Face the Nation: Crow, Book, Hochstein, Salvanto

[0:04] Welcome back to Face the Nation. We go now to Colorado Democratic Congressman [0:09] Jason Crow. Happy Father's Day to you. Thanks, Margaret. Congressman, you're on [0:17] Armed Services and you're on the Intelligence Committee, so I want to get to some of your [0:20] responsibilities here, particularly on the intel front. We were just speaking with Senator Graham [0:25] about what's happening at the top of the Office of National Intelligence and the lapse of the [0:32] surveillance authority. Right now, Bill Pulte is the acting director of national intelligence. [0:39] He is someone who has been accused of using mortgage information to go after the president's [0:47] political enemies. I know that's under investigation currently by the GAO, but the fact that he's in the [0:55] role right now, what harm can be done, if any? And do Democrats have any power to stop that? [1:03] Well, I'm obviously concerned that this is somebody who's a political attack dog and his [1:10] single biggest qualification is that he's loyal to Donald Trump and is willing to go after Donald [1:15] Trump's enemies. But my more immediate concern is the fact that this is a really important position. [1:20] This sits atop our intelligence agencies. And by law, Congress mandated that this person have [1:27] significant intelligence experience because they have to make sure that we're keeping Americans safe, [1:32] which is not what Bill Pulte is capable of doing. So I'm just more worried day to day that Americans [1:38] are at risk because we have someone who's incompetent at the head of this agency. [1:41] But will Democrats actually still reauthorize FISA? You heard Senator Graham again link the two issues [1:50] here and said that's really the bigger risk, the lapse of this key surveillance authority. I know when [1:57] this was up for a vote in front of the House, you were proud of having voted against reauthorization [2:04] of this surveillance tool. Do you think your party miscalculated here? [2:08] Yeah, no, not at all. I mean, I've always voted for FISA before. I'm on the intelligence committee. [2:16] I know how important it is, but I'm unwilling to trade Americans constitutional rights, [2:20] privacy and essential civil liberties for temporary extension of this program. I'm just unwilling to [2:27] do it. Right. That's what this administration is asking us to do. They say, give up your constitutional [2:32] rights, give up Americans rights and privacy, and we'll just make sure we keep you protected. [2:37] I mean, that's what autocracies say. I'm not going to do that. I'm willing to have a discussion about [2:43] what checks we need to put in place, a short-term extension. I'm not going to give them a three-year [2:48] runway on this program. What about this administration would give us confidence [2:54] that they're going to follow the law? Short-term extensions, then we can talk. [2:57] But the chair of the intelligence committee, in terms of the Democratic leadership there, [3:03] Jim Himes, said he hadn't seen violations. You're saying that the Trump administration [3:09] is doing that? I mean, you're disagreeing with your own Democratic leadership. [3:14] No, I'm not disagreeing with Jim. Jim and I talk frequently, and we're aligned on this. [3:19] There are public reports, many public reports, of potentially thousands of violations. And to be [3:27] more specific, these public reports allege that the Trump administration is using a filtering tool, [3:33] again, this is all public, a filtering tool to bypass the checks and the warrant requirements that [3:39] would normally be in place to prevent the violation of privacy rights and civil rights of Americans. [3:45] Now, we've gone to the Trump administration and said, tell us this is wrong. Show us why this is [3:49] wrong. And if we have confidence, then we can kind of move forward to figure out what we need to do. [3:54] They have not responded to us at all. So why would we sit here with no response, [4:00] all of these allegations, numerous public reports of violations, and just vote blindly to extend this [4:07] program? It would be absurd for us to do that. And we have the trust of our constituents and Americans, [4:13] and we're not going to violate that trust. Well, on the Senate side, where the fight [4:17] currently is, Senator Warner said he thinks Trump wants the expiration of this surveillance tool to [4:22] stay because he could then blame Democrats if some sort of attack happened here. So what do you [4:28] make of that? And what will it take for you to reauthorize FISA? Because I don't hear a solution [4:34] from what you just said. Yeah. Well, first of all, I agree with Senator Warner. I don't think [4:42] Donald Trump cares about Americans' national security and safety. I think he has shown very [4:46] clearly over the years his willingness to weaponize national defense, the military, the intelligence [4:53] community, the Department of Justice against his enemies to score political points at the jeopardy [4:58] of American citizens. I mean, hell, the guy tried to put me in prison back in February simply because [5:04] I told soldiers that they have to follow the law and obey their oaths. So that is true. What we need to [5:11] do is we need very specific guarantees from this administration. I want the facts. Are they [5:17] violating the law? Are they skirting around the requirement? Number one. Number two, additional [5:23] safeguards. The last time we reauthorized this program, we put 55 additional safeguards in place. [5:28] We've learned between now and then there are more safeguards that are necessary. This all takes time. [5:32] And number three, a shorter term extension, a shorter term extension. No, it wouldn't take that much [5:37] time. In a matter of days, they could give us that information. We could figure that out. [5:42] We could vote on something. We could get it done. Let me ask you, because there was other news this [5:48] week on the Armed Services Committee. Secretary Hegseth announced the U.S. is going to conduct a [5:53] six-month review of the U.S. force posture in Europe. He threatened to cut American dues to NATO if [5:59] European nations don't boost military spending. He said NATO reluctance to assist in the American strikes on [6:06] Iran seem to be linked here to a potential reduction of U.S. forces in Europe. Have you [6:13] received any information on what this means, where the troops would be pulled from? What does this look [6:19] like? Well, this administration is going to have a heck of a time in front of the Bipartisan [6:27] Armed Services Committee, which in an overwhelming bipartisan manner has said very clearly, [6:33] no troop withdrawals or changes from Europe unless they come to the committee [6:37] and explain why that's in our national security interest. Over and over, we've done that. We just [6:41] did that last month when we marked up the annual defense budget. They haven't come to us. They [6:46] haven't given us any of those details. I'm not presumptively against troop changes, but what I am [6:52] against troop changes is when they're not tied to our national security. If they want to move troops [6:58] around Europe, fine, let's have that discussion. But pulling them out of Europe would actually be [7:02] detrimental to Americans. I want to ask you about Iran. The delegation that arrived in Switzerland [7:09] was onboard a plane that had painted on the side the word Minab 168. That's a reference to the bombing [7:16] that killed 168 people, most of them school children. The U.S. military is still investigating, [7:24] but what can you tell us about American culpability and that probe? [7:29] Yeah, unfortunately, not very much. I've been pushing extremely hard, the CENTCOM, [7:37] Central Command Commander Admiral Kruper and others, for facts on this. This could be the [7:44] single largest civilian casualty incident in U.S. military history. We need facts. We need to make [7:50] sure that we own up to it, that we take accountability, that we make it right. As the founder of the [7:58] Protection of Civilians in Conflict Caucus, I actually have done work for years around protection of [8:04] civilians and conflict because my own time at war taught me the devastating effects, [8:10] not just morally, but to our national security when we kill innocents. We need answers to this. [8:16] And they're clearly slow rolling us, right? This administration has no problem posting videos of [8:22] strikes, posting videos of operations when they want us to see it. And then when they don't want us to see it, [8:27] they slow roll it. That's clearly what's happening here. So we're going to push hard to get answers. [8:33] All right. We'll be tracking it. Jason Crow, Congressman from Colorado, [8:36] thank you very much. We'll be right back. There's been a big focus on Washington landmarks in recent [8:42] months, but this weekend marks the opening of the Obama Presidential Center in Chicago. [8:48] Last Thursday, all the living former presidents and first ladies gathered for the dedication ceremony [8:53] at the center on Chicago's South Side to honor and celebrate the legacy of the nation's first black [9:00] president. Please help me welcome President Barack Obama. In his remarks, former President Barack Obama [9:04] spoke of America's resilience and urged them to reject division and recommit to each other. [9:10] For us to give it now, after all this country's been through, to cynicism and division would be a [9:17] betrayal of our founding ideas. The former president was visibly moved by his speech from former First [9:23] Lady Michelle Obama. Eight years in the crucible, and not once did you melt from the heat. You were [9:32] doing the people's work, rescuing our economy, expanding health care, ending a war, ordering the bin Laden [9:41] raid, saving an auto industry, winning a peace prize. The Obama Presidential Center is somewhat of a departure [9:54] from tradition. It was designed to be a place for the community to gather and includes a 19-acre park, [10:00] a branch of the Chicago Public Library, and an NBA-sized basketball court. And we're joined now by our [10:09] Executive Director of Elections and Surveys, Anthony Salvato. Good to have you here, Anthony. [10:14] So what has been the reaction to this agreement? Good morning, Margaret. People want the war to end, [10:20] but this doesn't necessarily read as a satisfying end. Let me unpack that. Given the [10:25] choice, yes, overwhelmingly Americans say try to end the war. They see the potential for gas prices [10:31] going down now, and you'll remember that's been the chief domestic side complaint about the [10:37] ramifications of all this. When they look overseas, though, they see an Iran that they're not convinced [10:43] has permanently stopped its nuclear program. That's number one. An Iran that Americans think will still [10:50] probably threaten its neighbors in the region. There are even other items that Americans have said [10:56] ought to be U.S. aims, whether or not the administration has said that they are, like making sure the Iranian [11:02] people are safe and free, like changing Iran's leadership to be more pro-U.S., that are on the list [11:08] of things Americans say are not done. So on balance, Americans, very few, think that the U.S. is getting the [11:15] better of this agreement. One might think that would be the benchmark. It's at best even. They don't see [11:21] the war as having been worth the cost if it ends now. They're unconvinced by President Trump's claim [11:28] of victory here. So why does the public think he made the deal? So they see a bit of expediency here [11:35] in the sense that, yes, they think the administration is making the deal mainly because it wants to end the [11:40] war, not that it thinks the U.S. has necessarily met all of its goals. Cutting of losses, essentially. [11:46] And at the same time, they suspect the administration didn't quite judge the reaction of the world economy. [11:52] That has the ramifications back for gas prices at home, of course. And so that going forward says, [11:58] okay, the people who say they've been most affected by gas prices are the ones who most want the war to [12:05] end. And you see some of that reflected in the president's approval ratings, which have been ticking [12:09] down through the course of the war, but they've stabilized now, just up another point. However, [12:15] I should add on within the Republican base, the president's base, which has and does back him on [12:20] this, there's a sizable 40% that say they think the administration should press on until Iran gives [12:28] up more. So they see some unfinished business here. They're more likely to say it's not acceptable to [12:34] leave the current Iranian regime in power and in the war. They're more apt to think that Iran, [12:39] yes, will threaten its neighbors. That's what I mean by that unfinished business. And overall, [12:44] the public still thinks that this conflict has created more problems than it solved. [12:50] Anthony Salvato, big reaction to the big news. We'll be back in a moment. [12:56] What impact will America's negotiations with Iran have on gas prices? We're joined by energy analyst [13:01] Kevin Book of Clearview Energy Partners and Amos Hochstein, a former Biden White House senior [13:06] energy advisor and Middle East negotiator. Good morning to you both. This is probably one of the [13:11] most central conversations because the president made it very clear that the price of fuel was at [13:18] the heart of some of his decisions. He said he doesn't want economic catastrophe. We're, [13:22] you know, running out of these fuel inventories. So Kevin, when do we get back to pre-war gas prices? [13:28] It might be a while, Margaret. So we've seen some downward travel rapidly in the gasoline price. We [13:33] probably have another 5 to 10 cents per gallon coming if the oil price holds. But we have some [13:38] uncertainty about what's coming next. And so to get all the way back to where we were before the [13:42] war, we would need inventories to replenish. We've drawn them down a lot and it's going to take a [13:46] while. The International Energy Agency doesn't expect to see a surplus before the end of this year, [13:51] maybe next year. So refilling those inventories and coming back to that price might be a while. [13:56] So it's not the quick fix that perhaps the president is is hoping for here. I mean, [14:01] there are a lot of moving parts here. It's confusing because the IRGC yesterday [14:06] was saying they control the strait. CENTCOM says that's not true. We see reports that there are [14:13] tankers moving through the Strait of Hormuz now. Does Iran control the strait? And is there a way [14:19] the U.S. can do what Senator Graham proposed, which was just bomb our way to control of it? [14:24] Well, first, yes, Iran controls the strait. And I've said this for weeks, no matter what the agreement [14:30] says, whatever the MOU says. And by the way, the MOU hints at Iran having control of the strait [14:35] and the future together with Oman. 0.5 there. Inside the MOU, which is remarkable that we have [14:41] essentially given that point away ahead of the negotiation. But Iran is already saying it's not, [14:48] control is not just about a toll, a price for now. It's about, I want 48 hours notice before you're [14:55] going to cross. Or they'll say that ship from the company that I don't like can't cross today. [15:01] You can cross tomorrow or never. Or if I don't like Saudi Arabia or I'm upset with Kuwait, [15:07] I can say your ships are not crossing. Control means a lot of different things. [15:11] But effectively, they are planning for control with eventually a toll of some kind or a fee [15:17] structure of some kind. That's the world we're going towards. But a toll is a violation of [15:20] international law. But the president is saying the U.S. will charge one if this doesn't go our way. [15:27] How does that work? Look, the president's saying if we will bomb it, we'll take it, [15:31] we'll charge a toll, whatever. I put that as some of the bravado rhetoric that nobody's paying [15:36] attention to anymore. The Iranians saying that it's against the international law to charge a toll. [15:40] I mean, the Iranians supporting terrorists in Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen, they're doing a lot of [15:45] things against international law. Charging a toll will be the least of it. But what they're basically [15:49] telling the market is, do you want the straight fully open with a toll? Or do you want chaos [15:54] where you never know what's happening without a toll? But they'll have control. That's what [15:58] is what they're aiming for. That's the result of this war. You heard Mike Waltz, the ambassador, [16:05] and other U.S. officials claim, Vice President Vance claimed this was like a historic meeting, [16:10] just the fact that they had the meeting. For two years, the Obama administration negotiated with Iran. [16:18] I covered it. You were part of it. When you hear these claims that this is somehow going to be [16:26] better based on the facts, what's your biggest problem with this document, the MOU? [16:32] So my biggest problem is that we've signed a document that says, Iran, you get money, control, [16:40] access to unfrozen assets. We reverse the, we give a waiver on your oil and petrochemical sanctions, [16:46] and all you have to do is open the straits and agree to talk to us about something they were [16:50] already talking to us before the war. We're giving, that entire document is giving incentives to Iran. [16:57] All they have to do is open the straits. That's it. That is my problem. And we got out of the JCPOA, [17:03] the 2015 agreement, because we said, what did Trump say at the time? You didn't address missiles. [17:09] Right. You didn't address support for proxies. Right. [17:12] We've now said it's off the table. They have every, more than that. We've given them the [17:16] right to have a ballistic missile. This agreement made America less safe. We should never have gone [17:22] to war, but we've now essentially surrendered. Well, Kevin, you, in your analysis, um, went point [17:30] by point comparing the memorandum to the interim agreement, the, the JPOA, as John Kerry used to [17:37] call it, um, instead of the JCPOA. And you, as an analyst, not as anyone with political ties here, [17:45] say that the Trump deal is more lenient than the Obama deal in several respects. Can you break this down? [17:51] Sure. The most obvious is that the old deal that preceded the JCPOA, the Joint Plan of Action, [17:57] JPOA, uh, limited Iran's exports to 1.1 million barrels per day. Uh, there is no obvious limit in [18:04] this deal. So the MOU, to the extent that it corresponds to the JPOA, is essentially saying [18:09] that Iran can resume exports probably at the 1.6, 1.7 million barrels per day level, uh, it was [18:14] exporting at before the, the war. Uh, now would it return all the way to 2.5 million barrels per day? [18:20] Probably not because importing countries, we're going to have to have some confidence in the [18:24] durability of this. Uh, and so I think in that respect, it's probably the biggest, uh, give [18:28] relative to its predecessor. Well, uh, on this point, Vice President Vance was asked about Iran [18:34] being able to sell its own oil again. And I, I want to read it to you, Amos. He said, [18:39] by lifting the sanctions, letting them sell their own oil, we're going to be able to see a little bit [18:44] where their financial system actually sends money and receives money. And that's a real benefit to [18:49] the American people. What do you make of that? I have no idea what he's, I don't have no idea what [18:54] it means. Uh, at the end, they, they sell oil by giving waivers. It means two things. One, [19:00] it expands the number of customers they'll have from just China essentially. And number two, [19:05] they won't be a, they won't get a disc forced to sell their oil at a discount. They'll get the full [19:11] amount because there's no discount when there's no sanctions. So instead of selling before the war, [19:15] meaning in December, discount to $60. So 50 something dollars a barrel, they'll be selling [19:21] it at about 75 to $80 a barrel. That means a billion a week in revenue. We've had years of them [19:27] selling oil. We know how their financial system works. Treasury knows how their financial system [19:31] works. The intelligence community does. Why we're giving, as Kevin just said, why we're allowing them [19:37] to get all the money upfront and then expect them to make concessions and the same concessions we [19:43] could not get them to do during battle, during war, that somehow they'll do while they're making [19:49] enormous amounts of money. And God only knows what they're going to be spending this money on. [19:54] Again, I wasn't for this war. I was against this one. I'm glad the war is over. But how wars end [19:59] matters. And this makes America less safe and the region. So Kevin, you hear from the administration [20:05] though, oh, but we're energy independent. Why doesn't that argument work? [20:10] Well, we both import and export oil, Margaret. We're connected to the global market. And so it [20:14] matters what the price is for petroleum everywhere in the world. And when it's short, it affects us. [20:19] It affects us not just because of the oil that we produce a lot of. And frankly, [20:22] U.S. exports have been a very big part of keeping the price down for everybody in the world. No, [20:27] it's also that because the products that are made from oil have been short, the gasoline and diesel [20:32] fuel that we use on American roads depend on import flows as well. And so for optimizing the [20:38] efficiency of our system, we have both imports and exports. We would not want to live on an energy [20:42] island. It would be a very expensive place. Amos, I want to get to your expertise having handled [20:47] Lebanon. Point one in this deal says that there will be an immediate and permanent termination of [20:54] military operations, including in Lebanon. Lebanon, Hezbollah, and Israel are not part of these [20:59] negotiations. This seems to be a concession to Iran. Well, it is, but it's a very big one because [21:07] it's more than what it just says. What we have tried in successive administrations has been to say [21:13] Iran is not in control of Lebanon. Any decisions on Lebanon, you know I negotiated there for a long time, [21:21] will be decided between Israel, the United States and Lebanon, not Iran. This essentially gives [21:27] authority to Iran over what happens in Lebanon. And that is a huge concession to Iran and a big blow [21:35] to the government of Lebanon. And it now what's happening is it's extending Hezbollah's support [21:40] among the political support in Lebanon when it was reeling. The vast majority of Lebanese wanted [21:46] Hezbollah out. They wanted this water over. And the two things that have made Hezbollah popular is one, [21:51] Israel sort of overplaying its hand and occupying large parts and saying they'll never withdraw from [21:57] what it's called now the yellow line. And the United States saying that Iran is now in control [22:02] of the fate of Lebanon. And those talks here in D.C. is scheduled still to take place this week. [22:10] Gentlemen, thank you. We'll be right back. Quick update from Congressman Crowe that he says he meant [22:16] modern military history, not U.S. military history. That's it for all of us. But before we go, [22:21] Happy Father's Day to my dad, my husband, my father-in-law, and all of you out there. [22:25] For Face the Nation, I'm Margaret Brennan.