experience as a marine in vietnam. ♪♪ sunday x p.m. eastern on the civil war, depiction of slavery in hollywood films sunday 6:30 p.m. eastern, assassination attempt on president ronald reagan and sunday 8:00 p.m. eastern on the presidency. residents first address to a joint session of congress, president ronald reagan from 1981 and bill clinton from 1993 exploring the american story watch american history tv this weekend on c-span three. ♪♪ >> c-span2, unfiltered view of government created by america's cable television company. today brought to you by these television companies to provide c-span2 two beers as a public service. ♪♪

>> adam smith spoke about national security and defense priorities at a virtual event hosted by the international center. it's one hour. >> i am vice president of the dramatic engagement. thank you for joining us for this insight program, chairman of the house armed service committee adam smith. this is a program for diplomatic engagement. many of you know that strengthens and develops leaders to exchange cultural and collaboration in an effort to better solve challenges. an educational networking hub for diplomatic corps that provides neutral and welcoming environment for sharing perspectives with government, private sector and civil society. the idea more effective

leadership. longer at home when we are globally engaged. the global understanding for supporting our work which allows us to do programs like we are doing today. before i get to theo conversation, we have a few housekeeping items to go over piand networking version of the program included and will resume after the speaking portion of the program. that was off the record in the program on the record and they are being live streams. we welcome all of you joining on our youtube page. the second half of the program invite you to ask questions to chairman smith using the q and a function. to take things off, i'm honored to welcome the chairman. an organization is only as great

as a network. we are fortunate to have, the corporate vice president of u.s. government affairs for microsoft. company's strategy and government affairs outreach for the most pressing policy issues facing us today, everything from privacy and trade to cybersecurity, immigration and technologies. he's also chief of policy advocate internally and externally federal, state and civic affairs. microsoft is a corporate counsel and while the shindig for today's program and networking component, we are avid users of the microsoft platform which has been on for much of the afternoon. thank you for joining us today and i turn it over to you now. >> thank you, frank. i want to welcome missy, our

moderator today. she's a reporter covering the pentagon, military issues and national security for the washington post. i'm also honored to have the opportunity to introducehe congressman adam smith, chairman of the house armed service committee to this global and distinguished body. microsoft headquarters in redmond, washington. washington's mike congressional district, district is home to many microsoft colleagues the congressman has always been a steadfast partner microsoft on a wide range of local national and local policy matters. mike, i want to commend meridians under invitation to chairman smith as speaker today. in his role as chairman of the house armed service committee, he chose global leadership, diplomacy and promote cultural connection and diversity.

the three core pillars, chairman smith promote global leadership, for example he's working with new administration to tackle national security challenges.. at microsoft, we know cybersecurity threat will. this congress chairman smith created a new subcommittee, cyber innovative technology and information systems subcommittee which he serves on the subcommittee as well, he's also working with another committee having served on the foreign affairs and intelligence committees and the congress to rely national defense authorization t act to reflect a 21st century globally connected world and holistic approach to national security needed. he's also a strong advocate for military family. chairman smith is a diplomat. hehe works to fanatically across the aisle, he spent many years in congress working to find bipartisan solutions to our

different challenges. he seeks out opportunities to work with others to accomplish shared goals regardless of party. when he discusses global engagement with challenging countries, he regularly seeks this approach that stresses alliances, partnership,pr policy and direct dialogue. he's also a cultural connector as well he led negotiations to create a commission to review confederate statues on military bases in last year's and daa. supports increased funding for historically black colleges and universities, they hope government and the private sector to develop and train diverse talent, cybersecurity data analytics related jobs. had the pleasure to introduce congressman a month ago at a program that brought together hbc you present to discuss strategies to support hbc

students in these efforts which is something near and dear to my heart because i'm a graduate of historically black college. a key driver regarding the development of the african unity and continues to monitor progress on issues related to african countries military. chairman smith, smart, disciplined and responsible and always willing to learn from others. microsoft is proud to partner with us andm i am pleased to cal him a friend. please f welcome chairman adam smith.el >> thank you very much, i appreciate that very kind introduction. i appreciate the working relationship with pat over the years. outstanding and productive. obviously microsoft is hugely important in my district but hugely important in the country so the partnership to work with you is incredibly important.

i look forward to continuing to work with you. thank you for hosting this event, there are a lot of challenges in the worldin as we all know, never been more important for people across the world to work w together on thee challenges and this was more priorities for this year's defense bill in the arms services committee and that would be the place to start. how can we play this role in bringing countries together we can work together to confront the challenges we are facing? think is an overarching desire in the biden administration and congress to reengage the rest oc the world, invigorate existing partnerships and build new ones, or we can to help challenges we face and that's an overarching theme certain of the biden national security but also the committee in the house. how do we work together to do that? is a study, one of the biggest

things are committee does, who work in a bipartisan fashion to pass legislation in this country and domestically in the u.s., our biggest challenge right now is the political divide that's been well documented, we are divided as a country more than we've ever been certainly since before the civil war. how do we bridge that gap and find a way to get past differences and work together to do the important work we have to do? armed services committee is a model of how to do that, i believe. i've been on the committee over 24 years, a lot of ranking members and chairman and every single one has had that as a core we work together to get the bill done. we have differences sometimes the differences along partisan lines and sometimes they don't we are clear in our mission, we pass the bill every year, 60 straight years, not always easy but we always y get it done.

but we show the country and the rest of the world is representative democracy does in fact work despite the criticism. my phone is not showing off for some reason. i apologize for that. we work together and get things done. over the past couple of years in particular, we've accomplished a lot of objectives and national security and that is the central focus insert, show people the legislative process works in a bipartisan bicameral matter. i want to complement the past chairman were worked together with the past two years on a bicameral way. it wasn't an easy to use. here's a terrific partner. we will continue to work together to get these things done so that is our framework.

passing the authorizing act in a bipartisan way to make sure the process continues to work. thisk. year the priorities are w to rebuild the partnerships? last year we created the pacific defense initiative as a way to build partnerships asia, that's building on the european initiative was built previously we went to look for these opportunities to continue to enhance the partnerships to understand how the partnerships help us deal with the environment we face and from a national defense standpoint is pretty straightforward. russia, say, in iran are transnational terrorist groups. we've got to come up with the money for that because that's basically it. there's been a lot of talk we recently shifting toward great power competition with china and russia being more of a concern and how do we pivot away from

the exercises we'vegi done in iq and afghanistan and elsewhere to deal with china and russia works we know on the committee to challenges still exist collectively so we have to figure out how to involve the challenges going forward my emphasis is partnerships. partnerships with other countries and a whole government approach. not just militarily, it's incredibly important we are a strong core incredibly important and work on development policy, partner with the rest of the world. deterring the adversaries and making sure china and russia do not create more problems in the europe and asia effectively dealing with north korean threat and continued threat transnational terrorist groups that has not gone away we still have isis and al qaeda, certainly throughout africa we

watched the horrifying news the past couple weeks an example of how the problem continues to create challenges across the globe . we have to confront all of that collectively and rather than diving into a region by region opening statement, i'll wait for the questions to bring that out. two more things i want to mention, the new subcommittee we formed, this is a big part of our emphasis. how do we better adjust to the future, the presence of warfare but also the future of warfare? you heard a lot about investing in new technology and get out of legacy. it's a bit of an overstuffed, some legacy systems probably still work quite well but overall the fact the department of defense needs to do a better

job of adjusting to a new technologically based warfare is absolutely true. we've got to figure out how to build our systems that are more quickly and effectively, number one. procurement and acquisition of the past 20 years has cost an enormous amount of money not sure you have heard remarks about the program and challenges it's presented. we are paying a lot not giving an adequate return on the dollars, we've got to figure out how to do a better. subcommittee taskforces task force on plaster a focus on the future of the fence task force we have right now and mike gallagher focusing on supply chain. how do we make sure wee get the equipment we need? at the core of the and that's why microsoft is important, is technology. it's my belief we not doing this

at the department of defense retaining our relationships innovative technologies, a being one of the best examples but not the only one so we can rapidly deploy the technologies to make sure we are in the best position to meet national defense teams. the easiest way is increasingly warfare is about making sure command-and-control support making sure you're protected from cyber perspective to communications happen while fighting. if the enemy and shut that down, no matter how many big fancy extensive platforms you have they are not going to workif if you don't have a secure command control system. how do we buildsy that? it's more survivable, redundant and replaceable, that's the focus of those taskforces in the subcommittee. temperament the analogy in an effective way and that's going to be a huge focus how to figure

out how to spend the resources going f forward. make sure we can be effective in that type of warfare. the overarching goal is to be long enough to deter adversaries. i'm happy to talk more about that. the issue in last year's bill, primarily military base and other aspects of military institutions named for confederate from the civil war in this country. this is a challenge within our service right now. we got a lot of work to do to make sure men and women serving in military field feels secure, protected and valued. systemic historical racism is one issue. one way to address that but there are broader issues making sure we have the personnel we need to meet national defense challenges. technology is increasingly

important how does it change how we recruit and retain force? this is something we're going to take a close look at. all the fancy systems in the work don't work if you don't have the personnel to make them work. we've got a lotot of issues comg forward. i want to close where i started. we are w a strong bicameral committee. mike rogers, ranking member. we work closely together, terrific. we've got jack. we are going to work together. last year we went into overtime to get the bills done january 1 and override the president conceived vito. long story on that but bottom line, partisan differences, whatever the problem and challenges are, we get it done.

look forward to working with all of you. thank you for the opportunity and look forward to your questions. >> thank you so much. my name is missy ryan, reporter for the washington post and write about military issues and the pentagon, there's a lot of overlap in terms of oversight role in what we focus on in my area of the washington post and i want to thank meridian for inviting me here today. it's a pleasure and honor to be here humphrey and chairman smith to let everyone know, we have about half an hour discussion here were i will ask questions and around 5:10 p.m. will open up for q&a from the audience. get your questions ready.

starting off, one of the things you mentioned about alliances and defense partnership that's been crucial to the way without about national security for decades, obviously the biden administration is taking a different approach with the rest of the world and this partnership and president biden has talked about restoring cooperation in different areas about foreign aid and all about. at the same time, this skepticism we've learned from partners in europe and elsewhere around the globe whether or t nt america is back in the extent of our political division, they note the possibility that america first policy could be back in four years very easily, they know the united states

agenda could be reversed in four years like what occurred with agreements that president obama inserted so what i'm wondering, what is your perspective on this? as chairman of the house, what should the administration do? what can congress do to be of the united states back to the extent that we can realistically these alliances are valuable and worth investing in? >> first of all, there are no guarantees. you can't predict the future guarantee the future. allies want me to tell them whenever going back, i can't promise that. i don't'tth know what the futurs going to hold but i can tell you

that for the next four years we have president biden, secretary of state and rebuild those alliances around the basic principle we need to work together to confront the world's challenges. a very strong role to play and we are still the largest economy in the world, most effective military whether the best universities and technology companies, we are going to be part of the. we are looking at from a global perspective not from the perspective on the about the u.s. or interest, we need to dominate the world. need to work cooperatively to meet the challenges we face. one big opportunity to show the world how we've changed is uncovered and when we deal, we are going to the u.s. getting a vaccine strip distributed globally we are looking at timeframe.

we can make a difference. we can show the rest of the world that we are back both in terms of ability to get things done and in terms of willingness to share and work the rest of the world for building back better partnerships as we gott forward. these overarching in all of this, the competition that exists only with china but russia as well. that competition needs to be understood. russia and china are aggressively advocating in an authoritarian approach to government. they are saying their model of strong man better than representing democracy and they are saying you're better off if the western influence in the u.s. influence is gone and they are competing with us not just in eastern europe but china in particular up each of us in latin america and africa change the international order toward a

more authoritarian approach. everything we do that we do effectively can show that it's a better way -- i'm sorry, i've got to get rid of my phone here] it will not turn off for some reason. >> no problem. these are the benefits of this lifestyle. [laughter] >> anyway. >> representative smith, on the vaccine diplomacy, china and russia are ahead of the united states so we can catch up and perhaps surpassed -- >> i don't agree -- for the ball, catching up or whatever, we can do better than we are right now. china's vaccine is not working and also china's mobile in their approach is more than what's in

it for them. there's no doubt in my mind we have an opportunity for thehe you're talking about the vaccine for military supportor, whatever it is, we can offer something better than what chinafe offers and we can definitely do that. whether it's nato -- i'm sorry. you have to really question so i don't want to miss the aspects that are important and i think that has to be the one month apart. people can say i would have gone back, i don't know. what we can do is what's right here in front of us right now and we can show the u.s. is willing to partner and work with the rest of the world deliver on the needs of the rest of the world. it is a long list of things there.

we can do and what we ought to be doing. >> i want to build on something you mentioned regarding competition with china is referred to as well your opening remarks, make sure the united states contains competitive military edge over china and there's been a lot of u.s. militarys.. the fact that china could rival or surpass the u.s. militarily in the nextt decade and a lively debate how realistic that is what i think it gets you something you mentioned, the problems with innovation and acquisition process. he mentioned taskforces set up regarding self at the same time is a daunting challenge a lot of

different aspects to it so i am wondering, what canan we do if e have this fairly short timeline to make sure we stay out of china and strategic areas, what can be done but hasn't been tried already? i love your thoughts on the. >> first of all, that is my view and there's no wrong way to look at it. the wrong way to look at it is we have to stay ahead of china and maintain military edge. the right way to look at it, we have to be strong enough in all aspects to deter don't want china to do. if we get into an arms race, imagine a world where we are in an all out fight with china. who has the place? p who has more submarines and ships? in my mind, that's a recipe for disaster. if you go to work with china, we failed.

there is no good positive outcome from that. what we need to look at, how can we build systems strong enough to deter what we don't want china to do? the whole thing about when you ordered them but the beauty of deterrence easier than dominance. you don't have to be totally in charge of everything. this is the armed services committee and defense establishment obsessed about the dominant issue. i think given the rise, one country being dominant is hopelessly unrealistic. it's a advantageous place to be because her food responsible for everything. this effort to maintain the

impossible but we can deter china and russia. having a strong enough military, what deterrence means china, taiwan the place to play for the, russia, don't press all the way across ukraine, same thing. it's not going to be worth it. we can build our systems along the line to have adequate deterrent capacity without having to access. the second part, even within that, even as i change, we can do better than we do in the past 20 years. basically we can engage on the issue of technology and the biggest way is to look at again, the survivability of our systems. command and control, cyber, redundancy of the systems, how

do we have a better communications technology system so we can survive. this shift is happening within the pentagon. there is a focus on buying comes along those lines. as a laundry list of things that make this difficult without a shadow of a doubt. the basic approach and we can get to a better affordable national strategy. >> he mentioned the minority, i think it's an interesting one, hearing from the pentagon, the ability dominates the deterrence and it sounds like you disagree. >> dominance is always better. what i i rather have the team im rooting for everyday and the

championship every year? sure. okay. you just have to live in the world who actually live in sin one you'd like to imagine. i think given the competitive nature of the world and the different pieces, i imagines dominance is an ineffective approach that leads you down the wrong way. i always joke, i didn't have a ton of experience but senator, i worked on local politics. i'm on the armed services and after that, six months, it works like this.th to come in and talk to us about the problem. no matter how you think the problem is, it ten times larger.

number two, we are not ready. whenever that is. catechism is just around the corner and we are epically failing. we got to do something and then after a while, i was like it sounds like that's the way the world is. we live within the world as it exists trying to make things work. there's this tendency and many drivers to panic. what we really needd to achieve our national security objectives we are not a conquering powers. we were sent on taking over the rest of the world. not the plan. if that's not the plan,

assessing about having a military to stop into russia and into china and then at war, it is notth logical. >> i want to ask you about another think that's in our defense environment in addition to what you're talking about about theto diabolic, that is te war in afghanistan. serving in that war and we are coming up on this deadline under the deal the trump administration with the taliban in 20202 in theory, pull out troops from afghanistan throughout 2500 or 3500 troops despite the fact that biden administration and the political process suggests we might extend and it seems possible there might not be a pco.

the afghan government that may be the area of consensus. >> i got it. >> my question is -- think about that. >> i think it is a good examplet how we approach these issues. i think it is time for us to get out of afghanistan. i think may burst is unrealistic. one half weeks from today we have around 3000 -- 3500 west 3troops, 1000 coalition troopso get them out is logistically dangerous and unrealistic. we need to engage with the taliban and negotiation to extend the deadline. the reason it matters is because

the taliban had the cease-fire for about a year end obviously they been aggressively pursuing military attacks and it hasn't happened. they first they said there back in school full-scale warfare. in terms of the risk. we have to try to get that deadline extended. that's where we get into the important discussion a lot of people are very uncomfortable saying we should pull out in the way i did and there are two basic argument to that. number one, if we are not there, the taliban will take over and there will be greater chaos in afghanistan. i think that is distinctly possible so it's also made clear in the past0 20 years, we can't solve that problem. the idea that conditioned space,

but stick around until it's not going to happen. not going to get the what we have proven, we can kind of stalemate in place but we can't stop the taliban having influence in the country. it's not going to ensure. is there risk and that? absolutely incredible extent and risk and that. i don't know exactly what's going to happen but it's not our job, in icu to use the u.s. military tose enforce stabilityn countries that don't have it. u.s. military can't come in and enforce peace in the country. you should get out of engaging in the. in my opinion. second argument is -- i'm sorry,

i'm going to get the. second argument is terrorism threat. right now, the reason we are in afghanistan is to make m sure te transnational terrorism doesn't come out again like it did not 11. there is risk there, certainly i would say the risk of that no more than be described and was listing in terms of the lost cause and u.s. military presence in the country is not a positive globalal stability. we've got to factor that in, factor all those things in, we are better off holding out what it does right now were more likely to come released in africa so it not the risk of staying in my mind, outweighs the risk of going we should

build that policy and pull out. >> about the argument that we've had 28000 in korea for decades and other places decades and it could be smaller deterrent. >> a voice found it to be a rather large parts. nobody's shooting at us in japan. okay? i have this conversation with sullivan. if we could w negotiate a deal with the taliban and they say okay, we're going to be part of the government now, so isis is active and taliban bases isis almost as much as the afghan government but the taliban says we need your help. that's a different conversation but i hate the korea argument. it's like how long will people

go in and day in and day out? over the course of 75 years. i exaggerate slightly, 70 here's. it's a totally different situation for exactly that reason. >> i want to remind people to put their questions into the questions here. i want to turn to a different topic. dod conducts a review of domestic extremism within the military to get a handle on this phenomenon in the wake of the january 6 right with this active fservice members. one of the things being talked about is whether or not dod should and can eliminate the distinction which allows service members to be passive members of groups many would consider to be extremist groups like oathke keepers or white supremacist

organization in active members, what you think about that? think they can do that? should they? >> yes, they should. it's a very difficult thing to wait and to. i think our hearing brought that out. i'll get back to the difficulty in the moment but the reason i think it's important to engage in this effort is because we seen a significant rise in white bring extremist groups. for example we all feel, it is not just that. you have a lot of like government white nationalist, white supremacist groups, there's evidence, i think 20% of the people t arrested had ties o the military, current or past she say maybe we've got a problem here. getting and we figure it out.

against the government. i think that's a little too much of a remark. if you have someone who is the clear white supremacist? i don't think we should overthrow the government, at this think they are inferior to white people, is not someone you want to serve in with in the military? i think we need to figure that out and set the standard we can better protect service members in that type of extremism. we have a very long history in this country of deep abiding racism and we have to address that. we get into trouble is where people take that too f far and decide whatever a facebook post,

years ago when you made a comment are black people a little different than whitete people in this regard? now we've got to treat it like the ku klux klan? i think we need to be real careful how we move from want the full on white supremacist white nationalist military but we can't become the police here. just because someone expresses views on racist different than you doesn't make them racist. it's going to be difficult. you could say why should we have the military deal with this? will society deals with them. no matter where you are if someone gets caught on facebook or the editor thing, you better policy how to handle that. purpose of the year, at it from my perspective or preservative, right now it is too much of the air, many service members are

upset about the equity and social justice going on. i think it's gone too far. many others who have gone far enough. we need to have a robust effort to start that debate in answers to those questions. absolutely hits the military, too. >> one or two more questions before we opento up. i want to ask you, your perspective on global art sales and i know the primary committee for farm sales but you engage american values and it's a debate i expect to be looked at more carefully. a more decisive criteria and grouping proposed sale and at the same time, they appear to be

standing by trump era listening of restrictions around armed sales. i want your perspective on the right balance and united states looking at trends, partners and problematic in terms of those situations. >> it is a huge challenge because striking that balance is very difficult.e right now we have conflicting policies. going back to my conversation about how we build partnerships, how do we add value countries look forward with a tighter relationship? what we have? have talked about the partnerships and diplomacy the one of the biggest things they want from us is our military hardware.

we have the largest defense budget in the world and best equipment in the world. people look to make sure they are secure in their neighborhood and they want to buy stuff from us and what's going on right now the armed service and uae and our overall policy to the rest of the world is yes, we'd like to sell it to you but we are going to be in all different aspects, which is fine in terms of upholding our values. we don't want you buying from china and russia. the track that puts us in a lot of these countries are going to say let me get this straight, you won't tell it to us for a variety of different reasons but then you punish us even further if we buy it from china or russia. we've got to figure that out. it's going to vary country to country and we have to be very specific we are concerned about.

saudi arabia and uae are two specific examples. the were in the end are the biggest concerns. opening saudi arabia has gone, my personal biggest policy is to put pressure on saudi arabia to come to terms get and stop the blockade and bombing. these are not making it easy. not something we should support. the balance can't be literary weapons are bad, we'd be better off not selling. if we do that we are going to harm our ability to build the partnerships and present alternative for russia and china. >> one quick question before the

q&a, secretary austin is talking about thecr need to make sure te pentagon and military has a diverse leadership. at the same time, the military underrepresentation of women, african-americans, latinos, asian americans in the upper right of the military, tell us what you think can be done in the short term. >> i think it's enormously important.: we talk about systemic historical racism, this is off the court. let me put aside the issue for how racist we are right now. i have my opinions but it's undeniable historical we've been very racist country. jim crow and the basic history of white supremacy is a police.

appalling. the idea that just because the civil rights act was passed in 1965 people stopped thinking that way is ridiculous. you got to work that out but let's be incredibly polyamorous about this and say everyone did start thinking in racist terms. the effect of that is the generic generational wealth, you didn't have the opportunity for and when you look around the military, they build people. of those people were white because of historical racism and you perpetrate the cycle. i support affirmative action in my own office. i live in the district that's become mores diverse so when i hire people, i aggressively reach out to asking the group

and organizations and say who you got? you have to workov to overcome e history. the bottom line is, we tend to hide who we know and if we grew up in a society where we view and it's even hotter. even if you're not racist. the work has tono be done that's what doctor anthony brown, a number of members of our committee put in place chief diversity officer. we definitely need to work to increasein diversity and promotn and other places. >> we are going to go quickly to questions and in the remaining time we have, first is from the fence canadian embassy the question is, part of t the probm we face in our technology related defense r&d and other industries, what should be then

lead against this? >> i would say the acquisition should be the lead. a lot of times we don't know who we are workingdo with but it's cyberbe command and those of the people who should be in charge of protecting and that's why we did the joint demand to work on that. they should be in charge of protecting that and we've got to do api better job of that and develop the policy, how can we impose at some cost when china and russia is the most example with those cyberer attacks how n we impose those costs? we need to look at that. >> the second question, i'm

going to apologize for mispronouncing so last name but stephen -- defense from republic of uganda and the question is chairman, would you categorize as a mistake and it was a mistake, what you advise as to avoidd in the future anywhere in the world? >> i would not categorize it as a mistake in the following sense that space is become problems. for us and the entire when you look at a place in tumult and you think how can we stop it from becoming an ungoverned state? is not easy. basically my argument is, a rock is social. things were not as peaceful and

stable in iraq in 2003. we have a southern, shiite were in deep conflict, chaos was potentially coming but we still two things over there. libya had a civil war going on and going out with the rebels and there was no good option at that time. when i draw a comparison to his look at serial. in syria, the u.s. let that happen e syria became chaotic. people say u.s. got involved when they have. i tend to think the answer to that is, there was no good

solution, if we had done that, peace and stability in the, their own term ongoing issues when you have a dictator patrolling the country in an increasingly big way. that's not what history tells me. we have to make a series, announced to make progress in libya. it would be great outside influences, if turkey and russia weren't fighting a war in libya, you need to kick them out and let libyans solve their problems but this is dominant thing. sorry, just one more part. iiause of the post-world war war, the u.s. was so dominant and post-cold war, there came to be this expectation that there's no problem in the world we could

not solve and if it wasn't solved, it's because we didn't want to. i'll never forget being at a refugee camp 2013, 2014, syrian refugee camp. to put it bluntly, why are you letting why is the u.s. choosing not to solve our problems? that was basically their position and i explained, there is nothing we can do. the problem is beyond the u.s. going okay, let's make this work so as we work with the rest of the world, say we can't be dominant, we can't try to is good for the rest of the world has to recognize the cap expect us to solve every problem. it's a competent world and we have to work together to figure out how to make it more peaceful and prosperous and that's what i

would like foreign policy and national security policy. >> one final question. the u.s. and philippines are allies, how do we make sure we have operability with emerging technologies typically for respected armed forces? >> that is important in that act, it's done, israel being the most prominent. we have a lot of partnerships between national security companies in developing partnerships. that is one way to build this partnership strengthen the relationship. there are aar lot of opportunity to do that. i'd be remiss and i apologize,

part of the problem references back to one of the questions asked upfront which was human rights. they are deeply concerned about the human rights and what's going on in the philippines. i am telling you in my district andd world my constituents are telling that they are concerned about the efforts the drug war they believe the civil rights in the philippines. they hold the philippines accountable so are you still doing this leave me the

philippines is not the only country where they have a challenge. i hate this, i can't look at you but we need to work together to talk about how we can address those issues to maintain that relationship. i don't like, we are talking up the relationship, other countries look at us and say what about what you are doing? this is an ideal either. you will have to have that conversation to figure out how to build these partnerships and relationships even with human rights concerns. >> i'm told we have one more question from minister counselor from the embassy of honduras. how's the united states committed to build capacity in parnas like honduras and fighting transnational organized crime groups and resources and a

95% reduction of drugs in the country. my question is, how do we help them fight. >> that's a good example of partnerships we need to do. i am more familiar with columbia. it was really controversial when we engaged in it in the early 2000. i have supported that in the partnership we formed in the colombian government with these transnational not just al qaeda isis. they are human trafficking drugs and what they do and we have seen it in latin america and elsewhere, they replace civil

society in a deadly manner. we need to work with other partnerships to contain the partnerships with honduras, that's where we circle back. if there's any history and there are a lot of people in the u.s. this is for donald trump's america first policy came from. i'm not a huge fan of president trump and his years of others but he has a way of tapping into people's anger and resentment and the general feeling that the u.s. is lying after the world causing the two unfriendly regimes for our own interests. there is a let's retreat from that, let's not have the u.s. engage in that. the world of interconnectedness, we're not always going to make the right choice in terms of who we partnership and where things go but what you talk about transnational threats i talked

about, we've got to work together and the u.s. as part of that and we have a military capability, counterterrorism capability and law enforcement capability, it's really good and we can partner withes the rest f the world and our interest and their interests we go forward. i'd love to continue to find ways to work with the crisis we have on our border right now because a lot of destruction having, we'd be -- they'd love to just live inn the community safe enough and prosperous enough and to do that with got to find ways to work together to make that possible. >> i want to thank the audience the questions and the engaging conversation today. i went to hit back over now.

>> thank you so much for your candid marks thiser afternoon. it was refreshing for all of us and i know the diplomatic corps has appreciated greatly. thank you for your questions navigating the afternoon. thank you to the attendees and ambassadorsdo as well as our supporters. next program comes up april 16 where we have diplomacy forward. the path forward focusing on these issues including intersection of foreign policy national security. we'll have former nato secretary as well as secretary of defense and others in that program. i encourage you to look up

meridian where you can register for the event as well. thank you all for joining. remain on theo platform and continue your networking as soon as we leave the screen. we're going to turn the lights back on is what they call it. feel free to move your cursor over and you can say hello just like if you are leaving the campus today on your way out so have a great evening and thank you again for joining us. >> the trial in the death of george floyd is underway at the courthouse. former minneapolis police officer derek chauvin charged in the death of mr. floyd who died while being arrested by officers. if you missed live coverage of the trial, watch tonight beginning 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2 or anytime on c-span.org. ♪♪ >> sunday on in-depth, the

conversation with science writer and author, harriet washington her most recent book, and other books include medical and deadly monopolies. >> when companies profit to measure success in the medical arena, the problem is that we can't expect the companies to care about us. we can't expect the companies to make less money because they care about our health. but our government, the people we pay should expect to care about our health and defend us so our government push be training in these days. our government should be forcing them to develop things that will meet the public needs it's not. >> join in with your phone call, facebook comments, texts and tweets. harriet washington sunday noon eastern on book tvs in-depth. c-span2. for the program, visit c-span

shop.org and get your copies of harriet washington's book. ♪♪ >> listen to c-span's podcast, the weekly. this week, "wall street journal" columnist kimberly strassel on the filibusters future and long term ramifications of modifying senate rules with majority control changing sides. >> democrats right now thinking of blowing up the entire senate even with the knowledge that by next year they might be in the minority in the senate again four years from now republicans can be another place for an agenda so this is a moment where people often step back and try to remember these big actions have real consequences down the road. >> c-span the week before you get your podcast.

♪♪ >> c-span2 is unfiltered view of government created by america's cable television company. today not to you by these television companies to provide c-span2 two years as a public service. ♪♪ >> today's white house covered grieving, doctor rochelle outlined an update on travel headlines while doctor anthony fauci provided an update on vaccine efficacy spoke about vaccinating adolescents. this is half an hour. >> thank you for joining us. we will get the state of the pandemic update. doctor fauci will highlight the latest science the surgeon general will join us to discuss the campaign to increase competence