Situation with north korea but there are reports from multiple National News sources the white house is set to make a long rumored move with secretary of state tillerson, replacing him with mr. Pompeo from the cia, and replacing mr. Pompeo with senator tom cotton. This is part of the National Security team. I am wondering if you have a reaction to those names and those particular cases it rep. Smith i dont know that it changes anything. My biggest concern and that is the state department. Whether it is secretary tillerson or secretary pompeo, the state department has not been engaged. Diplomacy has fallen off significantly. Morale at the state department is terrible. I think they have a third less people. There just does not seem to be a diplomatic focus. Diplomacy is governed by the president s tweets. The secretary of state is forced to react. However they do it i hope they , start using diplomacy as a key tool in our agenda. Right now very concerned about was happening at the state department. Susan do you think that is a cultural issue drawing down , numbers of people, and that it would change with someone else at the helm . Rep. Smith i doubt it would change. That is what concerns me. I do think it is a cultural issue. I think it reflects President Trumps lack of desire to employ the state department. Whether it is because he wants to control the messaging or he doesnt believe in it. For instance, they get rid of the afghanistanpakistan working group at the state department a , critical piece moving forward to achieving some peaceful solution, or some stable solution in afghanistan and pakistan. They completely disbanded it. We have made no progress in the middle east. There has been little progress in terms of building relationships in africa. I dont think they understand diplomacy. I have served the congressman pompeo. I am not sure he is a significant upgrade. At least secretary tillerson when he worked for exxon knew he had to work with other countries. I am not optimistic the state department is going to get better under secretary pompeo. Susan onto one of the major issues, north korea. Roxana, your the question for us . Roxana thank you for being with us. On north korea, i would be interested in getting the reaction to the latest missile test. You did mention diplomacy. Obviously that has been the route so far. How concerned are you about this latest missile test and how concerned are you an attack on the United States might be imminent . Rep. Smith im not concerned at all an attack on the United States is imminent. I dont believe that is north koreas intent or kim jonguns vision. North korea believes they need to develop a Robust Program for regime survival. Completely wrong about this, but the North Koreans believe they are going to be invaded at any moment. They have a paranoia about the United States that is impossible to overstate. They think they have to be armed and ready. Plant think it is their to attack us because apart it would be suicide. Certainly they can inflict damage for we can completely eliminate them, working along with south korea and japan. I do not think an attack on the u. S. Is imminent. I do think they are continuing to develop the missile program. My concern is we stumble into a war we should not stumble into. What we have to make clear is we have a credible deterrent. They attack us or south korea, japan or any allies we have the , forced to completely destroy them. Therefore they will not engage militarily in that way. That is my biggest concern. We stumble into a conflict that thinking that north koreas going to do something. We might of acting when we shouldnt. I think diplomacy continues to be important. I am mindful of the limitations. What i hope is what we diplomatically convey is the deterrence. We will defend our allies. We will defend our interests. We wish we could stop them from developing the technology they have. Nothing at this point has worked. But we will continue to sanction them, isolate them from the rest of the world. The real red line is if they attack us, our interests, or our allies. Leo how well do you think the u. S. Is communicating those issues . You said you dont have a lot of confidence in the diplomatic strategy right now. You have introduced legislation to try to put limits on first strike by the u. S. If you are not concerned about the North Koreans attacking the u. S. , what is your concerned without stumbling forward . Rep. Smith i would not go so far as to say im not concerned with north korea attacking us. They are unpredictable. And unstable. Who knows how they might miscalculate. I dont believe it is their intent. I dont believe they are building these Nuclear Weapons because they plan on attacking us. I dont think that tha is their intent. It does not mean they might not say we think the u. S. Is going to attack us, or south korea is going to attack us so we better do it first. That is my concern. You assume the other side is going to hit so you say we may as well go first. As far as the president s approach, thus far, working with secretary tillerson, they have communicated that message. You better not mess with us because we will respond in a way you cant handle. Delivering that message is important. I worry about whether there are people in the Trump Administration who think we have to do a preemptive strike. Such a strike would in all likelihood set off a catastrophic war at a minimum on the Korean Peninsula. Japan would be in danger. Potentially with their Ballistic Missile capability, the United States might be in danger. This point it seems to me the Trump Administration, despite some of the rhetoric, has been willing to hold their fire. I hope that continues. Leo let me get followup here. One we talk about this in d. C. From a foreignpolicy aspect. You are the Ranking Member of House Armed Services. There are tens of thousands of military families and troops stationed in south korea and japan. What would you tell them as you see developments and these fairly concerning tests this , backandforth with the Trump Administration and the north korean regime . Rep. Smith it is difficult. I am not going to tell them there is nothing to worry about. Obviously you have for growing and somewhat unpredictable power in north korea facing off against the United States, with increasingly heated rhetoric. There is cause for concern. I would tell them it is my hope in my believe the United States will not engage in a precipitous war that we do not need to participate in. We can contain north korea without having to use a military strike. A military strike that would set off a Chain Reaction that would lead to war and distraction on destruction on the Korean Peninsula and elsewhere. I give you the same answer. We have to present a credible deterrent to make sure north korea does not use weapons they are developing. Roxana is there Anything Congress can do in this respect to aid the diplomatic effort and try and deter a preemptive strike . Or do you find congress is in ed and and lawmakers would rather see a strike on north korea . Rep. Smith by and large most members of congress do not want to see a war started on the Korean Peninsula. We can use direct rhetoric. Strong, credible rhetoric that we will deter an attack from north korea, and also downplaying any preemptive or preventative approach. It is rhetorically will we can do. You mentioned my no first use on Nuclear Weapons. That is not just about north korea. That is no first use, period. My concern is the lack of dialogue between nuclear powers, even during the height of the cold war we had Backchannel Communications with the soviet union to try to avoid stumbling into a nuclear confrontation. Right now that level of dialogue with russia and china does not seem to be there. I think we need to make sure we dont stumble into a Nuclear Conflict there as well. I see no justification for the first use of Nuclear Weapons. We need Nuclear Weapons as a deterrent because russia, china, those countries have those weapons. First use does not make sense, and i think it can calm fears of a lot of countries that we know the u. S. Policy is not to use Nuclear Weapons first. I know we believe we would never do that, but north korea, russia , a lot of people there dont have the same trust in the u. S. That we do. That miscalculation and paranoia about your adversaries could lead us stumbling into war. Even into a nuclear war. Susan what is the prospect of the resolution . Rep. Smith i dont see them moving it, but i want to begin that dialogue. There is a lot of pieces of legislation that start off thinking what is the chance . You dont know until you try. You have to begin the process. Passing legislation usually is an effort in patience and persistence. I want to start that debate and move us in that direction. Leo i want to shift to the budget. We have had fights on the tax reform package. We are a few days away from the continuing resolution running out. Im wondering what your concerned level is with a partial Government Shutdown . Susan rep. Smith it is very high. Very high. We have made no progress and we continue to fire shots back and forth without addressing the real issue. It is two levels. One is the budget caps. The budget caps are a problematic. The defense industry, many believe the defense needs more money than the 549 billion contemplated in the budget control act. There are many that late not a since nondefense discretionary is capped. How do you get an agreement . How do you get an agreement between enough republicans and democrats to exceed those budget cap numbers . The larger issue is we are 20 trillion in debt. Getting rid of the budget cap doesnt change that math. Maybe we survive a year, but what about five years . What about 10 years from now . If you want to simply focus on my committees concerns there is a lot of angst about the fact our current military is underfunded. We can have that debate. If you believe that if you do a massive tax cut what is it going to be like five or 10 years from now if we dont figure out a strategy for our overall budget that is sustainable, even if we survive this year, at some point we are not one have resources necessary to maintain the National Security we would like. Theres a lot of different answers to that but i can tell you cutting taxes by a couple trillion dollars makes it worse. Not better. Roxana congressman, there is talk of doing another stopgap measure, another continuing resolution. Is that something you would support or something that the Democratic Caucus would support, or would it be those lack of votes that could lead to a shutdown . Rep. Smith i am not sure. It is something we would be reluctant to support. We need appropriations bills. Whatever the number is, we need to set that number. Governing on a continuing resolution at the Defense Department is difficult. It makes it much harder to have any sustainable National Security policy. When you have to live with last years number and no new programs, and you cant get rid of old programs, it is a terrible way to govern. Things are not going to be better in january than the are now. We need to set down and reach an appropriations deal. That was true in january of this year and President Trump was sworn in, and it is still true today. It really is concerning we havent made progress on that. Susan we have 10 minutes left. Leo this is an issue we have talked about many times in the past. Going back several years with sequestration and budget cuts. What is it going to take to make real headway . What is going to be the breakthrough moment where democrats and republicans talk about tax cuts, tax increases in which programs should be preserved . Rep. Smith going back to 2010. There is no shortterm simple solution. What it is going to take as an honest discussion with the American People about the budget choices we face. For too long we have had politicians that have looked at polls and they see the public wants balanced budget. They support a balanced budget and concept. The public is concerned, they dont want to see taxes increase. They dont want to see popular programs cut. That math does not add up. Yet in campaign after Campaign Across the country have politicians promising that. I want to be fiscally responsible. I want a balanced budget. No i wont cut this program. ,i will not cut the other program. The math does not add up. It starts with an honest conversation. The problem is right now the public wants a balanced budget without raising taxes or cutting spending. That is impossible to deliver. They want that. Too many candidates have promised it. Too many members of congress of promised it. Any appropriations bill that we would pass would be politically unpopular because it would not balance the budget without raising taxes or cutting spending. That is why, whatever the majority, they are reluctant to say here is my appropriations bill. Whatever that appropriations bill is, is going to fail probably in all three of those areas. It is certainly not want to balance the budget. It raises taxes it will be , unpopular. If it cuts spending, it will be unpopular. Until we can have an honest conversation about the budget choices we face we will be trapped in this gridlock. Roxana speaking of gridlock, and more immediate terms, republicans and democrats are at a stalemate. There was some progress made at the staff level on budget talks, and lifting caps but those fell through. Democrats have certain to certain requirements, including immigration that should be included in any omnibus budget deal. Republicans want to increase defense a lot more than they would give for domestic spending. Whered do you see this going . December 8 is when Government Spending runs out if there is not another stopgap. How do you see both parties coming together to do the right thing as you say, and have that honest conversation went time is running short . Rep. Smith i want to make sure you understand my answer. First of all there is what i think should happen, what i would like to see happen. I think we should come together on an agreement to get into the budget control act. It has not worked to control spending or gives a reasonable budget framework. We should repeal the budget control act, reach an agreement on what to do about defense and nondefense discretionary spending, and we should look at revenue and the broader budget , including all mandatory programs and put together a , budget that gives us a pathway towards a sustainable budget. That is what ought to happen. It is not what is happening. The republican tax cut is killing that debate. How can you be talking about reducing revenue to the federal no i dont and believe cutting taxes increases revenue. It doesnt. You can look at the numbers and see clearly it doesnt. I have the easiest job in the world cutting taxes increased revenue, the ideal tax rate would be zero. That doesnt pencil out. If the tax rates get too high, and there was a time where we had a 90 tax rate. There was a time but we had a Capital Gains rate that was 66 . The top tax right now is 39 . 50 for longer held stocks. 15 for longer held stocks. At that level you simply are not going to change the dynamic by cutting taxes. Weve got to have an honest conversation. That is what should happen. What is likely to happen, that we stumble through one shortterm cr after another and we keep moving forward and dont pass appropriations bills. I think that would be a colossal failure and a huge problem for our government functioning properly. Given the rhetoric, what we saw out of President Trump before the negotiations even started which said i am not going to do anything the democrats want i dont see a deal before they even started talking, i dont see how we get there. I am very worried about what is going to happen next week. I think it is going to be bad for the country next week terms of how we handle the budget. Susan just four minutes left. Roxana are you worried democrats are going to be blamed and have to take the blame of the 2018. Rep. Smith my focus is not on who gets the partisan blame. My focus is on governing the government properly. I think the Democratic Party will benefit if we present an intelligent approach to governing. I do think we should try and talk with republicans. But i dont blame leader pelosi or senator schumer for not wanting to show up, where the president says you guys are awful, terrible, and what you want is not anything we can talk about. At some point you have to say that is not a negotiation. We are not negotiating with a credible partner. I hope the president will say we know we have to Work Together on this, lets not prejudge anything. Lets sit down and talk and see where we wind up. That is what needs to happen for negotiations the start. I am focused on the good of the country. The partisan blame i will leave to others. Leo i want to bring up military operations in africa. Referred unsettling reports in the last week, that operations in somalia may have had excess civilian casualties. Or even intentional civilian casualties. What is the Committee Role looking forward on that . What is your concern with the lack of Public Awareness on these military operations in africa . Rep. Smith our role is oversight, to