. >> we'll continue on with our conversation with ken weinstein. if you want to ask him questions, you can make your thoughts and questions on twitter available. i want to play you some reaction that took place at the hearing before the vote that took place yesterday. this is from senator bob menendez expressing some concerns and criticisms about mr. pompeo, what he brings to the position. here's what he had to say. >> i do not have a satisfactory answer on the question, which mike pompeo am i voting on? unfortunately during his hearing, director pompeo offered contradictory statements. he was less than forthcoming when he was pressed on a number of issues. given the opportunity to outline the strategies he would advocate to the president and to the country to deal with russia. with iran. with north korea. with china. or venezuela. he failed to exhibit the depth of knowledge or thoughtfulness about what those strategies would be. clearly any nominee would know that those would be hot spots in the world which would have to be addressed before the co

. >> ken weinstein who is the president and ceo of the hudson institute, thanks for your time. >> thank you. >>> the administrator for the u.s. agency for international develop mark green is set to testify this afternoon on the agency's fiscal year 2019 budget request before a subcommittee that had been set for 2:30 eastern. they've pushed that back until 3:15 a vote is happening at 3:00 this afternoon on the senate floor. we'll have live coverage of the subcommittee hearing once it gets underway. in the meantime, more from today's washington journal. >>> the senior director at the national security council under the obama administration and currently is a georgetown university law school, the institute of constitutional advocacy and protection where he serves as executive director. the supreme court discusses the president's travel ban tomorrow. could you set up not only what will be debated but what's at stake? >> it's the third attempt by the president to deliver on a campaign promise of this travel ban. but the first time it's actually reaching the supreme court on the merits in ful

pleasure to introduce my friend and colleague, the president and ceo of the hudson institute, ken weinstein. ken? [applause] >> thank you. really want to thank you for the extraordinary effort you put into launching what is a major initiative for hudson institute. those of you who don't know, brant is the former general counsel of incutel, a distinguished record of service at both the department of homeland security, the department of defense, serves on numerous federal advisory boards at the department of state and commerce and played a very critical role in the nsc in his last stint there in moving satellites off of the itar list which is an important thing for this industry. hudson institute is a think tank dedicated to promoting american leadership and global engagement for a secure, free and prosperous future. critical to american leadership is american technological leadership, and that's core to our mission, core to what we do. our founder, herman khan, was a great visionary and saw the interaction between strategy, technology and demography as critical to shaping the future in ways

i'm ken weinstein,

i'm ken weinstein, president and c.e.o. of hudson institute. i'd like to welcome our audience here at hudson as well as the c-span viewing audience. hudson institute is dedicated to american leadership and global engagement for a secure, free, and prosperous future and key to american leadership is continued american technological pre-eminence. and given that that's the case, i'm delighted to be able to welcome and introduce undersecretary of defense for research and engineering, michael griffin, here to hudson institute. undersecretary griffin will be speaking today in conversation with senior fellow rebeccah heinrichs on precisely this question of technological preeminence and thousand to -- and how to preempt our enemies from using these against us. undersecretary griffin is chief technology officer for the secretary of defense, meaning he looks at current defense capabilities, looks at how to improve them technological, how -- technologically how to hedge , against uncertainty. he's an aeronautical engineer by training. most recently taught

thanks to hudson institute board member for being a driving force behind this program and for ken weinstein for allowing us to do all this and also my fellow panelists. when you're talking about space, you're talking about the infinite and we don't have an infinite amount of time. i will try to be very concise. in your very kind to her has been unelected washington bureaucrat, so i appreciate that. so if the fcc, kind of to your point i learned a lot about unintended consequences in things that are run for seen income over the horizon in this case quite literally. i adopted in my first term this orphan proceeding at the fcc that was going to try to get more satellites up there, make the orbital spot there were. there were thousands of miles between satellites, an object that might be the size of a bus or even smaller. we could see the technology that was coming, that they were getting smaller and couldn't we squeeze in just one more in per slot did this had been a priority for the sec chairman at the time for a variety of reasons. what are the odds of the satellites hitting each other when

ken vogel joins me. "new york times" won twoprizes e of the election, weinstein and the me too movement.ulations to you and your colleagues at "the new york times," that is an extraordinary achievement. >> thanks. >> let's talk pruitt. how significant is this? you watched watchdog groups raise a red flag all the time but is this something the administration or congress should care? >> folks in congress care. we've seen scrutiny from not just democrats but republicans who have an oversight role over the executive branch. that said this is -- the reason why this is significant, it's not just a watchdog group like the many sort of independent groups outside of government who have called out pruitt for various aspects of his stewardship of the taxpayer dollars. but this is the government. this is an arm of congress that is saying bipartisan or nonpartisan arm of congress that is saying that this was a violation of federal contracting law that says any expenditure over $5,000 for cabinet secretaries redecoration of their offices requires congressional a proval. so this would seem to give ammu