smith of washington's date. that is follow the supreme court oral argument and questions whether a search warrant is needed for law enforcement to access a person's cell phone data history. at 8:00, our conversation with john cogan who writes about federal entitlement programs in the book "the high cost of good intentions." susan: our guest is congressman adam smith of washington state, the ranking democrat on the house armed services committee, a member of congress since 1996. 11 terms. thank you for being with us. rep. smith: thank you for having me on. susan: let me introduce the reporters who will be asking two questions. leo shane writes for the military times. roxana is a bloomberg government covering defense and foreign policy. we want to start our conversation with the developing

situation with north korea but there are reports from multiple national news sources the white house is set to make a long rumored move with secretary of state tillerson, replacing him with mr. pompeo from the cia, and replacing mr. pompeo with senator tom cotton. this is part of the national security team. i am wondering if you have a reaction to those names and those particular cases it rep. smith: i don't know that it changes anything. my biggest concern and that is the state department. whether it is secretary tillerson or secretary pompeo, the state department has not been engaged. diplomacy has fallen off significantly. morale at the state department is terrible. i think they have a third less people. there just does not seem to be a diplomatic focus. diplomacy is governed by the

president's tweets. the secretary of state is forced to react. however they do it i hope they , start using diplomacy as a key tool in our agenda. right now very concerned about was happening at the state department. susan: do you think that is a cultural issue drawing down , numbers of people, and that it would change with someone else at the helm? rep. smith: i doubt it would change. that is what concerns me. i do think it is a cultural issue. i think it reflects president trump's lack of desire to employ the state department. whether it is because he wants to control the messaging or he doesn't believe in it. for instance, they get rid of the afghanistan-pakistan working group at the state department a , critical piece moving forward to achieving some peaceful solution, or some stable solution in afghanistan and pakistan. they completely disbanded it. we have made no progress in the middle east.

there has been little progress in terms of building relationships in africa. i don't think they understand diplomacy. i have served the congressman pompeo. i am not sure he is a significant upgrade. at least secretary tillerson when he worked for exxon knew he had to work with other countries. i am not optimistic the state department is going to get better under secretary pompeo. susan: onto one of the major issues, north korea. roxana, your the question for us? roxana: thank you for being with us. on north korea, i would be interested in getting the reaction to the latest missile test. you did mention diplomacy. obviously that has been the route so far. how concerned are you about this latest missile test and how concerned are you an attack on the united states might be imminent? rep. smith: i'm not concerned at all an attack on the united states is imminent. i don't believe that is north

korea's intent or kim jong-un's vision. north korea believes they need to develop a robust program for regime survival. completely wrong about this, but the north koreans believe they are going to be invaded at any moment. they have a paranoia about the united states that is impossible to overstate. they think they have to be armed and ready. plan't think it is their to attack us because apart it would be suicide. certainly they can inflict damage for we can completely eliminate them, working along with south korea and japan. i do not think an attack on the u.s. is imminent. i do think they are continuing to develop the missile program. my concern is we stumble into a war we should not stumble into. what we have to make clear is we have a credible deterrent. they attack us or south korea, japan or any allies we have the , forced to completely destroy

them. therefore they will not engage militarily in that way. that is my biggest concern. we stumble into a conflict that -- thinking that north korea's going to do something. we might of acting when we shouldn't. i think diplomacy continues to be important. i am mindful of the limitations. what i hope is what we diplomatically convey is the deterrence. we will defend our allies. we will defend our interests. we wish we could stop them from developing the technology they have. nothing at this point has worked. but we will continue to sanction them, isolate them from the rest of the world. the real red line is if they attack us, our interests, or our allies. leo: how well do you think the u.s. is communicating those issues? you said you don't have a lot of confidence in the diplomatic strategy right now. you have introduced legislation to try to put limits on first

strike by the u.s. if you are not concerned about the north koreans attacking the u.s., what is your concerned without stumbling forward? rep. smith: i would not go so far as to say i'm not concerned with north korea attacking us. they are unpredictable. and unstable. who knows how they might miscalculate. i don't believe it is their intent. i don't believe they are building these nuclear weapons because they plan on attacking us. i don't think that tha is their intent. it does not mean they might not say we think the u.s. is going to attack us, or south korea is going to attack us so we better do it first. that is my concern. you assume the other side is going to hit so you say we may as well go first. as far as the president's approach, thus far, working with secretary tillerson, they have communicated that message. you better not mess with us

because we will respond in a way you can't handle. delivering that message is important. i worry about whether there are people in the trump administration who think we have to do a preemptive strike. such a strike would in all likelihood set off a catastrophic war at a minimum on the korean peninsula. japan would be in danger. potentially with their ballistic missile capability, the united states might be in danger. this point it seems to me the trump administration, despite some of the rhetoric, has been willing to hold their fire. i hope that continues. leo: let me get follow-up here. one we talk about this in d.c. from a foreign-policy aspect. you are the ranking member of house armed services. there are tens of thousands of military families and troops stationed in south korea and japan. what would you tell them as you see developments and these fairly concerning tests this

, back-and-forth with the trump administration and the north korean regime? rep. smith: it is difficult. i am not going to tell them there is nothing to worry about. obviously you have for growing and somewhat unpredictable power in north korea facing off against the united states, with increasingly heated rhetoric. there is cause for concern. i would tell them it is my hope in my believe the united states will not engage in a precipitous war that we do not need to participate in. we can contain north korea without having to use a military strike. a military strike that would set off a chain reaction that would lead to war and distraction on -- destruction on the korean peninsula and elsewhere. i give you the same answer. we have to present a credible deterrent to make sure north korea does not use weapons they are developing. roxana: is there anything congress can do in this respect

to aid the diplomatic effort and try and deter a preemptive strike? or do you find congress is in ed and and lawmakers would rather see a strike on north korea? rep. smith: by and large most members of congress do not want to see a war started on the korean peninsula. we can use direct rhetoric. strong, credible rhetoric that we will deter an attack from north korea, and also downplaying any preemptive or preventative approach. it is rhetorically will we can do. you mentioned my no first use on nuclear weapons. that is not just about north korea. that is no first use, period. my concern is the lack of dialogue between nuclear powers, even during the height of the cold war we had backchannel communications with the soviet

union to try to avoid stumbling into a nuclear confrontation. right now that level of dialogue with russia and china does not seem to be there. i think we need to make sure we don't stumble into a nuclear conflict there as well. i see no justification for the first use of nuclear weapons. we need nuclear weapons as a deterrent because russia, china, those countries have those weapons. first use does not make sense, and i think it can calm fears of a lot of countries that we know the u.s. policy is not to use nuclear weapons first. i know we believe we would never do that, but north korea, russia , a lot of people there don't have the same trust in the u.s. that we do. that miscalculation and paranoia about your adversaries could lead us stumbling into war. even into a nuclear war. susan: what is the prospect of the resolution? rep. smith: i don't see them

moving it, but i want to begin that dialogue. there is a lot of pieces of legislation that start off thinking what is the chance? you don't know until you try. you have to begin the process. passing legislation usually is an effort in patience and persistence. i want to start that debate and move us in that direction. leo: i want to shift to the budget. we have had fights on the tax reform package. we are a few days away from the continuing resolution running out. i'm wondering what your concerned level is with a partial government shutdown? susan: rep. smith: it is very high. very high. we have made no progress and we continue to fire shots back and forth without addressing the real issue. it is two levels. one is the budget caps.

the budget caps are a problematic. the defense industry, many believe the defense needs more money than the $549 billion contemplated in the budget control act. there are many that late not a since -- nondefense discretionary is capped. how do you get an agreement? how do you get an agreement between enough republicans and democrats to exceed those budget cap numbers? the larger issue is we are $20 trillion in debt. getting rid of the budget cap doesn't change that math. maybe we survive a year, but what about five years? what about 10 years from now? if you want to simply focus on my committee's concerns there is a lot of angst about the fact our current military is underfunded. we can have that debate. if you believe that -- if you do a massive tax cut what is it

going to be like five or 10 years from now if we don't figure out a strategy for our overall budget that is sustainable, even if we survive this year, at some point we are not one have resources necessary to maintain the national security we would like. there's a lot of different answers to that but i can tell you cutting taxes by a couple trillion dollars makes it worse. not better. roxana: congressman, there is talk of doing another stopgap measure, another continuing resolution. is that something you would support or something that the democratic caucus would support, or would it be those lack of votes that could lead to a shutdown? rep. smith: i am not sure. it is something we would be reluctant to support. we need appropriations bills. whatever the number is, we need to set that number. governing on a continuing resolution at the defense department is difficult.

it makes it much harder to have any sustainable national security policy. when you have to live with last year's number and no new programs, and you can't get rid of old programs, it is a terrible way to govern. things are not going to be better in january than the are now. we need to set down and reach an appropriations deal. that was true in january of this year and president trump was sworn in, and it is still true today. it really is concerning we haven't made progress on that. susan: we have 10 minutes left. leo: this is an issue we have talked about many times in the past. going back several years with sequestration and budget cuts. what is it going to take to make real headway? what is going to be the breakthrough moment where democrats and republicans talk

about tax cuts, tax increases in which programs should be preserved? rep. smith: going back to 2010. there is no short-term simple solution. what it is going to take as an honest discussion with the american people about the budget choices we face. for too long we have had politicians that have looked at polls and they see the public wants balanced budget. they support a balanced budget and concept. the public is concerned, they don't want to see taxes increase. they don't want to see popular programs cut. that math does not add up. yet in campaign after campaign across the country have politicians promising that. i want to be fiscally responsible. i want a balanced budget. no i won't cut this program. ,i will not cut the other program. the math does not add up. it starts with an honest conversation.

the problem is right now the public wants a balanced budget without raising taxes or cutting spending. that is impossible to deliver. they want that. too many candidates have promised it. too many members of congress of promised it. any appropriations bill that we would pass would be politically unpopular because it would not balance the budget without raising taxes or cutting spending. that is why, whatever the majority, they are reluctant to say here is my appropriations bill. whatever that appropriations bill is, is going to fail probably in all three of those areas. it is certainly not want to balance the budget. it raises taxes it will be , unpopular. if it cut's spending, it will be unpopular. until we can have an honest conversation about the budget choices we face we will be trapped in this gridlock. roxana: speaking of gridlock,

and more immediate terms, republicans and democrats are at a stalemate. there was some progress made at the staff level on budget talks, and lifting caps but those fell through. democrats have certain to -- certain requirements, including immigration that should be included in any omnibus budget deal. republicans want to increase defense a lot more than they would give for domestic spending. where'd do you see this going? december 8 is when government spending runs out if there is not another stopgap. how do you see both parties coming together to do the right thing as you say, and have that honest conversation went time is running short? rep. smith: i want to make sure you understand my answer. first of all there is what i think should happen, what i would like to see happen.

i think we should come together on an agreement to get into the budget control act. it has not worked to control spending or gives a reasonable budget framework. we should repeal the budget control act, reach an agreement on what to do about defense and nondefense discretionary spending, and we should look at revenue and the broader budget , including all mandatory programs and put together a , budget that gives us a pathway towards a sustainable budget. that is what ought to happen. it is not what is happening. the republican tax cut is killing that debate. how can you be talking about reducing revenue to the federal no i don't and believe cutting taxes increases revenue. it doesn't. you can look at the numbers and see clearly it doesn't. i have the easiest job in the

world cutting taxes increased revenue, the ideal tax rate would be zero. that doesn't pencil out. if the tax rates get too high, and there was a time where we had a 90% tax rate. there was a time but we had a capital gains rate that was 66%. the top tax right now is 39%. . 50% for longer held stocks. -- 15% for longer held stocks. at that level you simply are not going to change the dynamic by cutting taxes. we've got to have an honest conversation. that is what should happen. what is likely to happen, that we stumble through one short-term cr after another and we keep moving forward and don't pass appropriations bills. i think that would be a colossal failure and a huge problem for our government functioning properly. given the rhetoric, what we saw out of president trump before

the negotiations even started which said i am not going to do anything the democrats want -- i don't see a deal before they even started talking, i don't see how we get there. i am very worried about what is going to happen next week. i think it is going to be bad for the country next week terms of how we handle the budget. susan: just four minutes left. roxana: are you worried democrats are going to be blamed and have to take the blame of the 2018. rep. smith: my focus is not on who gets the partisan blame. my focus is on governing the government properly. i think the democratic party will benefit if we present an intelligent approach to governing. i do think we should try and talk with republicans. but i don't blame leader pelosi or senator schumer for not wanting to show up, where the president says you guys are

awful, terrible, and what you want is not anything we can talk about. at some point you have to say that is not a negotiation. we are not negotiating with a credible partner. i hope the president will say we know we have to work together on this, let's not prejudge anything. let's sit down and talk and see where we wind up. that is what needs to happen for negotiations the start. i am focused on the good of the country. the partisan blame i will leave to others. leo: i want to bring up military operations in africa. referred unsettling reports in the last week, that operations in somalia may have had excess civilian casualties. or even intentional civilian casualties. what is the committee role looking forward on that? what is your concern with the lack of public awareness

on these military operations in africa? rep. smith: our role is oversight, to make sure we minimize civilian casualties and take responsibility for them when they happen. you do have to be aware that our enemies, and we do clearly have enemies, they will constantly claim civilian casualties. they will even create civilian casualties and blame them on us. we have to fight back against that rhetorically and make sure record is clear and accurate. that said i am concerned about , the increased pace of bombing and military operations under the trump administration and whether there is sufficient accountability. independent agencies, not groups that oppose us, independent agencies has set the number of civilian casualties as the result of u.s. attacks have gone up significantly. i think we need to address that. the individual case in somalia,

our military says these were enemy combatants. i take them at their word. we have in the past admitted only inadvertently hit civilian targets. as far as your comment about whether or not it was intentional, i don't think there has ever been any evidence the u.s. has intentionally in this fight against al qaeda targeted civilians. we don't do that. we never do that. what does happen is in the bombing, civilians are caught in crossfire. it is inhumane for one thing. it only adds fuel to the fire of the terrorist groups that want to attack us. it makes it easier for them to recruit. i think the role of the house armed services committee is to conduct oversight, to make sure when civilian casualties happen, and to take steps to minimize it. susan: we have one minute. final question? leo: i do want to clarify the

report said local forces may have been targeting folks, not u.s. forces. but just to go back on that, the level of aggression you are seeing, is that a reflection of trump of the military? , where are your concerns coming from? rep. smith: i think that is a reflection of trump. there was a worthy held feeling the military the obama administration was too cautious. that they hesitated on a number of attacks when they should have gone forward. i think president trump wants to do the opposite of whatever president obama has done, has said you are more free to attack when you think you should. i think civilian oversight is critical to make sure that we are attacking at the appropriate time and place. i think it does reflect a change

in approach, which is president trump wants to be more aggressive about attacking the enemy. there are terrorist groups that threaten us. i do have any problem with hitting those groups before they had us. but there is a huge cost of doing so into indiscriminate manner when you start having civilian casualties and turning populations against us instead of terrorist groups. susan: that is it for our time. thank you for being our guest. congressman adam smith of washington, be democrat on the armed services committee. rep. smith: thank you. susan: let's look to the week ahead. what this capitol hill look like in the coming week? leo: right now there is just a question of shutdown. we are getting out of the tax reform debate. where is that going to go? what is a compromise measure going to look like? in terms of another cr, a long-term deal, there is total uncertainty.

susan: does the other side we want a shutdown? roxana: i don't think they do. but as you heard congressman smith just now it seems like it , could be likely. just because the two sides are not close enough to agree on even a short-term stopgap measure. leo: in the past will be got to this point there were rumors of deals some progress forward. , we have not heard much of anything. as frustrated as lawmakers are about the inability to repeal these budget caps, there is at least rumors of a two-year plan. rumors of a short-term deal. this, despite having three months into the fiscal year, it is where we were in september. roxana: there were discussions

at the staff level, some sort of tentative plan to increase defense spending by $54 billion. but the democrats were not happy with the offer on the domestic side. that was well before everything imploded between president trump and nancy pelosi in chuck schumer. that was before they canceled on the white house meeting. they walked out of the white house meeting. now, when you ask lawmakers, it is still at the staff level. they don't have any new details here in it is clear it is stagnant and not going anywhere. the republicans mighty democratic votes to pass the stopgap measure and if the democrats decided to vote for one, they might have a very tight vote for those who don't

with a see another continuing resolution. the math gets tight. susan: the congressman made reference to the immigration issue. that is the fate of the so-called dreamers. the young people who came to this country at an early age. the democrats have argued they should have a pathway to citizenship. how important ultimately is this to the democrats, or are the numbers more important and this is a good bargaining tool? leo: it is hard to say. this is a major issue. a couple of republican said it will not act in a short-term bill if the issue is not addressed. i don't think it is a bargaining chip. to the larger point, even if they found a two-week cr, i don't know there is any progress on issues like that with these fundamental disagreements between the parties.

two more weeks may just be prolonging a shutdown another month. i don't know there is really a clear path ahead on immigration. on the domestic and defense spending issues. if anything it is at the -- i don't know there is any progress on issues like that with these disagreements. i don't know there is really a clear path ahead on immigration. on anything at the heart of the budget fights right now. >> what did you think of the congressman's assessment of the situation? >> it is concerning, but it was good to get his assessment, not expecting any enemy that -- imminent attack. i think we are getting to a point where everything really hangs in the balance. there could be a misstep at some point on north korea's side or the united states side. there's a lot of reason for concern. >> the danger of a misstep, what

new dynamic does that have? if there is new leadership in the cabinet. does it -- it is hard to imagine it is going to calm things. >> jim mattis has definitely stressed the diplomatic solution. you don't see any saber rattling just yet on the military side. they are definitely supporting the diplomatic talks side of the issue. >> thanks to both of you. we appreciate your time and expertise. >> congress returns tomorrow, facing a deadline friday in current governing -- government

funding runs out. they considered the nomination of cure stimulus into bb homeland security secretary. a vote would announce her -- would advance her termination. at some point, the senate expects the house to send a short-term spending bill that would fund the government until december 22. it will likely vote on that later in the week and also where to start tax reform negotiations with the house. the house takes up that issue on monday with a vote on going to conference happening at 6:30 p.m. eastern. later in the week, members consider a bill. follow the house live here on c-span and the senate live on c-span two. on the sunday talk shows today, members of congress were asked about the progress of tax reform. here is some of what we heard. >> the question is whether you andgetting tax relief,

people on the lower and don't provide a huge percentage of the revenue that we raise through taxation. miami --le once is, in is, am i going to get relief? -- and is my job likely to be in the united states and are we going to have a growing economy so my children will be able to realize the same goals and aspirations that i want them to have this is designed to get the economy growing. we didn't have a single year of 3% growth in the obama years. we were underperforming and you have to ask why. overregulation and a lousy tax code. >> economists believe we will do much better. take a look at the current economy. based on stagnant obamacare numbers. we don't have to do much to get up to higher numbers, because these last two quarters we have

.ut over 3% economic growth we have already many new jobs created since the day president trump was elected. when you do regulatory relief as well as tax relief, i think we are going to have an accelerated growth of the economy beyond what people are predicting. >> i think you'll find that economists don't agree on this. >> you are comfortable with your vote on this tax bill? >> no. i want to see what comes out. addedeve the amendments i on medical expense deductions, proper pretax -- property tax , i got a commitment we are going to past two bills, including one i sponsored that will help the individual mandate

repeal by lowering premiums. i also got an ironclad have met -- an ironclad commitment we won't see cuts in the medicare program. >> three things about this -- this process that just stunk. this was swamped 101. lotsill was and drafted, of provisions being included for special interests. one got exposed already exempting a particularly religious college in michigan for a special tax break. it got exposed at least, but i will bet we will seek thousands more of these special provisions put in to help special interests. second, as somebody who has been passionate about not adding to our debt, this bill will add over $2 trillion in debts, even with whatever growth comes from the tax cuts. that is not only from the $1.5 trillion that has already been acknowledged, but this was set theo all of the goodies,

things helpful to individuals, are set to expire in five years, creating a fiscal cliff. chances are those provisions will be extended, driving up debt. third, substance. i think they got some of the international provisions wrong mayhat, unfortunately, this cause more companies to move abroad and then put intellectual and havein a tax haven corporations still paying virtually no american tax. if we are going to bring back this money at cheap rates, why not build in a requirement that these companies would invest money in training their workforce and the giving them skills they need to compete. but i'm afraid as we will see the vast majority of these funds come back and be used for share buyback and dividends rather than investing in human capital or infrastructure.

c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. >> the supreme court heard -- the government gained access to his cell phone records under an. mr. carpenter argues his fourth amendment right was violated due to the lack of a search warrant. this oral argument is just under an hour and a half.