 Well, good afternoon, everyone. My name is Bill Burns, the president of the Carnegie Endowment and I'm delighted to welcome all of you to a conversation with the new chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Congressman Elliott Engle of New York. Mr. Chairman, there's a really nice ring to it. It's great to see you again and great to have you here. Congressman Engle, I think, as all of you know, was elected to the House in November of 1988, a year and a day before the Berlin Wall fell. Thirty years later, as we emerge from the longest government shutdown in American history, connected to issues over a very different kind of wall. I think it's fair to say that there are very few members of Congress who have Congressman Engle's perspective or breadth of experience. And respected Congressman Engle over many years of my own government service, he truly does embody the best of what the legislative branch brings to American foreign policy, deeply informed, honest, decent and committed to disciplined American leadership in the world. I'm all fortunate that Chairman Engle is leading the House Foreign Affairs Committee at a moment of profound transformation on the international landscape, as consequential as the moment when he entered the House three decades ago. We're very fortunate to have you at Carnegie today. So please join me in a very warm welcome for Congressman Engle. Mr. Chairman, I'll start and take advantage of being the moderator with four or five questions and then open it up to our audience. But I thought I'd start with the most basic one, which is to ask you to talk a little bit about your priorities as you assume the chairmanship. Well, thank you. And hello, everybody. I walked in here and I came up on the stage. I looked out in the audience and I said, oh my God, there's so many people there. And the other thing I wanted to thank you about was a nice introduction, because I like to say that whenever I have an introduction like that, I wish two of the women in my life could be here to hear it. My wife and my late mother, and I want you to know my mother would have believed every wonderful word you said about me, and my wife would have wondered who you were talking about. A lot of you guys out there know what I'm talking about. I do, too. There were so many priorities, but if I had to boil it all down, I would say it's to reassert a Congress's role in the Constitution. We are a co-equal branch of government. In the 30s, I've been in Congress. We've seen, I think, Congress sort of give away jurisdiction to the executive branch. And it's happened under both Democratic and Republican Congresses and Democratic and Republican administrations. And I think it's time to take back that power that was given to us. We're not subservient. When the Constitution was written, Article 1 talked about the legislature, even before they talked about the chief executive. And so I think it's very important for Congress to reassert it, and there are many, many ways that we can do it. For instance, tomorrow is our first hearing, and it's going to be on Yemen and the Saudi Arabian Peninsula, because a lot of people, myself included, have had a lot of concern with what is going on in Yemen, with civilian casualties, with school buses being hit, and one atrocity after another. It's not something I think that we can just wish away or say that all these things happen in war. This is not something that's very, very good. So while I certainly agree that Iran is making trouble there once again, and we cannot turn our face away from the reality of what Iran does, it still, in my view, does not warrant a sloppy war where nobody cares about the civilians' children being killed. And so I think it's very important that we look into all aspects of that. And there are lots of other hotspots. Certainly the president over here is going to North Korea soon, and we have lots and lots of questions about that, and what the North Koreans are planning, what they're not planning, what they've done, what they're not doing. We're going to look into all of that. And of course there's a whole thing of Putin, everybody's favorite subject. It's been several months since the president and Putin met at Helsinki. We still don't know what they talked about. There's still been no reports. The only reports we get are reports where the president supposedly took away some translation or some notes. I don't know if it's true enough, but there have been reports of it, so that he would not leave them with the translator. And also there are allegations that his top staff was left in, and they really don't know what happened in the talks. I think the American people are entitled to know, especially when you take a look at what Putin and the Russians did in our presidential elections in 2016, where they interfered and indecided, and I don't want them interfering in our elections. I'm a Democrat. I supported Hillary Clinton, but I want to tell you that if they spied on Donald Trump, I would be equally outraged, because our political system is more important than either or both political parties. I don't want an unfriendly country to involve themselves in our elections. I think we're going to, in conjunction with some of the other committees, we're going to look into that as well. And we're going to just keep going on and doing the kinds of things that we should have been doing. There was very little of this for the past several years, and we're going to reassert ourselves. Now, there's a huge set of challenges before you, and another couple of priorities I know we were just talking about have to do with, you know, what the president has made very clear that he wants to do on Afghanistan and Syria, and that's withdraw US military forces as well. On Afghanistan, there's at least a glimmer of possibility, and Salma Khalilzad talks with the Taliban on Syria. The picture, at least in terms of American policy, seems a lot more confused. But what do you see your role on those two issues? And more broadly, how do you see those two challenges right now as well? Well, I'll tell you right off the bat, I think the president's announcement of getting out of Syria is absolutely wrong. I think it's not well thought out. It's why Mattis left, because the president wasn't taking the advice of his own Secretary of Defense. And if you just play it out, I think it makes, first of all, if we leave, we are leaving the Kurds who have been more than faithful allies of the United States to fend for themselves and perhaps be obliterated by Erdogan or some other actor in the region. It certainly makes a war between Iran and Israel much more of a possibility, because if we leave Syria and the Iranians go in, the Israelis will feel squeezed and pushed, and they're going to react to it. They're not going to just sit back and be uncomfortable. They're going to react to it. And finally, I just think that if you are president of the United States, then you need to rely on your top people. If you're not going to listen to your top people, then nobody who has great quality is going to want to work for you. And so I just think this Syria thing just came out of the blue, very precipitous way. And I don't think that's good policy. Now we're talking about Afghanistan. Well, yeah, I want our troops to come home from Afghanistan. But the problem is, if you pull troops out early, and if the ironies, they accuse Barack Obama of doing that, and now they're doing the same thing. If you leave Syria too early and you have to come back in a year, in two years or whatever, you come back probably with a lot of difficulty and with keeping your vulnerabilities open to your troops. So I just don't think that any of these things are well thought out. And I think that we need to look at that as well. I wanted to say one other thing. Morality State Department. I've had an all-time low from what I'm told. You know more about this than me. People, we had the original proposal of budget for the State Department. There was a proposal from the administration, 31% cut. At a time when they were raising DOD, defense and other things, they cut diplomacy at the State Department. Let's raise defense, but let's not try to raise diplomacy. Perhaps we can get to a place where we won't have a war because of diplomacy. But we're not going to think about that. We're going to just criticize Benghazi and then cut security, 31%, or some high figure for embassy security, including Benghazi. Doesn't make sense. People tell me that senior diplomats have left, senior positions may unfilled. There have been reports about harassment, if someone's from a wrong political party, or a wrong ethnic background, or whatever they feel that they've gotten many reports that people feel that they've been not treated feelings by the State Department. I don't know if it's true or not true. That's why you have a hearing and people, the media has been saying to me, are you going to subpoena this? Are you going to subpoena that? And I said, look, subpoenas are the last thing you do. Not the first thing you do. You try to find it out, hopefully things out without subpoenas. And I said in an interview I had the other day that I'm not out to get the President. I'm out to get the truth. That's what I want. And that's what we're going to do in the marketplace. As a recovering diplomat, I mean, I think it's really important what you describe to use your oversight capacity to look at a lot of those issues as well. You have so many senior vacancies right now in the State Department. It's not the only agency with those kind of vacancies right now, but that's going to be a really valuable service as well. I wanted to ask you about another part of the world that's a lot closer to home in which you have invested decades of your experience in this hemisphere as well. Crisis in Venezuela is very much in the headlines today. You have been quite eloquent in your criticism of the Maduro government in Venezuela. But how do you see the administration's approach right now trying to build diplomatic and economic, further diplomatic and economic pressure against Maduro? How do you see this playing out? Well, I think the administration is doing the best they can right now. We'll see what happens. One of the things that I've said is that I think the worst thing we could do is have any kind of military action or troops on the ground. I think we need to learn from some of our mistakes in the Middle East and other places. Things don't always go wind up the way you want them to wind up. So I think we have to be very careful there. But in terms of working with other countries, working with some of the OAS countries, trying to have a common package, I think it's a very good thing. The question is, I think Maduro truly cannot govern Venezuela anymore. What do you do? Do you recognize the opposition? Or do you try to sort of work your way? My preference would be to try to work your way towards free and fair elections. Easiest said and done, and may not be possible, but that's what I would try to do. I still have difficulty saying that, anointing someone and saying, you are the leader, you are the opposition, the people who are running the country are not good. So you are the leader. I still have problems with that, although I'm no fan of Maduro's at all. In fact, I think he's very critical of Maduro, and I think he's the worst thing right now for Venezuela. But I think we have to be very careful, and it really means that we have to work with our allies. And that's another problem, because the president when he came to office, one of the first things he said, was that NATO was obsolete. And we have had a systematic, as you say, in the bronze dissing of all our allies. And whether it's the NATO, whether it's the European Union, or whatever, it seems to me we cozy up to Putin who we know is an enemy of this country, and then we are giving the back of our hand to loyal and faithful allies who have been with us through thick and thin all these years. I mean, I never could have imagined that it would be serious to talk about getting out of NATO. I mean, that's just ludicrous. And so I worry about that. And I think that's another place where Congress is going to have to involve itself. Yeah, especially as we approach the 70th anniversary of NATO as well. I mean, it's a sort of perfect opportunity to focus on these issues also. And one other question in this hemisphere, which we've also discussed before, with all the focus on the security of our southern border and walls and challenges of immigration, not been as much focus on something you've spent a lot of years thinking about, and that is how do you anchor people in Central America more effectively in the sense of possibility there as well. Do you have any thoughts about how you might use your leadership of the House to focus a bit more on those? Well, as you know, I was chairman of the subcommittee on Western Hemisphere from 06 to 2010. I thought a lot about root causes of white people emigrating. And I think that we need to know a little more about that. I've been talking to Chairman Navar Jerry Navar and he and I as the two chairs of relevant committees were talking about the possibility of doing a Codale and Trip to Central America to talk with the authorities there to find out what we can do. If there are things we can do and so people don't feel the need to emigrate or the need to leave, I think that's sort of better in some ways for both countries in a way. Although I feel very strongly that we need to always be open, have our door open to immigrants. I'm the grandson of four immigrants who came to this country from Eastern Europe before World War I. My family came in 1907, 1913. Those were the dates. And I feel that a lot of people want to come here for the same reason. It's not to hear about. It's people who are scared for their lives and people who want to do better. I always feel that this country is helped by immigration and I always kind of say this in public chuckle. Who emigrates? Lazy people? I think not. Lazy people can stay home. People come here. They don't speak the language and they give up whatever they had, family and whatever. They come here. Well that to me is not a lazy person. That to me is a person who will want to better themselves in life and by doing that, bettering themselves, they better our country. They better our republic. Those are the kinds of people you want. But I think we need to look at the root causes and see what we can do. And I'm anxious to hear the leaders of these countries, you know, Honduras, Guatemala, Salvador, what they think. And I think that would be very helpful. Only in the talking stages right now but I think it would be appropriate if that would be the first co-dell that we would do given the situation at the border. No, it makes a lot of sense. One big issue obviously that we haven't talked too much about is as consequential as anything on the international landscape and that's the rise of China and everything that means in terms of the US-China relationship as well as the future of Asia. We've got a trade conflict between our two countries right now with some deadlines approaching. What's your sense, both of the trade conflict but also more broadly of US-China relations right now? Well US-China relations of course are one of the most important relations in the world, if not perhaps the most important. There are a lot of people who believe that while the Russians are getting under our skin that our real adversary down the line is Beijing, it's China. And we seem to have an attitude that we're not quite sure how we want to relate to them. For instance, we're hitting them with trade and I'm not saying it's right or wrong but on the other hand we want their help in our dealings with North Korea. It seems to me if you want someone's help with something that's important to you you don't get it by sort of hitting them over the head at the same time with something else. So that's why I think these things really need to be more coordinated. It can't just be one day we're over here and the next day we're over there and how can we put the two together and that's what I feel has not been good. It's the lack of consistency in our foreign policy. It's the lack of following a coherent pattern. You don't see that. You see the president deciding we're pulling out of Syria, boom, or we're going to do something else. And when you look at it you say, well, was this thought out? What do the advisors say? The president doesn't seem to care what our intelligence reports are telling him. So it really makes you worry. I used to say it was a lie by the seat of your pants diplomacy. You woke up whatever he tweeted, that's what it was. I would like to see more consistency. As I said, in Venezuela I think there's been that consistency. They tried to work with our allies. That's why we see that. That's why we have alliances. So we just got to keep making sure that we are on the right track and that's Congress as well. Let me ask one last question. I'll open it up to questions from our audience. But the question kind of takes a step back a little bit. And it's about the disconnect I think in American society. At least I experienced when I worked in government. You know, in which we try to make the case for disciplined American leadership in the world, but too many American citizens now oftentimes see indiscipline. No other administrations are both parties. And so we all talk about the reality that smart foreign policy begins at home in a strong political and economic system. But, you know, oftentimes we don't make the argument in as compelling a way as I think we could, that it ends here too. You know, with more jobs, more prosperity, healthier environment, you know, better security as well. How do you think you can use your leadership of the committee to help make that case more effectively to Americans? What's the role of Congress in helping to get that message across? Well, you know, foreign policy, it's really interesting. A lot of people are interested in foreign policy. But it's sort of not, you know, one of the important bread and butter issues for most people. Most people want to make sure they have a good job, or their kids can get a good job, or things that have related, you know, foreign policy is sort of an esoteric thing kind of hanging out there. Yet when you speak with people, everyone's interested in it. Everyone likes it. Everybody has an opinion about it. So I do think, I mean, let's face it, it's not disconnected from one another. What we do in foreign policy, you know, affects us all in other ways. For instance, our energy policy affects oil prices, things like that. So everything comes back to the international stage and the United States role there, and Congress' role there. We still have, thanks. We still have about 25 minutes or so. So if you have a question, please raise your hand, wait for the microphone. Identify yourself. Please be concise and remember to end with a question mark. Yes, ma'am. Hi. Thank you so much, Laura Alame with Suffolk Foundation. I would like to ask you about Lebanon. You've been a longtime supporter and advocate for Lebanese Democratic forces inside the country. Recently, the country formed a government that has Hezbollah controlling one of the services ministry. I would like to know what you foresee coming in the pipeline from your colleagues on Capitol Hill and how you personally plan to balance support for Lebanese Democratic forces, but also keeping a check on Iran's influence inside the country. And thank you. Thank you. You know Lebanon is really a tragedy, much of Lebanon is a tragedy because Hezbollah has so implanted themselves that it's almost like a city within a city or a state within a state, I guess. If you go to the northernmost part of Israel and you look over the mountains into Lebanon, you see flags flying there. It's not the Lebanese flag, it's the Hezbollah flag. And so Lebanese people, in my opinion, are entitled to have their own government with a loyalty to the people of Lebanon. So you have Hezbollah. Hezbollah is stronger than the Lebanese north here. So you have a situation where they can't sort of throw out what's on top of them. It's really a shame. So I always feel that the people of Lebanon have always leaned towards the West, have always leaned toward the United States, and I think that it's the hooves of us to let them know that we haven't forgotten them now. You know that Hezbollah is a legitimate political party there. They are actually, I think, participating in the government now. I know a lot of the people. I know the President General Aoune. I've known him for years. And even the Lebanese ambassador to the United States, who was an American citizen, I've known him for years. So I just think that we have to let the people of Lebanon know that we are not forgetting them. And you know, for too long, you know, if there is another war that breaks out between Israel and Hezbollah, then Lebanon is sort of captive, sort of in the middle of paying the price and the war being fought on its territory. It's really not very fair. So I've always had empathy for the people there. I'm going to continue to watch and talk about what's going on and what I think we can do, but it's not easy. Thanks. Yes, sir. I'm right behind you. Thank you very much. I'm Bob Berg from the Alliance for Peacebuilding. All around the world there have been numerous attacks against civil society, one of the real important ingredients of a democracy. And yet the United States and even the United Nations has been very weak in its response. I'm wondering whether this is in any way a priority of yours to highlight the defense of civil society. I absolutely do think that that is very important. I think it's not, you know, sexy in terms of what you think of foreign policy. But I think it's very, very important in civil society. Of course, we want to see it alive and flourish. I mean, part of the problem is, of course, that in terms of the United States, we make a policy, a foreign policy. And sometimes we need to deal with people who are a bit unsavory or people who are doing things that we don't like with civil service and other things. So, you know, again, I think it's a balancing, but I think it's something that the United States has always stood for. And we ought to stand for it and reiterate it. I do think that the committee will get itself involved with it because it's very important. Thanks, Bob Zellick. Congratulations, Chairman. I'm Bob Zellick on the Carnegie Board. President Trump has challenged some of the fundamental tenets of U.S. foreign policy, alliance relationships, North American concept, people have been building for 30 years, economic and trade ties. But at the same time, on the Democratic side, you've got a surplus of new candidates, varying degrees of sort of international experience. Do you see any role for the committee to try to have hearings or discussions that try to connect the dots of all these topics people have talked about, to try to have a concept of what should be the U.S. foreign policy for the future and perhaps help that debate as you look for 2020. So whether it's geopolitical, whether it's economics, the values, the different aspects, as opposed to just having a menu of a smorgasbord of topics, some way of trying to see how they interrelate together. And along this point, maybe interested, Carnegie has an interest, has a project that started in Ohio and I think is going to go to a couple of other states now, to try to understand what the American people think would be of interest in a broader sort of foreign policy concept. Well, I certainly think that that would be something that we would look at down the line. I don't know that it would be the first thing, but I think it's very, you know, it ties everything together. And I think that it certainly is something that affects or should affect or will affect our foreign policy and what we do. And so, you know, if you're on the Foreign Affairs Committee, you select it. I think all of us on the committee enjoy the types of things you just spoke about. So I think, you know, we're going to get to different things. You know, we're talking about an AUMF and, you know, things like that. I hope we'll get to it. Thanks. Mr. Hi, I'm Ian Schwab with the Enough Project. I wanted to thank you for well over a decade of advocacy on behalf of the Sudanese people advocating for peace in Sudan. I know you've been outspoken about what's currently going on in Sudan. So getting back to your original point about the reassertion of Congress's role. I was curious how you see Congress able to push back against this push to normalize relations with the regime that's currently beating and killing peaceful protesters on the street. Thank you. Well, of course, when you take the Foreign Affairs Committee, it's not as if everybody on the committee has the same views that I do. So I am sympathetic to, you know, your views, obviously. But these are, there was just so many issues and we will try to get involved with as many as we can. But I think part of our role would be to highlight some of the hot spots around the world and give a perspective. And I think eventually we'll get to as many places as we can. You know, it's two years and two years and two years. But that is certainly a spot that's interesting. What we tried to do with the Foreign Affairs Committee the past few years, I was ranking member for the past six years. Chairman was Ed Royce of California, Republican. And he and I worked very closely together, well together. We revisited countries in Africa because we wanted to make sure that we wouldn't leave out any important parts of the world. But space is all important. So it's just a matter of time, but something like that is something I think we get to eventually. But it was in this two-year period, I don't know. But I'll have a lot of statements coming out. It might not be a committee hearing. It might be a subcommittee hearing, perhaps. I mean, there are all kinds of ways that we can do this. And so there's definitely an interest in Sudan. Thanks. Yes, sir. Congressman, my name is Sufi Lagari with the Cindy Foundation. China and Pakistan together doing many things in Sindh and Balochistan. And also Pakistan killing the Baloch and Sindhis and the human rights situation is the worst. And in some reports that the bodies, they throw away, but they take the organs and selling in the China. And China also buying the lens in Sindh and Balochistan. I want to see, is there any priority in foreign affairs committee that do some kind of the high-level hearing on Sindh and Balochistan on human rights situation? Well, we haven't, you know, as of now, I've just been chairman a week. But we're going to look at a lot of different places. I don't know specifically if we're going to look at that. But, you know, with Pakistan, and I say this when the leaders come to town, they cannot, in my opinion, stews and say, well, you know, there are good terrorists and there are bad terrorists. All terrorism is bad. And they cannot make deals with certain gangs that they think are good terrorists. No one's going to take them seriously of being a partner in the fight against terrorism. So all these unjust things that happen in the world, these are things that we'll hopefully be responsive to. We'll down the line, I'm sure, we'll look at it. Thanks. Marvin Kalp, right behind you. Mr. Chairman, could you share with us some of your thoughts about U.S.-Russian relations? At the moment, they appear to be in the pits. And I'm wondering if, in your judgment, there are not two or three areas now where Russia and the United States ought to be able to get along and try to advance some common interests, not only for each of them, but for the world. Well, you know, it's funny. During the Cold War, and I was a Cold War baby, so we thought the Soviet Union would be there forever. You know, for our lifetime, we would die. It would still be there. Our children would grow up and it would still be there, that kind of thing. It would collapse. And we also, in many ways, it was like a paper tiger. And we figured, okay, there's a great opportunity. I remember being on the committee with Tom Lantos in my position, talking about that the most important relationship we could have, or trying to mend, or trying to work with, was the relationship with Russia. Because if Russia, instead of being our main adversary, now became an ally, it would be so much better for the world. And for a while, of course, we thought the Berlin Wall came down. We thought that all these things were going in a different direction. And we soon saw that, well, maybe not so soon, but Putin and some of the others had different ideas. So, you know, when you look at the future, I mean, who knows? Putin was a KGB guy. Maybe if there were somebody that would have been more enlightened and would have been better, you know, the other day, someone handed me a picture. We were moving or whatever. And there was a picture in my office taking with me and Boris Nemtsov. I sort of did a double, double take. I didn't even know we had that picture. He was, if anyone doesn't know, was murdered. And those thought that by order of Putin, that's the general feeling. And so, look, I'd like the United States to have good relations with everybody, but with Putin at the helm, I think, is highly unlikely. Doesn't mean we shouldn't start working toward it or keep working toward it. But the irony, I think, was that during the Cold War, the Republicans liked to accuse the Democrats of being soft on communism, being soft on Russia, you know, and now we have this whole thing with Russia and it's the President, the Republican President, who is soft or more soft than that with Russia. So it's funny how the world turns and something's changed, something's don't. But theoretically, if we were able to get together with them, it would probably be great for the world peace. But I think the chances of that happening, as long as Putin's in power, are just about nil. How about, Mr. Chairman, on arms control issues? Because you have the INF Treaty that's about to collapse. Apparently, the new START agreement on strategic nuclear weapons, which will expire in 2021. Is that an area where you think cold-bloodedly, you know, whatever we think of the difficulties and the serious differences we have with Putin, is that an area where you think we ought to focus? Absolutely. I don't think we can, you know, we don't like Putin, we don't want to walk away. That's what babies do or kindergarten babies do. We need to stay. The withdrawal of the United States from the treaty, you know, verdicts out for me on that yet. I think it's probably wasn't a good idea, but I'm not willing to, till I learn more about it, say for sure that it was the wrong thing to do. But it doesn't mean that because we don't trust Putin and don't like Putin, you know, it's funny, in my district in New York, in the Bronx, there is a Russian mission in a place called Rivendee where I have to live. And it was built during the height of the Soviet era. And then there was always picketing there for Soviet Jews and all kinds of things. And then they became sort of our friend. That was the end, you know. The other day I was driving by on the highway. Whenever you drive by the Russian mission on the highway, your cell phone goes out. So tell me that place isn't wired up. I mean, it's just like clockwork. You're talking on the cell and all of a sudden it's dead. You've got to dial it again. But you know what? Who's the one who said you make peace with your enemies and not with your friends? So it's something I hope we can continue to do. And I don't think the Russians are inherently our enemies, but hopefully we can have some kind of a rough approach down the line. Thanks. Any time for a couple more questions and make sure I'm taking care of people way in the back. Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon. I'm Allison Peters with the Think Tank Third Way. Chairman Engel, thank you so much. You've been a big proponent of the re-establishment of a cyber diplomacy policy office at the State Department. And I'm hoping you can speak a little bit in terms of what your vision would be for that office and the future direction for U.S. cyber diplomacy in general. Well, to tell you the truth, I've got a lot to learn about it. I just think that it's something that we need, obviously, need to get involved with. And it's something that's relevant and topical. And I think there are a lot of things that we, you know, a lot of great minds on the committee and pretty good staff on the committee and we'll be looking at. We'll be looking at that. I certainly think it's a thing that needs to be, you know, monitored and we need to be the impetus for it. I think it's, you know, and again, we're not going to do it all in the first week or the first month or the first year. But it's certainly, I think, a place that most members of the committee would think that we need to address. Thanks. Yes. Pay on the back. Thank you, Chairman. I'm Jong from Radio Free Asia. At the second summit between President Trump and Chairman Kim, what's your position that President Trump must agree with Chairman Kim and what United States can give and take at the summit? Thank you. Look, I'm very much, you know, for if we could have a real agreement with Kim Jong-un, I would be in favor of it. The question is, can you have an agreement with him? Is he going cheap? Is he just playing games? We've had these experiences with the leadership in Pyongyang before. And they weren't very sincere. I'm sort of, you know, hoping that some good can come out of it because if some good comes out of it, if you can denuclearize the peninsula, then I'm all for it. But if you are just going to be a trap by a trick that Chairman Kim is doing, then I think we need to be, you know, very, very careful. And I think I said before, the problem is we're going to need China if we're going to do anything like this. And at a time when we're fighting with China on tariffs, it makes it harder for us to do that. I have to tell you that in all the years I've been in Congress, the most stark differences for me was when I visited Pyongyang and Seoul on the same day we had military jets. So usually you can't fly from one to another. Seoul is like New York or Tokyo or the big city. And Pyongyang just looks like 1953's Berlin, you know. It's kind of drab and I think just don't quite seem right. When I have very good relations with the Korean-American community in New York, and of course there's a great concern, they would love to see peace, but we're going to have to make sure that we're not being snookered, as you would say, that it's going to be a true peace. It's not just a matter of Kim wanting to be in the world stage and wanting to feel important. He's got to do a lot more. I'm hearing, and again I think the committee will be doing hearing on this, that the North Koreans have really not made any substantial moves towards eliminating the end of the weapons if they kind of played a game and did a whole bunch of things, but none of it really does what we would want them to do in order to have an agreement. I support the talking, but I think we need to go in with our eyes wide open and not just take their word for it. We have time just for one last question, please. Thank you, Chairman Jeff Rathke from the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies. You've criticized in your opening remarks the administration's approach to NATO into U.S. alliances, and you specifically singled out staying in NATO, that you want the U.S. to stay in. But beyond that, is your objection to the administration's demands on our allies one of substance, that they should spend more on defense, for example, or is it one more of tone and approach? Could you shed a little more light on what you think the appropriate role of American allies should be? Certainly tone and approach. I do agree with the President about 2% NATO nations paying. I was saying that even before I ever heard the President say it before he was President, so I do agree with him on substance, but it's so much more than the 2%. Look, you can want to make a strong alliance and still disagree with partners in the alliance and try to make it change. But I think the President, by his words, by his deeds, by his actions, now, as to whether or not he thinks that these alliances are useful, he seems to feel that it's a burden on the United States, that we're the biggest and the strongest, and why should we be pulled back by these other countries? And I think that's really the wrong approach. I think you take a look at the NATO alliance. It's kept the peace by and large, prevented Soviet or Russian takeover. You remember after the World War II, the Russians were starting to gobble up a whole bunch of countries in the East. NATO came in or NATO was there and sort of prevented that from happening to Turkey and Greece. And so, therefore, I think it's very important that our alliances are strong. I just don't understand, you know, the thrashing of our alliances. But it doesn't mean that some of the criticisms are non-valid, and I think the 2% criticism of spending defense that the President has mentioned is valid. I hate to bring really interesting conversations to a close, but I know Chairman Engel's schedule is very tight. I want to thank you so much for reminding all of us of the value of strong and thoughtful congressional leadership on foreign policy. I want to wish you all the best of luck in your chairmanship of House Foreign Affairs Committee, and thanks so much for coming today. Thank you. Someone I've admired. I've been around for 30 years in Congress. I've admired him. He's come before our committee so many times, and just pearls of wisdom come out of his mouth. He wasn't that worth staying for, so yeah.