available online later today at c-span.org. live coverage today on fighting crime and violence in el salvador, hosted by the inter-american dialogue and counterpart international starting at 3:30 p.m. eastern time. newsmakers this week is pleased to have congressman adam smith, democrat of washington. tacoma is home to the army's fort lewis and he is the ranking democrat on the armed services committee. we are talking to him on a thursday morning when the houses in the middle of a big decision about the pentagon. thanks for being with us this week, congressman. let me introduce the reporters that will be asking questions. andcovers capitol hill conor o'brien is the senior defense reporter for politico.

. overall i think the world would benefit from all of 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. i do not have a problem with having a dialogue with russia. vladimir putin has made it clear in the last decade that he is no intention of being part of the world order, that he wants to bring down democracy and bring down the west, and that is the most troubling aspect of this. president trump is cozying up to kim jong-un, to vladimir putin,

to some extent to president xi of china while pushing away our traditional allies in europe. that is the most concerning thing to me. we moving away from the notion that the united states believes in economic and political freedom and towards a strong man approach to governance? i think we our allies in europe, i think we need to promote democracy and economic freedom. this president seems to be moving away from that. he is meeting with putin and having a conversation, it is the larger trend of where he is taking our foreign policy. >> you mentioned european allies. the nato summit is coming up. could you give a little bit of perspective on how you see relations with nato allies at the moment, what your expectations are for the summit

and does the administration deserve any credit for pressuring allies to increase defense spending? administrations have been pressuring the allies to increase defense spending for some time with next results, and that is always going to be part of it. that thise concern is president has basically said at different times that he wants to move away from nato and move away from our european alliances. he has a lot of people around him, most notably secretary mattis who wants to try to reinforce those, but there is always that tug-of-war. the first speech he gave where he refused to reassert article five, the one where it says every nato country will defend the other. he chose not to say it and a week later he kind of mumbled it. way the think the president is going about this is ultimately going to strengthen the alliance. i am worried that he does not

want the alliance to continue. i think that is what we are going to be interested in in the nato summit. said ig7, he pretty much do not want to have anything to do with you folks. the tariffs followed, the war of words with canada of all places, the one country were we actually have a trade surplus. is the president invested in maintaining the alliance and improving it and you want to put spend more them to money on defense, that is fine, but there are been a number of signals in the two years donald trump's has been in the white house that he does not value the alliance and wants to walk away from it. that is what is going to be interesting to see, how the nato summit lays out. >> congressman, if i could bring you back to capitol hill. --terday the house voted to

the national defense authorization act, the bill your committee has done for 57 straight years. as you look at your bill versus the senate bill and how they continue to glow -- continue to grow the military and try to easilythe pentagon, how or not easily do you think these negotiations with the senate will go and what are democratic priorities for this process and for this bill? >> i think we are pretty close. the biggest thing is we have a budget agreement earlier this year that gave us the topline numbers, so we are not fighting over that. then there is an issue here and an issue there in terms of where exactly we spend the money, and there are a number of issues that are not in the defense jurisdiction that we will have to negotiate our way through. there is the dangerous -- the

endangered species act in there. democratic priorities are to have an efficient and effective pentagon. acquisition reform are things we will be focusing on. we would love to push back on the president's lgbt band, having crews of -- having an inclusive military, unfortunately the republicans control the house and the senate and the presidency, so we will have to get what i can from arm minority position. -- from our minority position. a priority is to have a strong defense. we believe in taking care of the men and women who serve in the military so they aren't a position to defend us. that will -- so they are in a position to defend us. that will always be a top priority. >> you have highlighted the congressional budget offices regent -- recent projection of exploding debt and deficit into

thatoming decade and said would pressure defense budget. who in congress is going to enforce fiscal discipline and what parts of the defense budget do you think can be cut? >> 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. the latest presidential tweet. -- ouriscal policy lot fiscal policy right now can best 134 members of the house, all republicans, voted for a $2 trillion tax cut and a $500 increase -- a 500 billion increase in spending and

a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget. if you're wondering, that makes no sense whatsoever. you make your choice, you can decide we want tax cuts or spending increases, but to do all three, that is where the country is at. haveply must -- we promised a much in politics but the country expects a balanced budget with no tax increases and no spending cuts. we continue to drive toward that. -- how can that not ultimately affect the defense budget? the defense budget is 70% or 18% of all federal expenditures and the largest portion of all discretionary expenditures great if we do not get our house in order, long-term it will be impossible to sustain funding for a lot of things. i think a sensible approach would be we are not going to balance the budget in the short

term or even the long-term. i do not know that we need to. we need to have a plan to keep the deficit under control so that we continued to fund priorities without jeopardizing our economy. this is going to be a problem. a lot of people focus on sequestration. that is not helpful, but even if we got rid of the budget control act, the money would not just suddenly appear. we would still have the fiscal it doeses and right now not seem like many people in congress are willing to face them. some -- thereen has been some -- there is a school of thought out there that says the president's trade policy on tariffs will raid the prices of steel and aluminum -- will raise the prices of steel and aluminum domestically. do you see that as adding to the cost of defense articles domestically?

tanks, ships, and armored vehicles are going to cost more because of the tariffs being levied on our allies? >> absolutely. i do not think it is speculation. if you put those tariffs on their it is going to drive up the price. that is the conundrum in trade policy. depending on white on them you're talking about. in the united states, there are more jobs making things with steel and aluminum than there are in making steel and aluminum. if you raise the price of steel and aluminum by reducing the competition, then you're going to raise the price for a lot of different products. we saw that with harley davidson. price went up, so they are moving out of the country to be able to buy what they need to buy in a more affordable way. it is going to drive up defense costs. >> congressman, events secretary mattis just came back from a trip to asia.

he was in china meeting with their defense officials. there are some reports suggestion -- suggesting he has fallen out of favor with president trump and is not in the inner sanctum and his advice is increasingly being taken last. i know he is someone who you upheld up and other democrats have held up as a real professional in this administration, whereas democrats have criticized other on.s like mike flynn early of curious, what do you make him possibly falling out of favor, what are the implications for our national security policies? >> not good. this is a battle that has gone on in the trump administration since it was first created. is donald trump the america first push all other allies away

president that sometimes he said he is going to be? then you have people like secretary mattis, h.r. mcmaster when he was there, secretary tillerson, who pushed back and said we need to find a way to work with the rest of the world. a lot of those people are being pushed out and you have seen it reflected in some of the policies that the president has advanced in terms of getting closer to vladimir putin and china and kim jong-un while getting further 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 is going to undermine alliances at a crucial time for our country, and yet the president is engaging. ofre have been a lot

articles written about how the president is feeling increasingly empowered to do what he wants to do and not listen to key advisors like secretary mattis. in that to be moving direction and that has troubling implications for our foreign policy. when secretary mattis does come up on the hill and gives on something,ces doesn't make you less likely to take his word knowing the president could undercut him? >> i think secretary mattis's influences definitely waning as you see the policy direction of the president. when president trump was elected, i do not know if he had a clearly formed idea of a foreign policy, but steve bannon and some of his base were all about the end of globalists. this notion we needed to work with the rest of the world. it was going to be america first and we're going to battle everybody. secretary mattis and others try to push back and maintain some

of the system of alliances that have served so well since the end of world war ii and 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 do not think there is any personal split as there has been with mcmaster and tillerson and others, but on policy, the policy is clearly drifting away to where secretary mattis would prefer to see us go. >> there is a development overnight in the defense department has been asked to house as many as 12,000 12,000nt families -- immigrants on three different bases. what do you think is the appropriate level of congressional oversight and press access for these

and speaking of , how dosecretary mattis you think it is being received at the pentagon that they're being asked to pitch in? pres. trump: we should not be -- >> we should not be incarcerating women and children. there is a better way to do this , to handle asylum-seekers then to lock them up. bases isitary particularly troubling. we should not be incarcerating them. second of all, we want our military bases to be preparing to defend the country. this undermines their ability and their readiness. 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. i think it is troubling in that respect.

second, there has not been much transparency about the conditions within the facilities in which these people are being held. that would be a concern, not just on military bases but some of the other temporary encampments that have been put in place. senator reid, the ranking member on the senate armed services committee and i, 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. to see whatsparency the conditions of those facilities are and what the precise plans are. >> what is your level of confidence you will receive the information you're asking for and has the pentagon been responsive? >> the pentagon has been responsive. i got an email this morning from my staff saying they're looking at four or five different military bases to howells up to

e up to 20,000hous migrants. they have been keeping us informed in that regard. to a i can pull us back broader view of the political landscape and where your party is at. it has been a big newsweek, but one of the bigger items for your party was that your conference -- your caucus chairman, congressman crowley lost a primary to a younger, more progressive challenger. i am curious, what is your take on that and what it says about the current dynamic in your party and what do you think that 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? >> this is frustrating for me

because it is simple. this is something that has happened throughout politics. .ll politics is local you have to take care of your district and pay attention to your district and be in your district. if you look at what happened in that race, that is what happened. it was not left or right. joe crowley's opponent ran was arguing that show had moved his family to virginia and that is where they lived since he was elected in 1998. she ran a powerful ad saying his children to not go to the same not drink do, he does the water we drink, he does not breathe the air we breathe. it was a little unfair. joe spends an enormous amount of time in his district, but his family did not live there. in trying toing get people elected to get the majority back. there's nothing complicated about what happened up there.

his district changed and he was not as connected to the district as he needed to be to keep getting elected. it was not a left/right thing. it was are you actively involved in the district or not?'s opponent did a powerful job of making that case. incumbent member of congress, it is a complicated job. we have responsibilities and washington, d.c. if you're in leadership you have more responsibilities, but at the end of the day, and i've had this bird in my brain since a dad got elected in 1996, nothing -- burned in my brain since the day i got elected in 1996, nothing matters more than the people i represent. i have 3.4 million miles on united airlines, but my family lives in the district, they always have, my kids go to

school there and i stay connected in the district and i stay focused on that first and foremost. icm talked and talk to you guys about armed services issues. right on the front of my mind -- talk to you guys about armed services issues. i have an east african community and my district that has issues with remittances back to somalia and how to make food stamps work at somali grocery stores. bellevue is applying for grant to help build a road to 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 there, i go to the grocery store, i see people in the community i represent to stay connected. that is what happened. it is difficult as i think joe was a good member of congress, but it is a complicated job and you have to take care a lot of things. number one, you have to stay

100% connected to the people you are elected to represent. >> i've word that we have to end a couple minutes early so you can go vote, but i want to thank you for being our guest this week. >> i appreciate the chance, thank you. the big picture on the tuples going onto defense policy and defense spending between the pentagon and congress. what are some of the notable aspects of the debate this year that you've both been watching? >> i think congressman smith made a fairly good point that some of the biggest issues were over how much to spend on the military. that there was a budget deal that was struck in february and as a result everybody knows the top line we are going to spend, $716 billion. that said, there are issues

between the parties, between the chambers that are going to have to be resolved in this conference process and then later in the appropriations process, which actually funds all this policy. there are questions of how to reform the pentagon. the health armed service committee wants to reform all the dod bureaucracy, while senator mccain on 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. those are standard things that come in every year that they hash out and they do it in a quick fashion. there are also some policy issues -- the congress he thatoned the board

controls foreign investments in the united states and foreign takeovers. -- aim of that is to prevent to guard against access to sensitive technology by countries like china. zte,tating sanctions on that will be a point of contention with the trump administration. >> that is a comprehensive list of some of the more consequential issues. sometimes there are inconsequential issues that are tangential to defense that can .um up the works the congressman alluded to the endangered species act. for a couple years we have protections for the have caused disagreement and delayed the resolution of the conference. energy and ranching

interests that would like to see that there be no protections for the sage grouse. it has been linked to military issues. mark becauseion the senate armed services chairman has typically fought against its inclusion in the him isd stepping in for the number two republican, jim and off who has a different philosophy on environmental issues and who has said he thinks it is ok being in the bill. i think that is a big question for us. >> you referenced in your question about the joe crowley having in their party the tug-of-war between moderates and the more progressive. when it comes to defense spending, the people they have chosen to lead, i believe

senator reid is a veteran, is that correct? adam smith is seen as a fiscal -- he is concerned about the deficit. he is a moderate. he is concerned about spending. that -- the divisions in the democratic party with spending when there are these people who are advocates for a stronger military and stronger pentagon? >> as the congressman took the time to say, democrats believe in a strong defense. i think it will be interesting if they take the majority on the house and the house and the senate, it is a very big wave in this midterm. how do they manage defense and they clearly won a pushback on some of these issues on the fringe. issues.ioned lgbt democrats have come out against this new class of tactical

nuclear weapons that the trump administration wants to develop. i think there is going to be a is the debate about what proper level of defense spending because as congressman smith $716 billion is going to be hard to maintain when you will have deficits of over $1 trillion. a lot of things are going to happen all at once and i have a hard time believing democrats and the administration are going to line up on some of these big issues. weone issue we have heard, do not hear so much today but we have heard in the past, the congressman is skeptical of nuclear spending. we are spending more on our nuclear arsenal than we need to when it is vastly superior to

our adversaries. we have seen from this administration an emphasis on defense as an economic driver. defense -- the defense industry provides jobs and those jobs are in the districts of lawmakers. the congressman went on at 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 defense policy? that is a big question in my mind. >> i have read there has been a skirmish over some rain funding. rine funding. there is a tug-of-war between home districts and spending and bringing home the bacon of larger defense needs.

is it any different now? >> i think there are members that would tell you it has gotten a little bit more , it has also gotten harder as we have seen, to secure things by virtue of the fact that they're not things like earmarks appropriations bills. that is an interesting debate joe and i watched last night. virginia, whose state tilts aircraft carriers and submarines and joe courtney from eastern connecticut whose district ills -- whose district builds submarines. it was interesting to see the armed services guys fighting the appropriators who said we were

the ones who made the hard choices here and people from different parts of the countries, the main folks opposing that amendment because they built the destroyers and one of the offsets in the amendment is the destroyer program. that is always interesting to watch and it is very few lawmakers who do not benefit or see some tangential benefit from the legislation. >> we have about a minute left. used theicans have argument that there is a readiness crisis and talked about illusions, aircraft aircraft mishaps, which reporting hasn't shown to be an actual -- has shown to be an actual problem. if you can argue and a dry link between those mishaps -- draw a link between those mishaps and injury and death and defense

spending, it has made for a pretty compelling argument that i think we will see republicans continue to pressure democrats, whatever the dynamics in the house. host: we talked about immigration. will the president get funding for his wall in the next defense bill? >> it is funny, i asked patrick leahy, a senior appropriator, and he said -- in the kneeling that the democrats -- signalling that the democrat will be pushing back, which we expect, but he said the fact that mexico was supposed to pay for it, and if we are funding the law we are saying he is line and we do not want to say that. so essentially, i think the democrats will push back, but that is a good question. will they be willing to make a deal ahead of elections, when immigration is such a hot button issue right now, i do not know. host: think you very much. we have to get you back to your posts on capitol hill.

think you for being with us this hank you for being with us this week. announcer: back now to the conference on cell phone location data privacy. the discussion coming after the recent supreme court ruling in carpenter v. united states that said requiring -- to obtain a warrant for cell phone records was necessary. any records held by the wireless carrier, a maryland state prosecutor and attorney looking at the implications of that decision. we should be starting shortly after the lunch break. you are watching live coverage here on c-span. also will let you know that tonight on c-span 2 we will have a discussion on how china gets access to u.s. technology, that will be on c-span2. tonight here on c-span, a conference on the american dream held on the conference of ucla

exploit free speech, immigration uclaeducation -- of exploring free speech, immigration and education. >> hello, everybody. welcome back. thank you again for joining us. we are discussing the implications of the recent blockbuster supreme court decision, carpenter v. united states. had ar this morning, we excellent discussion of the big picture implications of the decision and now we would like to spend the afternoon drilling down a little bit to talk about the practical implications of the decision. how the issues at stake affect cell phone users and members of police communities, as well as prosecutors and defense attorneys and their .