app. >> you're watching c-span 3, your unfiltered view of government. c-span 3 was created by america emphasis television companies and today we're brought to you by these television companies who provide c-span to viewers as a public service. >> secretary of state antony blinken testifies wednesday on the biden administration foreign policy agenda. watch the house foreign affairs committee hearing live at 1:30 p.m. eastern on c-span 3, online at c-span.org or listen with the free c-span radio app. >> representative gregory meeks. he serves the state of new york, the fifth district and also the chair of the foreign affairs committee. we appreciate your time this morning, sir. >> good to be with you. >> reverend meeks, representative, before we start talking about matters of foreign

policy, hr1 beak worked on this week, what do you say to those critics particularly on the republican side about how it shapes voting in their mind. >> what we're talking about is making sure everybody has access and make it easier for people to vote. we talk around the world about democracy. the essence of democracy is the individual's right and ability to vote. so what hr-1 does, it protects the right to vote by removing barriers to cast a ballot. i know, for example, post reconstruction time was put in place was barriers to prevent african-americans from voting by counting how many jellybeans were in a jar and things that eliminated folks from having true access to ballots. that's not who we should be in 2021. we should be making sure we are

removing the barriers. it ends partisan redistricting so we can make sure that folks cannot do gerrymandering and favor one side or the other in that regards. so this is about equity. it's about fairness. it's about democracy, which is all really important. it increases transparency and accountability. and as we've seen by giving greater access we saw the last elections it was not as some of my republican friends the lies they continue to perpetuate, that there was corruption. we have a court system. many of the judges that were appointed by the past president said there was no corruption. so greater opportunities to vote does not translate into

corruption as what my some of my republican colleagues are trying to say. it really is democracy. >> there's an editorial in the washington times calling for its defeat and in many part saying it would strip away power from individual states to determine their election processes and also federalize said it. how do you respond to that? >> my response is you want to make sure that all elections are fair. look, that's what i heard, again, during reconstruction. they give all the powers back to the states because what they saw was once slaves had the ability to vote, it made a difference. once women had the ability to vote, it made a difference. so the states back then decided they were going to come together, change the laws, put restrictions on individuals, restrictions on women from voting, restrictions on

ex-slaves from voting. we can't go back to those bad times in american history. we need to recognize what took place in the past back then and take the steps forward, which is why we had the fights that we had during the voting rights era in the 1960s. so we should be going forward. we should be starting to be a more perfect union, not going back to the times we were not. >> turning the topics regarding foreign affairs particularly to your position as the chair of the foreign affairs committee there were reports this morning that base housing thereof troops in iraq were hit by missiles. do you have anything to add as far as the cause or at least the impact of this action? >> well, i think that there will be further conversation. i don't have any comments at this time. i do expect to be briefed in

talking to the administration in that regards. but i know we've got to make sure that we are protecting our troops and our interests in the region, but i don't want to comment further until i have an update and talk to the administration which i will do as chair of the house foreign affairs committee. >> let me turn to another topic concerning updates when it comes to the decision by the biden administration for the strike in syria. were you informed of that, and what did you think of the decision? >> yeah, look, i'm going to be honest with you that initially when i heard about the strike i had not been informed and i was very upset about that. i immediately got on the phone to the administration because i would not tolerate it under the former president, and i don't want that same scenario to come under the current president. and i reminded them that under the war powers resolution the house foreign affairs committee

has jurisdictions, and there is direction where they should be informing the committee. my conversation from there was that it would never happen again. and in fact the resolution also says after a strike of such nature the administration has 48 hours to give an unclassified briefing on what took place and the administration didn't live up to that. then 48 hours i received an unclassified briefing as required by the war powers resolution explaining why the strike was necessary. yum that information i still have some questions because what's next is a classified briefing from the administration which is being setup. so i want to make sure that the constitution is adhered to, that

i have the responsibility -- and it's tough responsibility to determine whether to strike or not, to determine whether someone should go to war or not is tough. i'm not going to demur that to the administration. we in congress and our committee has to make those tough scission decisions and oversee it. so i am pleased with the administration's response subsequent to the initial strike in syria and look forward to working very closely with them in the future and any like strikes in moving forward. at this point what's also important to me as chair of the committee and what we will be looking to do on the committee is not just giving blank checks on the authorization of the

utilization of military force, the aumf. and our committee will be looking because oftentimes we find that administrations would cling to the 2002 or 2001 authorization that was 20 years ago for a different subject matter. so we're going to make sure we fix that, and our committee is looking at that so that congress and the executive branch has a responsibility to come to congress in regards to the authorization of the utilization of military force. >> our guest with us until 8:30. text us your thoughts and questions for our guest, 202-348-8003. when it comes to the information

the administration released about the death of jamal khashoggi, should a stronger hand be played toward saudi arabia? yeah, definitely, a different hand has to be played toward saudi arabia. i appreciate the biden administration releasing the information in regard to the assassination unlike the prior administration. i think that was the right thing to do. i think it's also the right thing to have a different relationship with saudi arabia than what we've had over the past four years and even some prior. we've got to show what our values are and live by them and make sure we do not allow individuals or countries who have human rights violations or others whether their allies or adversaries, we need to confront them. now, it is important that we also recognize the fact that

we're not a perfect nation ourselves. and we've got to, you know, have humility when we're talking to individuals, but should there be a different relationship with saudi arabia? absolutely. should there be consequences? absolutely. and so i'm looking forward to talking to the administration about other holding accountable -- other areas which we can hold saudi arabia and mbs accountable moving forward. >> what should be dup as far as accountability? what would you like to see happen? >> well, as i said i think that one of the things that is important just going along with saudi arabia in the war with yemen where it's a humanitarian crises. i think the administration is right. before we looked the other way,

and saying we're not going to support saudi arabia in this war in yemen is the right thing to do. not selling weapons to the saudi arabians just as a matter of selling weapons, et cetera, which we have done in the past. the prior administration worked around congress not getting congress' approval in that regard. that has to change. not standing up and talking about the humanitarian issues that we have with saudi arabia, and being up front about that is the right thing to do. and i think that, you know, looking at some areas of where there may be sanctions, et cetera is important to do. i'm one that doesn't believe sanctions is the be all, end-all. it's targeted sanctions that you utilize to try to make sure those who have committed

committed bad acts don't get away with it and you don't punish people. i understand the administration clearly that mbs will be there for a long period of time and we've got to figure out how we change the relationship that we've had and also work to protect the interests that we have in the region also. so it's not an easy scenario, but i think it's something we can do. working with our allies is also really important in my estimation. making sure we're bringing forward other allies to stand with us. >> we have calls lined up for it. independent line, you're on with representative meeks. go ahead. >> first of all, i have to

say -- i also believe that the majority of these people who came after the civil war have nothing invested in the institution of democracy. that's why you see so much of a resistance of democracy. they want to come into this country to benefit fum the institution of white privilege and only participate as an oppressive measure against blacks. i would hope to see the biden administration be more aggressive toward israel and stop building settlements on the west bank and the gaza strip. it's almost as if the democratic party also has an element of zionism inside the party, which is very troubling to me. i did vote for joe biden last time in the election. i didn't vote for hillary clinton last time, actually i didn't vote for anyone at all. >> let me just say first off i

think when you look at immigration there the daca individual, i think most americans agree that there should be something done and many of them have even served in our military, et cetera. so the right thing there to do is make sure there is a way -- there's a path to citizenship in that regard. i think that's what most americans understand in that regard. quickly in regards to annexation of property in the middle east by israel, i think if you have heard -- i know i have said that i do not want any further annexation. there should not be annexation because i'm a firm believer in a two state solution. and if annexation continues then

you do not have the territories and the property in which to come up with a two state solution where you could ultimately get to a real peace in the middle east. so i think many democrats -- i'm one of them -- have said that -- and have said publicly that, in fact, there was a letter that was written by a number of individuals talking about them on all sides that annexation must stop. so i think that the biden administration husband to move in a way we can have dialogue and conversations as far as policy in a multilateral way, not just america alone or america only. that's not a way to do with foreign policy. that's not diplomacy, so we're putting a strong emphasis on diplomacy, on my committee, and i think the biden administration

and secretary blinken also understands the value of diplomacy. >> jamie, independent line in maine. go ahead. >> good morning, sir. i wanted to call in this morning because i want americans to understand the need for congressional oversight from the perspective of defense professionals. we supported a strategy in the middle east of containment that was successful in limiting violence and containing extremism for decades before that was violated by the bush administration. and we've seen the consequences of that. 8 million refugees i believe have streamed out of the middle east and there are now 125 refugee camps holding them throughout the world. it's a costly expense to manage

that and the security problems have significantly increased as a result. that kind of oversight is extremely important. >> caller thanks. >> i agree. where i think about iraq, for example, then secretary powers said if you break it, you own it. and i voted against going into iraq. it should be the absolute last alternative. diplomacy is much better and i think it's clear you heard from former generals say that it is far more costly to go to war than fund in helping the state department and utilizing diplomacy. and i think that finally i can completely agree with you it is

our responsibility, those of us in the house and in the senate to oversee the executive branch in that regard and to make sure that we utilize our oversight responsibilities particularly as it pertains to going to war, and that's why having these long-standing authorizations for the utilization of military force has to go so that the executive branch must no matter who the president is come back to congress so that we as voices of the people in a separate but equal brafrp of government have our say in what takes place and what should not take place and it's not left just in the hand of the executive. i agree with the caller. >> when it comes to the strikes one asks why was the strike necessary? >> i think there's no question where you've seen some of the iranian supported militias have had recently made attacks on

united states military individuals, in fact killing one individual who was not part of the military but who worked and was an american citizen and others. so we cannot allow them just to have these strikes against our interests and our folks without showing there is a price to pay. so i think that's why the strike in the gulf was necessary as a serious threat that time. i think it was one nonamerican contractor wounded and a u.s. service member wounded.

we got to make sure they understand the u.s. will protect its folks. >> independent line. you're on with our guest. go ahead. >> i have a question concerning the president's policy on the monies to ukraine. if you've got 6 hours to make a decision because they're getting on a plane, this same problem should be used in africa when they rejected lgbtq's policy on gender. the money is tied to it. what's your feeling on it, representative? >> well, i don't think my feeling is our dollars for health care and other human rights should not be tied to ones -- whether or not they're lgbtq or not. and it's important in all of our

elections are important. and the correct way is the way we will take care of individuals in need. and it should not be based upon their race, their religion or their sexual orientation. i believe that that is, yawn as far as gregory meeks is concerned, not a way of showing that we care and that this world which is a much smaller world now, that we're going to try to make sure that we save human life. everyone is human. and to protect and to make sure that one is not -- is not prejudiced toward them because i know -- again, i speak from my own living that as an african-american for a long time african-americans have been

denied certain things simply because of their race. so it would be wrong to deny other individuals simply because of their sexual orientation. >> in england this is paul for our guest. >> good morning. is it a priority to keep the peace in foreign policy? >> the priority is for peace. look, we live in a much smaller world than it was 10, 15 years ago, so we've got to figure out how we share this planet collectively. there's issues, you know, that we all have to deal with that affects each and every one of us. if there's one thing that has shown that is this virus that's going around and the pandemic. the world is small. until we wipe it out

multilaterally, everyone working together everyone is a threat and same with climate control and same with war. we need to utilize diplomacy, talking to one another, working with one another so that we can have peace and be more -- you know, there's greater opportunity with technology, et cetera to be more interdependent. we should be able to wipeout famine. and if we utilize the technologies we have in the world today so that no one has to go hungry. we should be able to work together to wipeout poverty by working collectively together. these should be improvements we made on the earth with the technology we have as opposed to going to war with one another. we need to figure out how, you know, we can trade with one another in a more appropriate manner so that it benefits all of us and pushes us up and makes

us all have a brighter future, you know, so that tomorrow is better than today and yesterday. and war will not get us there. diplomacy and having peace in my estimation is what it takes. >> there's one saying does the committee that you chair have jurisdiction on international cooperation regarding carbon emissions and climate change? >> yeah, we're going to step up and utilize that, absolutely. it is a international affairs issue because it's all around the world. and so we're going to have a voice because multiple committees that have jurisdiction, but clearly the foreign affairs committee does also and in a way we need to sit down and talk with other nations and those that may be violating carbon emissions, et cetera, that we can make sure we're in compl