tv Defense Forum Foundation Discussion on Trump Administrations Foreign Policy CSPAN March 31, 2019 4:54am-5:45am EDT
>> next week, house will consider reauthorization of violence against women act, which expired in february. it aims to provide resources for victims and includes a provision on domestic violence and firearms. it is possible they will take up the resolution to end the military involvement in yemen. work continues on a bill that would provide $13 billion in aid for areas affected by natural disasters. a resolution would shorten the time senate considers nominations. on u.s. remarks relations with russia, north korea, this is 45 minutes.
>> good afternoon. it is my great honor to welcome you to our forum. i appreciate you coming out this afternoon. we are going to jump right into our program. i hope you will become regular attendees. it we established the form in the 1980's to give congressional staff the opportunity to hear from expert speakers on critical topics in a bipartisan atmosphere. we have an expert speaker to address a critical topic. what to expect from the current administrations foreign policy. we are here to answer that question. he spent his entire life in
national security positions as well as serving in the trump administration. he served for 25 years with the cia, the department of state, and on the house intelligence committee staff. assistant toty president trump. he has appeared in many international tv and radio programs. he is the author of several books, addressing different foreign policy topics. to welcome honored him to answer that question, what is the trump doctrine?
when we talk about the trump doctrine, we are talking about foreign policy. mr. trump has had a good run in foreign policy so far, reestablishing united states as a credible and powerful nation states,ing up to rogue fighting for trade deals that look out for the american people. this is driven by a new approach. he is an insurgent, someone who is throwing out the diplomatic book, trying different things. the results have been extremely positive. it's a big change. it's worth explaining what this
policy is. it stems from the things he talked about during the campaign, america first. nationalism approach to national security. is definedroach that as principled realism. i'm not talking about the altra nationalism of extremist groups. this tries to look at for the interests of the american people, the american economy, u.s. security when the government enters into an international agreement or we make a foreign policy decision. it's a backlash to efforts by the establishment. the president hates the establishment. people, there approaches have not been working out. the president is trying to take a different approach to reject
what they have advocated, like international agreements, nationbuilding with troop deployments, trade deals that leave the american worker out. he summarized this during the campaign when he said his foreign policy will put the interests of the american people above all else. this is not isolationism. this is factoring in the people. he is prepared to use military force when necessary. he factors in the interests of our foundation. that is important to recognize. 's critics misrepresent the strategy. it has been developed into a comprehensive u.s. policy. bes would do now --
announced in 2017. this is two years of work, hundreds of people and agencies together. this document transforms america first across the u.s. government. at the beginning of this strategy, there was another statement that represents how this policy has been developed. he said our government's first duty is to its people. to ensure their safety, to pervert their rights and defend their values. that's a statement he made during the campaign. he has used so many experts to come up with a way to employ this strategy across the board. the strategy has four pillars. promotehomeland,
american prosperity, preserve .eace through strength, advance principled realism, this is what the strategy says about why. eyed because it is clear that global competition and acknowledges the central role of power in world affairs, sovereign states are the best hope for a peaceful world. it is danceable because it is grounded in the knowledge of promoting american values. there is so much in this that i will get into. this is a criticism of globalism, international leads to give american sovereignty to the united nations.
it is a stepping back from theories and approaches of not been serving the interest of the american people. my friend who is the director of the heritage foundation gave this summary of the strategy. it takes a clear-cut view of the immense challenges facing the united states from an array of actors to transitional islamic terrorist networks. ideal ofout the extending the hand of friendship to rogue regimes such as iran. the document reveals a president pursuing and leading forward and critical parts of the world where america's vital interests are under strength. peace through strength, this was under reagan. this is the policy that we have been promoting since the reagan administration.
they are delighted that president trump has moved towards this approach and national security that helped defeat the soviet union and enemies facing today. the economy is a big part. the president wants free and fair trade deals. obviously, i am talking about china. i want to get into that. it goes without saying that the president takes a dim view of the foreign-policy establishment. the elitests in the u.s., they are promoted military operations for nationbuilding, hostile to the u.s. in israel, and promote leftist ideologies, socialism, and high taxes.
this is why the united states has pulled out of the u.n. human rights council and unesco. because of the hostility of these organizations towards the state of israel. this hostility is unacceptable to the united states. it is interesting, this is the second time we withdrew from unesco. the obama administration rejoined, and i think it was a principle thing to do. this is in stark contrast to president obama who might be the ultimate to foreign-policy establishment president, leading from behind in the middle east. strategic patients on north korea, and red lines and ultimatums that were repeatedly set for parties and a -- in the middle east and russia that were made and ignored.
are emboldening states to encourage more destabilizing behavior. the approach by president trump leaves our enemies worried. if we have a credible and decisive u.s. president, the world is secure. that is something that president trump is trying to prove. the president does not like indefinite troop deployments, and we know this and we look at syria. as he tries to balance the interests of the united states and our allies, and the troops -- that the u.s. should not share all of the burden. the president speaks for the vast majority of the american people when he says that in his desire, other nations have to
carry the weight in his policy towards nato. nato states are supposed to spend 2% of their gdp on their military and only five of them are doing so. when we ignore the commitment, we are undermining our credibility. we want them to live up to their commitment and they want us to live up to ours. president is making progress in getting the nato states, and i think they have until 2025 to meet the commitment. there's been some progress on it. this president has carried out a number of fairly significant foreign-policy initiatives. i think they have been very successful and there have been moved of great principle. the two that come to mind was the president's decision to move the u.s. embassy to jerusalem and to recognize israeli sovereignty of the golan heights.
numerous presidential candidate said they would move the u.s. embassy, but they never did, because the state department and the foreign-policy establishment opposed this. it would be too disruptive and make it harder to get a peace treaty with the palestinians. problem is, time is up for the palestinians to make a peace treaty if they are going to say, well, we are not going to deal with you move the u.s. embassy to jerusalem. it should have been done a long time ago. the same for the golan heights where -- which israel annexed in 1981. this is a part of israel. if the golan heights had been given back to syria, think of the threat israel would face today. this high ground would be used by iran and to rain down rockets and missiles on the state of israel. is there really a syria today -- of the syria today is a shadow of what it was a few years ago.
this is something that is in israel's interest and this is not going to interfere with the peace plan. it was a matter of principle for the president to do this and i congratulate him. i work closely with ambassador bolton on the nuclear deal with iran. i believe the nuclear deal is a fraud that iran has been cheating on since the day it was announced. there is significant information lately that the israelis have produced an archive of iranian documents that they have been cheating on the agreement and engage in nuclear weapons related activities since it was announced. this agreement also allows iran to advance its nuclear program letting it enrich uranium while the deal is in place, to develop advanced center of -- center fusions. one would be built for it, and although this reactor would produce less plutonium, it would produce a quarter of plutonium a year. iran should not have any plutonium.
we know that revelations during the bush administration, it has pursued every possible avenue in secret to develop nuclear fuel. we know that iran is allowed to develop nuclear fuel, but when they do it in secret, that is not a good place. the u.s. position should be that iran should i have nuclear technology. we should cut it off with strong sections. about a year ago, the president withdrew from the joint comprehensive plan of action of action. that was the nuclear deal that was announced in 2015. this was a deal that was negotiated so it would not be a treaty. that way the senate did not get a chance to vote on it. there was a bow in the senate, but opponents had to get two thirds. -- there was a vote in the senate, but opponents had to get
two thirds. the house and senate can reject the treaty if there were two thirds in opposition. it is not the way our government is supposed operate. but this was negotiated deliberately to get around representatives and american people, a majority of congress voted against the deal, a large majority of the american people were against the deal, and going out of it was the right decision. but it was hard because not only were there people in the left that wanted to stay in this deal, but there were mistaken people in the right that thought this could be fixed. it was not fixable. it was fatally flawed. it did not include missiles or a ran's sponsorship of terrorism, it was a disaster. -- iran's sponsorship of terrorism, it was a disaster. when the president let people go in -- and brought in ambassador bolton, he made the right call.
i congratulate the president. the same thing was true of the paris climate accord. this was an agreement that would cost of the u.s. $3.5 trillion in 2035. thousands of u.s. jobs would be lost. the electricity bills would go up 15 to 30%, and it would do almost nothing to affect the climate. some experts think it would have no effect at all but it would be a big benefit to the economies of india, china, and europe. this agreement was also negotiated so would not be ratified by the senate. the obama administration signed it and the senate did not have a chance to ratify, even though there were other legislatures that ratified it. the iran deal was ratified by the iranian parliament, but not by our senate. this was an effort to get around the constitution. it was an effort by the elites who think they know better than the american people.
these factors had a role in the election of mr. trump. the american people were tired of the foreign policy establishment, the foreign policy establishment, people who think they know better than us, going around the u.s. congress and constitution to impose agreements like the paris climate accord and the iran nuclear agreement on the american people. there is an effort right now to get -- to address nafta and tcp -- tpp, two agreements that the president backed out of. the u.s.m.c.a. is an alternative to nafta. in the president's view, this is an agreement that left american workers behind and was two
-- too good a deal that did not represent the american people's interests. the president promised to destroy isis. i think radical islam is a movement that is not simply linked to a terrorist group with a presence on the ground. isis has lost its presence on the ground and that is because the president's out a policy where the white house was no longer micromanaging u.s. forces fighting in syria, and we were allowed to to do the airstrikes and operations on the ground that were necessary to defeat isis. isis is still around, but its presence in holding territory, that has ended and that is because of the policy of mr. trump. the president recognizes the threat from radical islam, and this is reflected from last year's national counterterrorism strategy which is sites radical islam -- which cites radical islam. this is a change from the obama administration. we cannot defeat an enemy that
we will not name, that we will not admit that exists. the president advised us that this exists and that is something he is focused on. there is a lot of talk about trade deals with china. this is the president with america for a strategy to get free and fair deals to stop china from engaging in territory trade -- in predatory trade. there are significant, positive movement in these talks. as our economy is surging and china's economy is in trouble, and with a credible u.s. president who block away of other parties are not negotiating, i think that she will walk away if other parties are not negotiating, i think we are in a situation where looks like we are going to get a good deal. border enforcement is and -- a another part of america first. this is something that the president talks about frequently.
he believes it is an important issue of home insecurity to protect our economy and security. it is what the american people want. when the american people see thousands of people trying to illegally emigrate across the southern border, i think they are with the president on this. it is not something that we should be permitting and it is a shame that a few years ago, hillary clinton, barack obama, and dianne feinstein all agree that with a stop illegal immigration across our border. this is something the president took a tough stance on, it is unpopular, and politically uncorrected, and that is what this president is. that is what america first does, it does not worry about the conventional view. when he to talk about russia, especially this week that the mueller report came out and threw out this idea that there was some collusion between the trump campaign and russia.
that i am not going to talk about today. the president thinks we should have a working relationship with russia. this is not very different than the obama administration. russia has the largest nuclear arsenal. a large military. we have to be a bull to talk to the russians. -- be able to talk to the russians. what the media is not telling you is that the president has been much tougher on russia than the obama administration. tough sanctions for those that meddled in our elections. some very good and tough measures have been engaged and passed to protect the integrity of future elections. there is no mention of that on tv. this is a serious matter to ambassador bolton thompson the next time you watch msnbc and cnn and they whine that this administration has done nothing to protect our elections.
it is not true. these pundits know it is not true. and military aid to ukraine -- there has been strong opposition by this administration to the north stream to pipeline in europe which would yield hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue to the russians, bullet also link europe too closely to russian gas. or this reason, we saw pretty hard about that and the president has made progress in trying to stop this from moving forward. i think most importantly, we closed multiple russian consulates and kicked out diplomats that we know to be intelligence officers after the horrendous incidents in the u.k.
of russian intelligence trying to assassinate a former russian intelligence agent with chemical weapons. we worked with our allies on that and it was the right thing to do and i think we will see more actions like that in the future. there are many, many examples of the administration being tough on russia. you do not hear any of them in the press. they are very significant. it is something this president is not getting credit for. i have done a lot of work on north korea. north korea is something that needs to be discussed. the president has ended, or at least had north korea suspend its missile launches. the north koreans tested at least 80 missiles during the clinton years, tested for nuclear weapons. there was a test of what may have been a hydrogen bomb tested in september 2017 -- all of this ended in late 2017 and it ended for a number of reasons. the president managed to get other nations to start enforcing
u.s. sanctions -- u.n. sanctions. there was massive cheating by china from the sanctions. the president twisted some arms and call people out. i do not think that many nations like being the focus of a presidential tweet, and the president is not shy on calling people out. in addition, the president was clear in his rhetoric against north korea including threatening at the un's general assembly to totally destroy north korea if it threatened our allies. you remember how angry all of the pundits were and "the new york times" when he said that. but the president threatened military action in an organization of peace, but the president calls it like it is . i think that threat stunned the north korea and led them to decide in early 2018 that it was time to talk.
these talks have not gotten where we want them to get. they have agreed in principle. there were talks in vietnam and the president walked out of them as kim jong-un was asking for more than we were prepared to offer. but the tensions between both donations are significantly better. it has been a lot more dialogue behind the scenes. we are close to getting an agreement were there will be inspections of north korea's nuclear test site and the missile facility. i know the south korean president is traveling to washington soon to see what you can do to get negotiations. we have a lot of work to do here, and we are going to need secretary pompeo and ambassador bolton to keep grinding away to get an agreement with the north. but the president, as bolton likes to say, opened the door to a peaceful solution with united states.
kim has not yet walk through that door. he does not mean that he is not going to. this is hard for north koreans and i'm hoping that the president's personal diplomacy with cam and the diplomatic opportunities we have seen over the last year will eventually lead to an agreement. the final international issue i want to talk about is venezuela. the u.s. recognized juan guaido after he was recognized as the acting president of venezuela. this was a bold move because getting the door to leave -- getting maduro to leave power is going to be difficult. the next step is to get the states who are supporting maduro's regime, russia, china, and cuba to stop doing so. i do not know how or when, but we are upping the pressure on maduro, the region is against maduro, europe gave maduro an opportunity for talks, but he turned that down.
so we have europe behind this initiative that was started by the u.s. it is a gamble, but i think it is the best approach to try to deal with the situation -- the terrible humanitarian situation that the venezuelan people are suffering under right now. in terms of looking forward, we have a strong american president. that has made the world safer. we know that a strong and decisive president keeps our enemies off balance and guessing. that keeps the world safer, too. there is a reason why iran has stopped harassing american shipping in the gulf, and there cutie -- houthi rebels have stopped shooting into the sea because they do not know what american president trump would -- would do.
it is good for national security and global security. the president has tried to rebuild and strengthen key alliances, especially with israel. i am most proud of what the president has tried to do to work with israel. he has made it clear to the israeli government that if there is a new deal with the iranians, we're going to talk to the israelis. israel and saudi arabia and the gulf states, they are more threatened by the iranians than we are. they did not know we were agreeing to before the agreement was announced. the clinton administration negotiated some been called the agreed framework. it was a terrible agreement but at least the south korean and
japanese governments went to the table. we did not consult with israelis or saudi's, or the gulf states at all before we agreed to this monstrosity. i think they appreciate that and they know the president wants to work with them. the president has a very good relationship with our middle east friends and allies, with canada -- and we do have a good relationship with europe, although they would prefer we get back into the iran deal. it is interesting, the european leaders said there is no point in the trump administration pulling out of the iran deal. we're going to stay in and the sanctions are going to stay in place. for the european multinationals, if they have to choose between doing business between united states and iran, iran's economy is broken. it is not a hard call. companies are leaving iran by
the droves because they want to do business with the united states and they are worried about sanctions that will be imposed if they keep dealing with iran. there is a workaround european states to try to come up with to allow european companies to do business with iran despite sanctions, but this is almost a year late and frankly, it is not going to work. i know that has been talked about in the western press recently. that is not going to get anywhere. the trump doctrine is america first. it is principled realism. it is a benign nationalism that will suffer for the american people, worker, security, and prosperity. it is a new strategy that is working. it has created potential for national security in the future. i've been proud to be a part of it. i think that -- and also, it is a work in progress. we have been seeing such in the
national security strategy. we know what the president announced during campaign, and we have seen as the administration progressed, how this strategy has been developed into a comprehensive approach to deal with national security problems. him i would like to thank all of you for coming today and i would be happy to take your questions. [applause] >> your stance, what does military interventions look like in venezuela? >> i do not think that president trump has any interest in invading venezuela. that is pretty clear. ambassador bolton has made it clear that american citizens are put at risk, that is a different matter. there are at least 1000 american citizens in venezuela. in terms of a military presence to forcibly remove the qui -- guaido regime, that is not
something that i know the president is going to do. i've there are scenarios where we are going to -- if there are scenarios where we are going to invade, i do not know them. [indiscernible] >> south korea's gold towards north korea -- goal towards north korea has been based on freedom for north korean people and based on freedom and democracy. they were fearing that north korea was [indiscernible] and i have noticed that after all of these years, trump came
out and what he did in my view, he gave up the legalization of north korea, gave up freedom for north korea, and started respecting the north korean dictator, and then he started negotiating any started threatening north korea's livelihood. for the first time in history, president trump promised -- that was a part of the negotiations -- the regime guarantee, that kind of thing. so i am really disappointed about what he has been doing. he went to singapore under the south korean president, and he
went to hanoi, pressured by south korean president -- but fortunately, one party has been kicked out of hanoi. now, it looks like he is going back with a kinder approach. i am sure that the south korean people are preferring that he is coming again, to get together with kim jong, so good you tried to convince me that trump is not propping up the north korean dictator? >> the president has not given anything to north korea. they have been given a bilateral meeting with the president.
but there is not going to be a deal until korean -- north korea agrees to negotiate in earnest. it is a concern of this administration that president moon wants to move too fast. i think the north by in vietnam that -- i think the north bought in vietnam that they could convince us to relinquish sanctions. we have seen this over and over again with north korea. we give them concessions and they either give us nothing of whatever they agree to, they backtrack. ambassador bolton and secretary pompeo are aware of that. north korea has the opportunity to negotiate with us in earnest. but if they do not, we will resume the pressure we had put on the state before. look, i understand it is difficult to watch u.s. officials interacting with such
a ruthless dictator. i find it difficult to watch, too. but i also see a state that is developing missiles that could possibly hit the east coast. if we are not want a bomb or attacking them, we have to find a diplomatic solution on our terms. i wish there was another way to do it, but realistically, i think this is a way of approaching it. the president has done interesting things with kim that have not been noticed. the first meeting with kim was in singapore. that got him out of the bubble that he lives in. it got him away from his advisers and give him the chance to see the prosperity of singapore. it gave us the opportunity to talk to him and explain what north korea could become. it was a typical trumpian approach.
he was shown a movie that depicted how north korea could thrive if it normalize relations with the united states. i do not know if this is going to work. i think we are in a better vision now than we were, but i share your concern that we can make a deal without north korea actually coming across with the concessions they are supposed to. there are people in the state department pushing for bad deals. i know that bolden and pompeii are trying to keep them under control. that is the best that i can offer you. but i appreciate your question. yes. >> one of the things that is stunning about the last 2.5 years or so is the reaction of the, the better term, the foreign-policy establishment to the president's proposals.
to the point where suggesting that nato should be reformed for the 21st century was seen as proof that the president was a russian spy and needed to be removed or defeated from office by any means necessary. i worry that after the president leaves office, that we will snap back into the old ways of thinking simply because so many people in these dominant positions in think tanks, academia, and the government state department are on this mindset which in my personal opinion, i consider extremist and ignorant. but nevertheless, they are in there. do you have anything to offer that i might not be the case and we are getting some smarter people in key positions? >> i think we are slowly getting reforms and i think you are right about nato, we are reforming it. and there is slow going, and they just have a different view.
they were brought up with a different approach. i have done some work with organizations in very cushy jobs, and they like to go out to lunch and have cocktails, and some of them, i do not know what they do. the president is aware of that. there are a lot of key jobs vacant in this government at the state department. the president has an ambitious agenda. he cannot carry it out as he does not fill all of the jobs. i understand there will be some changes made to try to remove the obstacles to filling them -- time is running out and i hope they will be filled quickly to doing these things. >> i wanted to ask about the north korean strategy when it comes to human rights as well as denuclearization. what will a final deal included in terms of pressuring the
regime on their human rights abuses? >> that is a good question. i do not know how that is going to be addressed. our priority is to address the missile and nuclear threat. i know this has been discussed. i would like to see major achievements made in this. not just the oppression of the north koreans, but the abduction of japanese citizens by the north korean government which is a real concern to japan. the president has raised this repeatedly, including with prime minister abe. i think it has to be a part of the talks but it is a difficult issue. i hope it is not left on site. >> my understanding is that the senate is being changed from 30 hours per nominee to two hours. >> that is great. >> that was as of yesterday that i saw that in a message to cucinelli. >> that is good news.
hopefully that will fix it. too many good nominees are being blocked for no good reason. [indiscernible] >> sure. >> do you have any suggestions for how to resolve this north korean nuclear problems post-hanoi? for example, to increase south korean involvement or what is your assessment of the situation, and how would you go about it from now on? >> first of all, i would like to see -- >> in your opinion? >> the first question, i would like to see all players stick together.
i want to see china and south korea and japan not move for do with any type of agreements or lessening trade sanctions or north korea until there is a deal. they are going to remove or reduce the leverage we have hit a good deal. i think that cam saw how the term and the president is and he is not going to agree to a partial deal. he is not going to drop sanctions for very little return in the north. that was a good signal being sent in vietnam. it is very hard for diplomats to walk away. there was actual preparation for some type of celebration for getting an agreement. i love the state department and they love these signing ceremonies. they love saying, we kind agreement, there is a big picture, state people, they love that. to walk away and do that, that is hard.
people are disappointed in all of the preparations have to be canceled. i'm convinced of the president wants a good deal. i think we send a message to the north that that is what we are working on now. concerning reports that north korea is cheating. it seems that every month, there is a think tank in washington that says we have satellite imagery that the north koreans are preparing to test a nuclear weapon -- it is hard to know what the north koreans are doing. the think tanks often do not know what they are talking about. the north koreans are always moving equipment around because they know we are watching, and they are not doing anything. the cia and our agents know what is going on. but when csi put out another reports, they do not know anything the government does not already know. the government knows a lot more than they know. it is complicated. i do not doubt that north korea's continuing north korean activities, but we need to get
what they are doing and a confirmation that they stop what they are doing. >> thank you. in your talk, you talk to the u.s.-china relations and the trade talk. you also said that president trump's is to defend american values. in these relations, how do you see this as a human rights issue, and where is the position of the overall relations? >> i think human rights in china are a serious issue. there are been reports lately about the uighur muslims and the unbelievable oppression of them. we know what is going on in tibet, how many journalists have been arrested, and the
turbulence in china, and it is what we raised in diplomatic channels. the president is trying to raise so that both nations get along in the economic sphere and security fair. he has tried to work on his relations with president xi. you do not hear about them in the press very often, and i think the officials are raising him at the right levels, but it is complicated. we want to get a trade deal so the chinese will stop damaging the u.s. economy, and on the other hand, we know what is going on in parts of china where people are subject to brutal oppression. i hope we have our u.s. officials work on this and will speak up on this more often. the center for security policy tries to. before i go, the center for security policy is a nonprofit national security organization.
we have a website, freedomsecure.org. lately we have been focusing on the u.s.-israel relationship and what we think is a sharp rise of anti-semitism on the left, and we are trying to take a stand on it. we hope you check out our website, securefreedom.org. [applause] thank you. >> i was going to ask you to give us your website. he took care of it. there are a lot of questions that were asked about north korea. all of your questions on north korea will be answered on our next forum. april 28 will be the 16th annual north korean freedom week. the scene of north korean freedom week is listen to the north korean defectors, and then you will know the truth. we will have a form with the defectors on friday, may 3. april 28, freedom week will kick off and it will be a whole week
of activities, but the main focus is the host people who have escaped from the regime to learn from them and the have a special forum to support those defectors to talk about what we should be doing to deal with the regime. thank you all so much, it was amazing. thank you for coming out today. we will see you in may. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] ♪ announcer: c-span's "washington journal," live every day with
news and policy issues that impact you. coming up this morning, stephen flanagan discusses the 70th anniversary of nato, the future of the organization, and recent comments by president trump regarding other country contributions. then we will discuss the 40th anniversary of the three-mile island nuclear power plant accident near pennsylvania, considered the most serious nuclear power accident in the united states. joining us on the program to look at the event, the founder and chair of the three-mile island alert, a historian and author, and acting director of the nuclear safety project. be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern. join the discussion. ♪ announcer: on capitol hill next week, the house will consider reauthorization of the violence against women act, which expired in february. it aims to prevent abuse and provide resources for victims
and includes a provision on domestic violence and firearms. it is also possible that members will take up a senate passed resolution to end the u.s. military involvement in yemen's civil war. in the senate, work continues on the bill that would provide $13 billion in aid for areas affected by natural disasters. also, a resolution that would shorten the amount of time the senate considers certain nominations. watch the house live on c-span, and the senate live on c-span2. review"r: "the national institute hosted its ideas summit on friday. the eventon of included a discussion between fox news host tucker carlson and "national review" senior writer national doherty on populism and the future of the republican party. [applause]