Skip to main content

tv   Rep. Michael Mc Caul on Foreign Policy and Global Threats  CSPAN  May 17, 2019 12:02pm-1:11pm EDT

12:02 pm
graduate from the united states military academy -- >> i don't know if it was distinguished. >> so that was a long drought in our amendment football. i want to get your taken -- army football. what you think the army season will look like? >> we're going to with again. we when the commanders cup again and some very confident about that. >> so both air force and navy -- >> absolute. again for the next three years. as long as i'm secretary. >> it's always an honor and a pleasure. thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
12:03 pm
>> as this discussion comes to close we will continue with live coverage. we had to the heritage foundation in washington to hear from the top republican on house homeland security committee michael mccaul. you'll be talked about iran, russia, china, venezuela and national security issues. this is just getting underway. >> and he's a creative innovative thinker and there are so many issues going on in the world, especially the last week, having an open discussion will be great. i promise you i will try, i'll keep the discussion was short and try to get as much time with you guys asking questions. so either questions ready and will try to do that because we really meant this to be an open format which understand what his priorities are and also kind of how we think about what he's going to do today.
12:04 pm
why it's great to have him there is he's actually just back from a trip to romania. he's a retired f-16 fighter pilot. he's been headed for several years whatever key defense analysts and what's great about getting our defense guys into some of the foreign policy stuff as they bring with their kind of very strong military knowledge and they bring that in the world of foreign policy, and particularly with the state of the transatlantic community today and some of the issues i thought would be great for us to pick his brain while waiting. actually one of the questions i was going ask chairman mccaul, a perfect question for j. d. as a former f-16 pilot and is a guy who is probably done more in-depth research on f-35 any human being alive including riding one of the most fascinating papers where he's interviewed 30 f-35 pilot.
12:05 pm
>> is probably talked about f-35 pilots than the air force. as a former fighter pilot himself has better understanding of the paragraph and its capability than almost anybody alive. one of the key foreign policy issues today is we have two countries which one is a former ally, strategic partner, india and turkey both of which in the case of turkey as the s-400, india has talked come has been in talks about the s-400. the issues that raises for the united states, particularly in the case of turkey because turkey as a partner in production of f-35 and already owns f-35s. is this a real problem for a country like turkey to be having an f-35 and s-400, and let's start there. is that a real foreign policy crisis for the bilateral relation between the united
12:06 pm
states and turkey, and for how that all fits into the context of native? >> it's a great question and thank you for inviting me. thank you for putting up with me for a couple of minutes. i'll try to get my answers short so when the congressman comes in and we can go right into that. it is a significant issue. pairing the s-400 with f-35. you all are not really in depth involved with this like i am but we do these things that really simplistic with airplanes. we will stick them up on little sticks that have the ability to rotate and will put them about k half-mile away from a reader and will just ended it with radar beams of every type and variety. we call that characterizing the platform. what that allows us to do is to find out where the full abilities are for the f-35. when it's radar signatures what we call how far away you can see it, where that's a vulnerability lies with each of the individual radar systems. and so us giving the turks the
12:07 pm
f-35 with the s-400 system would allow either turkey or their good friends russia to characterize the f-35 and, therefore, notify nullify the s that we've got, very expensive and very capable platform. we have about a ten or 15 year competitive advantage over every other system in the world by buying the stealth fighter. we don't want to give that up. >> what about the argument, this is not a problem come turkey will just put the s-400 over there and just fly the f-35 over there. >> any public roadway to trust everyone at all times i guess that might work -- in a perfect world -- i would turn the united states say turkey, why did you allow us to have one of those s-400 systems and we will keep that over here and we will not ever. up with one of our threats and tested against our system. it's that same lack of trust that you have to have with a
12:08 pm
partner and competitor nations, and that's what keeps us all safe. >> so are you saying there's no technical fix for putting the s-400 and f-35 and f-35 in ther together and giving somebody access to both of them? >> in the world of scruples you would think contractors have the least amount of scruples. if you're selling a project you would sell it to everybody you possibly could, and in talking with the most senior officials within lockheed martin, they want no part of that pairing. that's how significant and has sensitive an issue is. lockheed martin doesn't want to sell the f-35 to turkey if they get the s-400 threat. >> let me ask the of the question is then, turkey is one of the partners in the f-35 production. they produce some of the parts. if you're not just going to say we're not going -- were not going to give you an f-35 but if
12:09 pm
you say we're just not going to give, allow you to in the program anymore, what does that mean for turkey and there and i shall base, and what does that mean for the program? >> a couple of options here. you can cut turkey out of this completely, which is an option. the federal government is now considering that, actually a limiting them and cutting off the part supply that turkey right now is supplying four different parts that nobody else in the world makes. and handful of others that several other competitor nations were actually a supplier nations do give us. so by cutting them off completely actually shoot ourselves in the foot in the near-term. long-term we will find another manufacture that can make these parts, but turkey right now is supplying these parts and they're doing a good job of that. that. this is one with the government can stop the delivery of the
12:10 pm
f-35 to that nation and then allow them to continue to deliver these parts while we develop maybe another option in another country, or we can cut it off cold turkey and then you might have a support issue for the system which is going to be ramping up in production and parts demint over the next several years. >> i don't want to the words in your mouth but basically what you're saying is this is a real problem. >> it's a real problem, and is going to take some real finesse to work this out the right way. the hard and fast answer is turkey buys the s-400, we moved in a different direction with regard to selling them that platform. we do not sell than that platform. >> i will sandbag him and asking that will solve this publicly available congress is going to play, but, i would like to comment because of not ask you do do diplomas but having said all the things you said, this isn't necessarily like the showdown at the okay corral,
12:11 pm
that there's no one specific point in time where, because there's a number of things both sides can do to stretch out change, modify, move this where they're not forced to come to make this kind of manichaean decision where a native allies in or out of our program, is that there? >> that's there. turkey has not accepted delivery of the s-400. s-400. they've made every verbal statement that said they will accept it this summer. and if they delay that we can continue delivering turkish f-16 to luke air force base where they can go into production of fibers after an actually topless out in the process. once it's resolved, sending turkey goes down the path of not buying the s-400, we could move this paragraph to turkey. >> u.s. government and turkey have reopen discussions about purchasing the patriot. >> i think that's a wise discussion. what threat is turkey facing that they need the s-400 system is very capable system, has a
12:12 pm
long range but the patriot has significant range. if the united states was going to attack turkey, maybe they might need the s-400 but we have no intent to that's not even in the discussion. what of the country would have the capability of doing that? may be russia and then you wouldn't want a russian system. >> for our other guests who walked in, yes, we know this is not michael mccaul. he's been delayed on some vote so j. d. cruiser air force expert at the heritage foundation or just talk about some of his recent expenses the cup that in some of the same areas. we're going to talk to the congressman and one more question about this and i want to move on to another topic, which is just so folks will woud understand just which were at stake here, what's the difference from the perspective of like turkey, what's the difference between the kind of capabilities they would get with an f-35 and the kind of capabilities that we get with an s-400? and what's the real trade-off? >> you get an offset capability
12:13 pm
with the f-35 and you get a system that can actually detect, sort and pass information in a large measure across a broad spectrum of other tactical assets and strategic assets that are out there. the f-35 is a system of systems, a communicator and it is a striker. and it's a facilitator along with its extrudate capability and combat. it's an offensive system more than anything else. the s-400 is a defensive system. the defensive system that has networked into all of the other s-400 that are out there and one of the things turkey will give up as indy would give up if they bought the s-400 is the ownership of the airspace, meaning russian would likely know every movement that was taking place in the country. it's a trade-off and i'm not sure why turkey is brokering this and less they're trying to look to get a better deal out of the united states in another
12:14 pm
way. >> so maybe, we'll take a question actually. hang on a second. so maybe is one way out of this, i do want to say face-saving because that's up to politicians but if the u.s. and turkey just got to put the whole thing apostasy let's have an integral bilateral discussion about the future of airspace control and defense and security in the region, and then move on from there and maybe that's the way to allow them to work through the reasonable real options in a way that allow both countries to ensure their security requirements are being met. >> i think that's the perfect line. i'm not just saying that because you're my boss. he's actually my bosses boss, but it's the right way of brokering this and there's no hard and fast line, there's no time like that has to be met in this. if we do for the acceptance of
12:15 pm
the s-400 we can go down the negotiation path. but if they accept the s-400 is going to be really hard to recover. >> so once the as for his operation then all issue of f-35 in the same space becomes problematic. >> yes, sir. >> is this the question related to this particular issue? great. do we have a microphone? >> will just repeat your question. >> the microphone type is not here yet, but go ahead. [inaudible] >> -- arguing essentially the f-35 -- [inaudible] quite a harsh critic. an interesting question in terms of his attacks on f-35 and then
12:16 pm
is really urging us to wrap up -- essentially move away from conventional warfare and be willing to take on the bad guys. [inaudible] >> a book compson future defense recommendations and one of his criticism is less conventional platforms, less conventional, more play for hyper work for and trading off f-35 capabilities for other things like more special forces. some may be the question to is the logic of that and also what is -- what does a bring to the table that makes it that the united states does want to trade-off? >> i love the question and i was here when sean was talking. sean basically has a left to right kind of thought process, prepare for big war or prepare for the wars the worst that wen fighting for a while. he thinks where to move in the direction, the f-35 is counter
12:17 pm
to the discussion because it's so expensive. in his argument, his numbers were so far off with the f-35 that there were network addressing. the cost per flight hour, -- they were not worth addressing. the heavy r&d days and is cost per flight hour inflated by almost 30% of what the f-35 is. the truth is for the f-35, i wish there was somebody who is running alongside of the f-35 come making lockheed martin compete and making these platforms better and less expensive. but by itself lockheed martin has been a good job of driving down the cost. they deliver an exceptional platform. the f-35, the pilots in the words think this is the most dominant multirole fighter that have come across the planet, and not an f13 cmo, f-16, f-15 pot would ever want to go back to the previous platforms. they know even if they thought themselves in the other
12:18 pm
crippling, they always picked the f-35 over that platform. going back to his argument is do we need to prepare advocate for the foldable threat, or do we need to prepare for the next level of war next that next global competitor in the conflict. the answer is pretty easy. we can flex and do the low intensity conflict thing that for a while and not hurt the united states strategically. we had done it exceptionally well, i will say, over the last 15 or 20 years, the intensity conflict with terrorist factions and the likes. we have done very well, and kind of taking away the maligned thought processes you hear across the board, we've done that well in spite of the fact we had an armed force 20 years ago that was prepared for a major regional conflict with the new peer competitor. we no longer that force. we no longer have the force that's capable of dealing with a
12:19 pm
new peer competitor. in talking with the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or any other service geez, you never could hear them admit that that. but right now what we have to do is take every combat unit fighter, bomber, danker and move them into a region like, if a goat fight end end of the kuwa, compact in 1991, we have roughly two-thirds of assets that we had back then, and this assets are now 20 years older. we have done nothing to dilute the aging process of the aircraft. if you're going to bed and you say i bet into the high threat scenario, and we get 20 20 more years of low threat scenario, we can overcome that in a heartbeat. but if you bet low intensity conflict and you don't rebuild the military where were able to wage, engage and when in a fight
12:20 pm
against near-peer competitor, that something we may not be able to recover from. >> so the bet is always to the right on this one. >> the other point is we have, we don't have just in time. if you stop buying something, the dust of acyl-coa, say good job. [applause] >> so i already an issue and you are great. >> thank you. >> actually if you don't cash i'm going to stop this question so handsome continuity to the conversation even though it's not one of the things we talked about. so that was jv venable. jv is our air force expert at heritage and abroad and to fill in some time and osama thinks i thought i thought would come up anyway.
12:21 pm
so not to throw a curveball at you but the issue we were talking about was we had the situation which coming before your committee where we have in one case the strategic partner,, india, talking about buying s-400. any other case where the turks who have purchased not taken possession of an s-400 and we have i think it very clear u.s. policy now that this is just incompatible, , that the s-400 d the f-35 will not be both controlled by an ally in the same theater. so i would be interested in kind of your take on this talk and also the role you think congress is going to play in dealing with it. >> i think the distinction is that turkey is a nato ally, and nato was formed initially as a defense against the soviet union. when eliot engel and i met with the foreign minister of turkey, we made the point, you're a nato
12:22 pm
ally and you are buying russian s-400s. and by the way, that violates the russian sanctions that congress passed. so it's your question about what is congress doing, elliott and i put together a resolution that would be i think on the floor next week condemning our nato ally turkey for purchasing the s-400 from the russians, violating the russian sanctions, violating really the nato principal. and we hope, i note in talking to the administration, putting a lot of pressure on them, that they will back off of this deal. we've offered and we offer in the resolution our patriot missiles, that they can buy our patriot missiles and not the s-400. and hope that is the path they go down. we hate to see turkey go down this path, and would be i think a dangerous move for them.
12:23 pm
>> first of all thank you for being here. what i really wanted this to be kind of open as possible and you willing to take some questions? >> sure. >> in the time that we have offered you a speedy i'm sorry i'm late. we had votes vote always get in the way. >> and really get the chance to kind of layout what your agenda is for the committee. so if my question to get to that please feel free to ignore them and make sure we get on the table. i have a couple of things i do know we want to talk about. what is an issue that's always been very close to you, which is, and i think some of the administration has done very well which is a bilateral u.s.-israel relationship which is really the cornerstone of our middle east security structure and, and one of the things that eats at that like an acid is this bds campaign. i know that something you personally have take a lot of interest in, so what's the role
12:24 pm
for congress in dealing with that? >> one of the first bills i introduced with my new hat on as a leader on foreign affairs was the israeli assistance package, third to gain assistance package the anti-assad sanctions, and in the bds, the boycott divestment sanctions bill. the senate in very short order introduce a companion and then passed it in february. i thought eliot engel is very pro-israel and is very anti-iran. i thought this thing would've been marked up in short order just like the senate. we had 77 senators senators vote for this bill, bipartisan, and unfortunately that did not happen. we could not get to the market so now we we're using the procedural mechanism which is called a discharge petition. if we get 218 signatures we can put this bill on the floor for a
12:25 pm
vote. that's where it stands right now. i think certainly, i mean, israel is in a rough neighborhood and we have to defend and assist israel. they are also from a technology cybersecurity standpoint, they are very advanced. there are a great ally force in the region. it's a $30 billion package over ten years. we have jordan ally and then deal with assad and his regime, what he's doing. we're hopeful that get the signatures, this will go for. bds is, my home state authority passed -- basically just as any state that once cannot play along with bds, can do that. and so kind of states' rights and no federal preemption. >> i want to do a a lighting breath and try to get at the top issues and that if you're okay we'll open it up to the floor. before i do that you were an
12:26 pm
outstanding leader in the house homeland security committee. one of the things that took up more than a little bit of time was issue of border security and immigration enforcement, which also impacts on what you do at legal immigration reform, where that's at justice. you've been i think up in close and personal with this issue almost whether anybody in congress the last couple of years and am interested in your reaction to the president's speech yesterday and we think this whole debate is going. >> i was there yesterday. i met with jared kushner. he puts his plan together with leader mccarthy yesterday, and it's a tough issue. any time try to tackle this, you get battle scars. as you know chairman goodlatte and i had a bill that had border security, merit-based immigration, legalized daca and,
12:27 pm
unfortunately, it failed by 20 votes. i could do sort of a postmortem on that that would take 30 minutes. there were some i think things that were not done right, , buti think messaging wise, it could've been done better. it's unfortunate. because we had the opportunity to get this thing can. i think in this congress with pelosi and haven't lost majority i don't see a lot of prospect for that. i think the bill the president is outlining now is very sort of positive, intelligent, respective. that is they take my border security bill, which secures the border and then they reform the visa process where it's not a random lottery. it's not random process but it's more merit and skilled based. a little bit of code i think they can broke a little bit on -- i've always been a proponent
12:28 pm
of high skill bill with a kind of broken i think in a a posite direction is to allow people who are educated in the united states, particularly engineers that we need an situs, to be able to stay in the united states and i have to go back to their country of origin but rather stay here. i think it's a very smart immigration plan and smart border. technology is a big piece of it that i've been pushing. the president has kind of backed off 30,000-mile wall. with the river and canyons and all that. i think we're getting there, but do have the votes in the house? under the current political climate i think it would be very difficult. >> the president talked about that in the speech, i'd love to do this but if -- i but to come back in 2020 into this. it will be interesting as a reaction from washington
12:29 pm
yesterday, but they're not the american people. it will be interesting to see at the american people react to taking what you did and adding some stuff to it and if people, if there's a real constituency there or this reform agenda. so you are one of the building blocks for that. we will see how speedy i really applaud jared kushner for taking this on. he brought a very intelligent, i think language is better in it. to your point maybe more of a messaging document going into 2020 2020 and let the people decide what they want. >> lightning round. let's start with iran because we are going to have war and if not, what you want to tell us about iran? >> i hope we don't have a war. iran is kind of like iraq and afghanistan put together. it's going to be very difficult. however, they are desperate. i think the president made the right move pulling out of the jcpoa, the iran deal.
12:30 pm
the sanctions are having an impact. they getting more desperate now, and now they're asking the europeans, look, abide by the deal i will start rebuilding the arak facility in 60 days. at the same time we have specific, and credible threat against our military in iraq using proxies. the head of the quds force met with the iranian shia militia, militias and hezbollah, and said prepare for war. and so in response to that intelligence we have put several of our ships into the persian gulf along with everything that comes with it, all the assets, to adequately respond. i think we can hit their nuclear facilities without putting troops on the ground. i would not recommend an occupation of iran.
12:31 pm
>> do you feel we we're okay rt now? >> it's kind of like when you get caught with your hit in the cookie jar and you take it. iran, they know that we know. once they know that we know i think they will kind of back off a little bit. i don't think it's in their best interest to do that. they know, you know, you have 100,000 diplomacy going into the persian gulf, that would be our naval ships, that's a strong statement. >> two more real quick and then with it would open to the floor so be ready. if you have a question raised your hand and wait to be recognized. also wait for the microphone so you can get, everybody can hear your question. venezuela, where are we? where are we going and is there a road for congress? >> i took a trip down with eliot engel, 50,000 people cross from venezuela into columbia every day. three to 5000 state in columbia.
12:32 pm
it's unsustainable. it's the biggest humanitarian crisis in western hemisphere. it's all caused by one man and that's maduro. the socialist dictator. if anything can speak to the downfalls of socialism, to those who tout the greatest of socialism, take a look at venezuela. look at the destruction. they have destroyed what was one of the richest, most prosperous nations in the western hemisphere by bringing socialism. chavez and maduro into venezuela. where are we now? guaidó is the legitimate president. maduro, there was all we thought a coup that was going to take place where the head of the supreme court, the head of intelligence, they met the opposition leader go. maduro was actually on a tarmac getting ready to fly to havana when the russians intervened and persuaded him to stay in
12:33 pm
venezuela. there is a lot of talk on the left about united states intervention. the only intervention, for intervention i see are the cubans, , the 20,000 security officials in venezuela propping up the military and maduro, and the russians. the russians have put military assets in, the likes of which we have not seen since the cuban missile crisis. so this is a big deal, jay. and we have to resolve this, and democracy, there's a lot at stake. if democracy and the people of venezuela prevail, it will get back to cuba, bolivia, the rest of latin america is going i think in the right direction in a pro u.s., you know, alliance. >> last question lightning round. china, two big issues aware of it going with the trade negotiations and the whole debate over huawei an executive order and what we should do
12:34 pm
about the chinese investment in 5g infrastructure, or just more broadly in chinese infrastructure in the united states. where's the committee on that? what are you guys going to be. >> was we're heavily engaged, passed several bills to deal with this issue. china announced their one belt, one road initiative. it's this global domination by military and economic power. by 2030, by the year -- they are not, you know, it's been a bit deceptive but i think people are waking up to the fact that they are everywhere. when i come to latin america,, africa, they are there. what they do is called predatory lending or deathtraps where they come in under the auspices of we going to invest, we would build roads, unit, we will build ports. but the problem is it's a debt trap and end up taking over these facilities without one shot fired. a good example, sri lanka.
12:35 pm
they built the ports in djibouti. they own both ends of the panama canal. teddy roosevelt, we built that canal. now the chinese own it. that is incredible to me. i was in el salvador. they're going to put two ports in el salvador. for julie the incoming president as decided that's not a good move. africa, they are are all over africa. how do we persuaded these countries to reject the chinese? we have to explain it's not in the best interest. it's going to be long-term pain for you. we also have to compete and we're not competing as well. i passed, we passed an act to put opec on steroids. we passed my bill to make sure we are advocating for american interests abroad. the technology piece is what keeps me up at night the most, and that is artificial intelligence, quantum computing, cybersecurity, and 5g.
12:36 pm
5g allows the chinese -- you look at a global map, j. it's about 50%% of the world right now where china is literally moving in with her 5g. they are like tentacles moving in. once 5g is put in, they control. they control the data. they control everything. and we have to compete with them on 5g we have at&t and verizon and some of the companies, but we have to be come we can't just say the chinese are evil. they steal intellectual property. they have tech transfers, blueprints into our pentagon. they steal our cyber weapons, but the fact is we have to compete with them to win, and that has to be an investment that the united states is prepared to make with the private sector. >> so where's my first question guy? where did he go? their use in the back. i promised him first.
12:37 pm
while we getting the microphone there, so we have hit on china. we have had on latin america. we have hit on bds. so are there other things on the committee and on your agenda this year that you really want folks to know is coming down? >> yeah, when i was chairman of homeland it was an interesting time. it was frightening. i saw the rise of isis and the caliphate in iraq in syria. i warned the administration at the time of the threat and external operations were frightening, were real. we stopped about 95%. mi threat briefings i work with the fbi, intelligence community no blame. only about 5% happen in those other ones you know about. with the collapse of the caliphate the threat briefings have gone way down if that's not to say the threat is still not there. they are embedded. if you talk to military, it's
12:38 pm
moving into the sahel region which is middlebelt of africa, destabilize nations. lindsey graham and i introduced the global for julie active in usaid, state and defense together to try to stabilize this region. it's more preventative -- preventative than just reacting. if we can't went on the preventative diplomacy side, that's when you put your military in. the dod is interested in this program, and as mi. i think it's the right approach. >> so we would go to the back. wait for the microphone can state your name, affiliation and ask your question. go ahead. >> voice of american persian service. my question is about iran. president trump has said as recent as today that he doesn't seek war with iran. is this a clarification of the u.s. position or is it a change in u.s. policy towards iran altogether? and if i may ask a follow-up to
12:39 pm
what you said in the last part of your remarks on iran. you mentioned nuclear facilities could be bombed or targeted without sending euros ground troops. can you elaborate on that? >> i don't think, look, we want to put maximum pressure on a van so that the iranian people can rise above this theocracy of depression. i think 80%% of the ring people do not agree with the ayatollah. they do not agree with his theocracy that is oppressing them. we want to give them every ability, just like venezuela,, the people in venezuela, the people of iran. but we're not going to sit back idly if iran gets our military. if iran strikes our military we will respond. if iran starts to build a nuclear facility, we will respond to that. and i think that's kind of
12:40 pm
policy. when a going to allow iran to become a nuclear power. and i think it out of the jcpoa has had a very good crippling effect on the economy, has put pressure on them. and again what i see what they're doing right now is weakness and desperation. and i think those are all positive signs in the right direction. >> congressman, i'm with the -- foundation. one country i will always try to remind to the congress and the officials, the name is pakistan. pakistan, look in the past, the journalist, they killed the journalists over there, daniel pearl and they found the american, bin laden. jihadists are still free moving
12:41 pm
over there and pakistan -- [inaudible] very badly. china is -- [inaudible] and more israeli and american burn pakistan i don't know what leadership like you, i want one congressman and i pakistan in the congress like -- [inaudible] i hope you will do that job. >> thank you. dana is a good friend of mine. dana always talk about doctor afridi. doctor afridi help us get bin laden and now he's in a pakistani prison. i don't think we put enough pressure to get him out. i was in abbottabad about a month after we killed bin laden and there's a feeling of embarrassment and anger in pakistan at that time. we met the president of the company said you were cia never me he was in my country. maybe so but the isi i certainly
12:42 pm
think you. he was in abbottabad which is like the west point academy. i think they harbored him. isi is completes -- is complicit. they're not helping in afghanistan at all. they are a threat to india as you know in the kashmir. and we have the aide, and the tricky part about our eight is predominantly it's there to secure the nuclear arsenal that a. q. khan built. a. q. khan exported that to iran and north korea. thank you, you know. he's kind of the muslim father of the atomic bomb. >> i just wonder sake of a i think about that whole reference, the reference to abbottabad and west point. my first year at west point i did feel terrorized so maybe that's not a bad analogy. [laughing] >> estimate who's remodeling the house i hope the tears and with china but i wanted to stick with -- tariffs. on to stick with south asia given the terrorist attacks in
12:43 pm
sri lanka, the recent declaration of independence isis claiming a province in india which is going to an election right now as you know and the increase of islamic terrorist activities in india and seems to be spread into south asia. s at the next front in the global war on terror and what can we do to support our u.s. allies like india and others in the region to confront literally on the front lines of that war? >> yeah, and i think, boy, with the collapse of the caliphate and iraq in syria, as i said, they cannot conduct external operations from space they cannot govern. i have an isis license with an office, islamic state in syria and arabic and it's a license plate. it shows you the extent speedy were you driving there? >> the owner is no longer with us. fortunately. but to your point, they are going underground, but where
12:44 pm
they're popping their ugly heads up are in asia as you and particularly the sahel as i talked about earlier. this is what we talked to defense department. they will tell you this will be the next hotspot. if we don't start dealing with it now, then we'll have to do with these external operations that kill americans in the united states. so from the homeland perspective, and this is where lindsay and i on the same page. we can do a lot of good things right now to try to stabilize these countries. i think with india, they had the mumbai attacks so it's nothing new to them. certainly in the philippines there's al-qaeda isis threat, malaysia and indonesia as well. i don't think, i voice it's the critical away and our lifetime. this radical islamist behavior. but i will tell you i feel safer just because the caliphate has been destroyed.
12:45 pm
>> not to put words in your mouth but you make a a distincn between where they can organize a one off attack and sri lanka or india and places where you think they put in the infrastructure to put in sustained campaigns of operations and that's why your focus is more on kind of the sahel, et cetera? >> i think any kind of power vacuum which we saw a 9/11 and we saw in iraq in syria, they can put down a government space and can control it and that's where they can conduct external operations. a cute aip was one always kept her eye on that we really were worried about aviation attacks -- aqap -- laptop bombs and i cannot think of had a lot of scientists that worked at mosul university. but they proven to be not very effective and that's a good thing. >> so we will take two questions here in the middle. >> i'm a a reporter from the ro free asia korea service. i have two questions about north
12:46 pm
korea. south korean government announced today that they will provide over $8 billion in he he meant to aid to north korea by international -- [inaudible] so do you support this measure may by south korean government? second question is about north koreans provocation. national north korea warned u.s. should change position by the end of this year, otherwise they will get some consequences. and then north korea launches short missile range missile last week. so how do you see north korean reaction and how to see the perspective that allow current negotiation between united states and north korea nuclear negotiation? >> that's a good question. look, i'm all for humanitarian aid but i think it flies in the face of actual pressure campaign. the south korean president moon
12:47 pm
has come there's a split within south korea over the right way of proceed with north korea. i think the maximum pressure, get kim jong-un to the table. i think we have to indicate with them. we have to have conversations with him. because the stakes are just too high. over the last three decades and presidencies we've made concessions with north korea now to the point where they have an intercontinental ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead capable of hitting the continental united states. we have to engage with then pick the question is how to get into standdown? what's interesting to me is, is it all for nothing? is it going to be something where denuclearization completely, , or to do this incrementally? i think the south koreans will probably tell you doing it overnight is not realistic. that check to take an incremental approach to this and negotiate it piece by piece to the point where they completely de-escalate.
12:48 pm
i don't know. i mean, this specific question and it's a crystal ball that i don't have an answer to. i do see some merit in the incremental approach the because i don't think, you need a face-saving measure within the dictator here -- with any dictator. dictators are never easy to negotiate with but you need a face-saving measure bring to get out of this. i think he robbi wants get out of this if we promised a brighter future, and economic brighter future for him and his people. but remember the biggest thing they have is they are a player. there in the nuclear small club, of nuclear powers now. and to get them to concede and give it up is very, very difficult. we didn't work with pakistan and it didn't come and with iran we are kind affiliate on that one, too. it's very difficult to get him to give it up. >> let me interject real quick,
12:49 pm
a quick three-part question. because part of the rollout we don't want -- western balkans,, laxity which is increasingly an issue we want to talk about, about black sea, and ukraine. i was over in ukraine. we had a comedian entertainer as president now. that's the latest i heard, right, jay? >> he's a politician now. >> a lot of entertainers are wanting presidency. we are looking at them closely to see, i think he had some type two russian oligarchy we want to make sure that he's not tied to any cup that he has no russian influence. what happened in crimea, the balkans, what happened, what's happening in ukraine is absolutely devastating. the cyber attacks that they
12:50 pm
perpetrate everyday, heating ukrainians is massive. it's like a planning grant for the russians. they touch -- test the weapons to see how effective they are. i don't want to digress but there was a bank in ukraine hit by a non-petro virus that that brush at the bank. the bank had an account at the bank the industry 20 years of data at the shipping at checkout for los angeles port. just to give you some magnitude of what cyber operations can do. so we are very worried about that. we were worried about the naked aggression of putin who wants to regain the glory of the old soviet empire. i think he wants to be sort of stalinist turkey thinks that gorbachev and yeltsin are traitors to his country. we have to keep a careful check, and the black sea is part of the. building this bridge that will literally block off the ukraine report into the black sea.
12:51 pm
why are they in syria? they want the ports into the mediterranean. they dominate now with russian submarines and mediterranean, and so the turks will say we have to deal with the russians because you were not there. obama decided -- we were not there so the russians are there now. and that's serious probably the most complicated foreign policy of our lifetime. >> but you would see like ukraine, western balkans, laxity that use has to be engaged and key to the stability of -- >> i would argue to arm ukraine with lethal weapons. >> please. >> because there's a kinetic war on the eastern front of ukraine against the russians. >> and then we will go there and then we'll go to the back. >> the friends committee on national legislation, the quaker lobby in the public interest and we really appreciate your leadership, chairman mccaul,
12:52 pm
in the global fragility act. i think it's a great step toward strengthening u.s. capacity on preventing conflict in fragile states. just wondering what other steps you think congress and the administration could take on the conflict prevention front? >> thank you i do know the one campaign has been very supportive of this initiative, and lindsey and not are pushing -- this is going to pass. lindsey and i were just over in africa to assess the situation and it is, this will be the largest populated continent in the world. you look at climate change. there will be droughts in central africa as well. that will exacerbate the problem we think as well. so we need to address this right now. because time and time again when we don't, then we have to put our military in with, as mattis said, i'd rather fully fund the state department and have to buy
12:53 pm
more bullets. you have to kill people. you are spot on and it's a prevention piece. we have done a good job defending the united states from terror attacks. within a very good job offensively killing the terrorists. the piece we have done very well in my judgment is what you're talking about, and that's the prevention. that's what the global fragility act is designed to do. >> over here and then go to the question back -- >> thank you for coming. reagan foundation. regarding north korea once again, along with the previous questions, where do we stand on the missile defense? i do know japan has tried to cooperate with us. >> yeah, i, the thaads we're putting in south korea. japan is very concerned.
12:54 pm
they are in the bull's-eye and so i think we need to arm japan with the same sort of defense missile system that we have with the south koreans. >> at one point going back to question that, i found the childhood cancer called for. >> we passed a lot of good deals. we have not gotten to the point where we are 80% of children with cancer survive. you go to africa. 90% of children in africa die. 90% mortality rate. pepfar, you know the hiv program, we passed and our clinics all over africa no. texas children's has a global hope initiative to bring cancer medications to africa to help save them just like pepfar saved a generation. and i'm working with the committee and i've been working with ambassador of pepfar and worked with bristol-myers squibb
12:55 pm
and a whole host of st. jude's and all these stakeholders to lay out the predicate of pepfar to bring in these medicines to save these african children that can be easily cured. they just don't have access. >> we will go to the back and then being the nonpartisan guy i am, if there's a question on the far left. i'd be happy to take that if there's a hand over there. [inaudible] >> recently i had a stop at navy creaking and suddenly up on the screen comes an event, kind of a surprise that waikiki beach is now being threatened by the rising sea. it's sort of a southern part of our nation in some ways, it's close to the equator in 2008 ii came up with the centrifugal force theory on the rise of the equatorial sea to the melting i.c.e. at the other and will
12:56 pm
flow to the equator through centrifugal force. i wonder come have you thought of addressing this issue in congress? plenty has been sent forward, my plan, i think the cat of sciences. they looked at the sabres too much engineering in trying to flood an area like an entire depression which is below sea level, could create a huge lake like lake ontario. there's other ideas. i wonder what exactly is the latest on this, this miami beach of course which is a huge city and our nation which is also threatened by flooding. so far only like 20 dizzy or are critical to the king died within the lines up with the sun and treats a higher tide. >> i think, i manage this climate change, the paris agreement i think had a lot of lost to it where we had to comply but the chinese had until
12:57 pm
2025 and they are burning of coal plant in the week and there emissions are, serious problem. not that we shouldn't negotiate. just to back up, i had a nasa scientist in my office who sort of want me to come he said i'm not a policy maker, i'm just a scientist but let me show you the data shows and what will happen. in the next 20 or 40 years. it was very persuasive that it is changing. i think there's a tendency for some of my set avail to put their head in sand and pretend like it isn't happening, but it is. so i think the question is how to deal with this in a sensible way that makes sense, and i think i really, i've got a lot of -- i live in austin. great tech companies. i really think technology and innovation is going to be the key to this, in terms of lowering carbon emissions from the atmosphere.
12:58 pm
you go to alaska. you see the glaciers. the arctic circle, the chinese are now looking at how can they do shipping across the arctic? test its breaking up. to me that speaks volumes. so we have to do something. it's happening in the questions how much is man-made and how much is a natural cycle? but we do know that some of it is man-made. in terms of reducing emissions, you know, like the manhattan project for clean energy. why can't we have nuclear power? unfortunately, three-mile island and chernobyl were disasters and set back our nuclear program decades. however, i think it to be done safely today with zero emissions. so we need to really be looking at all the stuff. i don't think this is no longer like a democrat-republican thing. i know the democrats were all in
12:59 pm
favor and the republicans are like neanderthal head into sin. i'm not even a republican. [laughing] >> but i really think, i think people are kind of getting this now. >> this will be our last question. >> my name is anthony. i'm intern for kevin mccarthy. i probably shouldn't have said that. >> it's all right. >> he's a great guy. >> you have an italian name. >> so you mentioned chinese deathtraps strategy, especially in latin america and africa but i think that the chinese come all of their multilateral agreements are long-term and not deathtraps like take over the port in israel which is where the six fleet is right now. how do you reconcile cybersecurity, , especially we e stationing our military in the chinese port? as well as in terms of like
1:00 pm
commissioners peace project with the west bank and that region azole? especially the chains have greater interest in the israeli economy, does that mean have greater interest in humanitarian and philosophic interest? >> i met with israeli ambassador yesterday and asked this question, what's going on with china? he assured me they don't own it. they help build it but the problem is when they build the stuff that end up taking it over, and we are seeing time and time again. ..
1:01 pm
>> they are great ally in technology. we have to respond on the 5g, i mean, i think, you know, i'm talking to your boss, we need to come up with a package that can compete with the chinese on artificial intelligence, on computing and cybersecurity and finally 5g. if you look at the global map, they are putting 5g in 50% of the globe right now. they will dominate and control 50% of the data that comes out and they put it in big data. so this is going to be a public-private partnership and what we have to invest at the federal level to compete and i think people are waking up to the china threat. i knew about it but everybody realizes what is happening and they are waking up to the fact and i think it's a call for action that we need to take and
1:02 pm
look forward to working with your boss. [laughter] >> one of the things we do u.s., india tri lateral. i don't think anybody understanding the chinese pressure better than indians and israelis can get a appreciation in managing, you are right, people are waking up to exactly the kind of issues that you talked about. i will give you the last word, what are we -- what's on your agenda that we have missed but we have covered so much ground on what the committee is working on and this is so constructive and helpful. we are appreciative of that. you look at ken burns document
1:03 pm
in vietnam, when you get your foreign policy wrong and you put the military in, the communist threat was real. got independents from the french and the americans came in. you to get your foreign policy right. this is what we are talking about africa, you to get the foreign policy right. when diplomats fail that's when we go to war. part of it is projecting strength. churchill, invites aggression and stood up to hillary, i think kennedy was strong against communism and reagan peace through strength. those are actions that i've kind of lived by in my political career and the previous administration, i saw this theme where our allies no longer trusted us and our enemies no longer feared us and condoleezza
1:04 pm
rice gave me a good lecture, you want them to like you but they will not all like you and if they don't like you, you want them to fear you. you want to work with them but you have to yet to negotiate out a strength. i think the president has negotiated out strength and i think we are changing our doctrine now where allies like israel now do trust us, we don't have the iran deal. israelis felt very slided by the iran deal, terrified them so our allies i think now do trust us and our enemies, i think, like china, russia, iran, north korea and maduro do fear us and i think that extends a strong foreign policy where we can get things done to -- to keep the world at peace which is what we
1:05 pm
all want, you know, in this planet, so i don't know, it's going to be interesting new journey for me. i've gone from terrorism, still involved in it now, the entire world and foreign policy and it's -- it's very interesting. >> we wish you luck and please join me in thanking the congressman. [applause] >> thank you very much. [inaudible conversations]
1:06 pm
[inaudible conversations]
1:07 pm
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> tomorrow joe biden holds his presidential campaign kickoff rally in philadelphia. that is scheduled for 1:00 p.m. eastern and we will bring it to you live on companion network c-span. coming up monday, president trump will be in pennsylvania for make america great again rally. that's scheduled for 7:00 p.m. eastern. also live on c-span. >> book tv sunday is featuring 3 new nonfiction books starting at
1:08 pm
6:20 p.m. eastern. in his book clarence thomas and the lost constitution, city journal editor at large myron magnet, tenure of supreme court justice. >> in thomas' view, there's no higher nobler more just or more up to date purpose for any government if the framers had failed to realized that ideal because of slavery, the civil war amendments proved that their design was in thomas' work perfectible. >> on afterwords, book unbecoming, memoir of base -- >> most experienced harassment.
1:09 pm
the affirmation that we had experienced something that was -- the best needed and acknowledged and then change desire to -- to take issues to capitol hill and demand reform. >> at 10:00 p.m. eastern on her book where the light centers, former second lady of the united states joe biden discusses her career. >> i was so nervous in front of getting up in front of a crowd and so then we were elected vice president, i thought you know what, i have been given such a platform and i can talk about all my passions, all the things that i love, education, community colleges, military families and i thought, i cannot waste this platform and i better get better at this. >> 3 new nonfiction books, sunday starting at 6:20 p.m. eastern on book tv on c-span2.
1:10 pm
>> once tv was simply 3 giant networks and government-supported service called pbs and then in 1979 a small network with unusual name rolled out a big idea, let viewers decide all on their own what was important to them, c-span opened doors to washington policy-making for all to see, bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. in the age of power to the people this was true people power. in the 40 years since the landscape clearly changed. there's no monolithic media, broadcasting has given the narrow, c-span's big idea is more relevant today than ever. no government money supports c-span, it's nonpartisan coverage of washington is funded at the public service by your cable or satellite provider on television and online, c-span is your unfiltered view of government so you can make up

1 View

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on