radio app. c-span newsmakers is next with democratic congress meant adam smith of washington state. that is followed by the american civil liberties union with a talk on the state of the news media. at 8:00 on q&a, syndicated charen talksa about modern-day feminism. susan: "newsmakers" this week is pleased to have congressman adam smith, democrat of washington. his district is home to the army's fort lewis and air force base and he is the ranking democrat on the armed services committee. were talking to him when the house is talking about big big decisions about the pentagon and defense. thank you for being with us. rep. smith: thanks for the chance. susan: let me introduce the two reporters asking questions. joe covers capital hill and

connor o'brien, senior defense reporter for politico. we have just gotten some confirmation this morning as we start here that president trump and russian leader putin will be meeting on july 16, not too very far in the future, in helsinki, finland. what are your hopes and concerns about these two leaders sitting at the table together? rep. smith: broadly speaking, it would be a better world if the united states and russia got along. if we could find a better way to work together. in fact, overall, the world would benefit from all the great powers, russia, the european union, china the united states , focusing on what we can do to meet the challenges that face the globe. climate change, terrorism. so i don't have a problem having a dialogue with russia. certainly vladimir putin has made it clear in the last decade that he has no intention of being part of the world order, and he wants to bring down

democracy and bring down the west. that is the most troubling aspect of this is president trump is cozying up to kim -- kim jong-un, president xi jinping and china, vladimir putin, while pushing away our allies in europe. that is the most concerning thing to me is are we moving , away from the notion that the united states believes in economic and political freedom, and toward a strong man approach to governance? i think we need our allies in europe. when ether promote democracy and economic freedom. this president seems to be moving away from that. having a conversation is fine, but the larger trend of where he is taking foreign policy is what is troubling to me. >> you mentioned european allies to -- allies. the nato summit is coming up.

could you give us a little bit of perspective on how you see relations with nato allies at the present moment, what your expectations are for the summit, and does the administration deserve credit for pressuring allies to increase defense spending? rep. smith: administrations have been pressuring the allies to increase defense spending for quite some time with mixed results, and that is always going to be a part of it. i guess the concern is that this president has basically said in a different times that he wants to move away from nato and from our european alliances. he has a lot of people around him, most notably secretary mattis, who wants to enforce -- reinforce those but there was always that tug-of-war. the first speech he gave where he refused to reassert article v, the one where he says that every native country will defend -- nato country will defend another. he refused to say it in his reach, and a week later, he

kind of mumbled it. so, i don't think that the way the president is going about this is ultimately going to strengthen the alliance. i am really worried that he doesn't even want the alliance to continue. i think that is what we will be really interested in in the nato summit. obviously, at the g7 he said i don't want to have anything to do with you folks. the tariffs followed, the war of words with canada of all places. the one country we have a trade surplus. is the president invested in maintaining the alliance and improving it? look, if you want to put pressure on them to spend more money on defense, that is one way to improve the alliance, and that is fine but there have been a number of signals in of the nearly two years by donald trump has been in the white house that he does not value the alliance at all and wants to walk away from it and that will be interesting to see how the nato

summit plays out on that within that framework. connor: congressman, if i can bring you back to capitol hill yesterday, the house voted to appoint conferees to negotiate the national defense confirmation act, the bill that your committee does and has for 57 straight years. 57 years to riyadh as you look at your bill, how they continue to grow the military, the size and shape of force and helped reform the pentagon -- how easily or not easily, do you think these negotiations will go? what are the democratic parties for this process and for this bill? rep. smith: i think that actually we are pretty close. the biggest thing is we have a budget agreement earlier this year that gave us the top line numbers, so we are not fighting over that. then there are issues of where exactly we spend the money.

and a number of issues not in the defense jurisdiction, cfius being the biggest one that we will have to negotiate our way through this endangered species act issue that is in their. -- there. did acquisition reform and procurement reform are things that we will have to focus on. we would love to push back on the president's lgbt ban, have a more inclusive military. we will keep pushing for that. unfortunately, the republicans control the house, senate, and the presidency, so we will have to get what we can from our minority position. i will also say a big democratic party is to make sure we continue to have a strong defense. we believe in taking care of them and women who serve in the military, so that they are in a position to defend us. that will always be a top party for our party.

joe: you have highlighted the congressional budget office's recent projection of exploding debt and deficit into the coming decade. so that it would pressure the defense budget. who in congress is going to enforce fiscal discipline, and what parts of the defense budget do you think can be cut? rep. smith: there is no short answer to that question. i think it is important to give the more detailed answer. we have an unsustainable fiscal policy in this country right now. most people do not understand that they are trapped in the . partisan back-and-forth, or the latest presidential tweet. our fiscal policy can best be summed up by 134 all republican

members of the house, who voted for three different ills over the space of a couple months. they voted for a $2 trillion tax cut, a $500 billion increase in spending, and they voted for a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget. and yes, if you're wondering, that makes no sense whatsoever. you can make your choice. you can decide that we want tax cuts and spending increases and balancing a budget is really not that important. but, to do all three? that reflects for the country is -- where the country is at. we promised so much in politics the country expects a balance budget with no tax increases and no spending cuts. we continue to drive toward that cliff. how can it not affect the defense budget? the defense budget, i believe was 17% or 18% of the entire federal expenditure. it is the largest portion of the discretionary budget. if we don't get our fiscal house in order, long-term it will be

difficult to sustain funding for a lot of things -- defense is certainly one of them, but not the only one. we will not balance the budget in the short term, or even a long-term. i don't necessarily know that we need to. buy we do need to have a plan to keep the deficit under control, so that we can continue to fund priorities without jeopardizing our economy. this is going to be a problem. a lot of people focus on sequestration. sequestration certainly is not helpful, but even if we did get rid of the budget control act that contains sequestration in it, the money would not just suddenly appear. we would still have fiscal challenges that we have. right now, it does not seem like too many people in congress are willing to face them. connor: there is a school of thought out there that says, that the president trade policy on tariffs will raise the prices of steel and aluminum domestically. do you see that as potentially

adding to the cost of defense articles domestically? do you think the tanks, ships, armored vehicles are all going to cost more because of the tariffs being levied on our allies? rep. smith: absolutely. is not speculation. i mean if you put those tariffs on there, it will drive up the price. that is a great conundrum in trade policy depending on what item you are talking about you and the truth is, in the united states of america, there are more making things with steel and aluminum than there are in making steel and aluminum. so if you raise the price of steel and aluminum by reducing the competition, then you are going to raise the price for a whole lot of different products. we saw it with harley davidson. as part of their expenditures, price went up, so they are moving out of the country to be able to buy what they need to

buy at a more affordable rate. so, absolutely, it will drive up defense costs. connor: defense secretary james mattis just came back from a trip to asia. he was meeting in chennai with -- shanghai meeting with her defense officials. there are some reports suggesting he has fallen out of favor with president trump, not in the inner sanctum, and that his advice is increasingly being taken less. i know that he is someone who you have held up another democrats have held up as a real defense professional in this administration. whereas democrats have criticized other folks like mike flynn early on. i am just curious, what do you make of him possibly falling out of favor? what are the implications for our national security policy because of that? rep. smith: not good.

in fact, this is a battle that has gone on in the trump administration since it was first created. you know, is donald trump the "america first push all of our allies away" president he said he was going to be? then you have people like secretary mattis. h.r. mcmaster, secretary tillerson who have pushed back and said, no, we need to work with the rest of the world. a lot of those people are being pushed out. you have seen it reflect in some of the policies that the president has advanced. in terms of getting closer to putin, to china, and getting closer to kim jong-un. while getting farther away from our traditional allies. clearly, it appears that secretary mattis is not having as much influence on the president as he used to have particularly when it comes to , the tariffs. i know secretary mattis is concerned about getting involved in a trade war and how it will

undermine alliances at a crucial time for our country. yet the president is engaging in it. there have been a lot of articles written about how the president is feeling increasingly empowered to do what he wants to do and not listen to a key advisors like secretary mattis. it seems to be moving in that direction and that has troubling implications for the foreign policy, obviously. connor: when secretary mattis comes to the hill and gives you assurances on something, doesn't -- does it make it less likely for you to take his word, knowing that the president could undercut him like this? rep. smith: i think secretary mattis's influence is definitely waning as you see the policy direction of the president. just sort of putting it in the simplest terms, when president trump was elected i don't know that he had a fairly formed idea of a foreign policy. but advisers like steve bannon and some of his base were all this notion that we needed to -- about the end of globalists.

this notion that we needed to work with the rest of the world. that it would be "america first," and we would battle everybody. secretary mattis and others tried to sort of pushed back and maintain the system of alliances that had served as so well since the end of world war ii. clearly now, the anti-globalists are ascendant within the white house. where does that leave secretary mattis? he is not in that camp. he still wants to build these alliances. i think he still has a good relationship with the president. i don't think there is any personal split as there has been with mcmaster and tillerson and the others. on the policy, the policy is clearly true thing away from where secretary mattis would prefer not to see us go. joe: there was a development overnight that the defense department has been asked to house as many as 12,000 immigrant families -- 12,000

immigrants on three different bases. do you think is the appropriate level of congressional oversight and press access for these facilities? and speaking of defense secretary mattis, how do you think it is being received at the pentagon that they are being asked to pitch in? rep. smith: the overarching first point is that we should not be incarcerating women and children and parents as they come across the border. there is a better way to do this. to handle asylum-seekers, then to lock them up. using military bases is particularly troubling. first of all, again, we shouldn't be incarcerating them, and second of all, we want our military bases to be preparing to defend the country. this undermines their ability for readiness. in fact, when president obama speculated about doing this in

2014, the republicans were outraged that he would use the military. it would undermine the core mission of the military. so, i think it is troubling in that respect. second, there has not been much transparency about the conditions and the facilities in which these people are being held. that would be a concern, not just on military bases but in some of the other temporary encampments put in place. senator reid, ranking member on the senate armed services committee sent a letter to the department of defense, asking them to give us full information on what is being proposed in terms of using military bases to house those seeking asylum. we need transparency on it, to see what the conditions of the facilities are and the precise plans. joe: just a follow of, what is your level of confidence that you will receive the information you are asking for, and has the pentagon been responsive? rep. smith: the pentagon has been responsive.

they told us, as you mentioned, i got an email this morning from my staff saying they are looking at four or five different military bases, to house, gosh, potentially up to 20,000 migrants. they have been keeping us informed on that regard, and we will try to make sure it continues. connor: sir, if i can pull this back to a broader view of the political landscape and where your party is at. obviously, it has in a big news week but one of the bigger items for your party was that your your caucus chairman, congressman crowley, lost a primary to a younger, more progressive challenger. i am just curious, what is your take on that, and what it says about the current dynamic in your party? and, what do you think that it says about the state of leadership in your caucus? what is your read on that and

the willingness of your members to let nancy pelosi continue to serve as leader or speaker? rep. smith: look, and this is frustrating for me because it is really simple. this is just something that is happened throughout politics. all politics is local. you have got to take care of your district. you have to pay attention to your district and be in your district. if you look at what happened in that race, that is what happens. it was not left or right. the biggest ad that the opponent ran was arguing about the fact that joe had moved his family to virginia, and that is where they lived since he was elected in 1998. she ran this very powerful ad saying that his children don't go to the same schools that we do. i think she even got down to he doesn't think the water we drink or paris the air that we the thearis -- or brea

air that we breathe. it was a little unfair. just been spent enormous amount of time in his district, but his family did not live there. he was traveling for leadership things, trying to get people i like the majority back. there is nothing complicated about what happened there. his district changed and he was not as connected to the district as he needed to be to keep getting elected. it wasn't a left/right thing. it was, "are you actively involved in the district or not?" his opponent did a very powerful job of making that case. that is it. this can happen to anybody. if you are an incumbent member of congress, it is a complicated job. we have responsibilities back here in washington, d.c.. if you're in leadership, you have even more responsibilities. but at the end of the day, and i had this burned into my brain from the first day i got elected in 1996, nothing matters more to me professionally than the 700,000 people i represent. i don't get to do the job if they don't take i am taking care of them and doing a good job.

i have 3.4 million miles on united airlines, my family lives on the district, there goes have, my kids go to school in the district, and i am focused on that first and foremost. i know i see and talk to you guys about armed services issues. right on the front of my mind is always what is going on at the seatac airport? i have an east african community in my district that has issues with remittances back to somalia, and how to make food stamps work at somali grocery stores. you know, there is -- bellevue is applying for a grant to get a loan to help build a road to help support the light rail system that is coming through -- that is what is at the top of my mind. how are the schools? how are the communities? i go to the gym back there, i go to the grocery store back there and i see people in the community that i represent to stay connected. really, that is what happens.

it is difficult, because i think joe is a good member of congress. but it is a complicated job and you have to take care of a lot of things. number one, you have to stay 100% connected to the people you are elected to represent. susan: congressman, i have been getting word that we have to finish a bit early so that you can go to the floor and make your vote. thank you for being our guest on "newsmakers" this week. rep. smith: i appreciate the chance. thank you. susan: so, gentlemen let's get the picture about the tassels tussles that have been going on with regard to a defense policy and spending between the pentagon and congress as a starting point. what are some of the notable aspects of the debate this year that you both have been watching? connor: i think congressman smith made a fairly good point that some of the biggest issues were over in general, suspend on the military. that there is a budget deal that was struck in february and as a

result everybody knows the top line that we will spend, $716 billion. that said, there are issues between the parties and the chambers that are going to have to be resolved in this conference process, and then later in the appropriations process that funds the policy they are making. there are questions of how to reform the pentagon. chairman thornberry of the senate armed services committee wants to reform the dod bureaucracy while senator mccain over on the senate armed services has other plans. they have different ideas on how many more troops there should be in the military. the senate comes in lower than the house. and the pentagon's request. how many fighters? how many and what kind of new ships to put on contract? those are standard things that come in every year that they had out.h ou -- hash

they do them pretty quick fashion, but there are also other issues. the congressman mentioned cfius which is the board of the -- foreign investment and foreign, which is the board of the controls takeovers in the united states. that will be a big point of contention with the trump administration as well. joe: i think that is a pretty conference of list of some of the more consequential issues. the funny thing is sometimes the inconsequential issues are tangential to defense, that can gum up the works. the congressman alluded to the endangered species act. for a couple of years we watched as protections for the stage have caused disagreement

and delays in the resolution of the conference. and ranchinggy interests that would like to see the -- see that there be no protections for the stage graft. it has been linked to military issues, and it is kind of a question mark as we don't have the senate armed services chairman, john mccain, has typically fought against its inclusion in the bill, and standing up to him is jim imhoff, who has a different philosophy on environmental issues and he said to reporters he thinks it is ok bring the bill. so i think that is a big question mark for us. susan: you have referenced this question about the joe crowley race. they have it within their party

a tug of war between moderates , and a more progressive spirit. -- the more progressive's. when it comes to defense spending, the people they have chosen to lead on the two panels -- i believe senator reed is a veteran, and adam smith is a fiscal that he is concerned about the deficit. he is a moderate. he is concerned about spending. how does that framed the divisions in the democratic party over defense spending when they have two people here who are advocates for a stronger military and a stronger pentagon? connor: the congressman took the time to say, in addition to all these issues, democrats believe in a strong defense. i think it will be very interesting if they take the majority in the house or perhaps the house and senate, if it is a very big wave in the midterm, how do they manage defense? there are clearly going to want to push back on some of the

issues on the fringe. you mentioned lgbt issues, democrats have come out our -- against this new class of what they call "low yield or technical" nuclear weapons the trump administration wants to develop. i think there will have to be a genuine debate about what the proper level is for defense spending. because, as congressman smith alluded to, $716 billion is going to be very hard. it will be hard to maintain when in just a couple of years you will have deficits of over $1 trillion. a lot of things will be happening all at once, and i have a hard time believing that democrats and the administration are going to line up on some of these big issues. joe: one issue we heard about in the past, but that we did not hear so much today, is that the congressman is skeptical about nuclear spending.

that we are spending more than -- more on the nuclear arsenal when it is vastly superior to our adversaries. but, you know, we have seen from this administration an emphasis on defense as sort of an economic driver. it is true that defense -- the defense industry provides jobs, and of those jobs are in the districts of lawmakers. the congressman sort of went on in that length about the district interests of lawmakers. how do you restrain those appetites when they have a direct impact on jobs at home? and balance it with what makes for the best policy? that is a big question mark in my mind as well. susan: as an example, i have been reading that there is a skirmish over submarine funding. the proposal is being advanced by the congressman.

there is a tug of war between home districts as you are suggesting, and spending, and bringing home the bacon. that has been as long as we have had a military spending debate in this city. is it any different now? connor: well, i think there are members that would tell you perhaps it has gotten a little more parochial, but it has also gotten harder, as he has seen, to secure things. by virtue of the fact that there aren't things like earmark appropriation bills that don't pass on time. that is an interesting debate that joe and i both watched last night with rob wittman from virginia, whose state builds aircraft carriers and submarines joe courtney from , eastern connecticut, whose

district builds subs, teaming up to try to get extra money in the appropriations bill. they are both on the armed services committee. it is interesting to see them fighting the appropriations guys he said they made a hard choice and people from different parts of the country, the main folks opposing that amendment because they feel the destroyers. one of the offsets in the amendment come from the destroyer program. that is always interesting to watch. it is very few lawmakers who don't benefit or see some sort of tangential benefit from defense legislation. susan: we have about a minute left. joe: i just want to add that republicans have used to great effect an argument that there is a readiness crisis and they have talked about ship collisions, aircraft mishaps, which reporting has shown to be an actual problem. and, if you can argue and draw a

link between those mishaps, and injuries and deaths and defense spending, it has made a pretty compelling argument. i think we will see republicans continue to pressure democrats, whatever the dynamics in the house. susan: what did i could to the specific question but we talked with immigration. the president get funding for his wall on the mexico border? leahy, thed patrick senior appropriator. signaling the democrats will definitely be pushing back, which we expect. if the president said in a couple pay for it and we as appropriators find a wall -- fund the wall, he will be line and we don't to say that. i think the democrats are going to push back but it's a good question. will they be willing to make a

deal when immigration this is a hot button issue right now? i don't know. susan: thank you very much. we have got to wreck your post on capitol hill. thank you for being with us on "newsmakers" this week. [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. 2018] leahy. >> we send such confusing messages to young people. and so young women. i don't envy them. put in the story i book about a number of women

posing topless or semi topless. be dignified and remember if you disrobe, it's hard for people to take you seriously. a man looking at a picture of a topless woman is not going to "oh, look at that fantastic athlete. isn't it wonderful she doesn't have a problem with body image." think about sex and not think about her in a other. tful way that's why i said angela merkel, the chancellor of not take off her blouse to prove she has body image issues. to be respected. and women if they want to be respected have to behave in a that.to elicit >> tonight at 8:00 eastern. >> on the sunday shows there

supreme court justice anthony kennedy's retiring and the impact a new have on women's rights and other precedence decided by the court. a look at what some senators had to say starting blumenthal of connecticut. decision will shape the court for years to come, and it to criminalizing reprotective rights as they roe v wade.to died and e prosecuted denied access to contraception and the morning after bill, and same with the health insurance protections. these are real live impacts, right. u are the shape of the court will be determined for decades to come. job of the judge is to call the five cases before the court. but one of the concepts that

is you lot in america don't overturn precedent unless reason. a good i would tell my pro-life friends, you can be pro-life conservative, but we believe roe v wade, in many different ways has been affirmed over the years. i would hope the justice that sits on the court. them would listen to the arguments on both sides before they decided. it is a well-known concept in our law. >> that's important to you. are you going to vote for someone that doesn't believe in that? for 'm not going to vote anyone that tells me they'll decide a case before the facts are presented to them. the judge to say i'll overturn roe v wade. i'll never listen to an argument about abortion. >> it's a difference between overturning precedence, such as the ferguson case, overturned segregation case in

brown versus the board of versus overturning a ruling that is - that has been for 36 years. 45 years. it involves the constitutional right, and has the reaffirmed -- has been reaffirmed by the court 26 years ago. indeed, our justice roberts has that he y clear considers roe v wade to be settled law. not support a nominee who demonstrated roe v wade because that would be, to me, that philosophy did not include a respect for decisions, established law. believe that that is a very important fundamental tenant, which justice roberts

stability to promote and even-handedness kennedy's e anthony retirement brings a significant change to the supreme court. on c-span. story from president donald trump reblazement. the senate confirmation hearings to the swearing in, on c-span, or listen on the c-span act let's a look at the state media during the trump president say. people from lude "washington times," "the washington post", and the "the nation." part of a conference hosted by the american civil liberties union. it's under an hour and a half. [ ♪ ] good afternoon. it's a pleasure to welcome you to this luncheon. because