some people were with the obama administration. execute theble to president's mission and work for previous presidents, certainly. "ost: ted hesson from "politico joins us. teresa from columbus, ohio. caller: hi, thank you so much for c-span. is, as a border security policy, isn't this a property rights policy, too? if i was in my backyard having a barbecue and 20 strangers started rolling through, i would be appalled. i don't think that people have a put that on people's land because they have a goal that is in their interest and i forgo my right to have my private property. thet this just as much of whole makeup? i certainly wouldn't want to live next to the border with this going on. i wouldn't want to live in columbus, ohio with this going on. can you talk about private property rights and where people fit in? a good question. there are plenty of people you would talk to you at the border that are concerned with people crossing and paying on their property. part of the mission of what homeland security is asking for pushing peo

or this administration. host: to geneva, nebraska. one of your constituents. eric.orning, caller: good morning. governor, i wanted to ask about the importance of e-15 in the how you nebraska and feel we can make it usable here in the state. people who don't know, what is e-15? is an ethanol blend of 15% ethanol. and that's one of the things when he president, again, we were at the white house a few weeks ago, he supports going to e-15 and doing it all year round. and eric, that's a big deal for us. ebraska is the second largest ethanol producing state. thanol is an inexpensive form of energy for our cars. it's cleaner burning. to it's one of the ways boost octane without carcinogens so it's a win-win for everybody. it's something that will help you get better, you know, performance out of your car, to save money at the pump and will also help keep the vierpt clean. t really is something that can really help all of us. and it creates a lot of jobs here in nebraska. nd with the president supporting e-15 all ye

of the trump administration.the numbers reported by those three organizations show increases in somalia and i don't remember exactly how the others shake out, but the aggregate would certainly be higher. they also show somewhat higher civilian casualties. those are hard to assess without any context around them which is to say that in some of the cases in yemen and small yet it appears that strikes may have been in support of ground forces. if that were the case they might not have been of abiding by the same rules of no casualties so you might expect some higher levels of casualties. that's why that context is so important and i would be hesitant to make any absolute statements about that. i'll just take a brief stab on the partners you should be working with. i think the answer from my perspective is all of them in the sense that i think we too often think about partnerships and how do we help the country that is facing a terrorist threat within its own borders and build the capability it needs but we also need

administration. including the use of drones, allies, it and partnerships. this was hosted by new america. >> good afternoon everyone. since 2011.fellow was i started here, i director for afghanistan-pakistan. so i have worked specifically on the case of pakistan and now i at johns advisor hopkins. it is great to have this conversation today with my colleagues. some were previously in government. we all look much more rested and useful the and we did that we were at the white house. stephen just finished a book. you look great. you brought the book, right? please by the book. we have a combination of the academic perspective today. look forward to your questions. the questions we want to look at our, how have terrorism strikes of the u.s. government changed under the trump administration. the discussion will be a combination of what was the lessons we learned from that under the obama administration. hopefully we can take that and then have a conversation. how do you define what this administration is

in trump administration. that manifests itself in the solicitor general's office changing position. a couple examples to highlight about this. the courts very first case in the term was a case involving arbitration in the employment context and whether or not an agreement to arbitrate employment disputes is winding and the employer employee context or rather having those kinds of agreement raises an issue under the national labor relations act. the issue basically got to the supreme court based on a series of enforcement actions brought by the national labor relations board under the obama administration. and so you have the national labor relations board is a party to the case notwithstanding the fact that a federal government agency was a party to the case. the solicitor general to the relatively unusual position of filing an amicus brief on behalf of the united states on the opposite side of the case. when the case was argued in october, four lawyers squaring off. the nlrb on one side in the employer's law

something that the trump administration considers a bigger priority. >> the trump administration's trade policy is the topic of our discussion here. policy is the -- topic for the next 25 minutes. host: we talked about deadlines and outlook fo >> we talked about deadlines and outlook for nafta. so let's do the same thick for the china negotiation. >> that's anybody's guess, of course. the u.s. hat ths threatened $50 billion in imports from china and authorized another $100 billion. china has fallen suit on the first $50 billion and threatened to start what would amount to a trade war if it came to pass. but those tariffs haven't been imposed. instead, they've started negotiations towards some arrangement to avoid that. and the earliest the tariffs, the first $50 billion could be imposed would be later this month. we don't expect that necessarily. but this administration is full of surprises. we expect a protracted period of negotiations. the trump administration is working with china on north korea, and a lot of other issues. certainly there's some corporate problems in the mix with chin

we have heard from both administrations, the obama and now the trump administrations, fairly similarthings from diplomats and military leaders, and the basic message has been this -- while we think we have the authority to do what we need to do, the idea of an updated authorization for ilitary activities against non-state terrorists would be a good thing, if we could agree upon -- >> yes, sir. >> -- the basic language. and your predecessor, secretary tillerson, secretary mattis delivered a letter to us. i think senator corker talked about it, where they sort of put out, thou shalt nots, while again supporting the notion, their thou shalt nots, they did not want to have a hard sunset, they did not want to have a hard geographic limitation, and they wanted the 2001-2002 authorizations to be in place until something -- until a replacement was passed. and i gather that senator corker has asked you that question and you said that's your general point of view. >> it is. may i just say -- >> absolutely. >> it's an approach that's moved a considerable way towards that. what's the right word?

secretary some indication that the administration was becoming more akin to racial issues. demographic shifts influenced his political realignment as well. by 1934 the number of registered black voters increase in urban areas, particularly falling by continuous northern and midwestern black migration during the depression. cities with existing strong black communities such as washington, d.c., chicago and new york city all witnessed population increase in the 1930s, contributing to the democratic coalition. although not uncritical of early new deal policies, by 1936 african-americans no longer felt confident that the republican party had their best interest at heart. riding in a black newspaper the -- writing in a black newspaper the pittsburgh courier, one writer declared perhaps one any other couple ever occupied the white house, president and mrs. roosevelt have demonstrate their friend and as an interest in the problems of colored americans. they were setting an example and tolerance, which all white america should follow. there was a reason for many african-americans t

the administration was ill concealed effort. resulted in absolutely flog beyond a depleted state department. on your predecessor's watch the state department lost many diplomats, senior diplomats, some of the experienced diplomats you once called incredibly professional. the state department will have single official with rank of officer, staggering number of senior positions remain vacant. perhaps most troubling are the allegations from whistle blowers who have reported to this committee that the administration is targeted career employees because of their perceived political beliefs. this is potentially a violation of laws state department personnel, also strikes at the idea that politics should stop at the water's edge, that the way we carry out foreign policy should put american interests first, and leave partisan interests and concerns behind. it's how we run this committee. but that principle has been under attack recently. i think you can draw a line from the moment straight back to the most egregious example of recent mo

i think what it does, it shows total contempt by you, administrator, and the administration for bedrock environmental safeguards and for the work of epa and the people in there, nonpartisan, hard-working people, to monitor, protect, and conservative our environment, health of all americans. if you attack the core mission, the role of epa, you attack human health. the work of the epa is essential to ensuring that air and water are clean. our land, our treasured resources, our health are protected from pollutants, toxic chemicals, effects of climate change. administrator, i hear constantly from vermonters, republicans and democrats alike, about a seemingly endless stream of controversies at the epa. it's troubling enough that your personal fundamental mission seems to be undermining the very mission of the agency you are appointed to lead. the embarrassment enthuthese pas have brought are putting the special interests ahead of the well-being of the american people. your toxic agenda to make america more polluted and less safe has extended beyond environmental policy and actually affected

we have heard from both administrations, the obama and now the trump administrations, fairly similar things from diplomats and military leaders, and the basic message has been this -- while we think we have the authority to do what we need to do, the idea of an updated authorization for military activities against non-state terrorists would be a good thing, if we could agree upon -- >> yes, sir. >> -- the basic language. and your predecessor, secretary tillerson, secretary mattis delivered a letter to us. i think senator corker talked about it, where they sort of pout thou shalt nots, while again supporting the notion, their thou shalt nots, they did not want to have a hard sunset, they did not want to have a hard geographic limitation, and they wanted the 2001-2002 authorizations to be in place until something -- until a replacement was passed. and i gather that senator corker has asked you that question and you said that's your general point of view. >> it is. may i just say -- >> absolutely. >> it's an approach that's moved a considerable way towards that. what's the right word? i

the previous administration chose to do absolutely nothing about zte, so the critics that say this administration has not done enough, i think -- senator: given the president refuses to disclose his tax returns, how can you assure the american people that american foreign-policy is free of his personal conflicts of interest? secretery pompeo: senator, i find that question bizarre. senator: you don't want to answer it then? you have described it as bizarre but you are not giving me an answer. secretery pompeo: i think that is indicative of my answer, senator. i have been incredibly involved in this and ministrations foreign policy per 16 months, and i have seen no evidence of what you are scurriously suggesting. senator: i know. it is fake news. let me ask my question. back to the specific case of zte, do you think it is in u.s. help the to problematic chinese phone company to get back into business fast? that is the trump tweet. and as the state department using any resources to work with the commerce department on this issue? secretery pompeo: i don't know the answer to your second question. i h

i believe this administration, the trump administration, is going the other way.ther it is regard to access to housing or jobs for any number of other things. host: from maryland, democrats line. caller: good morning, secretary castro. us out oftrump pulled the transpacific partnership. during the 2016 he was against free trade deals. tpps a big supporter of the . i think one of the biggest mistakes that hillary clinton made was she was -- there was no one out there really talking about the benefits of free trade deals. she didn't hear it -- she position.ay from that what is your position on those trade deals? guest: i can understand the frustration with these trade ense that many believe that these trade deals have been agreed to or entered into with the concern of the big corporations first instead of the american worker and employee first. i believe it makes sense to renegotiate agreements like nafta. i believe it makes sense to strengthen the labor and environmental protections on the other side when we get into these trade agreements. there is a greater enfor

>> it's to talk about the administration's administration. >> the trump organization is involved in a project in indonesia building hotels, golf course residences. it's getting $500 million in backing from the chinese government. can you explain the perspective on "a," how it doesn't violate the emolien clause and how it doesn't violate the promise that his private organization would not be involved in foreign deals? >> i'll refer you to the trump administration. >> he can't speak on behalf of the president, the head of the federal government who is responsible to ensure the american people, and you don't have that responsibility? >> you are dealing with a private organization dealing and that is not something i can speak to. >> we need more information about the conversation by phone that the president had with james shaw jr. and why wasn't it at the white house? and prison reform, can you give us more about the prison reform? we understand that is working its way and there is a big push from the white house. also on sadler, where does decency and morality come to play in the workpla

how is the administration track cracking down on iran's support for hezbollah, what is the administration doing to stop the flow of irnians arms to hezbollah and to develop this indigenous missile production chain. i'm also concerned by the lack of a clear plan and the president's subsequent decision to withdraw the united states from the jcpoa. while i opened it when i was announced due to the inherent risk, gaps and flaws in the agreement, including sun sets to limit the enrichment programs, however, once in place this agreement pushed iran to more than a full year away from a nuclear weapon and created a window of opportunity for the united states and our allies to craft a comprehensive strategy for the long-term. iran must never be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon, now not, not ever. i fear that by walking away from the jcpoa this way the administration has made it morale lengthing to ensure that iran never gets a nuclear weapon. earlier this week you spoke about the administration's new iran strategy and that we will work with allies to counter iran's destabilizing activities to a

is the administration still in that mode? these changes that must be made in the agreement for it to be satisfactory? has there been a change in position? >> let me speak to the former and latter. , the stateede department have been working to get those agreements from three european countries prior to the president's decision. we were never able to get there. the same problem that existed when i came in, the fourth day in office existed until the variant. evidence that the europeans had any intention to agreeing this desk agreeing to those three provisions. we have now laid out a series of things that we are working diligently to get the whole world to sign up on. 12 things we're demanding the iranians to do. i think you would agree with each of those 12 items. that is what we are looking for iran to achieve. that is the mission statement the president's that -- president set out for the state department. >> are we -- is regime change part of our objective >> -- objective? >> no, sir. good do we want to include -- >> do we w

systems, youtrial can't really go administration by administration to work those things out. so i think i high level, the u.s. should support global protections in international environments with the subject of what they are to be part of our own national processes. >> margaret whitehead, hudson trustee. thank you for being here. hudson is honored to have many satellite innovators here today, and ceos. tell us about this time game and have the on, impulse to over regulate it or thatm said -- how is all going to unfold in the industry itself, and their impulses to get into space? and what is the trump administration going to do about this? scott: we want the commercial industry to be a global leader because it serves our national interests of economic growth and national security and the ability to shape what the rules are in space. made bye, the rules are the people that show up, not the people that sabine behind. we need to show up at these meetings. one of the biggest threats to the space industry is not the question not. i think everyone is supportive. coordinationis the o

so the difference between the trump administration and the obama administration is night and day.k: did you meet with the obama national security council? >> they never let us. mark: for eight years, you never met? >> no, they never met with the commission and weren't interested in implementing. in fact, there was a general government accountability office report done in 2015 that showed zero of the recommendations were implemented by the obama administration. mark: and it was created by congress, it's a legitimate commission? >> yes, of course, the purpose of commissions like this is to basically provide a definitive answer for purchases public policy about the way forward, and the commission system has tended to work well. we have national missile defense today and protection against biological and chemical agents because of the result of commissions. there is a result under the clinton administration that laid out the rules that started us on the pathway to preparedness against cyberwar fare and wish i could say the obama administration followed the advice of the commission, bu

first year of administrator, he's met with 34 governors in both parties. the 30 states and u.s. territories. under his leadership, the epa has acted on 322 state implementation plans as those are sips and average turning one federal into a sip each month. in comparison, obama administration imposed more than 50 sips on our state partners. it was this idea that, and i understand that some people think this is a step backwards to have our administrator has been doing, but they're the ones who think that somehow the federal government or other states should be dictating what we do in our state and i know that's not the feeling of our administrator now. and i've read the testimony today and i'd say many states, they see positive results from this administration. now, question for mr. terry, senator brought up the things about the problems we've had and i had the privilege of chairing this committee for a number of years and watched that happen in the case in my oklahoma, we're a victim of the sue that took place. sued in northern california courts and forced t

i preface that by saying that we understand the final congressional action and administrator of -- administration action on fy18 occurred after you were asked to submit your budget. still, they are things we need to talk about. the actual budget i think is $1.9 billion. that's 2.1% lower than the bill we just passed and then in addition to that there's another $5.6 billion that ships from the mandatory side to the discretionary side in your budget and i think when you add all this up the budget is more like 16% lower than the budget we just voted on and i'm sure we are going to talk about that and look at that. the budget request had to be submitted when it had to be submitted but throughout the bill looking at some of our priorities, medical research, early childhood education, education generally, the preparedness programs, are programs that there will be questions on. i certainly agree that we ought to look everywhere we can for savings. we should look are programs that aren't working and make that decision that the this is just an idea that wasn't necessarily a bad idea. looking at programs t

that was a major goal of the administration. you always want to get that kind of thing squared away in the first half of your first term if possible. t

and not holding this administration accountable. the only way that you are going to get any kind of accountability in washington is to put some sort of balance into this system. and that's why i think the democrats are at least going to take back the house in november. >> all right. our guest served as mayor of san antonio, also secretary and housing and urban develop. from sitting in that position at hud, would you would you gauge the current holder of that position, ben carson, and particularly policies dealing with house sng. >> i'm sure secretary carson is trying his best. however, that department and this administration are going incompletely the wrong direction when it comes to lou'sing policy. number one, it hasn't been a priority. they originally proposed cutting the budget by $6 billion of hud. most recently they announced that they are going to raise the rents in some cases triple the rents of folks who live in public housing at a time when a lot of folks are struggling. it's the wrong thing to do. they also have had essen

that is where the trump administration is going on.they have a decision that i believe you with and turn over the day after another issue with iran, may 12th is coming up. important to remember that may 12 is not a deadline to report to congress, not a deadline that automatically the entire deal collapses and sanctions come back. it is renewal of one waiver of one law governing one piece of the things and architecture placed on iran. it is a big one. the central bank of iran and this has to do with locking down their assets overseas and requirements to reduce imports of uranian crude. if you do business with iran through the central bank, it is big. it comes back automatically but it is not the only thing that happens to return to maximum pressure. there's a lot of executive action that has to happen, a lot of banks have to be redesignated, companies go back on the list, people have their assets frozen. other laws need waivers rescinded. that is an open question what the administration intends to do but if there's a true exit there has

what i've seen so far this administration has not read this administration has been in power for a year and a half and nothing from the jcpoa prevented the administration were packing down on the region and they have done very little so why will it be different now plex how do you turn this youthful wish list into actual policyt like. >> may actually answer this question? >> yes, please pardon the three years of the jcpoa the iranians marched across the middle east are they conducted activities and i don'tac know which of the2 you would like me to get rid of. >> your administration has been in office for 15 months. they have done nothing to hold iran accountable in any of this maligned activity. what i'm asking is how you convert this wish list which is a terrific list, into actual policy plex how do you make those things happen? >> i'm happy to deliver that to you in the 5 seconds i have remaining. you should know we are committed to developing diplomatic solutions to getting there. >> i thinknk the chairman will allow you to answer the question whether you expect to make that policy.

the trump administration, the epa under this administration, killed, as you said, the regulation that you had written trying to keep toxic water from coal plants out of the water supply. obviously how does that feel as a scientist, as an environmentalist over the last 40 years to see that happen? >> so it's heartbreaking for every single person on the staff today as well as the 700 scientists and engineers who have left the agency since scott pruitt arrived, and that's because, again, in the case of most of these rules, eight to ten years went into their development where many, many data collection efforts that were all reviewed by industry and by the public and then fully and completely analyzed by scientists and engineers and economists. so all of that was then reviewed by industry and the public, and at no time did anyone find a flaw in the science behind our rules or in the procedure, the legal procedures followed to make those rules. so there's really no justification for the repeals other than the fact that his political donor asked him to do it. >> just to drill down a little b

agreede administration to open negotiations with california? ms. sanders: we haven't finalized what that looks like, but today was part of the conversation on how best to move forward. to continue these conversations and if we have a specific policy announcement we will a you know. reporter: coming back to north korea, the president says he believes it is kim jong-un's attention to denuclearize, but when you listen to the person in charge of north-south relations he says, the reason we are doing this is because our nuclear program is complete. the reason we are shutting down our test sites is because our nuclear program is complete. it's kind of akin to someone who builds a house and then enters -- aa negotiating negotiation to tear down. what gives you confidence came is willing tokim tear down something he just built up? ms. sanders: this is certainly a process that has moved in the right direction. we have seen signs of goodwill from north korea just this week, with the three americans brought the stopping of ballistic missile tests and them sto

bush administration. this is not an aberration. this is the path for now almost 16 months. >> julia, to have five sources confirm this story, to be so specific about what was said in that meeting, how big of a deal is that? >> it's a huge deal. but dara, i have to tell you, this is not surprising. this really brings back to my memory the common a couple months ago president trump made during a bipartisan meeting in the white house on immigration. he referred to some african country as asshole countries. we see the white house reacted in a similar way. they didn't deny. and there was not necessarily a formal apology. and i think, mick mulvaney's comments have stuck out to me over the past few days, in that he said, basically, this was a comment that was made behind closed doors. it was meant as a joke. it's not a big deal. that sends a very different signal than formally apologizing for that. and i think that definitely solidifies the white house's stance on this. and mercedes shlap's defense on this is sending a signal of how the w

that is where hopefully the trump administration is going now. they have a decision in front of them on the 12th and i'll leave you with this and turnover the day after other issues, may 12 is coming up. it's important to remember that may 12 is not a deadline to report congress, it's not a deadline that automatically the entire deal collapses and sanctions come back, it is a deadline for renewal of one waiver on one law governing one piece of the sanctions architecture that was in place in iran. it's a big one, the central bank of iran and this has to do with locking down their assets overseas and requirements to reduce imports of iranian crude, if you do business with iran through the central bank for the import of such oil so, it's big and it comes back automatically, congress doesn't get a say, but it's not the only thing if you're truly exiting the deal. people have to have their assets frozen. a lot of things like that. a lot of laws that need waivers rescinded. that is an open question, what the administration intends to do. if there is a

so we need to hear the administration -- we now hear the administration is going to submit a second rescission package and undo many of the investments. i want to make it clear today, we'll vigorously oppose any effort to undue the bipartisan deal the president signed in law. both sides made a commitment to that deal. our side didn't get everything we wanted. neither did the republicans, but a deal is a deal. any attempt by the administration to break its promise by recinding or failing to spend the omnibus funding is major breach of faith. so in addition to asking about your budget request, i'm very interested in hearing how you plan to implement the funding increases we did include in the omnibus especially responding to the opioid crisis and childcare. i was glad to see your budget at least maintains the level of funding congress directed the administration to spend, $10 billion in multiyear funding for activities related to the opioid crisis. of that amount, you're proposing to allocate $2.8 billion to agencies funded within the bill. as you know, chairman blunt and i agreed to increase fu

>> that's exactly the trump administration's strategy. to simply say it's very confusing but my ira is doing quite well and my kids have jobs so why should i care. >> up until the mueller report, they say a hanging concentrates the mind. once that report is out, it will be all written down. mueller hasn't said anything. all of the trump surrogates are defining our reality. that mueller report is out. and that i think will change everything. >> i'm here to help. you shouldn't want that thing wrapped up in september. you should be pushing it until next year. that's probably a better strategy. coming up, thank you, all. how the response to the deadly school shooting in santa fe texas is, again, so upsetting, but very different from previous mass shootings. two student survivors join us to talk about how they're moving forward. first, we continue to monitor gun violence across the country. according to the trace, there have been, are you ready for this number, 22,190 incidents of gun violence so far this year. 433 since friday. the sun comes

that has been universal thought by administration after administration. but we have an advantage, the separation of the branches of government and we need to use that. we do not have to have loyalty to our political leader, because we do have the independence of the legislative branch. even when you have the same party controlling we can act as an independent body and that can give us strength globally. we did the first in iran, where president obama did not want additional sanctions impose, and congress passed the bill unanimously even though the administration to on it. the obama administration recognized that the laws need to be carried out. secretary clinton did a great job in getting other people to follow us, and the sanctions to bring about the climate for negotiations. the bill we passed last year did some extreme things. with the policy on the government, congresses. so, we took away from the presidency a lot of discretion in imposing and removing sections. so these are mandatory sanctions. yes, recalling the administration people to task. i want

trump administration. pruitt is in a class of his own when it comes to bend the rules. >> walter used to run the u.s. office of government ethics. he quit after clashing with the trump administration. >> the sheer volume and sheer expense of what he is doing with regard to the travel far exceeds anything anyone has seen. he has a penchant for flying in first class, supposedly for security reasons. as though the sheer curtain is going to stop an attack. you have him using travel to get back to oklahoma. they did a study of how many days he spent in oklahoma in one three-month period. it was almost half of the days. he is using government resources to get himself home is what it looks like. >> much of the overboard spending is in connection with threats against pruitt says the epa, which make a 20 member security detail and first class travel a necessity. even the president tweeted, scott pruitt has received death threats because of his bold actions at epa. according to this letter written by democratic sena

and also the total chaos and dysfunction in this administration so the president gave his ultimatum senior officials worked on negotiations with the europeans i don't think there was any process to brief the president on the progress and so you know he heard about it from president mccrone and from chancellor merkel but but had not been buying into the decisions made along the way as you pointed out in one of your articles there were a number of things that trump could have done he could have extended the sanctions waiver to allow a little bit more time for the talks and yet he decided to and it abruptly after all those meetings cordial meetings with present chancellor merkel to the russians that looked kind of through a do you think he was trying to make some point to some some nasa edge to the europeans or is it just mr trump being who he is you know it's hard to know if he was trying to send a message but certainly after all the bonamy of the meeting after the supposedly improved atmosphere in the merkel meeting and then he actually treated his intention to me. this announcement and sor

in theory, we are seeing the device administration -- the devos administration is trying to make it easier for institutions to avoid penalties. penalties under the gainful employment rule in theory that would come out. you would have to provide disclosure that your graduates are not making enough money to pay back their loans. defense, we're not sure where that is going as he would have to show proof of fraud. other things, title ix, sexual assault on college campuses, a big topic right now. the devos administration has ledcinded what our cal dear colleague letters. asking colleges to take a harder line on the issue. evidence to prove sexual misconduct on campuses lowered. the number of activities that would be considered sexual misconduct. the devos administration has rolled that back and said they will issue new regulations through the formal formaltration -- regulation process. the obama administration was not formal regulation. host: issues facing colleges today. we have special minds. if you are college student or parent, you can call (202) 748-8000. if you are a college educator, you

or the administration before that. and a quarter of a century. >> a number of countries critical to is getting this done. the pres. talking with the prime minister but when it comes to china and russia and many countries not enforcing sanctions. >> china has seen north korea as an asset, it is pitbull, bite set off, keeps america distracted. china has to seen north korea not as an asset but as a liability. that is not easy, it is not impossible. donald trump putting a lot of economic pressure, also on china, that will hurt china and the us as well but unless he shows he is willing to do that and a couple other things china is not going to see that. it has its problem to solve. >> it is tough to get a real look at what is happening there and by some accounts that resonated financially not doing is that is people would think they are, there is still currency flowing, they have weapons throughout the middle east, the bunnies benefits them in many ways. >> a strategy the president talked about with north korea and iran as

drug prices on foreign countries a senior administration official says quote the u.s. tax. here through our publicly funded research efforts as well as through patients and consumers are largely paying for the vast majority of the our indeed that goes into the development of new biologics adding other countries take advantage of the u.s. and don't pay their fair share for the us and that's meant and medical research allez as our health and human services secretary says quote as part of president trump's bold plan to put american patients first ass is focused on solving a number of the problems that plague drug markets including foreign governments freewriting off of american investment and innovation as our says high drug prices can leave crucial medicines out of reach for a lot of people pharmaceutical health care companies are preparing for a string of new regulations designed to lower drug prices and the u.s. . during trump's presidential campaign in two thousand and sixteen he made the warring of drug prices a key issue so far trump's administration and the u.s. congres

i think really there is a fine line for the trump administration to walk here.s a lot of pressure coming from congress and business communities, but ultimately i think a win on north korea could eclipse what could even happen on trade if there is movement there. i'm sure the trump administration is absolutely aware and trying to juggle all of their balls here. emily: sarah mcgregor, bloomberg's head of u.s. economic policy. thank you for sharing those updates with us. that does it for this edition of "bloomberg technology" from san francisco. i'm emily chang. this is bloomberg. ♪ >> the following is a paid advertisement for the bissell crossway pet pro. ♪

administrator for being here. appreciate it. you waited a while to get here, so glad you are taking charge. you and i talked about the facility. i wanted to know -- i know that you've been aware and are supportive of that. i want to know what you might envision for the future they are for the applications may be more beneficial but also within the federal government. if you have any thoughts on that. >> yes, that is a wonderful question. the facility is currently partnering with a number of different agencies apart from nasa. i can think of the department of energy, the department of homeland security. of course we have some nongovernment partners as well. so, we do utilize nasa's facility to do governmental things that are broader than what nasa it self does. we want to continue doing that. we believe that we are a national asset that can be utilized by a whole host of government and nongovernment sanctions. we want to make sure when we do that we are not impacting nasa's missions. that is an important thing that i want to make

what does it shows total contempt, you administrator, and the administration, for bedrock environmental safeguards and the people,epa, and the nonpartisan hard-working people to monitor, protect and conserve our environment, and the health of all americans. you attack the core mission and role of epa, you attack human health. the work of the eva is essential to ensuring our air and water are clean, land and treasured resources, our health are protected from pollutants, toxic chemicals and the effects of climate change. administrator, i hear constantly from vermonters, republicans and democrats alike, about a seemingly endless stream of constant worry and controversy at the epa. it is troubling enough that your personal mission seems to undermine the mission of the administration your appointed to lead. the embarrassment of the scandals continue a pattern of personal and special interests being ahead of the well-being of the american people. the toxic agenda is making united states more polluted and less safe, has extended beyond environmental policy and has affected the confidence the a

over the years has been bill clinton's administration. if you go back to 1994 or 95 with the executive orders and then with that aspect to forbid and no matter what they say but if you are the chairman of the european business you don't want to become and take and then to be sanctioned and therefore we need to stop paying attention to what deals european leaders say and recognize there is a precedent to the unilateral sanctions. european companies when european governments give no guarantees and then the taxpayers. but that is a different issue. but also with their work on ballistic missiles in terrorism but why? because they caught them red-handed smuggling various in algeria. but that restoration grievances is the key to bring them back. also terrorism in yemen as well we spent about five months and i can tell you i saw a lot of weaponry but i never saw i am a historian i fetch iran is not the first country entering into negotiations to give up a code for but then in a word decided to work with the a ea not just the russians and the chi