steve: we heard from defense secretary carter who said the u.s. is facing a dual threat from terrorism and china. the china is building what he described as a self isolation wall.

how big of a threat, long-term, do we face from china? sec. james: and there is russia and threats beyond that. china is investing and testing in certain areas. these are matters of concern to the united states. with respect to what is going on in the south china sea, multiple officials have said repeatedly we will continue to fly and protect our rights under international loss. there is a lot of the world's trade that goes through the south china sea. it to all of the countries benefits that this is opened and governed by international law. steve: what is china's and game? sec. james: you would have to ask them. i know it they say, and i know what international law says. we are prepared to it here to that international law and protect our rights. there are many countries in the region that agree with us. tom: i would like to follow up on the south china sea. your head of command told me

that he expects the chinese to establish an air defense identification zone over the south china sea requiring violence from other countries to identify themselves before they fly into the space, which is international airspace. how are your pilots repaired to deal? will they respect that? sec. james: first of all, on behalf of the pilots, our pilots are trained and perform in professional airman ship ways. that is to say we put focus on training and i have confidence in our pilots. with respect to how the united states would approach such a zone, it is my belief that coming we have already said, we would not recognize such a zone. we would continue to fly, in a professional way, within the confines of international law. richard: that sounds like it

could generate conflict if the chinese are demanding that you identify yourself and you do not recognize the zone. isn't that a recipe for conflict? sec. james: what is a recipe for more conflict is declaring such zones in the first place. i come back to the professionalism of our airmen. i have complete confidence. if i'm not mistaken, china also declared at one pint an air defense zone in east china sea. it was within one day or two days we did exercise our rights under international law and flew a b-52 mission through it. i come back to that we are steadfast behind international law and professionalism in the air. those are the two bedrock points.

richard: if i could go back to the readiness issue and what you describe is the high-end fight against a foe like china or russia, only half of the air force's combat forces are ready. is the air force ready for a conflict against china when it is engaged against isil? sec. james: not as ready as i would like to see. we do not want a war with china, or anyone else. our job is to be prepared and to call it out if we need additional resources or policy adjustments. i have been vocal, saying i'm not comfortable and our top commanders are not comfortable that we are fully ready in the case of such a high-end fight. what we need to do is to invest properly to get ourselves ready for the high-end fight. part of that investment needs to be in the gradual buildup of our people. we need more people, because being globally engaged in so many different parts of the world, you cannot be in two places at the same time with the

same human being. we do need to build up our forces. we also need to plug holes in the maintenance arena, in the cyber security world, and in the important world of our remotely piloted aircraft. richard: would you estimate that cost, and how much time will it take? sec. james: we're looking at over the neck several years building up a total of about 8000 to 10,000 additional people would do a great deal of help for the united states air force. richard: is there a price tag? sec. james: it would be in the hundreds of millions, to possibly over $1 billion over time. steve: do you think women should be required to register for the draft? sec. james: i think women should register for the selective service. i see no reason not to. this is a timely debate and reasonable people have differences of opinion.

there are people who say, perhaps we do not need a selective service approach at all, because it has been years since the draft. my vote as an american, my opinion as an american, is that we should have a selective service. it is an insurance policy. i think women should register, just as i think young men should register. steve: any sense to what you think congress will do? sec. james: it is too close to call. it is in play in both houses of congress. we will have to wait to see how it goes. tom: you have spoken about how you believe transgender troop should be able to serve openly in the military. that policy has been in development and the pentagon. can you tell us when you expect that policy to be approved and the ban withdrawn? sec. james: i think the review on the transgender policy should be complete in the next few months. it is proceeding. these are somewhat complex issues. by the way, i'm certain the policy will change.

i'm certain the transgenders will be allowed to serve in a more open way. we're trying to get the specific policy matters underneath the umbrella policy matter so that we do it correctly and roll it out correctly. so if there's training required, we have that in place. so we explain to commanders and troops how we will proceed. i would expect it in the next few months. tom: are there strong objections in the uniformed service? do you get a sense that there is reaction against allowing transgender troops to serve openly? sec. james: there are differing opinions. i think the big piece of this, the one under the greatest review and discussion at the moment, is the accession of new

people that are transgender. had we approach that? that is the final piece we are trying to get right. richard: another issue in the house and senate is a larger pay raise for the troops then the administration proposes. 1.6%, the house and senate are proposing for 2.1%. can you describe the overall affect financially? it turns out to be a lot of money. does it put more money in and in listing member and sergeant's pockets, or not? sec. james: these are all relatively modest increases. the difference between one point -- 1.6 or 2.1 are small pay raises.

mr. scher: the key thing is we want to make sure military pay continues to go up. we have to do better in terms of comparability. we have to have military pay in the advocates be as good or better than summarily -- then summer only -- then similarly situated people in civilian life. a military compensation in the 1980's was behind, not comparable to the civilian sector. now it is. now we have close parity for most of the skill levels and most of the jobs. there are exceptions, but for the most part we are comparable and have to keep it that way. the other thing we have to do is to make sure we have balance between people and compensation. their training and readiness. we have to look at the future and modernize. all of these accounts are important and we have to strike a reasonable balance. richard: when you speak to the airmen, is the issue of pay a big one? do they care between 1.6% and 2.1%? sec. james: as i speak to

airmen, the biggest concern that they asked me about is, what does the future likely hold? are we likely to have decreasing numbers in the air force? are we likely to have involuntary separations? are we likely to grow? will i and my family have a precious degree of increased ability in the future? this is the number one source of questioning i take. not so much the difference between 1.6% or 2.1%. there is a level of reassurance they feel when they realize that at least pay will go up modestly. richard: what do you tell them? sec. james: i tell them that, for as long as i'm secretary of the air force i will continue to advocate strongly that we want the stability. we want to grow the air force. it will not be huge growth. maybe 8000 to 10,000 people, but

that will help a lot. it will contribute to readiness. it will contribute to a more reasonable degree of deployment, so people do not have to deploy over and over. i've made it clear that that is my top priority and i will do my best to deliver. steve: opiates and heroin are a growing epidemic and they are -- and we've been reading the air force is playing a larger role in tracking down vessels bringing drugs into the u.s.. can you talk about that? sec. james: i returned from latin america about six weeks ago. this was a theme we talked about quite a bit. latin america does not get the attention that the middle east gets, with good reason. obviously, we do not have a shooting war we are involved in in latin america. our neighbors to the south do not get the attention of other parts of the world, yet they have serious problems -- including drugs that flow across to our border. the question in my mind, and we

will try to do better, is how do we use our training assets and dollars to put those aircraft and assets in latin america, get the training value for our people, but at the same time perform missions contributing to the counter drug operations. it's getting a double bang for the buck. tom: what is an example? what sort of aircraft have been involved in these interdictions? sec. james: i will give you one that was timely when i was down there. periodically, we use our b-52s on training missions so the pilots and crew can exercise different aspects of their complete portfolio of responsibilities that they might not get in the fight against isil. we sent a b-52 through the caribbean to perform some of these duties that they needed to practice on.

while they were out, they spied a drug vessel -- what they thought was a drug vessel. the idea was that they were calling in an asset from the coast guard to make an arrest. as it so happens, the coast guard vessel was too far away. the b-52 went back and flew as low as they could fly over the drug vessel, whereupon the smugglers panicked and threw the drugs overboard, destroying the drugs. that is one example of how many hundreds of kilos of cocaine that did not reach u.s. shores on that day. by doing those missions, particularly when you can spot things on the ground and call-in law enforcement, this is a double bang for your training buck. richard: in hiroshima, president obama urged about a nuclear free

world and a reduction in weapons stockpiles. at the same time, the defense department outlined $1 trillion over the next three decades to modernize the nuclear triad. how do you square those two things? a call for a reduction in nuclear weapons, and modernizing our arsenal? sec. james: the way i look at it, richard. our nuclear deterrent policy generally has worked for the united states and kept the ultimate peace for 60 years or 70 years. i do not believe we should change horses midstream. in order to have the nuclear deterrent carry forth into the decades to come, even though we all aspire for nuclear-free world, it is unlikely in my lifetime we will achieve it. therefore, deterrents need to remain strong. it needs to be modern and

credible. if your potential adversaries believe you won't do it, can't do it, or isn't modern enough to do it, it isn't much of a deterrent value. modernizing is part of keeping peace in decades to come. it is taxpayer dollar involved, but we have to figure out how to fund it because it has worked for 60 years or 70 years. there are nuclear powers, and more want to become nuclear powers, and we have to protect ourselves. richard: as the president looks back at his eight years in the white house, if you were to write the first paragraph of what impact he's had on the military and american foreign policy, what would it be? sec. james: i'm a big supporter of the president. i think he has advanced the ball for our country in the areas of trade, important treaties, the military -- he has taken a very judicious approach. he takes the approach abroad in

-- he takes the committment of force abroad and putting young men and women in harm's way very seriously. he has made a very big effort to learn from the mistakes and missteps of the past to think through if we are going to commit forces what the day after looks like. he has done it judiciously and put a premium on doing it with and through our partners around the world. so we go as a team. we don't go alone whenever possible. i think he has done a great job advancing the ball in many ways. tom: i wanted to touch on diversity, which you have made a priority. why is it important to you to have a more diverse air force? a lot of the senior officers are white men. why is it important, and what are you doing to achieve a more diverse force? sec. james: i am of the opinion that the war for talent is going to get harder. therefore, we have to recruit from the lightest pool possible.

when we get fantastic people in the door in the years to come, we have to develop and retain them. that means we have to advance them through the forest. having diversity is important for the quality of our people and the quality of our thinking. meaning innovation, i'm convinced, comes from different people from different backgrounds that approach problems differently. that is part of diversity as well. that is why it is important. we have specific initiatives we have put forth that we are tracking, that we will track over time that are designed to increase the number of women and minorities, people from different that grounds. backgrounds, period, that are advancing through the force on the enlisted and officer side. it has to do with innovation. richard: a transparency

question. there is a standoff between the air force and the senate armed armed services committee about the new bomber, the b-21. they want developments over the contract and the air force has inclined to give them to the committee before. why has the air force not given that information to the committee? is there concern over the overall number of becoming public? sec. james: we have provided those details. over the last several years, we have provided dozens of briefings to the four defense committees, individual members , and staff. we have provided the contract value, which is classified. though specific details have been provided to all four committees. we are prepared to go back over and over again. the reason some of these things are in the classified world, and some things are in the

classified world in a well-established way that congress provides oversight to the department of defense on those classified programs. the b-21 is being handled in the same way. the people who need to know do know. we will give them updates as things progress and as they wish. the reason it is important we keep these things classified is that we want to provide enough information to the public at large, but not so much that our adversaries, who perhaps do not mean us well, can piece together bits and pieces of information and make deductions about size, weight, and power. certain contract details could unexpectedly provide those details. this is the secret sauce of the united states, and we feel it is not the way to go. the people in congress that need to know, do no. steve: you are with the

president when the thunder -- thunderbirds flew overhead for the air force graduation ceremony. one of the planes crashed with with the pilot ejecting safely. what do you know? sec. james: the details are sketchy. after the thunderbird demonstration was complete, and the thunderbirds were getting close to landing, thunderbird 6, the sixth aircraft, was having difficulty coming in and approaching the landing area. the pilot, because he is a fantastic pilot, took measures to avoid buildings and homes. and was able to eject from the aircraft before it placed down in an open field. the pilot was able to walk under his own power after the incident. he was nevertheless taken to the hospital for observation and checking.

the whole matter will go into an accident investigation board, the standard procedure. it will take a couple of months to get fully to the bottom of what happened. our pilot ejected and we avoided problems on the ground and innocent loss of life here the president was able to see the pilot before he was taken to the hospital. steve: deborah lee james. thank you for joining us on "newsmakers" sec. james: thank you for having me. steve: we continue our conversation with tom vanden brook of "usa today," and richard lardner. let me begin on some of the social issues that the air force secretary touched on. what is your take away? tom: we were just speaking that she is one of the most senior officials to talk about the need for women, or her desire to have them sign up for the selective service for the draft. that is a significant departure from what we have heard from other officials. it is significant to note that

she says anticipates the ban on transgender troops serving openly to be relaxed or withdrawn later this summer. steve: part of the overall debate we will see in congress over the defense authorization act, what are you looking at? richard: that is a big issue. in the house, they had it in the bill, and it was taken out at the last minute and never made it to the floor. it is in the senate-version. there are social conservatives opposed to this. ted cruz, mike lee, they offered an amendment to have it taken out. they don't want it to happen. the odds for a draft are very remote. this is a social touchstone. it is a threshold this country has never crossed. we have never had women register for the draft.

here congress says "yes, they need to." it is an important milestone for that reason. steve: republicans have been critical of democrats for slow walking the act. will we see corrections this week? richard: they're planning to have a vote on one of the first amendment on monday evening at 5:30. we will see. right before the break, harry reid, the democratic leader, held up the bill. he is upset over the lack of funding for zika and other domestic programs. we will have to see. the plan is they will move forward with it on monday. steve: we talked about isis and the south china sea. force inof the air combating drugs in this country. where do you see the air force moving ahead in the long game over the next 10 to 15 years? >> it will be on the forefront.

depending on who is the next president. there is a real reluctance to prevent ground troops. where does that leave you? ships on the sea and airplanes doing most of the fighting. i don't see that there will be any diminishment in the need for the air force to keep flying. >> and the president's legacy with regard to the military is what? >> next. mixed. there is a readiness crisis. the service chiefs have described this on the hill. but the budget instability, the inability to work out a long-term budget with republicans in congress has stymied the effort to modernize the armed forces. >> we will give you the last word. >> more than 150,000 troops applied when he took office. around 15,000 when he leaves office. andenbrook for "usa today," and richard lardner

with the associated press, thank you for being with us today. >> thank you. >> up next, a look at three potential vice presidential candidates. we begin with former house speaker newt gingrich. we interviewed him on donald trump's candidacy, the state of the republican party, and if he would be vice president shall candidate if asked. after that, a look at the potential running mates for hillary clinton. gets a elizabeth warren commencement address talking about her career with the consumer financial protection bureau. then senator sherrod brown at a fundraiser earlier this year. we can up to >> joining us from the "washington post" news room is chris cillizza, the founder of the six and a political writer for the "post." thank you for joining us.

>> thank you, steve. >> let me begin with five candidate you say donald trump who never he select as his running mate. who are they? e reason i put them on the list, is they don't need to do it. ted cruz is probably your best example. the guy who finished second to donald trump. but someone who is is young, ted cruz is in his 40's and probably very uninterested in latching his wagon to donald trump because in the event trump loses this race, ted cruz will be a front runner in 2016 -- excuse me, 2020 as he runs for president. so probably not worth the risk for a ted cruz and i throw

marco rubio in that same category. another senator, though unlike cruz, he is retiring. another who did himself some good in this campaign and who is not going to hook himself to the d trump in part due to fare that donald trump is unpredictable in a way that could really jeopardize your future if you were one of the candidates -- candidates sharing a national tickel with him. one of the names mentioned most often is former house speaker newt gingrich. what does he bring to the ticket? >> yes. there is a wonderful story out by eliana zwrones national review. she wrote about the increasingly close relationship between grinning and --

gingrich and trump. e has also maintained an outsider y status that trump finds appealing. what trump needs more than anything is a in-dp knowledge of policy. his knowledge of policy is extremelyly. ed. -- extremely limited. in picking gingrich you would get someone with a big brain. some would say his ideas are wrong-headed but he is someone who knows public policy, and is not uncomfortable with the limelight. newt gingrich, deeps not having been speaker for more than a decade, has the remained very, very active in republican circles. and he has run for president before but more than anything, he is somebody who is interested in the job the he's been publicly talking about it and we'll hear from him in just

a moment. >> that's right. that's why i made the who wouldn't take it list first because there are a number of people who would have to think very, very hard about taking the vice-presidential slot in a way that with any other candidate they wouldn't. trump poses a unique set of that a ted allenges cruz or hillary would not. >> finally, do you know how donald trump will go about the process of selecting a running mate? >> he was talked somewhat openly that they have begun the process. ben carson is helping lead the search. here's what we know. everything we've learned about donald trump is that he's basically his own best and really only survivor. -- only advisor. he does what he thinks is the right thing.

corey lewandowski, his campaign manager will be involved. they'll come up with a smallish group of people, vet those and trump will either pick one of those or pick one of his own. there is not a blueprint and ultimately donald trump decides what gets done in that campaign. so we're going to spend a lot of time handy capping who he might pick when in pact he has nor potential to go off the beaten path and pick someone than anyone in modern history. >> and of course we'll follow ur list available on line at washingtonpost.com as that process unfolds. thank you, chris. >> thank you. >> with that, our conversation with former house speaker newt gingrich. >> speaker, the state of the republican party in 2016 is what? >> exciting and dynamic.

>> how so? >> you have a brand-new candidate we've never seen before. you have thousands of people coming into the party. you have a really vigorous and real debate about policy in a way that's very healthy, i think. you have the most state legislators in the history much the republican party, going back to 1854. more than ever before in our history, you have republican state sleth -- legislatures. it's going to have a lot of stresses and strains but i suspect that the republican convention will be actually better and easier than the democratic convention this year. >> why do you think so many people in the political class looking into this race a year ago, very few, if anyone, predicted donald trump? >> i wouldn't have. i've known trump for years and it wouldn't have occurred to me to predict that donald trump could win. i think he has exhibited a

level of skill and a level of understanding of the american people that will both -- were both unknowable when he first started running and i think he has also changed some of the game. he's the first candidate who really understands the sort of kardashian model of social media where you can tweet, you can facebook, you can instagram, you can do so many different things that are very inexpensive and yet very effective. i think he's up to about eight million people on facebook following him. well, i -- he communicates with them for free. it's very different from the model that existed a year ago where you were supposed to do what jeb bush did, go out, raise $1 00 million, buy ads and have a big paid staff. it -- also he's a guy that's uniquely self-confident and willing to rely on himself.

>> but you ran for president. past candidate is -- candidates, mitt romney, others, some things that got them in trouble don't seem to get him in trouble. why? >> i think the country is more frightened. it's more worried about the economy and about national security in terms of islamic supremacists and i think that as a result, the vast majority of republicans -- it's not true of democrats -- but the vast majority of republicans have concluded that you need somebody who is going to kick over the table. that they're just determined to change how washington operates, and what they concluded actually starting with the very first debate that fox hosted, which was the first time i really leaned forward. i've known donald a long time. calista and i have a good relationship with him. i knew he was going to run,

talked about as early as january of last year. but that first debate had you all the elites saying had -- he had done terribly and you had twitter and google and facebook saying he had won. i thought, wow, something is happening out there. we are luckily still a country where the average voter is, in he end, as important as each average tv analyst because they each get one vote. trump was on to something that he rest of us misunderstood. he had 16 people running and he's the only one left the >> i want you drill down in in to this, what we experienced as a nation in the american revolution is not atypical of what we're seeing with donald trump on the republican side and senator sanders on the democratic side?

>> that's right. i think what you've got is a country in which if you combine the sanders and trump votes, you are probably at 70% of the country which is just fed up. people forget that when the americans decided to rebel, and this is part of why calista anltd i decided we had to do "the first american" and do a biography of washington as a vie -- what happened is we gradually -- they gradually over a 10-year period came to the conclusion that london no longer cared about them. then they came to the conclusion that london wad -- was arrogant and determined to impose its will on them. you have this con tant reference back. washington talks about we're either going to be on our knees in submission or stand and fight for independence. i think what you see now is people look at the total mishandling of the financial

mess in new york, they look at the arogance of the washington bureaucracy, at the radicalism of many of president judges now, they look at the failure to win a war after 15 a -- 14 years of fighting and sacrificing, almost 15 years. all those pieces come together and they just say, you know, it's time for a profound change. when i looked into it a couple years back to write a paper, the number two demand after no taxation without representation was judges. they saw the judges as instruments of the state, they saw them as imposing a radical view on the american people. that's why they were so strong about trial by jerry, because the jury because could set aside decisions and they were really against what

they saw as a tyranny. i think you see that against the current establishment. >> if donald trump were the next. , how do you think he would be as a decision maker? >> fast. this is a guy who has made a lot of money by making very fast decisions and, when he's wrong, changing them. i think you would be -- see him being decisive but also con sthraint learning. he would hire very good people. you can't run a system the size of the trump system without hiring good people and delegating like crazy. he has hotels, golf courses, restaurants, buildings, real estate, the number one tv show, i mean all these different things are out, miss universe. you can't juggle all those just by being smart. you've got to have some system by which you delegate and i think he would try to recruit and he said this himself in one of the debates, he would try to

recruit very energetic people to be cabinet officers and give them assignments of very dramatic change. hoax -- >> but if you look at specific issues, the second amendment, guns, has he shifted his ideas on this? >> well, i think that's a little bit of a problem but june 16 last year he been his -- a businessman who shot his mouth off and had opinions hike rich people do. all of a sudden june 16 last year he became a candidate for president and is he's having to learn in public in real time and it's a tough league. a much harder league than people think it is. he's learned some things that sort of, i think, cause him to slow down and think a little bit more. he's better today than he was six months ago. he'll be better in three or four months than he was today.

because he does learn constantly. he's not just a loud, bombastic person. he's a very smart, thoughtful guy but he's thoughtful at a sort of profound strategic level. he's going to fudge some here and there. he'll start out over here as a negotiating position, then fall back to here. but the general directions are going to be very clear, and the general directions are going to involve, i think very profound change. host: 22 years ago, contract with america. that was your mantra, your position -- mission statement for the american people should you gain control. house. should the republican party have that today or some version of it? >> yes. they need a simple doubt. not a giant, 3,000 page platform. they need by september to find 10 things that we can agree on that they would do in the first 90 or 100 days if they were elected and they need to bring

together the house and senated -- candidates, the presidential candidate and i think by cement most republicans will be very happy to be on the same ticket and very happy to pick really big, decisive changes. host: why do you think speaker ryan has been so hesitant to endorse donald trump? newt: i think what happened is everybody thought they had 60 days to finish up the process and ted cruz, wisely in my judgment, decided to drop out after indiana. so all of a sudden instead of having 60 days to get to know each other, they were confronted with the knowledge that he's the nominee. he wasn't ready to be the nominee that fast. ryan had a plan to spend may developing a set of issues so they could negotiate with trump. there are differences. but it's fascinating. i think -- i know, as a matter of fact, they have staff for both teams working together and

they're putting stuff together and i think presently everything will work out you. but i also think, i don't disagree with ryan about this. it is better to go slower and make sure by the time you get to an agreement that it's real than jump in, paper it over. , have a happy press conference and then find out you have nine fights coming. host: how is speaker ryan doing? >> much better. they worked at things to get control of the system and i think both are going to turn out to be very effective leaders. host: since tip o'neil voluntarily stepped down, every speaker has either been forced out or lost re-election or decided not to seek it. why is it so different today than 20, 30 years ago, the job of speaker?

newt: i think you lumped together several different things. hastert lost the majority. pelosi is still there but lost the majority. raburn twice lost the imagine ity -- majority, in 1942 and 1956. i think boehner was just genuinely worn out. he was caught between an obama who had contempt for the republicans and a hard-core group of republicans who were growing in strength who were furious at their leadership for not figure out a strategy to stop obama. we were with the boehners on the day that the pope came, and mrs. boehner turned and said, you know, it's just really, really hard. you could tell how tired she was. so i was not surprised. that was sort of the high point of john's life.

it wasn't going to get dramatically better than having pope francis there. so i think at that point they decided it was better for him to leave. in my case i lost seats in an election where people thought we should gain them and i had led only by the virtue of providing victory because i was a very aggressive, very tough speaker. so i had no natural reservoir of, you know, let's hang out even request -- if we didn't win. and it was the first time since the 1920's that we kept control for three cycles and deny kept it the longest time of any republican speaker in history. so we had a heck of a run for a party that had not been in power for 40 years. but it's probably good i left ecause i needed to go renew my energy. and the congress didn't need to deal with me.

host: why? what do you mean by that? >> i was very tough. i pushed people all the time. when you it gets -- get bills welfare, edicare, the federal communications act, all those things without having a fair number of people who are bruised up in the process and after a while there were more bruises than smiles. host: you probably see -- saw the headline from "roll call," the case for gingrich as trump's running made. what will you be coing the -- doing the second week of glule >> i think i'll be in cleveland but i may well be there as a commentator for fox. i have no idea. i have an unusual name, it's a name that's been around a while so people know if they write newt gingrich and puppy dogs that they'll get a certain

level of readership just by definition. there are a lot of really good candidates for vice president. this is the first really big decision trump will make. it will be entirely personal. people will be out doing ats -- lots of vetting but in the end trump will decide. but i have no idea what he will decide. host: you have said you would, quote, listen carefully. first of all, have you had any conversations? newt: we've had no conversations about the vice-presidency. we finished our ninth documentary, on george washington. he has her sixth ellis the elephant book coming out, called "hail to the chief," about the presidents, for 4 to 8-year-olds and i have my second novel about terrorism, "treason," coming out in october.

so we're fairly busy. it's not like we're hanging out hoping somebody will give us a job. i think we would honestly be respectful and would want to sit down and talk it through. if it was a position that in trump's mind that would have a cheney-like significant role we'd certainly have to consider it. if you get to go to lots of funerals, we would probably pass. host: when you mention dick cheney, who has redefined the job of vice president? newt: honestly i think chen emore than anybody in modern times. at haste for the first term he was enormously strong and involved in everything. johnson played a bigger role than people think. he was never an insider for -- with the kennedy clan but they gave him some pretty good portfolio, for example, he was

in charge of space. i would say george h.w. bush played a significant role. reagan did include him on a regular basis. i think al gore played a significant role. you go back and look, there was a very good chemistry between gore and clinton which unfortunately for gore did not come through in the 200 race where i think clinton could have won the race for him if he had allowed him to. i think, and i don't have quite a sense of what biden does, but biden does seem to be an intimate of the president. that's where it starts. presidents define vice presidents, not vice versa. if you have a president who wants a colleague and wants somebody to do real things, then they can do that. if you have a president who doesn't -- there is a great new book about nixon and ides -- eisenhower, "the statesman and the apprentice," very flattering toward nixon and

toward eisenhower's interaxes with nixon the gives you the sense he was the first modern vice president. host: if you were to ask donald trump, what would you ask him? newt: what does he have in mind? and we are so clearly 20 or 30 years behind our capabilities that it's going to require a very substantial amount of effort to get us back on track. host: would it be a fun job for you? newt: everything i've ever done has been a fun job. i wake up in the morning and i'm like the 4-year-old who knows there is a cookie somewhere and my job is to find it. i'm almost always happy and doing fun jobs. host: have you always had a curious mind? >> i guess. as far back as i remember i've

been curious. host: why do you think hillary clinton wants to be president? >> at one level i suspect as a very young woman in high school and college really got the sense of trying to help the country, in her terms. i think that she probably thinks she's far and away the best equipped, given everything she's done in the life. been in the room for eight years with bill. she's been a u.s. senator, u.s. secretary of state. she's a very bright, hard-working woman and i think that all of that kind of fits together. host: but as you know, she talks a lot about the -- her husband and the eight years he was in the white house. you worked with bill clinton on a couple of key issues, welfare reform and balancing the budget. if you are on the ticket does that take away one of. issues she talks about on the campaign? >> i don't know. she'll have her version be

reality, we'll have ours. host: for example? >> well, they always talk about how they balanced the budget. initially they were against balancing the budget. an example of slight difference of view. host: will the impeachment be an issue in the fall? >> no. not the impeachment per se, not as a ins -- lewinsky case legal issue. if they challenge him on this, he will come back very aggressive but that's what he does. he has a very special -- specific doctrine of constantly counterattacking. host: what do you think the debate will look like between trump and hillary clinton? >> i cannot imagine. but i think it may be

surprisingly dignified. i think they have this notion that hover gets down in the mud first will lose and they might stay at an issue level more than you expect. on the other hand, if hillary decides she wants to slug it out, i am confident trump will be ready. host: back to where we are as a country. the defining issue in this campaign. is it about restoring faith in the american people? what's it been -- about for donald trump and the republican party? >> the campaign in the end is about, whether it's jobs or security or your personal freedom, that you have a government that's out of control, you have elites who have failed you and that you had better dramatically change the system. and everybody who thinks the current system is working -- i'll give you an example. in detroit i think that the number of students who cannot read is around 91%.

in baltimore, the number of students who can't pass the basic reading and math test is 87%. hillary is adamantly in favor of the teachers' union, which is failing in both those cities. she cannot get away from it. so she has no answer to what are you going to do for -- you want to talk about income inequality, what are you going to do for 87% of the kids who can't read and write? she has no answer because she's owned by the teachers union. look at the veterans administration. we have this example of a guy who came out of procter and gamble, bob mcdonald, who is now so surrounded by the bureaucracy that he suggested that waiting in line to get into a v.a. hospital was comparable to waiting at disneyland for a ride. you have to get to a point where you wonder what were the conversations that took a really smart guy, businessman,

west point graduate, guy i admire, to where he so loses touch with core reality. if you are a veteran trying get into the v.a. hospital it ain't the same as taking your family to disney world. yet this system is so corrupt now -- corrupt not in the sense of bribery, but of being dishonest with the facts. the v.a., in los angeles, eliminated 3,000 appointments in order to say that the line was shorter. that's illegal. criminal behavior. yet nothing was done, nothing happens. host: part of the problem is that the democrats and republicans are not talking to each other, they're talking at each other. how do you get beyond that? >> you talk to the american people. i always recommend to people who want to really understand ronald reagan, there is a wonderful small book called the education of ronald reagan, about the time he was at general electric and what he learned there.

he had a quote, saying he would turn up the light for the american people and they would turn up the heat on congress. that's how you bring them together. the v.a. is a perfect gl -- example. it is absolutely criminal what we have tolerated in the bureaucracy at the veterans smation -- administration, yet the unions are proud of the fact that they have defined what you can do. my favorite example is there is a woman in puerto rico who pled guilty to armed robbery who got reinstated in her job because the union made the job that her two immediate superiors included a convicted sex offender and a guy who had been convicted of drug abuse and, since they were both criminals, there were no grounds for not rehiring her, too. you look at that if you are a normal american and say that system needs to be picked up by the neck anltd shaken until it is changed. host: is there anything you

wish you would have done at speaker but did not? >> i wish i had done training for the house and republican part that would allowed us to become a continuously modernizing partied. i couldn't figure it out. host: biggest success? >> winning control. we changed the balance of wour -- power in this city in a way that's lasted now over 20 years. host: at what point in the campaign did you know you were going to win? >> september 17. we were leaving to go on a fundraising trip and dick armey's chief of staff was with us, myment osh and advisor and joe gaylord, who had been my political partner. i said ok, we were going to plan on the plane in between campaign stops. i said all right, we