Fox News "Fox News Sunday" - TRANSCRIPT 'Fox News Sunday' on January 29, 2022 [sic]

Interview

Joining me now, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Democrat Adam Smith.

Congressman, welcome back to "FOX News Sunday".

REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA): Thank you.

BREAM: All right. I want to start again where I started with the chairman on this issue of a U.S. general stating that we could be at war or in some type of conflict with China in 2025. You heard the chairman say he thinks that's possible.

SMITH: Well, I mean, I think in the great (ph) -- anything is possible. I'm really worried, though, when anyone starts talking about war with China being inevitable. And I want to be completely clear: it's not only not inevitable, it is highly unlikely.

We have a very dangerous situation in China, but I think generals need to be very cautious about saying, we're going to war. It's inevitable.

Their job is to prepare for a wide range of eventualities. I don't think we should be out there telling the world that we're going to war with China, most importantly because we're not. We have interests. We have to be in a position to deter China.

War is not inevitable. That's a very dangerous situation that we need to be prepared for, but I'm fully confident that we can avoid that conflict if we take the right approach.

BREAM: Yeah. And this administration has been very clear it wants to telegraph that we're not in conflict directly with Russia. They are saying to Kremlin this week that the sending of tanks there by the U.S. signals that we're directly involved.

But I want to start with something that GOP Congressman Andy Biggs tweeted about those tanks going. He says: Sending 31 Abrams tanks to Ukraine brings us closer to a major world war and puts American soldiers in harms way. You can bet we'll be sending American troops to Ukraine to operate these tanks.

How worried are you about that possibility?

SMITH: Well, Congressman Biggs has literally no idea what he's talking about. There will be no U.S. servicemen operating these tanks in Ukraine. That's sort of fearmongering does not help us in terms of meeting our objectives in Ukraine. No U.S. service people are going to be in Ukraine.

And I think President Biden has struck the right balance here. We are going to defend and support Ukraine to the greatest extent possible, to make sure that Ukraine continues to be a sovereign democratic state and that Russia is stopped in their ambition to overtake them.

But we are not going to have the U.S. or NATO get in direct conflict with Russia. And that is going to continue to be the case. We're going to provide these tanks to Ukraine. Ukraine is going to operate them. We are not, repeat, not going to war with Russia.

BREAM: How worried are you about this issue of our military supplies being depleted and our ability to turn this around, whether it's for Ukraine, whether it's about a conflict with China or anywhere else in the world? You heard the study that says we could be out of very critical armaments within a week of a conflict with China. Your thoughts?

SMITH: I completely agree with Chairman McCaul. This is a huge problem.

And we don't have the industrial base. And we don't have the ability to ramp up that industrial base. What industry will tell you is that the reason that they don't have the ability to make as many weapons as we now need is because they don't want to make that major investment without what they refer to as a demand signal, without knowing that we're going to buy them.

And, you know, despite what we heard this morning, predicting future conflict is actually more difficult than it looks. U.S. taxpayers don't want to spend a ton of money on weapons that we don't need.

We need to increase that ability to surge when we need it, which means we desperately need to increase our manufacturing base for key weapons systems.

I think Congressman McCaul is absolutely right. I know it's a huge priority for Chairman Rogers, who is now the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, my partner on that committee. It's a huge priority for our committee to increase that production capacity for all of the reasons that you've laid out.

BREAM: And again, that ties into defense spending, to the debt ceiling. You have said there need to be robust conversation about how we're spending our money and how we handle this moving forward. The White House, the president has said absolutely zero negotiations. They want a clean vote and that's it.

But this is what the president said when he was vice president back in 2011 about people who won't negotiate over the debt ceiling.

[BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT]

BREAM: He says that's not governing.

So why, essentially play this game now? Is it to turn around in five or six months when we're out of options and you'll blame the GOP?

SMITH: Here's the problem. So, and Hakeem Jeffries, the new minority leader on our side put this quite well.

The Democrats' position right now is we have incurred the debts. We have to raise the debt ceiling to pay those debts. We shouldn't be negotiating over whether or not we should pay our bills.

That's our position. Now, you can argue with that.

You know, personally, I think we need a clearer fiscal plan for the future as well. I would applaud an effort to get there. But what the Republicans have not done, and this is what Congressman Jefferies said so clearly, they haven't put a plan on the table. OK, you don't like the idea that we're just going to raise the debt ceiling. We hear all these vague statements about how we need to cut spending.

What needs to happen right now is if the Republicans don't want to raise the debt ceiling without cutting spending. Obviously, they don't want to raise revenue.

Put a plan on the table. What are you going to cut? Okay? Put a specific plan on the table.

(CROSSTALK)

BREAM: How do you put a plan on the table if you -- if you have an administration saying, we won't even discuss this with you, when years ago they said that's not governing?

SMITH: That's not hard. You put the plan on the table and then you do what you're doing right now. You say, we have a plan. You're refusing to talk about it.

But right now, the Republicans don't have a plan. Their plan, as led by the extremists in their party, is to complain about spending, not raise the debt ceiling, but not actually offer a plan that says, this is what we're going to cut. That's what needs to happen right now.

If the Republicans believe in this, give us an option, and then we can argue about it. But right now, they haven't even put a plan on the table. They just said they don't want to raise the debt ceiling. I guess they'd like us to put the plan on the table.

But again --

BREAM: Well, there has to be a table for everybody to sit at.

SMITH: Sure.

BREAM: And right now, there isn't one.

SMITH: No, but there is. That's not what's true. Democrats have --

BREAM: The White House says no negotiations, what does that mean?

SMITH: No, no, let me -- let me explain it. Democrats have a position. Our position is raise the debt ceiling, to pay the bills.

BREAM: Right, clean.

SMITH: That's our position. We are not going to negotiate with ourselves, okay? That's our position.

If Republicans want to put something on the table and say, this is what we want to cut, well then we can have a conversation. But that's where we're at in the negotiation. Okay?

BREAM: All right.

SMITH: So, we got to see a plan.

BREAM: OK.

SMITH: But we don't have anything to negotiate about.

BREAM: OK. And, quickly I want to ask you because you served on the Intel Committee.

SMITH: Yes.

BREAM: You have spent a life time dealing with classified documents. Can you give us a sense for how you handled classified documents, and do you see a scenario in which these ended up in people's homes and offices?

SMITH: Well, first of all, it's an entirely different situation in the executive branch than legislative branch.

How I handle classified information is, I go to the classified information. We go into a SCIF. I go to the Pentagon. I go to the White House.

I don't have any classified information because in Congress -- well, we have secure settings but they're not in our offices.

In the executive branch, they have classified information in the White House, in a number of different places.

It has been handled poorly by multiple administrations. That much is clear. We need to seriously look at how it is that this information has got out into different places.

I hope we can avoid any partisanship on this because there's hay on everybody's face in this situation. But we should look into how that document has gotten there.

The specific problem that Senator Cotton has is because the Department of Justice is investigating this, they're not sharing that information with Congress. I don't agree with blocking appointments to get this done, but absolutely, the Justice Department needs to share with the legislative branch, co-equal branch of government, they need to show us what they got out of Mar-a-Lago, out of President Biden, out of Vice President Pence. They need to show us the documents so we can be better informed in this process. No question about it.

BREAM: Yeah. There's bipartisan push back on the idea that during this investigation, the DOJ can't share these documents. That's clearly a fight between the two branches.

But, Congressman Smith, thank you for speaking to us and for being with us this morning. We appreciate your time.

SMITH: Thank you, Shannon. Appreciate the chance.

Source