there's time for the administration to do that. i'm hopeful they are doing that. we're hear speaking out to see the evidence that they are. >> have you focused on this? the complaints against china are global. we're not the only country that has major concern by the way china behaves. the question i ask the secretary in the former panel is, she can name one country that agrees with the trump strategy to get china to change their practices. and she couldn't even name one country. do you know of any of our trading partners that believe america is moving in the right direction to get china to change these policies? >> no, senator. there's not one that i can think of. in fact, i can only think of countries that believe that we are going in the wrong direction. and for a few reasons, some of which have already come up. first, the kinds of sanctions, tariffs, excuse me, that we are imposing with china in an all-out trade war are not going to solve the problems we have with china. second of all, we need our allies and partners to pressure china here, but as we have pointe

we have tried to have a dialogue with the administration, and by the way, the administration has been very receptive when our business community comes in to express concerns, and have always given us a good hearing. we feel like we have had a good hearing on the street issues, but have not broken through on the risks being posed by the way the administration is going about it. on the china question, there is still time. and i believe if ambassador light heiser were here right now he would say yes, we have a strategy, and we are working on a negotiating position. but the anxiety throughout the business community, big and small, is that that strategy is not one that is coherent, and designed to produce success. success in this case is not tat trade andor tariff position. success in this case is some reform of chinese trade policies and practices. there is time for the administration to do that. i'm hopeful that they are doing that. i'm here to speak up because i don't see any evidence that they are. senator: the complaints against china are global. we are not the only country that has m

we have tried to have that dialogue with the administration and by in large the administration has been very receptive when our business community comes in to express concerns. and have always given up a good hearing. we have not broken through on the way the administration is going about it. on the china question, there's still time and i believe if ambassador lighthouser was here he would say we have a strategy and working on a negotiating position. the anxiety throughout the business community, big and small is that that strategy is not one that's coherent and designed to produce success. success in this case is not having a tit for tat trade tariff in position between us and the chinese. success is some reform of chinese trade policies and practices. there's time for the administration doing that. >> let me have you focus on this, the complaints against china is global. we're not the only country that has major concern about the way china behaves. the question i asked the secretary in former panel is she can name even one country that agrees with the trump strategy to get china to c

the silos. it was change to that administration. at first, it was national security decision document 13 which was u.s. nuclear targeting policy. that document is the presidential document that tells us in part how to handle his nuclear targeting plans. what this change did was tomo away from something that prevailed. we projected those on to the soviet leadership. it was carried forward by president reagan. it was so broadly written at a presidential level. one of the things was to kick start a program of continuity government. it was sent to signal they could not decapitate the united states of america and that we would still be able to respond effectively to russia's nuclear use there by to deter that use. there was unfortunate language in the document that in context said that we must be prepared to fight a nuclear war that came back to bite the president and he acted swiftly to turn that around. it was made all the more powerful by the conjunction with 12 which was issued the same day. it made clear the reagan administrations co

the current administration a good sentiment of the previous administrations that the government was designed and structured the last century updating the government to meet the demands of the 21st century is vital and necessary undertaking. the taxpayers deserve an effective government capable of meeting the 21st century needs and it's imperative that these conversations take into account the dedicated men and women to compromise to be co- comprise the federal workforce. they stressed some of these proposals can be implemented without change while others need congress to act and many of them will need congressional action. today we are examining one proposal for the office of personnel management and it identifies the major organizational units that could be transferred to other agencies. it calls for transferring five of the units outside and notice the placement of the remaining units would be determined at a later date. those that we transfer to specific offices it proposes realigning three of them and then renaming the general service administration to the government services administrat

. >> the trump administration proposed reorganizing several agencies including the general services administration and the office of personnel management. they testified at a senate hearing about the proposal and chairs this 90 minute hearing. >> good morning and welcome everyone. the title challenges and opportunities proposed to the reorganization. thank you for being here and being a part of the conversation. this provides an opportunity to discuss the proposal to transfer certain functions handled by the office of personnel management to the general services administration and this is one of the many that make up the governmentwide organization plan released on june 21, 2018. the current administration a good sentiment of the previous administrations that the government was designed and structured the last century updating the government to meet the demands of the 21st century is vital and necessary undertaking. the taxpayers deserve an effective government capable of meeting the 21st century needs and it's imperative that these conversations take into account the dedicated men and women to co

the george w. bush administration. make no mistake, it is less than honest to assert anything other than they are trying to collapse the iranian economy. they are trying to overthrow the iranian.0 government. they don't care about the iranian people. the sanctions disproportionately punish citizens. thateates black markets disempower the private sector and average iranian's on the street and empower the worst aspect of the country. they do nottry, view geopolitics, they do not view foreign policy the same as any of its predecessor. it is the crudest, sharpest, bluntest example of american hegemony. they view the world is very black and white. they divide things into good and evil. the definition of good is not how you treat your own people, democracy, freedom of press, freedom of religion. if it was, we would not be best friends with saudi arabia right now. perfect example. the metric is, do you accept american hegemony? do you agree that america's closest partners, israel, arabia, and the yulee, is going to set the rul

let's get moreission for the trump administration. ohn is involved i guess. >> reporter: we don't know and what elton john thinks of that anyhow. the serious point here at the moment is as you say, jim, in the coming hours, given the time difference, mr. pompeo will sit down again with the north koreans as the world watches for results. secretary of state mike pompeo arrived in pyongyang needing to score a win for president trump on getting north korea to give up its nuclear weapons. across the table, north korea's vice chairman said it was a meaningful meeting. >> i look forward to it. >> reporter: this visit pyongyag and the first since president trump and kim jong-un held a summit in singapore last month. >> one more time i'll have to pay taxes here. >> reporter: still joking may not last for long. pompeo has a huge task ahead. >> he really needs to add meat to the very bare bones of the singapore communique. he needs to get a real unequivocal and public commitment by north korea. >> we signed a wonderful paper saying they're going

the administration had a deep commitment to nato. you can see that in the commitment to the inf systems and even the revival of the enhanced radiation weapons. you can see it in the sale to the united kingdom. the reagan administration took a radical approach to arms negotiations. susan cook is going to talk to you about that. it was basically reduce, don't cap. eliminate throw away. that was much maligned and ridiculed at the time, but it cut the heart out of half of the soviet icbm force. i will disavgree regarding some of the reductions made in the president bush 41 administration as well as some of the retirements. i have a very different view on those. there was a willingness in the administration at the same time to review the nuclear arsenal and eliminate obsolete and unnecessary weapons. if you look, you can see the nuclear planning group in 1983 and the elimination of the ge e genie. also the administration demonstrated a willingness to go all in this support of its strategic systems. when we had the big fights in congress on

i think all of the administrations, not just the trump administration, are getting low grades. . i do think it was good to try diplomacy, to have the summit. i wasn't basking in the administration for making that attempt. but we shouldn't mistake diplomacy for denuclearization. they're not doing any better or worse than previous negotiations. we have seen the ebb and flow of the north koreans over time. agree to things, disagree to things, cheat on things they agree to. i think it's too early to give it a grade. if pompeo leaves with a real deadline timetable and if the north koreans really make serious declarations about the nuclear materials they hold, if they're honest and in alignment with what our intelligence community assesses they have, the grade will go up from the cb minus range to the b plus range. >> you're at a solid c, i think. good of you to join us. >> thank you. >> trace: before secretary of state mike pompeo arrives in pyongyang athletes from north and south korea playing friendly basketball games there. the dictator kim jong-un a fan of basketball. so far he h

under the trump administration. ou go to a consumer and say we are going to give you a 500 billion-dollar bonus right now here's the check. you will slip a $34,000 mortgage on their house. then he had done that, the committee would have nailed them, but that is exactly what the tax bill does. people are told that they got a thousand dollar bonus, a few of them did as a result of the tax bill. some got 500 most got nothing. that was not mentioned was the $34,000 which is the share of the average family of five of the increase in the national debt. as to the trade, mr. cedric a cx and i'm going to send transcripts i'm going to be perhaps the one person in this room that says the focus on china has been a little too late and a little too hesitant and weak. two thirds of democrats voted no. wall street sent out some economists who said that the increase from that of bill would only be a billion dollars a year. two thirds of democrats were right the wall street economists bought and paid for or wrong they were off by a fa

first under the executive order of the administration. and this might be the one i'm the most concerned about. it will be easier to fire employees without due process which leaves employees open to retaliation for personal or political reasons. we've seen not just the administration but the president himself fire notable federal employees, f.b.i. director, for example, and others, and call others into question and challenge them publicly, in public settings for just doing their jobs. and the thing that most excites the president to try to attack these federal employees is if they take any position that he views as disloyal to him, if they're doing an investigation into ethical violations or other improprieties, that he goes out after them and even fires them. leaving employees open to being fired because the political leader doesn't think you're loyal enough is not the system that we should have or we should allow. and so making it easier to fire employees without due process, we've seen how the president can use these authorities and i do

we've seen this throughout the trump administration. we also know that trump places a great premium on having a rapport, a personal chemistry with someone. now that said, onthere's not a t of interaction between the president and supreme court justice. there shouldn't be given some of the issues this supreme court could be weighing in on. the latest that we have according to peter alexander, his reporting on that, three finalists might be too strong but seem to be the serious contenders. the names brett kavanaugh, amy coney barrett and raymond kethledge. two of them kennedy clerks, one a clerk for justice scalia. when we think about the theatrics on how this will be rolled out, bill shine is on the plane with president trump as they're flying to montana. lots of time for the two of them to game out their strategy on how they're going to presenting this pick. ali. >> let's talk about the other matter right now, the trump and putin meeting. the president is confirming -- or the white house is confirming they're going to have a one-on-one m

the george w. bush administration. they were partially prosecuted during the obama administration. >> but nobody ever separated families. i understand that the policy started -- >> i understand. somebody -- >> how did they do this? >> somebody made the decision seven or eight weeks ago that they would have a zero tolerance policy. you can go directly to the npr interview that john kelly gave where he said that they could end up in foster homes or whatever. >> yeah. >> and i think that was really when it started. so you could look at that point. so, you know, it's a chain of command. you've got many different agencies. you have a lot of cabinet members, i think, when it eventually got into the president's wheelhouse, he corrected the policy. >> i know that you said that, anthony. and i hear you. and i know you want to give the president credit for reversing it. >> i don't understand why people make a lot of mistakes. i don't understand why -- go ahead. >> well, you think that john kelly implemented a policy this draconia

that's 15 million under the obama administration, 2 million under the trump administration. now, this committee has seen a lot of charlatans in the financial services world, but we haven't seen one quite this-- as bad as what i'm going to say. you go to a consumer and you say we're going to give you a $500 bonus, no, $1,000 bonus, right here is the check and you fail to disclose to them in any way you understand that you're going to slap a $34,000 mortgage on their house. if any charlatan had done that, this committee would have nailed them, but that's exactly what the tax bill does. people are told they got $1,000 bonus, a few of them did, as a result of this tax bill, some got $500, most got nothing, but what wasn't mentioned was the $34,000 which is the share of the average family of five of the increase in the national debt. as to trade, mr. secretary, i'm going to send you the transcript of the hearing we did yesterday in the subcommittee, i'm going to be perhaps the one person in this room that says that mr. trump's focus on china has been a little too late, a little to

and then renaming the general services administration to the government services administration. the three functions are human resource management, federal retiree services, and management of the federal health benefits program. o.p.m. functions as the personal policy manager for -- and chief human resources agency for the federal government. congress charges o.p.m. with many important responsibilities including administering retirement and health care services for retirees and their beneficiaries. g.s.a. manages federal real estate and aims to provide acquisition solutions across agencies and supplies federal purchasers with products and services from commercial vendors. these three service kbs transferred into g.s.a., it must be done to improve services to our federal work force and to provide efficiencies from what many would equate as a merger. beginning this conversation, we'll need more details on how these proposals can achieve these goals and i hope that today we can begin to hear some of these details which will be necessary for congress' consideration and implementation.

that did not happen in the obama administration. and we ended up with a treaty that essentially allowed unlimited expansionist, whatever the russians can afford because large circumvention options available. i've about run out of time. i would leave you with one final thought. reagan's approach to national security, i think, served us very well and the abandonment of his policies by subsequent administrations has contributed to the current security crisis. if you're reversing reagan policy on national security, perhaps not 100% of the time, but in a substantial percentage of the time, you're making the wrong decision. thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you very, very much. both of these presentations are very -- excellent. just thank you so much for being here, both of you. you know, the heritage foundation is very fortunate when we host programs like this to have co-sponsors or co-hosts. and i want to acknowledge today that the reagan alumni association is one of our co-hosts and the american, and the third co-host is mitchell institu

the yearsficials over have mentioned to me that no administration before or since -- as the reagan administration in keeping allies informed. they may not have liked to the policy, and i can think of some conversations where they were told they did not like the policies, but they could never say they were not uninformed. that was appreciated. treaty is a really good example. we had a major public diplomacy campaign to counteract the nuclear freeze movement here. soviet relentless propaganda campaign in europe against wasoyment, i believe it november 22, 1983, it paid off. the german parliament voted to approve the deployment of pershing ii on west german territory, and diplomas begin the next day. walkedthe soviets thinking that would turn the tide of public and governmental opinion. it didn't. in arms control was born. [applause] >> thank you, all five of our speakers. you did an extraordinary job. i hope some of you here today we'll look at this and go through it again as it is on the heritage website. to maketo find a way this available to all the universities, colleges, history departments, a

kraninger's role at omb with respect to the administration's zero tolerance policy and the administration's response to hurricane maria in puerto rico. these requests are designed to go after certain extraneous administration policies that the requests do not like. and go far beyond the practice of this committee in document production. indeed i would not expect this administration or any administration to release documents related to its ongoing deliberative process and furthermore, my understanding is that ms. kraninger is not the custodian of these records and has given the request for information to the white house. as i've indicated, i don't have an expectation that the white house or the agencies involved will provide these documents, but that's an issue outside this nomination process. the democratic senators of this committee asked me to delay this hearing to seek these documents. i'm unaware of the banking committee delaying a hearing for such a reason. to be consistent, i have followed a similar timeline as the committee has set for then-nominee richard cordray in 2013. the senate

what about the rest of the administration? is there any coherent policy that is perhaps being put together outside the purview of trump, or is it just total incoherence? whoever wants to. >> just one point of incoherence before i hand it off. there is kind of almost a perfect laboratory test going on to see whether or not trump's opposition to the jcpoa is based on substance. he's gone to negotiate directly face to face with north korean leader kim jong-un, and he's praised himself for the success of those discussions. he says there is no longer a north korean threat. we're working on this. they've made certain commitments to denuclearize and so on. but, you know, the criticism of the jcpoa prior to this opening with north korea was that it only focused on nuclear weapons and not on human rights violations or not on the regime's regional policies. no part of the joint communique that i could discern focused on human rights abuses, which is on an order or magnitude worse than iran does. same goes for policy in its own region. th

what do you make of what the administration was saying in court in california? >> it's not surprising cnn is reporting that the government had no real plan in the beginning when they were ripping away babies and kids from their parents. not only do we have an evil policy, we also had gross incompetence, and now we're seeing not only kids and babies that have not been reunited, but the ones that have been are in bad shape. prior reporting talked about a 14-month-old infant recently reunited that was covered in ly lice and the infant had not been bathed. that is cruel. >> and vice president pence said cries to abolish ice are unacceptable. there are a few of your colleagues who want to see ice abolished. how do you respond to the vice president today? >> democrats who have said this are not sega baying abolish ice do nothing. they're saying we should have a new agency that has principles and values of what the american people believe. that means not ripping kids and babies away from their parents. and ice was a new agency created after 9/11, essentially to help go

well, for the duration of the obama administration. joining us this morning to talk about his new book "the world as it is." you write in that book that the whole reason for coming to washington in the first place and later meeting then senator barack obama was your experience in new york on september 11th. tell us about that and how that brought you to washington. >> you know, i was on a totally different course in life. i wanted to be a writer. i was working on political campaigns. and on 9/11, it was election day. i was standing at a polling site and had a clear view of the second plane hitting and the first tower falling and i knew whatever i was going to do in my life -- i was 24 years old -- was going to be about what happened next, what the response to this was. i went to an army recruiter who didn't know what to do with an english major. i worked my way into foreign policy but felt i wanted to get involved in politics and that led me to the obama campaign. >> your meeting with barack obama fairly quickly thereafter he brought yo

the administration continues to highlight the threat of the ms-13 yet the administration does not acknowledge that it is actually ms-13 is one of the reasons why children and families are seeking protection in our country. asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants. they are individuals seeking refuge. it is a law to ensure that asylum seekers are given opportunity to state their case in front of a judge. furthermore, separating children away from their parents is illegal, in violation of human rights. this violation of human rights is being exacerbated by d.h.s.'s poor recordkeeping. today the administration does not have the recordkeeping capability necessary to reunite children with their parents and instead, they are now relying on d.n.a. tests to figure out what child belongs to what parent. and that is why, mr. speaker, 120 of my colleagues and myself have called upon the inspector general of the department of health and human services and homeland security to investigate on how the administration plans to reunite children with their families. and we are concerned that there are no recor

the administration had a deep commitment to nato. you can see, even the revival of the enhanced radiation weapons. you could see it in the sale of the tritan. when president reagan made the decision in october. prime minister thatcher came in a few weeks later and said we would like to stay with that system, rather than what president carter was going to sell us. by early spring, we wrapped that up. the reagan administration -- basically reduce, don't cap. have tough verification. dealing with breakup potential. that was ridiculed at the time. it cut half of the force, and allowed us to reduce the possibilities of breakout. i will disagree with mark, with some of the reductions made in the president bush, 41 administration, as well as some of the retirements. i have a different view on those. we can talk about that later if you want. there was a willingness in the administration at the same time to review the nuclear arsenal and e eliminate obsolete weapons. in 1983, and the elimination of the air to air launch missile from our invent

we delegate to the administration. but who here thinks that 435 people including the senate, who thinks 535 people can sit in a room and effectively negotiate a contract? that's right. nobody. we have to have -- >> i don't agree with that. >> you think 535 people that can't agree the sky is blue can come up with a complex contract? absolutely not. >> it doesn't have to be 535. it has to be majority. i believe there is a majority that would push back on the tariffs. >> we have to have pint person. that is just common tensense. now the steel tariffs came about this year. and then there's been follow up and follow up. because there's been talks and rounds of talks. and people have come to the table and walked away from the table. but they all came about this year. here we sit seven months of the year. who here thought that all this would get resolved in seven months? no, look, i am really -- >> would the gentleman yield? >> no, sir. if i had more than a minute i would. >> okay. >> but here's the thing. you guys are in the

the u.s. dollar . this administration senses vulnerability in iran because they are having the average citizen stand up and protest like we haven't seen since the beginning of the obama administration when we had the green revolution. shery: if the price of oil goes up as you said and higher price of the pond, isn't this a mp, isn'te -- at the pu this a vulnerability in the u.s. going into the midterms? morgan: absolutely. nobody ever wants a higher price of gas the day before the election. what this administration is going to have to do is they are going to have to communicate with the american people why they are pursuing these actions against iran, why they are pursuing a trade war. there is a lot to communicate to the voters, and certainly the price of gas is going to affect how people vote. kevin: we have a lot more coming up on the price of gas because representative carlos curbelo will have that interview later today. morgan ortagus, managing director at global opportunity advisors. shery: we have higher prices of

the administration is not surprised, new information to us. he understands the kind of work the north koreans are inclined to do and what they have been doing. what pompeo needs to do on this trip if this denuclearization is going to happen, he needs to get the north koreans to provide a full accounting of all of their nuclear work. missiles, the nuclear piece both of them. we don't have a full accounting of where everything is and all of the work that they're doing. so we can't even begin to talk about how we're going to start a dismantlement process without the north koreans fully complying, fully playing ball, and really showing us everything that they have got. >> neil: everyone has their own agenda, i guess, rebecca. but this got the attention -- the american enterprise institute, no fan of this north korea deal, we should possible it that. george will quoting him in a "washington post" story, not exactly a fan of this administration too. having said that, quoting from this aei report, that it could be catastrophic this upcoming summit a r

now, i know that the administration didn't intend for the u.s. agriculture to be hurt or harmed but the damage is entirely predictable. as some of you know well, low commodity prices have been sort of the practice of the last several years. very challenging for american farmers to even survive and exist and operate at a profit. and what we're hearing from farmers, ranchers, producers and fisherman in my home state of washington and many other states across the country is that u.s. agriculture just isn't in a healthy place. that's putting it mildly. most of our agriculture producers rely heavily on export market. unfortunately, many of these farmers and producers are now facing the loss of not just one of their top international export markets. no not just their number one market, but number two, three, and number four market. all at once. they are facing severe and devastating uncertainly, and that goes right to their profitability. now it's important to acknowledge that the president is absolutely correct that we need to stand up to china's unfa

with the outgoing administration. d: you have been there. what about the bandwidth issue? i do not remember when we had major negotiations on trade to do with china, europe, mexico, canada. he we have the bandwidth to walk and chew gum -- do we have the bandwidth to walk and chew gum at the same time? i think they have the bandwidth provided that there is a unified administration approach. one of the challenges is that we read there is division within the administration and there is as much negotiation going on internally as externally. it is easier if you know there is a unified, supportive environment back on. david: investor light heiser has a lot of experience negotiating trade deals but a lot of that was in the 1980's. it is a different era now. does that work in the 20th century? it is not even about automobiles. it is about administrate -- intellectual property. michael: the administration is focused on bilateral trade deficits and more interested on reducing imports than expanding exports. most of what they tal

in the administration move these things in the right direction by scrapping restrictive rules of engagement that had hamstrung us forces. it dropped a politically driven timeline for engagement,-- by te previous administration. it's putting more pressure on pakistan, which aids and abets the taliban and other jihadist groups and tell them finances are being targeted. these are good steps, but it's unclear if they will change the fundamentals that has frustrated unacceptable resolution for so long. after all these years, what do we really know about the caliban? how fragmented is a? can it ever be brought into a durable political settlement? with pakistan or russia and iran both increasingly engage with the caliban sabotage any settlement racks we should be proud of our many contributions to develop afghanistan including dramatically expanding education in the call of women despite rampant corruption. i have met with some of these women, the girls can now go to school. that was prohibited, of course, under the caliban. i talk to teachers who had the souls of their feet lashed when they were

was at the trump administration or chinese -- was it the trump administration or chinese? >> the chinese have put the tariffs on soybeans in retaliation for the tariffs has imposed on them. >> that is the excuse they make. i want to note that the trump administration did not put the 25% tariff on products. it was the chinese. we have a president -- and i think it is an important distinction that needs to be made by those of us on this committee. farmers, ranchers, and workers in southern missouri have been on an uneven playing field for quite some time. president trump knows this and that is why he has asked secretary ross to investigate and fight back against these unfair trade practices. we know 95% of the world consumers are outside of the united states, and we all believe in free trade. free-trade and fair trade. countries it should not be putting tariffs on us. we can compete with the world if it is fair. if they are not leveraging tariffs on us. for so long we have had elected officials that said they are free traders but they are afraid to stand up to the chinese and

no one wants the administration to be more successful in this effort than we do. it is important to know that these decisions have the potential to greatly damage our livelihood. again, i thank you for the opportunity to be here. be glad to answer questions later. >> thank you. mr. paap you recognize. >> my name is kevin paap. i along with my wife julie is here today for coin and -- corn and soybeans. minnesota farm bureau strongly believes that with the current financial stress farmers and ranchers are facing we need to maintain and expand our market opportunity. we are truly blessed, we grow more than we need. the current tariffs continuing back and forth retaliatory actions and trade uncertainties hitting american agriculture from all sides. it is causing us to lose our market. once you lose the market, it is really hard to get it back. agricultural is facing the perfect storm. trade uncertainties, lowers in farm income, agricultural labeler -- labor shortages and the uncompleted farm bill. it is becoming more than we can handle. in trade wars agricultural has b

yet, the administration has zero assistance in the 2019 budget. in guatemala, certain attacks on the un commission what we call they threaten the institution's ability to fight corruption and support the rule of law. we most recently was disturbed by the guatemalan's decision to put the personnel at risk for moving a large portion of their security detail. the president should immediately reverse this decision. i was critical of the white house but i was pleased the white house came out and strong support just this week. i congratulate on the recent election in columbia. this is essential for implementing the peace process. and go after kingpins will not harming small farmers or the environment. in argentina i was glad to join and look at the argentina caucus to focus on a relationship that has improved a great deal since they took office. finally, the caribbean. in 2016 we authored the u.s. caribbean strategic engagement act which president obama signed into law in his last few days in office. last june they released a strategy mandated its ambit

we've delegated to the administration. but who thinks 435 people or 535 if you i collude the senate. who thinks 535 people can sit in a room and effectively negotiate a contract. that's right, nobody. we have to -- >> i don't agree with that. >> you think 535 people who can't agree the sky is blue can come up with a complex contract. >> it doesn't have to be 535. it has to be majority. i believe there's a majority who would pushback on these tariffs. >> we have to have a point person. that's common sense. we have a really good point person. these steel tariffs came about this year. there's been follow up and follow up. because -- and there's been talks and rounds of talks and people have come to the table and walked away from the table. but they all came about this year. here we sit, seven months a year. who thought this would get resolved in seven months? so look, i am really -- >> gentlemen -- >> if i had more than a minute i would but here's the thing. you guys are in the cross hairs, and nobody wants you in the cross ha

the president's list. most of them served under multiple administrations. two of them former fbi director and james comey and andrew mccabe both fired under the trump administration no longer have clearances, according to a spokeswoman. for more on this i'm joined by john mccoughlin. if you for being here. charlie, let me start with you. this is not a policy change. rand paul had said something to the president about people going on tv and monetizing their -- their clearances but the president didn't suggest he's going to change the policy that people who are gone from positions don't have their clearances, he's just named six people who he'd like to take clearances away from, two of whom don't have clearances any way. >> that's right. i think that's what's troubling is the signaling out of individuals for whatever reason. i think that's unprecedented and it's something that we should be concerned about as jim clapper, the former director of national intelligence says it starts to look heady and causes friction with the intelligence community where there rea

a big deadline for the administration, nick. how are they doing? >> reporter: john, we just don't know, if only because the trump administration refuses to give us a breakdown in those numbers. about nine days ago it was last when we heard that they had 2,047 children still in government custody. it was yesterday in a phone call with the health and human services secretary that he put that number at less than 3,000, saying he was dealing with a more comprehensive set of data. the reunification process has been painstakingly slow, and there's been a lot of confusion here on the ground, but there are plenty of organizations trying to do work to make those reunifications happen. we're here in san antonio at an organization that has created a phone bank, inputting data, trying to a track of detain knedetainees and connect them with their children. the executive talked to me about that process. >> we have to call out to detention centers, all of which have different protocols. there are detention centers that at this point are hanging up on us once we ca

the george w. bush administration. secretary gutierrez spent a very productive 29 years at kelloggs, culminating in the chairman and ceo roles in his final five years at the company. he is currently co-chair of the albright stonebridge group and serves on the boards of multiple councils, associations, and corporations -- full disclosure, including metlife's board. in this session, secretary gutierrez will moderate a discussion about the work underway to strengthen commercial opportunities for u.s. companies in the indo-pacific. the region is critical to the future of nearly all the companies in this room, and this is a crucial moment for the economic and political relationships between the indo-pacific and the united states. to take metlife as one example, it is our fastest growing region and already generates more than 40% of our global revenues. all u.s. companies need the support of the u.s. government in maintaining constructive relationships with foreign governments and establishing a level playing field for busine

what about the rest of the administration. is there any coherent policy that is being put together outside the purview of trump or is it just total incoherence? >> just one point of incoherence before handed off because there's kind of almost a perfect laboratory test going on to see whether or not trumps opposition to the jcp away is based on substance. he's gone to negotiate a directly face-to-face with kim jong-un and he's praised himself for those discussions, he says there's no longer a north korean threat, were working on this, they've made certain commitments the 2d nuclear and so on, but the criticism of the jcp away prior to this opening was that it only focused on nuclear weapons and not on human rights violations are not on the regimes policy. no part of the joint communicate that i could discern focuses on north korea's human rights abuses which are an order of magnitude worse than what iran does. same goes for its foreign policy in its region. there was no plan for that kind of aspect. it's only focusing on nukes w

the administration has rightly sanctions. targeted sanctions, hitting venezuelan officials, not the suffering venezuelan people is the way to go. the vice president has traveled there for three times to urge regional leaders to do more for the venezuelan people. in nicaragua the administration has designated three top officials for human rights abuses and corruptions. we should do more to support the nicaraguan people. the regime has killed more than 200 advocates for pre-fair elections as this april. one of the civilians murdered on a village street was a former neighbor of the gorge county friend of mine. subcommittee chairman, paul cook will convene a hearing to examine this matter tomorrow. across the hemisphere transnational criminal organizations continue to pose a major threat. these violent gangs are feeling the drug and migration crisis that the united states struggles with today. as we fight the deadly impacts of opm in our communities, we must continue to work closely with our regional neighbors to increase counter

and that is why i want to focus on the trump administration child separation policy. -- the trump administrations child separation policy. since march 2017, you have been the head of general government programs at the office of management and budget. is that right? ms. kraninger: that is correct. sen. warren: it is an important job. the general government programs at omb is in charge of the department of justice and department of homeland security. is that right? ms. kraninger: yes. sen. warren: and according to the disclosures you submitted to this committee, you "serve as omb's principal policy official for issues related to the departments and agencies you oversee." is that right? ms. kraninger: yes, senator. sen. warren: so the justice department and homeland security are the two agencies most responsible for taking children away from their parents at the border, and you oversee policy issues at both agencies. but for a month now, you have refused to respond to ranking member brown's and my request for information and documents related to your role and child separations. and when we met in my

were on capitol hill last week testifying on the impact of the trump administrations newly imposed tariff. they talked about their ability to import and export materials how retaliation by other countries was affecting u.s. agriculture industry. the house ways and means subcommittee is just over two hours. >> good afternoon everyone. the subcommittee will come to order. welcome to the committee ways and means subcommittee. welcome all the witnesses and all the folks from the audience here today to listen to the testimony that we are anxious to hear. i am sure you are anxious to get questions that we have for you, share additional information. before we get started, let me just make a few comments. as many of you know, u.s. farmers, ranchers and growers right now are caught in the middle of international crossfire. first they are hurt because products such as equipment, chemicals, and fertilizer which they need to run lean and competitive agriculture operations have been included on the administrations section 301 list. as well as the steel and aluminum they need. and adding insult to inju

with the administration support the create act? >> we don't have a formal and ministration support on it but what is in the creeds act whatates completely with we have been saying and what fda has been doing to prevent the very abuses you have correctly laid out there. >> i hope the and ministration to come to a formal position in a bipartisan ha legislation. it does exactly what the president's blueprints said he sought to do by ending bad actors in the pharma world. and so, i would ask -- let me ask after l the fda on may 17 hs there been any behavioral changes by these companies? >> i don't know if there has been a change. let me check with the commissioner and get back to you. we put out to guidances as a follow-up to that making clear that they should not be able to hide behind our regulatory process to protect safety and is part of the follow but if i do get back to you to see -- >> i would appreciate that. would you commit to work with me in a bipartisan way to ensure customer seeout st generics come quickly to the market. >

the president's made it very clear and the administration's made it clear the threat of ms-13 and the gang violence that's present in countries like el salvador. this has been echoed in homeland security, where i'm also a member, where administration officials have clearly said how dangerous and violent it is there, what danger it represents. so, i'm going to just address a couple of administration's response to this. simply doesn't make sense. for instance, when it comes to parents and their children fleeing this terrific violence in el salvador, the president's response was to separate the children from their parents, traumatizing them, deporting them back to the crisis they fled from. one of these people, jessica, had two sons taken from her when she crossed in texas in march. they were separated for three whole months. jessica fled the brutal violence of el salvador. she and her sons received death threats from ms-13 and she herself was beaten in front of her children by gang members. yet that's one response, is to separate the children. the other one that just does not have any s

now, by the way, the administration had been releasing exact numbers daily. that is until the judge issued his order, then all of the sudden the numbers stopped. no more magical key strokes, i guess. and let's just listen to this, just to remind you. >> there is no reason why any parent would not know where their child is located. >> well, that, of course, wasn't true either. the parents did not know. apparently he didn't know. still, he did say that hhs would meet all the deadlines where there is now unspecified number of children was concerned, and that wasn't true either. but he said it anyway. and the way he said it suggested that the real problem lay with the court order, not the administration failing to have a plan for living up to it. >> we will comply with the artificial deadlines created by the court. we will comply, even if those deadlines prevent us from conducting our standard or even a truncated vetting process. >> so at the end of the day, that process cannot seem to even reunify all 102 children younger than five years old with their families.