political reality and move on and try to identify other countries, hopefully large economies that we can forge economic relationships and then i think we need a coordinated strategy with partners and allies like energy, i think we need to come up with a written plan which i called for in terms of investment and technologies just as chinese are doing and for example, manufacturing, artificial intelligence, quantum computing, these are all areas where the united states, if we are not making strategic bets, we are going to fall behind i'm afraid and we met with success doing this historically.

in later for the internet, these don't always exceed but if we don't try or invest in the resources were sure to be outpaced by other state capitalist models. >> you have been going back to the middle east for minute, you have been one of the strong critics of saudi arabia and the senate and has spoken very seriously of wanting to put conditions on the aide and have a strong response to violation. i know you visited the region earlier this fall, did you come away from that with any change in perspective or where do you think we are with saudi arabia? >> every time i travel in my perspective changes, that's why find trouble so valuable and spend a little more time in the senate and all continue to travel. i have been critical with saudi

arabia, i have given criticism where criticism is due in full some credit without is due. on one hand the saudis in particular is really trying to modernize this country and that's something i aim to more fully appreciate as a visitor the country. we are coming increasingly empowered, there is a bit more breathing space for civil society, that's not to say this is the united states of america that would marvel a current society. but there modernizing and i think longer term there's an opportunity to send a signal to the rest of the muslim world that you can indeed modernize one economy and culture over a period of time and we reconcile that with muslim religion. on the other hand, the way the

saudi arabia is partnered with the united states in the immoralities have carried out the military operations in yemen were deserving of the very vocal and direct criticism and i believe they violated the humanitarian law to denying food, fuel and medicine to others in the country me yemen d people who wouldn't have otherwise radicalized destabilizing the country at a time when 20 million people were on the verge of starvation. in creating an environment that was for a rhonda come in and provide to the hutus. it's a very complex situation but this is a complex partnership with saudi arabia that we likely will need to

maintain for a period of time because the greatest threats in that region, is reinforced during my visit was clearly aroundiran. and they continue to develop nuclear weapons, continue to improve their military technology including missile technology in which the weapons could sit and engage in terrorist activities throughout the middle east and so that destabilizing process is the threat to not just those in the region but ultimately the united states. so it's important for us to maintain a dialogue with sometimes bad actors and copper cato partners like the saudis. you mentioned you had seen changes in saudis policy toward

yemen that you thought were positive. is that right? >> yes, let me, the government for making changes, they are targeting of different military targets has improved and persuaded of that, i spent a lot of time with no ambassador as well as leaders in saudi arabia, spent some time directly with them and senator mccain who traveled together, i felt like we left with a much more appreciation that they are making significant strides. the saudis understand that they need to bring the conflict in yemen to a political resolution and they strike me as dedicated toward doing whatever they can to make that happen. they are pulling in expertise and diplomatic weight of the ameron days, almighty's, we have

a positive relationship with iran and together they are working collectively with other countries to try and stabilize. >> given the latest news from iran, the move on uranium and so on is accelerating, how would you advise president trump to proceed with iran at this time? >> to maintain a maximum pressure campaign but really the key is going to be to have a whole diplomatic initiative via the europeans. we need the europeans on board so we cannot just buy laterally apply pressure vis-à-vis a

iranians but so europe remains on board with trying to bring iran back into position of better behavior. and we have had our challenges first with respect to military contribution for my nato partners in europe but, we need to make every effort to patch up any hurt feelings, to enhance trust into triton work together with the nations who still arguably are closest in terms of sharing values in the vision of a liberal international border that we have. >> that brings me too comment -- >> i thought you might bring that up spring back i tweeted last night, whether nato was really dead with a few words were mostly dead.

>> it reminds me of an episode. >> exactly. in the princess bride when he comes back. >> yes. >> where you think nato is and what can be done about it? >> so to stick with the tortured analogy, improperly stimulated, i would not bring that. in fact i said, we share common history with so many of these european countries, we share common western values and i understand there are distinctions between every nation in every country. but they are peshawar the buckshobestshot in so many euros that we can breathe more light back into nato and i believe

it's in the best interest of our country to do that. i also think it's important for us to try and establish relationships with specific countries. so i know aipac is not a mutual security alliance but it could evolve into something more robust and ambitious. our values and our alliance system, not the first to conceive of this idea, are our greatest assets geopolitically speaking. the chinese have to pay others, they have to hire out partners, the united states genuinely has friends and allies and like any friendship they need to be cultivated in insisting to endure. >> president of turkey will be

visiting washington soon. and we think about nato and problems with nato turkey has a way of coming to the floor. what is the message you think the united states should be given the president of turkey. >> the yogi bear message. when you come to a fork in a row -- you cannot have it both ways. you cannot at once purchased russian weapon systems and in this case the 400 air defense system which is designed to shoot down the most is sophisticated aircraft. you cannot do that and remain a high-level partner of other nato countries. so i don't know precisely how this gets resolved but that's the message that needs to be sent in here again work together

with the nato allies to figure out a path forward. >> i do understand there is competing domain works with laying down the law but also want to make sure you don't fully push him into the russian orbit, understanding that there will be another leader or set of leaders who follow him and they may follow the model as opposed to the autocratic model. so all of these things will have to be factored into how we scope any sanctions regime that we might decide to impose in any future actions. i'm awaiting this meeting in the conversation. >> one of the requirements for having a strong foreign policy is having a strong domestic economy. there are a lot of people in the

united states would wonder why were spending all this money on other people security or aid to other countries when we have so many problems here at home. how do we build the academy and how do we build a consensus at home for more active foreign policy overseas? >> a, we build the economy by following macro economic basics. we need a favorable tax regime with respect to the domestic environment but with respect to the international taxation. we recently made significant improvements on that and favorable regulatory environments. we need trained people and for the investment in the human capital especially i would say for americans who don't aspire

to attend a four-year college. were really trying to rethink higher education productive part of the national security. as you said to the extent our economy grows larger, then we had to invest in the military technology, occasionally the foreign assistance that is required to keep -- to advance our values and defend our values for the other component is immigration reform. i've studied a bit of economics, there is two ways to grow an economy, one to make individual workers more productive and another is to bring in more workers, i have not figured out how to nudge individuals into having significant more children through public policy.

and so in the absence of fact, we should embrace the great american tradition of inviting others into the country to help contribute, i do think we should move towards the canadians, australians which is a skills-based immigration system so those who come into this country can maximum we contribute on day one to the growth of our economy. and in terms of how that translates into our power, ability to project force and values abroad, it takes resources to do that and in the time i was in the military in recent years, that has been aircraft carriers and so forth, we will be answering a new era, where it is going to take development of the way this asymmetric technology and the ability to defend against them and so there again, much of this will come -- one of the great

things of the united states, so much will come from private sector investments and privately led innovation. but there remains an outside role in this area for government-funded research often partnering in unique ways with the private sector. >> when you go home to indiana and you talk to folks there about foreign policy in american interest and so on, what do you find they're interested in and what questions do they have about were hunted? >> we have a high rate of military enlistment in the state of indiana and one of the largest national guards in the country. they want members of the foreign relations committee and members of congress more generally and were constantly questioning our presence abroad to play a significant role to speak on their behalf as we consider

additional troop commitment or sustaining is 60 troop commitment. that is one thing i hear particularly from military families and veterans. another thing i hear about is the growth of our economy and the extent to which others play fair, i think president trump's credit, he elevated the importance of intellectual property theft which is not just something that the united states is afflicted by but so many other countries and china is a mini violator of this. in other predatory economic practices. so that is why i've introduced the legislation calling for the administration a global economic security strategy pointing to the administration to work across the department of government with other countries to come up with a written plan and to address these things

moving forward in a multilateral basis. >> you hear a lot of talk about a gap between the for foreign py establishment in the opinion of ordinary americans, do you find evidence of that gap of someone who spends a lot of time with people outside the beltway? >> i think naturally members of the foreign policy establishment, as you put it, believe that rank and file americans hoosiers spend more time thinking about foreign policy than they do. >> most americans are like people, members of my family, we think about our families, our neighborhoods, maybe occasionally with the state and national issues, what happens in

yemen really meets the dat dinnr table conversation, at least it did not and mine growing up in a still does not with my 9-year-old. so i think sometimes we overestimate that and that's why it's especially important and why i feel duty bound and other members of congress have a duty to speak about these issues publicly. especially when we have had a military engagement lasting 18 years in afghanistan, we rarely face this issue and we don't debate it in a fulsome manner on the floor of the united states senate and there's a lot of structural reasons for that. is there enough time, judges to vote on, a lot of competing priorities. but nonetheless, we owe it to the men and women in uniform to elevate these issues, to educate

the american people about what is going on and to rethink our position from time to time as circumstances changes. >> this brings me to what seems to be the heart of a lot american warm policy issues and maybe not just inform policy but congress has lost authority and lost direction and a domestic policy means executive and judiciary have claimed the empty ground and inform policy is mostly the executive, how does the senator view this trend? >> i think it's ironic, those who studied the american history in our constitution, james mattis had a fear it would be the legislative branch that would serve as a four text for all the other powers of

government. we cannot give powers away quickly enough. congress does not want to make that decision to combine to foreign policy. we passed very vague laws on the provisions, leaving the details up to the large administrative agencies and washington, d.c. and then come home the unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats for ruining our lives. so that's why introduce the act, look it up. with respect to spending, we delegated a lot of spending authority to the executive branch and then more power in particular is the home of the conversation on how to get into it. when you still have on the books an authorization for the use of military force dating back two months after i entered after high school, 1991, that's a real

problem. >> that shows congress has not done basic housekeeping with respect to war powers. we need to call back some of this authority, it has been a real point of offenses of mine and weeks of being sworn into the senate and becoming a member of the foreign relations committee, i introduced this back in 2017, an authorization for military force against isis, some can com claim that when thy applied to the associated forces that were derivative of those forces and allowed us to fight against isis. i feel like at some point after 16 years, those powers become opinionated and we have a duty to reaffirm our support, we consider in a public setting

whether women amended in uniform are doing. take accountability of elected officials charged with overseeing these sorts of conflicts. >> i can remember even before 1991 and i can remember back in the vietnam era hearings that the senate foreign relations committee were almost central to the public debate over questions like the war in vietnam and senator fulbright would have his point of view and other senators would disagree. but there was a public debri dee over foreign policy. if anything today i find that has moved over to cable news shows. >> it has. and is moved elsewhere two. let me come in here rich.

i held up a boat at a business meeting at a committee. i agreed on the substance, really do i do this but i said mr. chairman you will not have my vote on this if we don't have a hearing. he wanted my vote, he's a pragmatic man and also a man of his word and is on the committee hearing on assessing what we have out there. so this is really important to me. maybe this will stock interest-rate people and nothing to bring approval we have not passed an authorization pool when authorizing new authorities in changing existing legal authorities under foreign relations committee jurisdiction since chairman, jesse helms. >> i grew up in north carolina and jesse is a throw guy.

>> my former boss for a couple of years, chairman richard, incredible statement for whom am have incredible respect came very close. he passed an authorities bill. a more abbreviated but if you're not passing an authorization bill, i tell this to lindsey graham all the time, he is chairman of the appropriations subcommittee, that turned lindsey graham into authorizer in the appropriate her. he is a very powerful person. so my own belief and conviction if we cannot make this to consider an authorization bill for the senate foreign relations committee then let's start strapping it to the national defense authorization act and get it done and then maybe someday the super eight committee can become a full-fledged super eight

committee. so just to help some of the audience with this. what would an authorization bill from the senate foreign relations committee do, what would it change, what effect would this have? >> they are authorizing committees then appropriating committees, authorizing committees are charged with coming up with new legal authority and many of which allow new expenditures or changing existing legal authority, we could shut things down that are irrelevant or repurposed certain functions of the federal government. the appropriations committee is charged with taking whatever budget amount that's agreed upon through the budget process and

allocating to some things that have been offering us. the appropriations committee will remain a powerful committee but it's not good policy to mix the two. if were going to mix the two dispense with this notion that we have because they're not making much policy if you're not passing an authorizing bill. your droid oversight which is very, very important. and so -- >> an authorization bill interview with the foreign relations committee, do we need to restructure the state department and reconfigure our priorities so you actually give a legislative guidance to the department, is that the idea? >> that's exactly the idea and unfortunately symptomatic of not

passing authorization bill. it's not uncommon for the full committee to invite high-level administration witnesses before the foreign relations committee. we do not see them for months and we later find out that they have appeared before lindsay's subcommittee. . . .

dave destabilized the region but nonetheless there's been no effort to maintain a ministate. >> here is a question i thought to ask you. what are the most pressing problems in foreign-policy now and for the next 50 years. that is a great question. ensuring that we remain on the cutting edge remaining on the

cutting edge of educations we might advance our american values is our primary foreign-policy challenge. i guess the second one that comes to mind is continuing to nurture our alliances and repair it where necessary and that can occur bilaterally or also by utilizing the many multilateral forums that they need to be refashioned so they are suitable to the 21st century. >> the question about the events in hong kong and what looks like a bit of an escalation how should the u.s. respond to what is happening and is there something we can or should do?

>> is helpful when the senators and members of the house of representatives are maintaining not just international law but ensuring that our values are respected by our partners and sometimes our adversaries. so, to the extent we do that it gives more diplomatic leverage to our own diplomats and the chinese don't want to develop a reputation worldwide as the great malefactor in the human rights violators but do they have gulags, yes they have established gulags. they are violating the terms of the law that ensures they can

remain free at least until they assume full control so we need to blow the whistle on mac. at the same time this is not the cold war. we need to maintain economic relations and so forth the chinese because this is a much more fluid situation. and so, speak up and we will continue to reassess the situation and i know that the administration is doing that as well. >> we have another question here asking what is congress doing about dirty money and political influence associated with foreign governments? are we doing enough? is there more that we can do?

>> i'm sure there is always more we can do. we are always open to good ideas. you know, we've spent a lot of the emphasis the last couple of years on chinese investment in the united states and ensuring that our companies don't become woven into the fabric of china's state capitalist model suppose the so-called legislation that was important. when you think of smaller economies, latin america or african economies, we know there is fraud and click go behavior.

freedom tends not to thrive and trust in the government is very low and often results in violence as well. this can only be properly addressed by working with other countries so that we can bring to bear all of our wherewithal economic support to bring them into a better behavior. >> there is an open door in senator young's office for the proposals. asking what can the u.s. administration do to convince the north koreans that it's time

to denuclearize? >> that is a great question. >> it is trying the same thing again and again and failing. we have to try tried a sort ofs approach, strategic patience and the trump administration moved away from that and falter engagement in the campaign that has met with mixed success admittedly, but i think we need to continuously look for opportunities to change the ga game. this frequent speculation though it is hard to get great intelligence about what is occurring in north korea that

may bmaybe some internal threats internal to north korea. those to the extent that we can exploit some of those threads that would be a good thing, but we need to be very careful because to put it mildly, he's impulsive and reckless and very dangerous. there is no other world leader who could be characterized in those. senator, i want to be respectful of your time coming and i know you had a hard stop at 12:45. if the audience can be seated while the senator gets away, not really make his escape, that isn't the best way to describe it. thank you very much for sharing this. [applause]