>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with china and talk to orville schell and nicholas bequelin. >> beijing is not keeping its promise, it has laid out some rules that say that he will pick, beijing will pick the candidates. that the hong kong electorate can vote for. therefore screening out any candidate that beijing doesn't like. the hong kong public doesn't like testimony hong kong students don't like it, and the result is the the protest that we're seeing today. >> rose: we continue with paul ryan, the congressman and former vice presidential nominee. his new book is called "the way forward" >> i think one of the thins we did in the war on poverty, we, meaning society and government, inadvertently was we gave people the impression that this is government's responsibility. pay your taxes, don't worry about a thing. government will solve these

problems. that's not truement we need to have a new reengagement with people in our society. so that they can collaborate and get more involved in making a difference in their communities and the federal government need to its respect that. and right now i would argue it doesn't. >> rose: we conclude this evening with president obama's conversation with steve kraft on last night's "60 minutes." >> we are assisting iraq in a very real battle that's taking place on their soil with their troops. but we are providing air support. and it is in our interests to do that because isil represents sort of a hybrid of not just a terrorist network but one with territorial ambitions. >> rose: hong kong, paul ryan and president obama on "60 minutes" when we continue. >> funding for charlie rose is provided by the following:

additional funding provided by:. >> and by bloomburg, a provider of multimedia news and information services world wide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: we begin this evening with china, it is a moment of turmoil in hong kong. thousands of people have taken to the streets of this chinese city in protest over new legislative rules from beijing. over the weekend the protests were met with tear gas and pepper spray. the conflict has escalated into one of the largest demonstrations hong kong has seen hins tiananmen square massacre of 1989. and it raises new questions about the city's role in the rights of its citizens in modern china. joining me orville schell the arthur ross director of the center on u.s.-china relations at the asian society. his new book is called

wealth and power, china's long march to the 21st century. and nicholas bequelin, a senior researcher for human rights watch based in hong kong. he is currently a visiting scholar for china center law school, has lived in hong kong for some 20 years. i'm pleased to have both of them here. nicholas, let me just go and have you explain to us what is happening, what's the conflict. >> well, to put it simply it's the hong kong people making their voices heard. making their voices heard to their local government, hong kong government and to beijing as well. the crux of the matter is the governance of hong kong. the chief executive of hong kong was nominated by hong kong-- by beijing, sorry. the chief of the executive is hand picked by beijing. and the hong kong people don't feel that he is representing their interests. and in particular, beijing had promised that the next

chief executive would be elected through universal suffrage and beijing is not keeping its promise. it has laid out some rules that say that he will pick, beijing will pick the candidate that the hong kong electorate can vote for. therefore screening out any candidate that beijing doesn't like. the hong kong public doesn't like it. hong kong students don't like it. and the result is the protests that we're seeing today. >> rose: and what's the risk for the chinese government in beijing? >> well, beijing, i think, has been quite tone deaf to the demand of the hong kong people. but really it is a conflict about the governance of hong kong. the hong kong people want to maintain their way of life. which is different from the mainland. hong kong has a high degree of autonomy it has the rule of law. it has a free press it has freedom of expression.

hong kong people want to keep this. they have a different language. they have a different history and culture. and they don't want to be assimilated into an authoritarian one party mainland. the hong kong government, however, has sided with beijing and with the big property tycoons in hong kong. and not represented hong kong people's interests. and that is really what is driving and fueling this protest. the one party system and the fact that the party is an monopoly power in beijing is not really the target of the demonstrators. risk, i meant to ask%gz, is, in fact, does this have a possibility of spreading, and jumping from hong kong to china. because of the idea of people incorporating it into their own protest about human rights or whatever issue there might be. >> -- democracy, local control? >> well, the rulers in

beijing never liked-- they never like a demonstrate. they never like to hear people's expressing their voices. but i think the risk of contagion is quite limited. this is above all a conflict about autonomy. how much autonomy hong kong people should have. and how much beijing is ready to give them. this is not a conflict about the monopoly on state powers by the communist parties. >> rose: do you think the chinese government is prepared to make some compromises here? >> you know, i think the climate in beijing now is quite rigid. and i think one of the results of china's success economically which is quite a success story, is that it's-- they've accrued a certain level of confidence, even arrogance. and it's coupled also with a certain kind of insecurity historically derived. which means that they're becoming more and more

obdurate in how they approach problems both within their country and also outside of their country. >> rose: so therefore they're unlikely to compromise because they're arrogant and incure-- insecure? >> i had a person well placed in beijing tell me the other day that he would not be surprised if ultimately, if the occupy central movement in hong kong came full blown, which it now has, that they might send in people's liberation army troops. now that was for me having seen, you know, the results of 1989 in beijing, where nobody could quite believe they would send troops in. but they did. so i think this is an extremely sort of dangerous prospect that lies on the horseson, china feeling humiliated, feeling insulted, feeling their authority challenged in hong kong could move to quash the students.

>> rose: could you imagine that happening? >> well, i don't think that it is likely at the very moment because beijing has a lot of options. it can force the chief executive, which it deeply is unpopular to resign. and this is actually the main demand of the occupy control. >> rose: they have done that, they replaced the chief executive before. >> exactly. he was replaced after a million hong kong people took to the streets to oppose the passing of drastic draconian anti-subversion legislation. the problem is that even if beijing was sending the people's liberation army to hong kong, it would not end dissent in hong kong. it would not end protests against beijing rule. people would retreat they would not try to confront the pla as in 1989. the organizers have made that very clear. but would you see massive emigration and would you see

a continued opposition to beijing. it would make the city ungovernable. and so this is really an-- isn't really an option for beijing, only if the party feels threatened itself, which it did in 1989. i don't think it's the case right now. if there is no contagion of protests it in the rest of the china. but i don't see this happening. this is really about autonomy. beijing is doing a terrible job of managing its very-- in places that it has promised autonomy. >> rose: but you have talked about a friend who worried that the city may become another tibet. >> rose: but you were talking to a friend that was worried hong congress could become another tibet. >> hoping congress people who benefit from freedom of information and the free press, they have been increasingly aware of the awe, authoritarian nature of the regime in beijing and what was unthinkable even a

few years ago that is that you have a strong confrontation and beijing using force is now at the back of the mind of hong kong people. but this is precisely the process they are trying to stop before it gets there. >> you have been writing about china for a long time and going to china for a long time. how is china, how has changed because of peng? >> he has surprised us, his kind of emphatic quality, in essence, saying that the old system of western pressure is no longer to be tolerated and much more a sense in beijing now that china is going to be in the world on its own terms. and this pose as whole lot of new questions for to the united states and the west. how do we comport ourselves in relation to this country which is now much less willing to yield, accommodate, make concessions and so all around,

particularly in craze, we do see a much more militant posture. >> and do we see a forward projection of that in terms of pushing forward chinese power? >> well, look at its posture toward the philippines and vietnam and island disputes, malaysia, but they, indonesia and its posture toward japan in island disputes we find it very unwilling. >> and not to consider accommodations and this is 150 years of history working itself out where china has gotten to the point where they are able to say we are not going to accommodate. >> are you surprised by that? >> no. i think that -- for the past 20 years this is what we have been saying. we have been saying that it was a fantasy to hope that giving beijing everything it wanted, investment, cooperation,

technology, respect on the international stage without any counterpart was a losing tactic and that all it would do is encourage and strengthen the one-party system and its intolerance attitude and this is exactly what we are getting. >> has it been any progress on human rights, has it gone the other way? >> it has gone the other way, it has been a considerable slide back. >> how is it expressed? >> well, there have been a tightening on the internet, a crackdown on the press, a and the arrest of many human rights and civil society leaders, just last week, an academic was advocating for

better understanding between xigo, ethnic minority group from northwest china and the chinese was sentenced to life, to a life sentence. >> that shows really a very strong, hostile attitude from the government. >> rose: at the same time, china has sort of gone through to do something about pollution on the one hand and also corruption on the other hand. >> well, i think the communist party recognizes that it has to deliver on more than just sort of economic growth and certainly one of the places where it has been most vulnerable is on the environmental front, where this extraordinary development we have seen take place, very deleterious side effects so i think there, yes, they are making progress and they recognize they have to do so or

they will be, endanger their own one-party system rule. but i think what really strikes me about peng's regime is that what has been taken off the table is any notion that china is going to reform politically. economically, yes, politically,, no and they look at the united states, they look at congress, they look at europe and they look at the-- >> and. >> they say this is not -- >> so they get confirmed in the notion that maybe they do have a more viable political model, that they should sort of start standing up for, and proclaiming rather than just accepting-- >> but that simply the communist party controls the politics? >> yes, but it can get stuff done. >> yes. >> and so they decide they need a stimulus, they just sign a check? >> i mean, there are people in the west who are now speaking with a certain strange admiration for this form of

government. >> the merits of state capitalism they say. >> yes. >> but can it get things done? i mean beijing is facing mounting crises on the environmental front. >> you can't breathe in beijing, basically. >> food safety, it is unable ensure minimum standards of food safety, there are food safety scandals every week, every day and i am not talking about some product being contaminated, i am talking about thousands of dead pigs flowing down the live of shanghai, the financial capital of the city. they have been-- >> rose: dead pigs in the river of shanghai? >> yes. they still haven't figured out where they came from. [laughter] >> i remember sitting and watching that river and i can't imagine what it is like to see thousands of dead pigs floating down. >> and basically they are facing many complex social challenges, that they don't know how to

respond to without using force and repression. >> rose: what restrains them then? what is the -- >> in hong kong? >> well, generally, hong kong and beijing and change high, shanghai, throughout all the provinces what is the restraining influence other than simply doing what we think we want to do? >> well, so far it has been the unspoken contract that chinese people can enrich themselves and pursue wealth. >> we will take care of the politics and you leave us alone. >> you don't tread on our turf which is politics. >> rose: but the end it is a worry about the dominance of the communist party that propels them? >> ultimately, that is the biggest-- that is number one concern, is to maintain the monopoly of power of the communist party. >> rose: what about being a stakeholder that-- >> this is china's state

challenge. who wants to do that? it wants to be equal. it wants to be a great power, and yet it is very reluctant to stage this shoulder the full level of responsibility. >> and united states wants to restrain them from being a great power. some do, some don't. >> they certainly think that the united states with its pivot to asia is out to sort of circumscribe them and contain them, but i think there is tremendous affection for america and tremendous admiration for america so it is a very complicated sort of love-hate attraction, propulsion mechanism that goes on. >> rose: so how does this change? >> well, you know, i have been around watching this for a long time, and several generations have gone by and i have heard people say wait for next generation. >> what is so interesting to me is the way in which this sort of powerful patriotism manifests itself in terms of nationalism, even if they don't approve of their form of government or one

thing or another, but the sense of wanting china to be respected in the world is a very deep force. >> well if that is true you would think with respect to tibet and hong kong and in not having people protest and being judged by being shown a certain, you know, informed attitude about these things would be a positive thing to be respected. >> yes. well this is the great contradiction, that at the same time there is the yearning to be respected, and the yearning to gain power in the world. they do these various things which mitigate against that happening. so it is kind of a tremendous unresolved dilemma and i think there is no resolution for it given the way the present system is constructed. >> rose: for a while, i had this conversation a thousand

times at this table there was a notion that right now china just wanted to focus on peace and prosperity, you know, we want to develop this economy to make sure that we can get it to its strongest point and also that it will serve as somehow to modify the tensions within the society, whether they are rural, urban, whatever they are, and you know more about this than i do, and then at some point, when it felt like it had maximized that, it would turn to being a broader, more participatory citizen in the world community. >> we are still waiting. >> i have to say, charlie, this notion of western geniality we are ultimately all going in the same direction historically i think this is one of the chinese are saying loudly and clearly to us, our history goes here, your history may go there, we are not in the same dream. >> rose: not in the same dome. and what is their dream? >> i think the dream, as peng says is a dream of china that is

resurgent, it is revived, it is strong, and if it isn't respected in the ways you just alluded to through its soft power at least it is feared. at least it does not need to worry about being exploited or encroached upon. >> rose: that brings us back to hong kong. if you can fresh the, treasure the notion or care about if you are feared you won't allow the demonstrations to get out of hand, are you? >> well, if you can control it. >> it looks like you are capitulating to the crowd. >> yes. but there is a layer here and the layer is the hong kong government, and the chief executive, which is deeply unpopular, and was not the choice of beijing, he was not the initial choice of beijing. he had another candidate who was a tycoon, and ultimately they had to change horses and put--

>> is the governor at risk in this? >> oh, yes. very much. >> i don't think he is going to survive. he will have to step down. one of the reasons being exactly what you said, is that it will shield beijing from the responsibility of the mess in hong kong. he also doesn't have the support of the elite of the hong kong elite and the tycoons. they never liked him. so there won't be a lot of resistance in hong kong if beijing chooses to put him aside. i don't think that beijing has a lot of options there, besides peng inherited language as chief executive of hong kong, he did not choose him, so it is easier politically to cut the losses of beijing by sacrificing cy long and finding sort of a way of reducing the tension in hong kong.

>> but it is a temporary fix because if you get rid of cy long you get a new leader appointed essentially by beijing and you still have the same dilemma that is making people demonstrate in the street. >> rose: go ahead. >> but what beijing has to do -- we have to remember that the turmoil in hong kong that we are witnessing now is really -- was not something that anyone could imagine just a few weeks ago. what happened is that students starting to demonstrate and to use disproportionate force by the police is what triggered people to converge to protect the students and then for the leader of occupy central benny tai to declare the movement was starting now. without the response by the police which was disproportionate and under the eyes of the media of the world, this would not have happened. so all that beijing needs to do is to propose to hong kong

something that is acceptable by the majority of hong kong people. it doesn't have to meet the demands of central. >> if it meets the demands of the majority of the hong kong people, which is to have a reasonably good government that listens, more or less, to their needs, then it can buy stability for hong kong for another ten years. >> rose: thank you, nicolas, we will leigh it, there, thank you, orville. >> we will talk to congressman paul ryan about the republican party and his own future. stay with us. >> paul ryan is here. he is a wisconsin congressman and house budget committee chairman. he also ran as a republican vice presidential candidate alongside mitt romney in 2012. he has some new thoughts on poverty, conservatism and renewing the american idea. he explains them in a new book

the way forward. i am pleased to have paul ryan at this table. welcome. >> good to be back. >> what does this come from? because you wrote a book, i guess, how many years ago which is also a similar idea. >> well, this comes from my own experiences growing up. >> rose: part memoir. >> part memoir, it is part why i am who i am and why i think the way i think and the environment i grew up in and how it shapes me and gave me a real appreciation for community, for the american idea and then it is also a description of two different governing ideas, liberalism and conservative fill loss five and i you don't like the track the country is on right now and i don't and i think a lot of people agree with that, how we can do can do things differently. >> we need to offer alternatives and what a conservative, that is principled, inclusive and aspirational and hopefully able to get a majority of americans to support.

>> my impression is that you have gotten smarter the last several years. >> i have learned a lot. >> rose: that's a way of putting it. you learned things from the campaign, you learn that, you know, certain phrases you had used-- >> yes, yes. >> rose: --were wrong. >> yes, i made some mistakes and i think you need to own up. people in public life, for some reason they don't think it is right to own up to mistakes. in private lives we are supposed to. i mean as adults, so i made some mistakes and i own up to those miakes. i can learn from that. >> things like saying makers and takers. >> that's right. >> and what made you change your mind about that? >> you know, it was actually -- >> what did you mean when you said it? >> what i meant when i said it was that we have a system where too many people are becoming dependent upon the government, and there won't be enough people paying for the government to keep that kind of a system going and what i meant to say is we need to focus on getting people off of welfare into work and focus on getting people to where they want to get in life so they can be upwardly mobile and self stuff and reach their dreams. because the whole american idea is that, that i describe sheer

the condition of your birth in this country doesn't determine the outcome of your life. and the role and goal of government is to protect our natural rights and promote equality of opportunity so we can make the most of our lives and i was trying to articulate the fact that our system, our federal government has gotten too big, has gotten too top down, too coercive and a lot of people aren't seeing this. a lot of people aren't getting this opportunity. >> what came out of it -- >> is that i was slighting people depending on government that earned it. >> that they were lazy. >> that's not what i meant to say but it took a liberal democrat in janesville wisconsin to tell me really what it sounded like and i realized after this guy kind of laid into me, you know, he is right. i think it does come across this way so i need to change the way i talked, and the thinking behind it, so that i can communicate more effectively which is we want a system where everybody can make the domestic of their lives, those of white house are conservatives, that doesn't mean we are for no

government, we want government to be effective and limited so that it can do what it is supposed to do well to help get people where they need to be. >> governor romney had the same problem with the 47 percent comment, didn't he? >> yes. >> he did. >> same thing, 47 percent. >> which is wrong, because what we are trying to communicate is, we want to have a system so that everyone can get to where they want to get in life and i would argue that the governing philosophy prevailing in washington right now, spreading the government too widely and doing nothing very well, having a huge mountain of debt that is occurring, and having sort of a top-down approach to growing the economy, a topdown approach to society, it is crowding out civil society, we are 50 years in the war on poverty and poverty is the highest rate in a generation, 45 million people in poverty, it is not working the way it ought to be working, and so those of us who don't like this direction need to show how we will do things differently. >> here is a different energy policy, and health policy and educational policies and balance the budget and pay off the debt

and a more effective way of fighting poverty. this is what the conservatives need to offer. >> it seems to me and you tell me if this is not what you believe that most people would believe what you said, we want to create a system in which everybody has an opportunity to do what-- to achieve their dreams. >> that's right. >> rose: democrats, conservatives, all agree with that, the question comes down to who has the best ideas. >> i think that's right. >> to get there. >> i think that's right. >> rose: not that one person believes, hate the poor and one person loves the poor. it is that everybody believes in the american ideal. >> i think -- i agree with that and what i am trying to say in this hyperpolarized time we are in, i would like to think there is a majority in this country if given a very clear mandate, a very clear choice, they, built upon a clear governing philosophy we can

recapture that spirit in this country and get these reforms passed. what i am trying to describe is, you have to first define your governing philosophy and contrast it with what now is prevailing, so i talk about that. >> rose: what is the governing philosophy that is prevailing? >> a government centered view of american life that is based on collaboration, that is more top down, that is not respecting people in communities, that is not respecting local control. >> what is the evidence of that? >> 45 million people in poverty, we have got tens of millions of people who aren't even in the workforce or in education. we have got about 20 percent of young people, 21 to 24 aren't working or even in school. we are not hitting the kind of economic growth we need to be hitting. i can go on and on and on. >> the worst recovery since world war ii. i mean, the point i would make is, we have got these big challenges, they are very real, they are very urgent, but they are not insurmountable and i do believe that a vision for american life that is society centered based on collaboration, a partnership with the american people, where we really do replicate the notions of self-government and how we do

the things we are supposed to do in our life, health, retirement, security, those kind of things, economic growth, i would argue that the prevailing philosophy now in washington and the policies coming from them are giving us a stale economy, a debt crisis in the future, confiscation of healthcare sector, suppressing the energy renaissance we could have in this country, on and on and on and my point is, we need to show how we can do things differently so we really can have the kind of economic growth we have and revitalize american life and communities so that we can make sure that people are getting to where they need to be. i really think with this top down kind of slow growth policies that we have that you are going to have mores have than have notes you are going to exacerbate the disparities in america, that's why i think bottom up pro growth policies based on collaboration, respecting communities, customizing in the 21st century is the way to go. >> yes but the problem with that in terms of collaboration is the question, who is responsible for the absence of collaboration ?a

well, i think communities are, i think we ourselves. i think one of the things we did in the war on poverty, we meaning society and government inadvertently, was we gave people the impression this is government's responsibility, pay your taxes, don't worry about a thing, government will solve these problems. that's not true. we need to have a new reengagement with people in our society so they can collaborate and get involved and make more and the federal government needs to respect that and right now i would argue it doesn't. >> the a good example of that. >> 45 people in poverty. >> you say they are -- >> let me give you an example. >> why what this government is doing is why 45 million people are in poverty. >> we spent $800 billion a year on 92 different poverty programs. most of which are cookie cutter top down disrespectful of what works at the local level. and so i would arc that then we can give more local control, we can have welfare support that is customized and localized to a

person's particular needs you do a lot more to help that person get out of poverty than what we have right now which is similar my question have a poverty management system not eradication system. >> one of the great arguments about your party, peggy noon noon, i am sure you read it. >> i am a fan of peggy noonan, she is great. >> she basically says and i will just read one thing, you know, republicans right now have a special duty to the dynamic and serious, it has to paint a world of the positive to make people feel that things can be made better, the spirit an nateing the party should be this way we will take that hill and hold it. >> that's right. >> together now let's march to rouse people and tell people your plans. >> there are some republicans who want to say, not tell you at we want to do but just want to blame-- >> i totally agree with that.

>> --washington. >> i call it the consultant class. what they say is, the other parties is uh unpopular, the president is at all-time lows let's win by default. >> don't take the risk of putting a proposal out there you could get criticized for. the story oh, my life in public life is the opposite of that, i put all of these budget out here and passed four budgets and put the medicare reforms out there which were six years into -- against those things i am still standing. i think we have a moral obligation to tell people, specifically what you would do differently if you don't like the direction we are in, that's what this book is about. this book is basically a road map to showing the country how we can fix our problems with specific solutions and policies based upon this kind of governing philosophy i am trying to describe. so that we can give the country a legitimate choice. that's the fear i have, which is we are just doing this in every election and every election by hammering the other guy and what i would like to do is help contribute to giving the country a really clear, specific choice of a different way forward so that if you win that election,

then you have the obligation, the mandate to actually put these ideas in place and save the american idea from my perspective. >> would you come to this table and debate paul krugman who is an economist? >> i have got three certainties in my life, death, taxes and baseless attacks from paul krugman. >> i will let joe scarborough do that, he is doing fine. >> he did that here, actually. >> is that where he did it? i didn't know that. >> but the idea of having someone who is a liberal economist who believes-- >> i am running against in office and people from the sidelines. >> but the point is that we need to have a serious conversation. >> i agree with that. >> where we have mutually shared objectives. >> yes. >> you know, more energetic economic growth model. >> that's right. >> and at the same time understand that -- >> nobody wants people to be poor. nobody wants people to be

sick. >> that's right. >> but how do we create a environment? >> and you rust sat there and watched an interview with a guy, a young man -- >> i loved it, your go pro guy. >> who founded it from an idea. >> only in america. >> only in america. >> so let's get more of that. and my whole point is. >> he did this during the obama administration during the way. >> hey, look i am not saying that everything is wrong in america. >> he did it ten years ago. >> he did it in the bush years. >> so too. >> my point is, we have got some big problems, we have got a debt crisis coming. healthcare is going in the wrong direction, we have a possible energy renaissance that could be fantastic and a horrible tax code. >> but doesn't the president believe in the renaissance that is coming, doesn't he -- >> i am hot so sure looking at the policy, rhetoric is one thing, results -- >> everybody is -- we are going to be energy independent because of shale. >> so he should open up drilling on federal property plans, on he is streamline regular places and stop killing coal and i could keep going on. >> fill the alaska pipeline which is not running at 50 percent capacity, i can go on and on and on. >> without any environmental damage. >> without any environment-- are you kidding, without any at all, it would be helpful. >> convert to natural gas, all

of these things, could be gained on with the right policies, my whole point is as conservatives we can't just criticize, we need to propose, we need to show what that horizon looks like we are shooting for, so the country knows we have a better idea and a better plan and then they get the choice. >> so if you had control over the midterm elections right now, you would make them a national -- you would talk about the national debate. >> i would. >> rather than-- >> i wrote this book before the midterm election that we have a part, a partnership with america plan that shows you how we would govern if we had the opportunity. >> on the big national issues. >> on the big national issues. >> and immigration? >> i read about that quite a bit in here. >> it is a broken system and we need to fix it. >> let's talk about politics per se. >> it is said that you want to be desperately want to be.

>> desperately .. you know what i am going to say. >> i am waiting desperately for the packers to win the super bowl this year, desperately. >> you are going to ask me about weigh ways and means. >> do you want to be chairman of ways and means. >> yes. it is the path i am on, but we have sort of a protocol in the house. >> you don't desperately want to be, you want to be. >> we have an existing chairman still has work ahead of him david camp. >> i don't understand why he is leaving. >> we have term limits on the chairmanship, she at the end of term. >> is he leaving congress? >> yes. >> but as chairman -- >> he still has more work to. do we have a lame duck session, unfinished business so it is just not in good form to come out on this until after the election, until he is done with his work, so out of respect. >> is the question is who will succeed him? >> and then that job belongs to -- someone else has the first divvies on that job. >> i would dispute all of that. >> rose: a ranking member of the house ways and means committee-- >> sandy levin a democrat. >> who is number 2 in the republican-- >> sam johnson from texas, and

then kevin brady and myself. >> kevin brady thinks he should have it. >> same tenure on the committee, he has another term on me in committee. >> he is a great guy and i am a big fan, either way we go we are going to be well served in ways and means. >> how about speaker of the house? >> not something i am interested in. >> why not? >> it is not a good family job, you spend your weekend traveling across the country campaigns for others and spend my weekends at cross-country meets and cub scouts, you know, basketball games with my family, that is just who i am, my kids are 9, 11, and 12. >> people say if you are hungry enough to be president you need to-- >> being husband and father are the most important things in my life. >> the i lost my dad when i was young and i want to be the kind of father to my kids and husband to my wife that i didn't get. >> can you do that and have the kind of-- i mean is that what you want to prove, you can be a great family man, not travel on the weekends and still get-- >> yes, i believe that. yes, i think you can.

you know, i wouldn't have joined the ticket with mitt romney if i didn't believe we could manage all of these. >> were you home every weekend when running for vice president? >> i took my family on the road with me if i wasn't. >> that's the way i did it. >> speaking of mitt romney, lots of conversation this is is from my friend john dickerson. >> this year's mitt romney wants a gop white knight. romney knows better than anyone. right now everybody is saying mitt romney, run, mitt, run. some of a buyers remorse kind of thing, that they didn't do more for him the first time. a bit is if the president is in a bad way in the polls, the alternate looks better but once the alternative announced he is planning to run, then all of a sudden that game changes. >> how do you think he reads this? >> how does he read it? >> yes. >> because a lot of people i know-- >> we talked quite a bit about this, so i communicate quite often with mitt.

he is clear in saying it is not his intention to run. he doesn't plan on running. he doesn't want the run because he thinks it is someone else's in time and he had his crack at it. >> but i do think he realizes. >> as soon as you say that, he also says he is weighing it and looking at the -- >> look, i want him to run and think he should. >> if he runs you will not? >> yes, i think he would be fantastic president, i wouldn't are signed up for his president if i didn't believe that. i believe that more so than ever. >> if he asked you to be the vp nomination. >> i will be his bus driver look i think he would be a great president. >> better than anybody in the field? >> yeah. i would say that, sure. yeah, i think he had the character, the integrity, the intelligence, and just the wisdom to be a great president. i think he would-- he saw the foreign policy challenges ahead of the curve that a lot of people saw. he was russia, iran, china, the military, all of these things, i think mitt cares quite a bit about these things, knows these issues extremely well, and also knows domestic politics,

and policies, and the economy. he asked me to join the ticket this gives you a sense of who he is. look, i am a house guy from wisconsin, usually you pick, you know, somebody who represent as statewide from a battleground state like ohio or something like that, he asked me to join the ticket because he thought i complemented his skills in governing for after the election. this shows you the kind of decisions he makes which is, i am not going to make a decision for the text few months so we can win an election i am going to make a decision on who i choose to serve to help me govern the country and help me lead. he makes decisions like that which to me is exactly the kind of person we want. >> isn't that the same decision that george bush-- when he chose -- cheney because he thought he could help him run the country. >> and those are decisions that countered the narrative or contrary to conventional wisdom which is the person that will help most get you elected i think what mitt has shown is that he is a man of character, of integrity but also of great knowledge and wisdom who i think has the temperament, this is a

big deal in these things too. more than you know. >> it really is, i think there is a let to that. >> smart about presidential history, and has worked inside the white house, and all the great -- they reference the great comment that was made about franklin roosevelt that he had a second-class intellent and first class temperament and then pointed to, and say second-class intellect, but it is not an insult; is that true? it is true about eisenhower, and it was true about reagan, all people who get high votes for being very successful presidents, what does that say to you? >> in that kind of a job, you have a lot flying at you, and you have to be able to handle it all on an even keel, it is important to be passionate, it is important to have great feelings, but it is more important in an kind of job as commander in chief to have the kind of even temperament so you can juggle all the balls at once without losing your mind,

keeping your cool. not getting healed of yourself. and making sure that you have the right kind of attitude and i guess i would say temperament to make sure you make sound decisions. you don't want to make rash emotional decisions. >> is would this describe barack obama what you just said? >> no, i don't think he has the right temperament at all. >> he is not rash, i mean, he seems to be a calm and reasonable guy and people who work there say -- he thinks about it too long like the afghan policy or some things that he doesn't rush into things, and your criticism about syria is that he should have done more at an earlier time than thinking it out. >> that was. >> the bit of temperament not getting too ideological, knowing that there are other people who may know more and being able to listen and be able to learn from tell and not thinking you are the smartest guy in the room every room you walk into, i think a important-- >> does the president think he

is the smartest guy he when he walks in the room? >> look i get along with him personally. >> yes, i like him personally. >> he pointedout you in the conference here is a guy i can deal with? >> yeah, and then he hit me with a two-by-four after that. rhetorically speaking. >> you mean the white house did. >> look i am a big boy i am used to these things, but i think the part of temperament i am trying to describe, is you can't be so fixed in your ideological ways, my mom always told me you have two ears and one mouth and use them this that roportion that is a key part of temperament with which is, you know, principles the military, give them the job and a mission and let them do their jobs, don't micromanage them like say, lbj did, i tooer the president may be making the same exact -- >> picking the bomb targets. >> that is ridiculous. >> who is your favorite president? >> modern era, reagan. >> historically? >> i am a huge james madison fan. you know, the founders, madison is pretty amazing, i think. >> was that because of federalism or--

>> yes, because of federalism, federalist papers, the founder of our constitution and his demeanor and temperament, i think he has a phenomenal temperament as well, actually, the war of 1812, i mean look at the kinds of things that he confronted, and so i would have to say go back to madison and then where i come from, and i am a republican, lincoln. you have to put lincoln high, high on that pedestal and kept us together. >> and he demonstrated temperament as well. lincoln demonstrated an ideal that he was shooting for, but he knew that he had to set the horizon and make tactical decisions on the way of fulfillment of that horizon, he wasn't a sell lot in trying to get there but made important tactical moves but had the steel resolve he needed to get where he wanted to be so he was the perfect combination of idealism and temperament and prudence which is an underscored virtue these days but extremely important i if if you want to get things done, prudence is really actually virtuous and we tonight put enough premium on it these days. >> exactly. you will make a decision as to

whether you wanted to run for president in 2016, in 2015 in the spring of 2015. >> that's right. >> tell me the three most important questions you have to answer before you make that decision. >> family, there is somebody else i would like, and i can back, it doesn't have to be me, i am not that kind of person who has the ego who thinks i am the only one do the job. i am from wisconsin, i don't think like that. family-- >> bow and arrow. >> i do. you hunt with a bow and arrow. >> so family, country, duty. >> meaning is there somebody else that i really think would be a great president, could win and could be good and just the typical family considerations. >> isis, the crisis this country faces, the fact that we are engaged in air strikes in iraq and in syria, characterize the challenge for us and how far we may have to go. >> it is existential, it is long

lasting, it is going to be a generational struggle. we set the trajectory and trend of these things by how we act. i am pleased that the real president is changed his policy for the better, but -- >> he has the right policy now? >> now, but don't nickel and time your generals, don't say what you will never do and do whatever it takes to win, and don't take options on the table as to whatever it takes to win, that's what i fear. i fear that he is not fully committed to doing what is necessary. look, when you have thousands of foreign passports, i won't get into the classified stuff but there are americans there as well, this is a threat to us. they have money, country, arms, and they are being seen as winning so they have recruits coming in. so this is a threat that we have to take very seriously and you can't just disengage from the world. this is a part of the world that whether we like it or not we have to have a handle on and that's why i think you freed need to see this thing through and do whatever it takes to succeed and success is

destroying isis, but also success is having a coherent middle eastern foreign policy, having a coherent foreign policy, you know, making sure that we have -- we are embracing moderate muslims in moderate muslim countries and we are not devastating our military, i read this about the book quite a book which is how he has a budget driven strategy for the military, not a strategy driven budget and how he makes decisions with respect to the military, we are at war right now, and so the president hopefully but knock on wood hopefully won't bring a budget that seeks to devastate our military like the last two budget he has given us. >> rose: do everything that is necessary, includes ground troops you are for it? >> it is, if it is what is mess nessicary is for it. >> i don't think you will have to send a whole division but from my experiences going to afghanistan, going to iraq, visiting with our commanders, embedding special forces teams with local indigenous fighters is the best way to enable and project their power and to keep them well coordinated, you can't have a good air operation if you don't have the right kind of ground coordination, like we did

in say afghanistan, so look, i am not going to play armchair general here but let the generals be generals and don't nickel and dime them and monday morning quarterback them which i worry the president is doing. >> rose: thank you. >> paul ryan, the book is way forward, are renewing the american idea. back in a moment, stay with us. >> he, you spent most of your time the office trying to get the united states out of military entanglements and last year. >> entanglements and last year at the united nations we are out of iraq and unwinding our position in afghanistan. >> right. >> and this year, .. and in your state of the union message you said, i quote, america must move off of permanent war footing. >> right. >> but it feels once again like we are on one. >> well, i distinguished, steve, between counter-terrorism and the sort of occupying armies that characterize the iraq and

afghan war. that is very different from us having 150,000 troops in iraq. on the ground. or 60,000 in afghanistan. >> are you saying that this is not really a war this. >> well, what i am saying is that we are assisting iraq in a very real battle that is taking place on their soil with their troops, but we are providing air support and it is in our interests to do that because isil represents sort of a hybrid of not just a terrorist network but one with territorial ambitions and so the strategy and tactics of an army. this is not america against isil, this is america leading the international community to assist a country with whom we have a security partnership with to make sure that they are able to take care of their business. >> how did they end up where they are in control of so much territory?

was that a complete surprise to you? >> well, i think our head of the intelligence community, jim clapper has acknowledged that i think they underestimated what had been taking place in syria. >> but he didn't say that, just say that we underestimated isil. he said we over estimated the ability and the will of our allies, the iraqi army to fight. >> that's true. >> that is absolutely true. and -- >> and these are the people that we are now expecting to carry on the fight. >> well, here is what happened in iraq. >> when we left, we had left them a democracy that was intact and military that was well equipped. and the ability then to chart their own course. and that opportunity was squandered over the course of five years or so. because the prime minister, maliki was much more interested in consolidating his shy a shia base and very suspicious of the

sunnis and kurds who make up the other two-thirds of the country. so what you did not see was a government that had built a sense of national unity and if you don't have-- >> or an army? >> or an army that feels committed to the nation as opposed to a particular sect. now the good news is that the new prime minister a about a difficult who i met with this week, abadi, so far this week has sent all the right signals and that's why it goes back to what i said before, steve, we can't do this for them. we cannot do this for them because it is not just a military problem. it is a political problem. >> and if we make the mistake of simply sending u.s. troops back in, we can maintain peace for a while. but unless there is a change in how, not just iraq, but countries like syria and some of

the other countries in the region think about what political accommodation means, think about what tolerance means. >> do you think we we can teach them that? >> well i think there is going to be a generational challenge. i don't think this is something that is going to happen overnight. they have now created an environment this which young men are more concerned whether they are shia or sunni or whether they are getting a good education or whether they are able to have a good job. many of them are poor. many of them are illiterate, and are therefore more subject to these kinds of ideological appeals, and the beginning of a solution for the entire middle east is going to be a transformation in how these countries teach their youth what our military operation accounts

do, is just to check and roll back these networks as they appear and make sure that the time and space is provided for a new way of doing things to begin to take root, but it is going to take some time and in the meantime, what i can-- >> you are saying buy them time so they can get their act together? >> but in the meantime it is not just buy them time it is also making sure that americans are protected, that our allies are protected. >> rose: to for more about this program and early episodes visit us online at pbs.org and charlierose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> and by bloomberg. a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide.

this is "nightly business report" from tyler mathisen and susie gharib. >> flare-up of protests in hong kong grabbing wall street's attention. and increasing concerns about potential long-term economic repercussions. >> too big to fail? six years after aig's bailout, was it legal? its former ceo is in court trying to prove it was not. and economic improvement. a new survey says things are looking up. so why does one federal reserve official want to wait and wait to raise interest rates? we have all that and more tonight on "nightly business report" for monday, september 29th. good evening, everyone. today's closing numbers on wall street don't really tell the story at all. yes, it was a down day, but at the opening bell, i