Transcripts For CSPAN Senator Jack Reed Discusses U.S. Foreign Policy Challenges 20170929

Welcome to our guests, senator jack reed, the senator from the great state of rhode island. Im the chief White House Correspondent for abc news. I will be presiding and asking questions for the first half hour, and then take some questions from all of you for the second half hour. This is an on the record meeting. In fact, i also want to welcome all the cfr Members Around the nation, maybe around the world who are participating in this meeting through the livestream. So thank you all for being here. Senator reid, so much to talk about with you. Right, withart perhaps the most pressing National Security issue in north korea. The bottom line question, as we heard fromwe have the president and his team about a military option is there realistically a military solution to the north korean crisis, short of an unthinkable war . If you talk to our military leaders, both secretary mattis and general dunford, they have a plan and have the capacity to do that, but they this isvery clear that a diplomatic effort at this point. That is the best approach at this point. Unfortunately, the diplomatic effort is being hollowed because of a lack of capacity. We do not have an ambassador in south korea, we do not have a confirmed assistant secretary for the region. We have heard stories about state department lack of personnel and focus, and the other issue in terms of the diplomatic approach is a lack of coherent message. We have seen that from the beginning, when the president paying about south korea them back, when they have done a lot of political effort to get it into the country. We have seen it in terms of the free trade agreement, all of that is presented incoherent messages in many respects. And then in terms of coordination and cooperation, we. Ave to develop several tracks in formal tracks, back channels, which i hope are there informal tracks, back channels, which i hope are there because in these kind of crises they come in handy a lot of time. That is how you get a dialogue going. And then we have to look at the mechanisms we used before. We would have a group of five, south korea, japan, china, russia, and the united eights formerly sitting down formally sitting down in dealing with out north korea. I think the diplomatic effort is finally important, because even though military is a must, they are preparing for some kind of operation, but this would be a much preferable way to proceed, and also if it does not succeed, there is much more legitimacy for the use of force. You say this is a diplomatic effort. That is not what it sounded like when the president was at the u. N. Sen. Reed that goes back to the issue of coherency of message. , sinceth korean regime its inception, has been talking anut how they have to be essentially militarized society because the United States is determined to destroy them. Now ironically, all they have to do is translate that message at the u. N. And put it on their screens, in the loudspeakers, and the president will make the point for them. I do not think that was the best approach. Things that do signal very clearly that military options are not only on table, but being developed. We have heard this from madison, and from the president. But i want to get more on that question of the diplomatic route. But im just trying to understand that the first ,uestion the first question is there really a military option . We hear that phrase. We heard it from barack obama. We heard it from george w. Bush. But what . There sen. Reed there is a military option. What does that look like apple sen. Reed i think look like . Sen. Reed i think it is clear to everyone that the action would be quite costly, something we have not witnessed and you do not mean in terms of dollars . In terms of life, economic activity, cost in terms of environmental degradation. Crisis, one of the reasons it is so existential is because it involves a country that already has weapons of mass destruction, and a country that the question we have been able to deter their use now for many years now, both with chemical and biological weapons, but are they did terrible . Deterable . E i do not think military options will be a defensive operation, etc. , but a deterrence that would be put into effect. Missiledefense . Shooting down one of theirs yet protests . . Tests . The reed we would have ability to respond. It would require a cooperation, collaboration with many countries in terms of proliferation. One of the dangers with the North Koreans is not only they have these weapons, but they will sell anything they can get out of the country. Literally. We have to be very effective in terms of proliferation, even now with their chemical and biological, and we know they have nuclear weapons. Canumrange missiles that likely carry them. National security official in the Previous Administration made the point to me recently that one of the challenges here is that north three, atly, for least for three successive take as ations, could given that there really is not a viable military solution. The they do not fear that. And this official, no friend of needs toump, something be done to a race their confidence that the United States really does not have a military option here. Sen. Reed i think again, this to the issue of the diplomacy we are doing right now. One of the factors that mitigates against military operations is the question what would china do . If we could make progress to determine and collaborate, cooperate more so that we at least understand and they would understand, that would send a signal hopefully to the North Koreans that our use of force , because be abandoned were afraid not of the North Koreans, but the reaction of china, russia, etc. That is why this is a more cohesive, coherent focus foreign policy. It may be formally using the group of five or informally, using the back channels, etc. Is necessary. Toin, part of the motivation this is trying to adjust inject that sense of how we can do this. In many comparisons, there are many comparisons to richard nixon. They do not like that term at the white house, by the way. [laughter] think know, and i sticking to the diplomatic languages, this is helpful in these situations most times. So again, i think we are in a situation where we can just not say it too. And it goes to our credibility. If we are on a diplomatic offensive and the North Koreans and chinese are looking around and seeing feeble attempts at diplomacy, that is two things. One, they do not really care and they are going to do this, and what does that do in terms of north korean reaction . Do they preemptively do something, or do they discount everything we say . Not doinghey are diplomacy, we will not do military action. But what are we seeing in terms of china . Isause part of that effort getting china to put more pressure on north korea. The president has said that it is working, they have taken steps on banking recently. Is china doing more . Sen. Reed i think they are doing more, but the question is can they ever do enough . I think the presumption which many people have is as soon as the chinese decided to step in, they could tell them knock it off, kim jongun. They have thes same difficulty communicating with kim jongun that the rest of the world does, that the influence is much less than it was several years ago. That they can, and they have they are not but quite willing to cripple the economy, because they are afraid a huge swell and of refugees into the country. The other factor is also the internal politics of china. Congress the big coming up, which they do every several years, and i think getident xi wants to through that before he does anything else. That is tempering some of the response. But they have made improvements, they have supported the u. N. On some of these sanctions measures, but have not gone as far as we would like to go. I think that we might see something more productive in the future, after congress, and the other since i have is that xi himself, personally, has very low regard for kim jongun. So there is no personal relationship there. Keyink china is going to be , russia, because they have certain influence there. Butas dramatic as china, this diplomatic effort has to be enhanced dramatically. President deserves some credit for the fact that china is doing more now . A variation on the madman theory, china is worried about what trump will do, so they want to shortcircuit that by taking some steps on their own . Sen. Reed i think his first conversations with president she, they established a conversational relationship. That is good. Reacting toa is pressure, not just from the United States but from the world. And they are also reacting to as this regime gets closer to Intercontinental Nuclear weapons, the consequences could be dire to china as well. So there is a whole new set of calculations, given the progress that the North Koreans have made on their missiles and warheads. Its the North Koreans do what they threaten to do, which is a nuclear test over the pacific ocean, is that a redline . What are the implications of that . Sen. Reed i think that would be extraordinarily disruptive, and i think again, this is where conversations, not just in the United States administration but with china, russia, etc. , to get a sense of how they would react to it. That would be extraordinary. We would have atmospheric consequences to the climate, i do not think are they serious about that threat or do they they say a lot of things. Sen. Reed it is hard to judge. Every Intelligence Officer you see, they say this is the hardest discussion we have had. Kim jongun has a very compartmentalized we are not quite sure even we talked to people who we think are insiders, they do not know what he is thinking. It is very much, as i said, compartmentalize. So it will be somebody who has some insights on the missile program, and no insight on anything else. So i do not think we can dismiss it as idle talk. I think we need to have contingency plans, talk to our allies about what their reaction would be, and in fact, this might be something in the context of a group of five, where they could collectively lay down not a redline, perhaps, but a sense that this would be impermissible. Nuanced document. But one of the discussions we have with red lines is once you do it, you have already sort of locked your line into it. I want to move off north korea, we can talk about it all day. One question i had as somebody who has tracked this problem so closely or so long, what do you see as driving the recent success they have had, both in terms of their Ballistic Program and their Nuclear Program . . Re they getting outside help how is this most close nation, backward nation how is it they have made the incredible strides they seem to have made over the last couple of years in these programs . Sen. Reed i think they have been getting outside help. I think the efforts of the u. N. Administration to squeeze that depletion ofsome help. Help from who . Sen. Reed my sense is they have a network of companies, many located in china, that provide parts for them. They have a whole series of moneycompanies that raise for them, so they have hard currencies to use to buy things. They smuggle things in and out. Elaborate and sophisticated network. There have been some studies suggesting they have about 5000 5000 business entities in china, and one of them recently in dandong was shut down, but there are others that have been moving this material through four decades. The other interesting thing about why they have been so successful is that kim jongun has risked failure. Was a bits father more riskaverse in terms of he was waiting until they had 99. 9 it was going to work for propaganda purposes. Y fired mrs. That have missiles that have failed, and he has made it central to his regime, his personality, his survival. So with all of that and the 1960s, the chinese were able and it was a very rudimentary economy, they decided to put together Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles with some help, of course, from overseas, but with a lot of indigenous effort. Grad,you are a west point the president likes to surround generals, many of whom you know quite well and have known for a long time. General mattis, general mcmaster, general general kelly. I would like to have a sense of your interactions with those it from northin korea. When the president makes comments like fire and fury and talks about wiping north korea off the map, do you pick up the phone and say what do you mean . Who do you call . Uh that isll, interesting, because i have a great deal of confidence in the gentlemen you mentioned. My presumption is, and i think it is valid, that they have already weighed in, and sometimes defectively, to do things, prevent things that could be very consequential. Like what . Sen. Reed like, i stuff. [laughter] sen. Reed again, if you listen to their statements, they are and strong but controlled they send the right signal, which is do not presume that we are not ready to do what we have to do. We are ready. Again, i do not vantage same kind of point that others might have on the white house and the there might bet i hope there is a very healthy dialogue before the president says this. One of the concerns i have is that general mattis, general kelly are all reacting to , not talking about the best way to frame this message. To the something approach. That would be helpful to the administration and president. Seen a change in the National Security council . You were there for the partial flynn,eparture of looking to replace him. Bannon exiled from the council in the white house, have you noticed a change . Is muchd yeah, there more of the subject Matter Experts who are not as politically engaged, etc. , and they are providing a lot more subtle advice to the president. But ultimately, it is his decision. That is the system. We have secretary mattis, who is one of the most thoughtful and experienced gentlemen you can never have, john kelly is someone i admire immensely, but ultimately it is the president of the decision. They have to understand that. They can weigh in occasionally, but they have to give but they have to give the president options. Sen. Reed yes, and that requires two people. You have to listen, you have to study, you have to focus, and i think the question is not whether or not there is a listening focus and constant attention to the detail. Bannon used to talk about d operationalizing the National Security council de operationalizing the National Security council. What you make of that . Sen. Reed he is also saying that about the state department. X maybe they have succeeded their . I do not know, but if you do not fill up with credible and individuals, you have a capacity gap. Same with the National Security council. They are more ideological than technically proficient and professional, then it is no longer giving you that kind of option and advice, it is giving you polling numbers disguised as advice. A changek that is hopefully over the past few weeks or months, i should say now, with general mcmasters and general kelly. It is your decision, mr. President , we will give you the options that are all available. Advice, youce, our decide. That is the way it should work. How long have you known general kelly . Sen. Reed i have no john kelly for about 20 years. It was 2006, he was in the marine corps. Then i met him when he was commanding marines in the mr in this and bar province. What do you make of his challenge now . Sen. Reed i think his challenge is basically one of the things, having served with about four president s is temperament and personal style, critical to how any president operates. He has to understand that and ensure that he gets the best information. He gets the bad news as well as the good news. One of the failures, i think, when it comes to the chief of staff job or National Security adviser, if you are not giving the president the flip side and the bad news, you are not doing your job. I think his challenges every day , or in the context of the president of the personality, because that is the beginning of it all, he has to give information. Have you spoken to him since he became chief of staff . Sen. Reed i have not. I spoke with him when he was head of Homeland Security on several occasions, and i have great admiration for him, personally. Lets go to another hot spot, iran. Hinted,ident strongly it seemed, lets see what you think, at the u. N. That he was going to get out of the iran nuclear agreement, although he did not a that. I doubt he will actually do that. What do you think he meant . Theas strongly critical, worst deal in the history of man kind, an embarrassment. Sen. Reed i think he said he has already made a decision, but we just sent general dunford up to the committee. His opinion, based on intelligence reports, is that they are still in compliance. That ourndicated unilateral walking away from it would not be well received by the rest of the world and our partners in the deal, and it could lead to counter reaction by the radiance iranians, and they have forces in iran, syria, and it a signal to the North Koreans that if we make a deal with these folks, they might not keep it. I think that adds to the suspicion. If there is further consultations in the middle east, just pulling forces away from there to response we talked about a military option . That ine going to take korea, that becomes the primary objective, and the way we usually do things is there will be an announcement of force and an active area, like with the iranians getting more and more belligerent, you are in for some difficult situations. Theou were an advocate for steel very early on. What is your sense when you look at it now and the behavior of the Iranian Regime now beyond the agreement . Has it all worked out the way you had hoped, or has it fallen short . It is very limited expectations. The critical one is that they would freeze the Nuclear Program, and that appears to have happened. You have to ask yourself given their attitudes, belligerency, attempts that regional condemn any condemnity, and the rushing toward nuclear weapons. Are we better off with or without the agreement . I think we are better with it, because they have missile technology. If they were within months, by some reports, of being able to least have a nuclear test if that happened, i think that would trigger a reaction in the region that would be very, very difficult. It to northto apply korea, this is a different situation in north korea, like 25 years ago when we are talking about significant conventional tremendous number of artillery pieces and rockets along the dmz, that is a problem. That is a real problem when they have nuclear, biological some that could land in the United States. In iran, at least for the next decade, they will not have that if they stay to the agreement. But a problem with this deal as it does expire. Sen. Reed it does. And there are no limits on what they can do. Sen. Reed know there are not. The expectation, limited expectation, is within this interval of 1015 years will begin, and we have spun through a few years, that two things, in my view. One, there may be, not guaranteed, changes within the regime that would be more accommodating to continue the agreement. Particularly since it was an International Agreement with china, russia, and major powers to try and extend it, and also, if after 15 years of the agreement, they suddenly break out, i think we would be in a much stronger position with our allies to counteract that breakout. And if the administration, despite dunfords comments, does what they can do next, which is on october 15 declined to certify that they have complied with the agreement that is not mean we are out, right . What happens . The ball gets tossed to you . Sen. Reed and there is an expedited procedure, the majority, minority leader of the house can call up a vote. It can be done in a time frame, a relatively short time frame, and be a majority vote to reimpose the sanctions. I think that would be a , not for vote, frankly me. I would think the agreement should stand, but for a lot of my colleagues if we reimpose the sanctions, they take the limits off . Do not matterons much, but the european sanctions and weeed they come in, would be on the outside. They would be proceeding throughout the world as they are sticking with the deal, which is denuclearize in for 15 years in a run. For 15 yearszing and ran in iran. General mattis did not like the deal because it did have , supportive service, etc. , but he said a great nation does not break their word. This appears as if we are breaking our word. Before we get to questions, one other topic. A great concern to you with the question of readiness. We have had a situation where we have lost more personnel in combat in accidents, training accidents, then in combat. About thened are you readiness of our forces. very concerned. I must commend senator mccain. No one has been more forceful and eloquent and relentless on the readiness issue than the chairman who has done a remarkable job in my view. Weve had access with our ships at sea. We had aviation accidents, demolitions accidents at fort bragg and other places. What has happened is the tempo has been so great, of operations, deployed they need, the air force needs one appointment and for periods of to be accurate, active, and effective. We need to fix that, and that will require resources. It will require an increase in our training in some respects. We will have to do a lot. It is necessary. Watching these young men and women go out and do a superb job. They need the kind of support and training that is so necessary. The other issue here is, and it reminds me of when i was a ,ieutenant captain in the army and the general referred to this were the 70s, we transitioning from counterinsurgency warfare, as we are now, and to full spectrum battle. We are discovering that this full spectrum includes cyber and other things that our adversaries have been able to do quite well in. We are caught up not only in just rest and recuperation from deployments into afghanistan and iraq, we are trying to change warfare activities in terms of getting back to the classical way of battle. Pressures. I want to invite our members to join the conversation. Reminder, this is hand has been on the record, and if you can wait for the microphone before asking questions and limit yourself to one question. Lets start here. Tim dobbins with rand. What role do you see for the u. S. Military in syria and iraq once the Islamic State has been projected . That has been ejected . Sen. Reed i think the role has been limited. I was in syria in june. We would like to the Prime Minister would like to have an American Military presence. I think it would be effective to continue training operations. The professionalism of the Iraqi Security forces. Military plays the role of a broker so they can make sure that sunni, kurdish, that there isare not equal treatment, but fair treatment. That is something the Prime Minister wants. Referendum, and the can he pull things together . There will be an election next year. My sense, coming back, is that this issue of u. S. Presence will be hard on the election campaign. It might not be the most critical issue, but i think we should maintain a presence there , and if we do, it will be beneficial not only to a rack but to our regional interests. In syria, it is more complicated. , our Covert Mission mission of defeating isis, and what is happening, is that weve been successful predominantly kurdish, now a rough balance ,etween syrian arabs and kurds its going to fairly quickly come on the patrol. The battle is shifting down the middle of the euphrates, and that is where we are hitting a difficult issue. Russian iranian and local forces are coming close to our forces and our troops, and we have to figure out what our policy is to resisting the assad regime are not. We are doing that on a casebycase basis. I dont think the administration has declared politics policies. I think the existing policy was that we want assad to leave. I think in the last few months, we recognized this is going to be a fragmented country, and we just want to make sure the violence goes down. Assad will be there, but we have an area that essentially kurds control, an area that russians and United States have around the jordanian border, and theres concerns and israel of the intrusion of the iranians and their influence on hezbollah. The policy there has been muted after we finished with isis, were going to leave, or after we finished with isis, were going to begin to put more pressure on the regime. I think one of the issues that has to be adjudicated and decided by the white house is the syrians and the north whom the turks are concerned about. Do we support their efforts to n unofficial autonomous region . I think thats what they would like. How do we relate to them and turkey . Theres still a lot of questions and no clear policies i can see that the administration has announced about what will do in syria, while there is one with respect to a rack. Seconds the administration in a row. To define if you want one of our more difficult problems, it is syria. I think we do have to it would help us to make sure to have a clear policy. Again, to tell our military that their efforts here are going to be extensive and expensive, or less so, so you can im from George Washington University Law school. You mentioned the question of the legitimacy of the use of force. I want to ask you about that. Koreany case might be missiles landing in the United States. But how about the harder case . What if there are korean missiles flown over guam or flown over hawaii, or north korean missiles landing in japan . The unitedimate for states president , under domestic law, in such a scenario, to use force . Would it be legitimate under International Law in those nightmare scenarios for the United States to use force . I concede that i am not a legal scholar. I have a law degree. Think an attack the question is, do you characterized a missile without a warhead going over guam and attack, thats a legal question. The president would claim he has the right of selfdefense, and thats what hes doing. One of the interesting things, and i dont have an answer, about the korean situation, we are in a ceasefire. There was no act of congress to authorize operations in korea, but the reality is we were fighting the koreans until 1953 and this is a ceasefire. Theres a war . Sen. Reed in a technical or legal sense. You can find an opinion about almost anything. That is a unique situation with respect to career with respect to korea. What is the violation of the ,easefire versus an act of war or in another country . My sense would be, practically, the president would be wherented with something theres hours or days to decide on an action that, in a practical sense, inhibits debate. To present bush to president bushs credit, there was a debate on iraq. We had a chance to talk about it. There was no question about the legal authority. In korea,tion we see it would be almost a reaction to something that happened immediately, and he is surrounded by his advisors and he has to decide. Then, of course, i think he could do what most president s do and rely on the war power act. Im taking this action and notifying Congress Even though i dont have to. They always say that. You have six months to tell me know. To tell me no. I think you raise a point about legal authorities and International War that has not been fully vetted in terms of this korean situation. Back here. Im Courtney Cooper here with the council. Is a vortex challenging u. S. Foreignpolicy issues with iran, russia, china. President trump didnt mention any of these three countries in his announcement of the south asia reasonable tragedy south asia regional strategy. Are coming up on 16 years of military engagement in afghanistan next month, how do you think the administration should be thinking about engaging the region beyond reinforcing afghanistan, particularly when it relates to stabilizing afghanistan, our mission, and rebuilding the regional consensus for peace . Sen. Reed one of the key accesses the president s comments was a strong calling out of pakistan. I think that without their active or implicit cooperation with the network and others, and those elements within pakistan, the government and has not been effective in controlling the country. Ive been waiting for as many people for specific followups what does this mean . As some have suggested in the past, sanctions be placed upon the individuals who are cooperating taliban . We are waiting for that. He announced he was going to get tough with pakistan. There is not as robust as it might be. They have nuclear weapons, and we dont want those devices flowing into the wrong hands. I think the other major regional actor is india. One of the first things , i went with senator mccain in january 2002, to land in afghanistan. I was amazed because when you speak to, particularly the pakistanis, and india, there is in india, there was a paranoia that is hard to understand, but it is there. Anytime we invite pakistan and afghanistan, that triggers of muscle memory reflects from the pakistanis. We are trying to get the indians to be more active, not in terms of military, but in economic Capacity Building or whatever. That pushes hard against the pakistanis cooperation. I think what weve done with the increased forces, particularly with the air forces, is that weve given the opportunity for the Afghan Government to reassert control over the areas where the taliban has taken. We still havent got a clear policy on what specific steps were going to take in pakistan. Carrots and sticks to get them ,o disengage from the haqqani to close down their safe havens. I think that longterm, its been difficult to defeat when they have a safe haven. Pakistan has been a safe haven for 16 years. A partial response to a very good question, and were puzzling it through. And we are puzzling it through. Senator, thanks for your service and rhode island. Up question that hasnt come is the question of the allegations of russias interference in the elections and a variety of their maneuvering in cyber. Im curious to what you see your role in the senate for that issue. I think the evidence is overwhelming that they deliberately polluted thats not the right term. They deliberately interfered with the election. I want to be clear. They deliberately interfered with the election. And, throughad elaborate systems of social that were operating on twitter, that was made clear by the Intelligence Committee in january. Senator mccain held the first meeting. That strategy is not unique in the United States. In theemed to avoid it french elections, and they didnt seem that active in the general elections again, i dont know why. We cant accept that. That undermines basic democratic concepts and we cant accept that. In terms of what were doing on the committee, the intelligence the last person to be able to ask questions. They are pursuing this, but it is difficult because we dont have the same kind of access as enforcement officials. Are looking at policy perspectives as well as more policies than individual culpability. And vice chair warner are doing a good job, but it is slow and tedious, and i dont think it will reach a public conclusion for a while. Of course, we realize that director mueller is conducting a separate investigation. You think the Intelligence Committee investigation wont be wrapped up by the end of the year . Sen. Reed i think it will go into next year. Its a huge amount of material to look at, and every day, new intrusions become evident. Just yesterday, twitter disappointed in the response and information they gave. Stories of archie funded r. T. , a russian entity that was able to put together these documentaries that were not accurate or ,lattering to senator clinton and they have a viewership in the United States of 2 . Once you put it on the web and start hitting it with your boss and it starts trending and people start watching it, that was done many times. You said there the culpability that you started collusion and you took that one back. Sen. Reed that, frankly, that from the perspective of the congressional committees, were looking at what the ,ussians did, how they did it what steps would we have to take to prevent it from happening again. It is a legislative investigation. Those issues a role, many times outside our preview. Those issues are all outside our purview. And a member there are fewer defectors than there used to be. Does that lead us to miss that program is more indigenous than based on external imports. Somethat, do we see intelligence officials seem to begin to be seeing North Koreans as slaves. They are using that word. It seems like people are setting themselves up for an argument for some sort of war of liberation. Youve heard that word being used, slaves. Do we underestimate whats happening in north korea . Sen. Reed i think there was a presumption in the 90s, that had some reality, that this was a collapsing regime. Depended uponey we are having technical problems with the feed coming to us from the jack reed event. We are going to try to get it onto our website later on on the video library. Go to cspan. Org to try to follow the rest of the conversation with the Armed Services Committee Ranking member. Also, next week, the former chair and ceo of equifax will be testifying on capitol hill before two committees. Energy be at the house and commerce committee, and on wednesday, he will appear before the Senate Banking committee. Live coverage on both days. We will have it on cspan3, or streaming online at cspan. Org or on the free radio at. The free radio app. Words, aght on after Mental Health industry. Incorporated, mr. Levine is interviewed by dr. Jeffrey lieberman, director of the new york state psychiatric institute, and author of franks the untold story of psychiatry. Mental health care is per supposedly, even more people need to receive more treatment, regardless of the quality. Unfortunately, the fierce political debate over repealing obamacare as of scared but higher truth that the Health Insurance system is in such a fiasco that even having insurance does not assure care. When you are saying is that it good quality care, which most of it now is not. You as well as anyone would know there have been discussions various decades in panels and organizations, how do we have meaningful quality outcome measurements, and they keep offering new its not really implemented. There is no culture of enforcement. Whats why ive argued that we are facing in this country is what amounts to an epidemic of Behavior Health malpractice, even if it is not acknowledged as such within the legal system, in part because the reality of malpractice attorneys is they dont take the case unless someone has died. Watch after words sunday night. Next on cspan, House Democrats talking about the 2016 president ial election cycle. Former Homeland Security secretary jeh johnson discusses ways to prevent foreign interference in future elections and makes security recommendations for the 2018 and 2020 election cycles