Transcripts For CSPAN3 20170728

Policy alliance and Advocacy Group that works to decriminalize drugs will discuss plans by the Trump Administration to crack down on the growing, selling and use of marijuana. And National Affairs contribue r or university of Pennsylvania Law School professor amy wax will talk about her piece looking at disadvantaged youth in the United States. Washington journal, live at 7 00 a. M. Eastern on saturday morning. Dr. Kurt newman on his book, healing children, a surgeons story from the frontiers of the pediatric medicine. The conversations i hear are about conduct things like medicaid, and cutting the nih and doing all of these things when were on the cusp of such terrific discoveries. And when you think about half of the, half of the people that are on medicaid, half, of the beneficiaries are children so whos going to get hurt. Why do we want to do that . Were not doing that to the elderly on medicare. We ought to double down and really put more into our children. Watch the entire program today at 7 00 p. M. Eastern. Also on book tv, on cspan 2, sunday at 7 00 p. M. Eastern, David Goodhart on his book, the road to somewhere. The populist revolt and the future of politics. You see it as the contempt, after brexit. You had, you had leftwing professors basically saying why did we give these people the vote. Without some kind of iq taste. For more of this weekends schedule go to booktv. Org. Sunday night Connecticut Congress won rosa delauro, talks about her book the least among us. When Social Security reached its lowest point, we had Ronald Reagan and tip oneill, who came together and acted and congress acted to make Social Security solvent and into the future. All of this wringing of hands about Social Security and being insolvent can be solved immediately by lifting the cap. Watch afterwords sunday night at 9 00 eastern on book tv. Now arkansas senator tom cotton talks about russias military strategy in europe and their violation of the 1987 intermediate range nuclear treaty. This is just under an hour. I ing. Good morning, everyone. Im tom jericho a senior fellow in the International Security program and i run the Missile Defense project here at csis. Todays event is entitled the russia challenge in europe. Implications for the imf treaty and Army Modernization. This is a joint event between the Defense Industrial initiatives group or d. I. G. Directed by Andrew Hunter and the Missile Defense project which i run. Before we get started, we ask folks to kind of familiarize themself with the surroundings just in case you got to exit, or take the stairs out here or take some exits to the back. And should there be any reason to do that, can you look to me or andrew for that sort of thing to kick things off im going to hand things over to Andrew Hunter to introduce our first speaker. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us. And im Andrew Hunter, director of the Defense Industrial initiatives group here at csis, this mornings event is a collaboration between our two programs. For those of you wondering about what the definition of collaboration is, were trying to give you a demonstration this morning. Its my pleasure to introduce senator tom cotton who will join us to give us great remarks. Senator cotton is a senator from arkansas. He serves on the a number of important committees in the senate including near and dear to my heart, the Armed Services committee. His bio starts with the banking committee. He also serves on the intelligence and the banking committees and he chairs the Economic Policy subcommittee on the banking committee. He grew up in yell county in arkansas. And attended both harvard and harvard law school. Well try hard not to hold that against you, sir. He served a clerkship in the court of appeals and was practicing law, but after the attacks of september 11th he decided to change his career path and joined the United States army. Served five years as an infantry officer on active duty in the United States army. And earned a really in such a short time, a really aweinspiring number of awards and decorations, including the bronze star, the combat infantry badge and the ranger tab. After leaving the army, he spent a short amount of time in consulting work for mckenzie rand and won a seat in the house of representatives and did such a good job, was chosen by the citizens of arkansas to serve as his senator and we really appreciate you joining us this morning, sir, the podium is yours. Thank you very much. Thank you for the warm welcome and andrew, thank you for the kind introduction. Also want to thank the center for strategic and International Studies for hosting us. Before i get to the topic at hand, the russia threat in europe, i also want to express briefly what i know is everyones best wishes for a speedy recovery to my friend, john mccain. I was as startled as any of to you learn about his hasty surgery over the weekend. But also grateful as any of you to hear about the prediction of a full recovery. I guess this means im going to have to start raising twice as much hell in the senate as i normally do to make up for john mccains absence. But perhaps expressing best wishes for senator mccain isnt a digression from the topic of russia at all. After all, he never overlooked a threat that russia poses to the west. Unlike many western politicians for the last 17 years, senator mccain finally saw the k, the g and the b in Vladimir Putins eyes. A serious mistake to think that the cold war was sui generis. The soviet union layered aggressive global ideology over the old russia problem, but the problem remains with us today as it always will be. Its far from a coincidence, i would suggest, that an old kgb officer took power in russia less than a decade after the soviet empire disbanded. Therefore, the history of the soviet era in u. S. russian relations remains vitally important today. And were approaching a 30year anniversary of a very important moment in that era, the ratification of the intermediate range Nuclear Forces treaty. 30 years og, its still a remarkable achievement of president reagans state craft. Not merely imposing numerical limits on weapon systems, but eliminating an entire class of weapons, namely landbased missiles with a range of 500 to 5500 kilometers. Those missiles pose an unusually high risk in europe. They can be stockpiled and moved rapidly, making them difficult to monitor. They cut warning time for launch down to a few minutes. And contrast to intercontinental missiles. It was deeply provocative when the soviet union deployed such missiles into Eastern Europe in the late 1970s. Nato had no choice but to respond. President carter began the planning steps and president reagan carried them out by deploying americanbuilt missiles to europe in 1983. A decision i should add that was protested widely in the United States and europe. Protests that were funded in no small part by the kgb. For the next four years the two sides jockeyed at the negotiating table until they finally reached an agreement. Today, Vladimir Putin and Russian Strategic thinkers remain ambivalent about the imf treaty, in my opinion. On the one hand, russia benefits more from the imf treaty than does the United States. After all, we dont worry about missile threats from canada or mexico. And a deployment of intermediate range missiles to cuba would plainly breach the Understanding Reached after the cuban missile crisis that the United States will not accept offensive weapons stationed on that island. Russia by contrast is the vast land power of youeurasia. By eliminating the missiles from europe, russia gains security in the most likely theater of a general war from the superpower most capable of striking its territory. The United States. On the other hand, the imf treaty applies only to the United States and russia. So countries on the yur asian perimeter have complete freedom to deploy intermediate range missiles. The lack of these missiles in russias arsenal deprives russia of a potent tool to gain leverage in its near as it always seeks to do. Vladimir putin has resolved this ambivalence in a simple way, cheating on the imf treaty. By state department accounts, russia has been testing a new Cruise Missile that can strike western europe since at least 2008. At least nine years. In fact, the Obama Administration repeatedly warned the kremlin to cease and desist. The state department formally declared russia in violation of the treaty in 2014. And every year thereafter, and yet they never followed up in any meaningful way. So its no surprise that according to media reports, russia has deployed two battalions of intermediate range Cruise Missiles. Vladimir putin is therefore eating his cake and getting to have it, too. Russia remains secure in the european theater by the absceen of u. S. Cruise missiles while putin has developed a new missile that counteracts china, threatens the small countries on his periphery and divides nato politically. The truth is, though, this is nothing new for russia. Whether in the soviet era or the putin era. The russians take a hardeye view of the treaties they sign. Does the treaty serve their interests . It if it does, they abide by it. If it doesnt, then they dont. The soviets signed the antiBallistic Missile treaty in 1972, for instance, because it served their interests. U. S. Technology was more advanced, and have we develop and effective Missile Defense system, their Nuclear Deterrent wouldnt deter that much. That didnt stop the russians from pushing their luck. For years they maintained a large based array radar that plainly violated the abm treaty. The u. S. Protested until the soviet union finally agreed to dismantle that radar. Seven years after we first detected it. From their perspective the treaty and this violation was a bargaining chip. To the russians any treaty is just another point of leverage, especially against nato. Not an invoilable commitment. I would suggest its time we look at the imf treaty in the same way. Beyond what our current commitments are, we should ask ourselves what should they be . What set of commitments will protect our National Security and how should we adapt our current commit tomts our current needs . For the time being, its probably best to try to preserve the imf treaty. But only if russia comes back into compliance promptly and verifiably. But the only way to save the imf treaty is to show the russians that we will walk away from it. If they dont come back into compliance. Putins calculus is very simple, he gains more than he loses by violating the treaty. So we should reverse that calculus. By making it more costly for the russians to violate the treaty. And than to uphold its commitments. Thats why ive introduced the intermediate range Nuclear Forces Treaty Preservation act. Which would direct the pentagon to take four immediate steps to apply pressure to russia. First, develop a new interneed mead yat range Cruise Missile backed up with 100 million in investment. Under the treaty, we cannot test, produce or possess landbased intermediaterange missiles. But we can conduct research on how to improve other missiles. Such as extending their range or adapting them to different environments. For instance, we could develop a landbased version of the tomahawk. Which we usually launch from navy ships. This kind of research stays well within the four corners of the imf treaty and also prepares us and our allies in case the treaty becomes obsolete. Im pleased to say that the National Defense authorization act recently voted out of the Armed Services committee includes 65 million for this program. I understand some of my democratic colleagues intend to offer an amendment on the floor to remove this provision. I welcome actually i relish this debate on the senate floor. Well see how many of the democrats who discovered their inner cold warrior in the last six months are willing to put their money where their mouth is. Second authorize 5 million in funding to developing new defense capabilities. To put it bluntly, in russia is going to develop a new missile, we should develop new ways to shoot it down this would neutralize the advantage russia seeks by violating the imf treaty. For instance, we could speed up our deployment of sea and landbased Missile Defense sites. Third, facilitate the transfer of Cruise Missile technology to our allies, as ive noted, only the United States and russia signed this treaty. No other country did. Even if we cant build intermediate range missiles, that doesnt mean our allies cannot. And also doesnt mean that we cannot help them. For instance, the polish government has been acquiring air launch Cruise Missiles for some time. I suspect warsaw might be interested in groundlaunch Cruise Missiles as well. Which i further suspect might make the kremlin less keen on ripping up the imf treaty. Finally we would present russia with a very simple choice. Either you observe the imf treaty or we wont renew our commitments to other treaties. Specifically, the legislation would prohibit further funding for two treaties that russia wants to preserve. The first is an extension of the new s. T. A. R. T. Treaty which imposes greater limits on our strategic Nuclear Forces than on russias. The second is the open skies treaty. Which russia needs more for overhead Imagery Intelligence than we do. The russians wont keep their imf commitments, why should the United States continue our treaties that benefit them . These proposals are sensible steps consistent with our treaty obligations. And measured responses to russian provocations. We must remember, russias violations of the imf treaty arent isolated. But rather part of a pattern of provocative behavior. Whether its annexing crimea, meddling in our elections, or assaulting our diplomats in moscow or harboring Edward Snowden or buzzing american ships. And aircraft or giving aid to the taliban and providing the missiles that were used three years ago today to shoot a civilian aircraft out of the sky. Vaush is deliberately probing our defenses all around the globe, looking for weak spots, which is why every provocation must be met with a firm and unyielding response. Put simply we remain in strategic competition with russia. And intermediaterange missiles are just one part of the central element of that competition. Military modernization. Russia has engaged in a breakneck pace of modernization under putin. Its essential that we modernize our military if we hope to maintain overmatch against russia. Perhaps youve heard our Army Generals say nato is outgunned and outranged in europe. Well what theyre talking about are the very weapon systems that are banned by the imf treaty. So even if we do remain in the imf treaty, we urgently need to modernize our military and especially the army. Which will do the brunt of any fighting in europe. This is why the report being released by csis today is so important. And why i encourage everyone to read it carefully. Of course we also have to remember that were in strategic kpet wiggs countries besides russia. The imf treaty was a landmark agreement 30 years ago. But the world we now inhabit is very different from that world. For one thing, its not a twopower world any more. When reagan and gorbachev shook hands over the imf treaty, china was beginning its free market reforms. Iran was locked in a war of attrition. Iraq neither india or pakistan, as a Nuclear Power and just two years before, hard as it may be to believe, north korea had signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty. Thus, the time is coming to consider whether the United States should stay in the inf treaty, even if russia came back into compliance. As ive noted new york city other country is a party to the treaty. As a result, our troops and allies in the asiapacific face an increasingly aggressive china with more than 90 of its Missile Forces falling into the intermediate range. Yet specific command and our allies lack a single groundbased intermediate range miss toll hold Mainland China at risk. This question can be left to another day. The United States cannot afford to take a onedimensional view of old treaties because the threats we face are no longer onedimensional. What we certainly cannot afford is to stand by like chumps, while Vladimir Putin cheats on the inf tweet trooety, openly and notoriously. Russia, as it does, is consistently marshalling strategic advantage against the United States through a series of incremental provocations calculated to operate just below the threshold of retaliation. Three employing an intermediaterange cruise miss sl perhaps the most provocative step as yet. Because it would eventually allow russia to hold all our bases, all our troops, and all our allies in eurasia at risk. The time has come to put an end to this. If we cannot compel the bear to return to his den, we can at least lay painful traps in his path around the world. Thank you all. [ applause ] thank you, senator. That was a great way to kick us off. I think well start with a couple of questions and open it up to the audience from there. I thought it was really just first of all ask you because the Trump Administration has a Nuclear Policy and a Missile Defense policy review going on, why not, why shouldnt Congress Just sort of sit back and wait until that all done before moving forward with this legislation . I think what you would find in that review is going to be similar to the proposals in our underlying legislation, as well as what the house and Armed Services committee have included in their versions of the National Defense authorization act. Second, these ideas do not come from me. This is a validated requirement it comes from military planners within the department of defense. And third, these reviews are important. Theyre valid. But you know were six months on and Congress Needs to take its proper constitutional role in addressing some of the real challenges that we face from threats around the world. Let me sort of stick with the executive congressional relation for a moment. Last week the white house issued a statement of Administration Policy. With respect to the house and the ndaa. In terms of the inf Treaty Preservation act provisions were mirrored in the house ndaa in a couple of ways, with respect to the breach and the program of record thaw spoke about. The White House Administration policy opposed those and i wonder if you might speak to that do you think thats going to stick . How do you account for it . Do you think the Administration Opposition is likely to last. Statement of Administration Policy was crafted by obamaera bureaucrats at the state defense departments, i cannot imagine when we pass this legislation the president will oppose it that hr mcmaster would recommend that he would veto it. I would suspect once secretary tillerson and secretary mattis recognize the widespread support for these provisions they will likewise reject the recommendations of those obamaera bureaucrats. The program of record versus r d is really talking about how many defense planners can dance on the head of a pin and second, material breach is short of calling russia in complete abrogation of the treaty. Its an effort to bring russia back into compliance with the treaty. So i suspect wiser and tougher heads will prevail within the administration. Let me ask one more question and open it up. You highlighted the big thorny question of russian politics and that kind of thing thats getting so much attention and earlier this year, you asked in an open Senate Intelligence committee hearing, you asked the director of the c. I. A. If there was some reason to believe that russia was using active measures, covert influence to weigh in on our discussions here at home about nuclear mode earnization or Missile Defense. Is there a reason to believe that russia is involved in that big discussion just as theyve been involved in so many others . We heard the parable of the scorpion. The scorpion asked the frog to take him across the river and the frog says youll sting me if i do. And the scorpion says why would i do that, well both die. And the scorpion stings the frog halfway across the river and frog says why did you sting me and the scorpion says its in my nature. The bob gates first memoir from the shadows he writes at length about the kgbs efforts to manipulate western Public Opinion in europe and in the United States. About the very deployment of these intermediate range Cruise Missiles in 1983 there was soviet money behind the mass toronto tests you saw in the United States and western europe at the time. I know of no reason to believe that russia is not doing the exact same thing right now to try to stop the modernization of our nuclear triad. Or to stop the deployment of advanced Weapons Systems to its periphery. Its simply what russia does. Remember, russia is a country that now has a gdp barely or less than 10 of american gdp. Gdp smaller than the size of california. Smaller than texas. Smaller than new york. Smaller than italy, actually twothirds the size of italy. Smaller than the combined gdp of the five nordic countries, they have to find ways to achieve strategic advantage that is not going to depend on marshalling vast resources. And what they call active measure campaigns what we would call propaganda or covert influence is one of the ways that russia whether in the soviet era or putin era has long attempted to achieve that advantage by molding western opinion and dividing nato countries between themselves. Why dont we open it up to the floor. Since this is about our modernization, through it out to andrew to get it started. And for other folks, wait for the microphone and identify yourself and ask your question. Senator thank you for those remarks, you obviously illustrated in your speech and made reference also to Army Leadership comments about the army being outranged, outgunned in europe and increasingly so. Your senate Armed Services committee mark, an a piece went after this with increased modernization for the army. My question is because theres so many things that you can increase or seek to accelerate in the armys modernization program. Everything pretty much has been at a standstill for sometime. How did you prioritize and what did you find to be the most compelling case to make to your colleagues for why specific forms of Army Modernization are needed now . So first off, i understand the point that general miller, the chief of staff of the army makes about readiness. We cannot send our sons and daughters today in combat without them being fully prepared, trained and equipped. However, modernization is tomorrows readiness. I can look any mother or father in arkansas in the eye and tell them that the army would not put their son or daughter in combat today without being fully prepared, trained, equipped. If a parent of an 8yearold asked me that, im not sure i could say the same thing. So while readiness is urgent, modernization cant be minimized. Second, army has a somewhat tougher case to make on modernization than does the air force or the navy. Thats not unique to this administration or this Army Leadership. Its relatively simple to explain why you need to modernize ships or aircraft or missiles. We talk about the 355ship navy or 100. Thats the thing that any kind of man can get their hands around. Army systems are a little bit harder to get your hands around. And the nature of a Brigade Combat Team is harder for a layman to get his or her hands around as well. But the point weve made to our colleagues, and i know theres some more games out there that some of you have probably seen. Is that absent much greater and quicker investments in both readiness on the front end, but modernization in the median term that we will no longer have overmatch against countries like russia. In the european theater. And any efforts to any kind of major mechanized war on land which i know everybody says were never going to be fighting on. That were fighting on land everywhere. Were fighting about land everywhere. Would pose serious risks. To our soldiers and National Security. Its a little bit harder case it make on a laymans terms than it is for the air force, the navy its an urgent case to make. Why dont we get a few more. Well start with sidney and keep your hands up and well get a few more. Hi, senator, Sidney Freeberg from breaking defense. To address the large and odorous elephant in the room youve talked about the importance of being, of understanding that russia is a competitor, that they are relentless that they seek to influence our domestic political debates. But there are lots of signs that this administration has been dangerously naive on that front. Be it, i wouldnt suggest theres collusion in the campaign. I would i dont see any proof of that so far. But being willing to meet with people not realizing they are russia intelligence cutouts, saying we can work with these people or cyberunit. I mean even if it doesnt come to pass, that seems to suggest a lack of the appreciation of the danger that you suggest. How comfortable are you, how confident are you this administration understands the danger and the real politic that you describe . Some of your comments fall within the scope of our review on the Senate Intelligence committee or director muellers investigation. So ill leave it to those matters and wont comment further on that. I would dispute the premise of the question that the Trump Administration is somehow been soft on russia. If anything, the Trump Administration has been much tougher on russia. Was it collusion when barack obama told Dmitri Medvedev that ill have more flexibility to deal with Missile Defenses after the election . Was it naive when Hillary Clinton pressed the reset button with Sergey Lavrov six months after russia invaded georgia . Was it awe paulg naivete and weakness when barack obama directed our ambassador in ukraine as their country was being invaded to tell the government of that country to do nothing provocative to stop the russians . Look at what this things has done. Look at some of the people theyve appointed to their high office whether its jim mattis or mike pompeo or hr mcmaster or shortly after the bilateral meeting in goldberg, the ambassador, i dont think anyone would accuse him of being naive. Look at what donald trump campaigned on. Investing more in our defenses, expanding Missile Defenses. Accelerating nuclear modernization. Pumping more american oil and gas. None of those things look very good if youre sitting in the kremlin. None of those things were supported by Hillary Clinton or democrats in the campaign, either. Weve struck their main client in syria, wrongfooting Vladimir Putin. Showing they cant protect that client. Were starting to take a tougher line on iran. Continuing and expanding the european reassurance initiative. Which i hasten to add is regrettable that we had to start something called the reassurance initiative. After ate years of the Obama Administration. So i have to dispute the premise of the question that the Trump Administration six months in has been anything other than tougher. On russia. When it comes to the real world. I see a question over here in front. Hi, im hank gaffney, i worked in isa and then at the center for naval analyses, i set up the process and laid out the options which led to euro missiles and thus, the inf. And later on, in 98 i got to visit a former ss20 base. By the way there were no ss20s in europe. They were deployed all across the soviet union. Sand i got to kick the tires of the replacement, the ss 25. Theyre at the former ss20 base. Thank god it was aimed only at the u. S. , not europe. I also studied lots of the Russian Missile Ballistic Missile programs. And of course, this Cruise Missile is mounted on the transporter. And i never found any evidence that the iskander was nuclear. Do you know that this Cruise Missile is nuclear . In fact i found opposite views. On the utility of nuclear weapons. I dont want to comment on the intelligence about the particular weapons system thats been widely reported. In the western media. I will say, however, that the stabilizing nature of intermediate range missiles in europe is not limited to nuclear missiles. Its also the case that any other kind of highexplosive warhead can be inherently destabilized in europe as well. Thats why russia and its soviet form wanted to eliminate the entire class of weapons. Not just simply limit the number of those weapons. Okay who else . Awe a few more up. Two other here. Start with the front row. By the way hi, do you think you could just speak a little bit generally on your opinion on the armys current modernization efforts, do you think they have the right focus moving forward or do you think theres some things they should be focusing more on. They need to move faster, be clearer about priorities. A lot of those, some of those priorities as i mentioned in my speech are currently prohibited by treaty obligation, but we need to be prepared to move quickly should that treaty become obsolete. In the meantime we should do everything we can within the context of our obligations internationally to increase the lethality and the survivability of all of our landbased systems. Whether thats active armor systems or increasing the size of cannons or what have you. In addition we simply need to expand the endstrength of our military, of our army in particular. Thank you. You spoke assisting u. S. Allies with developing the weapons that the inf prohibits the u. S. From doing. Wouldnt that sort of be going around the treaty and ignoring the principle of it . Well Vladimir Putin is violating the letter of it if someone accuses of United States of violating the spirit, im not that terribly concerned about it. And real quick works it be possible or better step to possibly renegotiate the treaty. Given that like you said it is 30 years old and times have changed at this point . We should certainly not renegotiate a treaty from a position of weakness, where our only counterpart in the treaty is violating the treaty. And therefore dictate the terms that they want to impose on us. Thats why the right posture now is to put greater pressure on russia to come back into compliance with the treaty. Should they not do that and obviously we should not remain in a treaty where weve become literally the only country on earth that refrains from building a particular kind of weapons system. I saw one over here. Right here, this gentleman and then one in the back. You referenced in your speech that china, which is not a party to the inf treaty has developed Cruise Missiles that would be in violation of this treaty. Regardless of our participation. Im curious if you think there are steps that the United States should be taking to respond to the threat of chinese Cruise Missiles. That outside of leaving the treaty. Its difficult for the United States to fault a nation thats not committed by treaty to develop Weapons Systems that would be banned by that treaty. Ing what the United States should be doing is taking a much firmer line with china in all manner of interactions. To put more pressure on china to stop its aggressive behavior. In the asiapacific. North korea is in the headlines a lot today. Theres still a vast scope of pressure that we can bring to bear on china that if they dont help us with the north korea problem more, theyll feel some pain. Which would be much more active in the South China Sea to make it clear that were going to work with the other nations who are our allies on the tour of that sea to prevent china from militarizing it and dominating it. The ndaa includes several measures designed to bolster taiwans defenses. Or to push back on chinas campaign of International Isolation against taiwan. If it passes, its written into the committee. The National Defense authorization act would probably be the most pro taiwan piece of legislation since the taiwan relations act. Those are a few examples of things we can do to take a firmer hand with china, which we certainly should do. From the voice of america. Senator in 2008, nato buch rest said there was a promise made that georgia and the ukraine one day would become nato members and a lot has changed since that. 20 of georgia is still occupied and crimea is annexed. Do you see it possible to see any time soon nato extended in Eastern Europe. And followup question would be, are you worried about russias attempts to destabilize the region and to bolster antiamerican, antiwestern attitudes . Especially in its neighborhood. Well at the moment its not obvious the path that georgia and ukraine are taking to nato while they still have Russian Troops on their soil. So our immediate objective should be to bring enough pressure to bear on russia that they leave those lands that they give back crimea to ukraine and leave Eastern Ukraine and northern georgia. Secretary tillerson coming out of the bilateral meeting in hamburg was very clear that the sanctions weve put in place on russia are relatively tepid and ineffective will remain in place as long as there are Russian Troops and on ukrainian soil. Of course russia is trying to to destabilize and divide the west. Thats what theyve been doing for decades. Not just in europe, a lot more historical continuity than discontinuity between them. They did it in 1983 when they helped fund the massive protests against the deployment of inf forces in europe and theyre doing it today in western europe. Theyre doing it for a snap military exercises. Or increasingly, bellicose rhetoric. This is simply what russia does, we have to meet these kind of provocations with a firm and unyielding response. Who else . We have another take from over here. Sir, max mueller, state department. So you mentioned possibly dropping the inf if thats in u. S. s interests, do you see it possible to eliminate the inf and start an arms race in europe . And also reassure our allies and not create additional fractionalism. What was the last part of your question . Do you see it possible to eliminate the inf and reassure our allies and not create additional fractionism in nato. So currently the inf is breached by russia and the one situation we cannot tolerate is that russia remains in violation of the treaty. While the United States remains the only country in the United States that refrains are from building a potent weapons system. Several generals have testified they see no reason to believe that congress will not come back into compliance. If the current state of affairs i would agree. If they do not come back into compliance or even if given the shifting nature of global strategic nature. We should withdraw from it. We havent reached that point yet. But i suspect we will sooner rather than later. As for the european divide, the europeans are always divided to a degree. Theyre divided in part because the russians use subterfuge and deception and espionage to keep them divided. Theres some European Countries that strongly oppose president carter and president reagans decision to oppose inf forces. There are other European Countries that strongly supported it. Its a matter of u. S. , its for u. S. Diplomacy to try to maintain political unity among our nato allies when confronted with serious threat as russia redeplying Cruise Missiles that can strike all of europe. Okay. And i saw the gentleman in the middle over here. Stanley kober, how do you propose to pay for all this increased spending . Either you increase taxes or you cut other commitments, other spending elsewhere. So you seem to be suggesting much increased spending for defense. Or do i have that incorrect . So on the specific points that ive mentioned my legislation were talking about defense spending on the magnitude of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, that will be offset through other defense accounts. On the broader point about military modernization, yes, were talking about tens of billions of dollars in the longterm, hundreds of billions of dollars spread out over the coming decades. I would argue simply that our defense spend something not what drives our deficits. Its not what drives our longterm debt. If anything it helps control longterm debt. Because it assures the safety and the security of american interests around the world. We are a global power with Global Trading interests, we have a keen interest in global order. In our defense spending has never been a driver of our deficit. It actually in the longterm helps control it by keeping peace and stability throughout the world to help keep our economy growing and healthy and to avoid the degradations of a general war what really drives our deficits are longterm health and retirement programs, as well as weak Economic Growth over the last ten years so we can attack that from the growth side by trying to get our economy growing at a faster pace, more people back to work, and in the longterm, we have to address the solvency of our health care and retirement programs. Those provide important social safety net. But theyre also rapidly running out of money in the near term. Missile defense against imf noncompliance Cruise Missiles and others as well and also, you might say, theater Missile Defense for europe. Let me connect that with the other side here, and thats Army Modernization. The army is out there with this multidomain battle thing which seems to be a lot about kind of bringing the army up in a more a agile way to near pure threats. Our air and Missile Defenses are in many ways retarded by a lack of modernization for many years. Do you want to kind of speak to that, about what we need to get for moving from the patriots of today to something handling these things . It is an important challenge. You know, the army often goes through these cycles where it thinks were going to get to fight a war the way we like to fight it or were going to be able to dictate the terms on which the war is fought. Our enemies always seem to have a way of refusing to take guidance on how they should be fighting. So for many years in the cold war and after the persian gulf war we were focused on heavy mechanized warfare against competitors. It didnt do something on counter insurge enlsy, something the haerm learned to do in the vietnam era. We had to shift to learn how to do Counter Insurgency effectively, which we did during iraq and afghanistan in the surge of those wars. However, we have been 16 years in which we dont have an adversary with air power, in which we have air dominance. It is understandable Army Commanders fighting a war that is where you have air dominance against guerillas and insurgents would oftentimes neglect combined arms fire, that planners would neglect in those capabilities. As we have seen in the last eight years, but especially the last 16 years how rapidly the threat environment shifted as china and russia both increased the pace of military modernization, especially the pace of military modernization designed to keep us from ever fighting a war against them like we fought against iraq in 1991. So these are really urgent priorities that the army needs to address and Congress Needs to provide the money for them to address. All right. Who else . Right here in the front. While she is coming up i will say the army identified the need for a 360degree sensor for Cruise Missiles back in 1993. A quarter of a century ago, and we still dont have it. My name is zain mitchell. My question is should the United States consider adding other countries to the imf treaty in order to prevent russia from establishing, for lack of a better term, proxies to develop their landbased missiles at . Well, the first prerequisite for any future for the imf treaty is for russia to come into compliance. Should that happen, then you put Vladimir Putin Vladimir Putin back in position that i mentioned in my speech that they are surround by countries with the capability of striking russian territory with intermediate range missiles and they might have an interest in that scenario, working with the United States and those countries on its periphery to add other countries to the inf treaty. Do i think it is probable . No. But the immediate prerequisite for any kind of future of a multilateral inf treaty is for russia to come back into compliance with the treaty. We probably have time for two more and we have to take a quick break before the panel. Who else . One up here. Folks want to bring it up here . Right here. Hi. Connie young. Sort of going back to the budget, do you have an opinion on congressman thornberrys reform effort with moving lots of money into the base budget and breaking bca caps . Does it concern you at all . The budget control act must be repeal. It was pass as congress was rushing out of town in the summer of 2011 to increase the debt ceiling and get on to the august recess. It was designed to constrain spending it did briefly for a couple of years, although i would say thats probably as much to do with a new Republican Congress after a trillion dollar deficit in the early obama era than it was the budget control act. Congress has prochven itself uncapable of adhering to the budget control caps. In 2013 we got a continuing resolution, in september a twoyear budget in the fall, an omni bus in december and another omnibus in december of 14. Thats what happened in 2015 and 2016. Today it is the middle of july, it looks like were heading towards a continuing resolution in september, some kind of twoyear budget deal in the fall that doesnt constrain spending, an omnibus spending bill in december and another one in december of 18. We will top off that sorry history with the same twoyear scenario playing out in 2019 and 2020. The budget control act is not the constitution and the 112 congress was not a constitution alcon vengs. We should simply repeal it out right and congress should do its job to set priorities with taxpayer dollars on yeartoyear basis. If the republican party, the party that has always stood for strong National Defense in an environment where the budget control act has been repealed cant invest more in our defense capabilities, then bad for us. But the budget control act must be repealed. Whats it going to take to get to that . From where we are today out of this cycle of crs to that repeal, what is it going to take it . I believe you probably have the votes right now in the senate to repeal the budget control act. I suspect almost every democrat, if not all of them, would vote to repeal it and at least half of my republican colleagues would vote as well. In the house of representatives, i think opinion is more divided among republicans, but also deficit talks in the house know that history i just laid out. They have no reason to believe were going to magically adhere to those caps this year. The democrats are going to willingly agree to, you know, reduce domestic spending and shift that money into defense spending when they have a status quo working in their favor, which is draconian budget cuts on a 50 50 basis into the defense budget, which only accounts for 20 of federal spending. So i mean the democrats would like to see it repeal as well because they want to see more spending on departments like housing and urban development and commerce and so on and so forth. I think you have the votes in the senate, and i think with some work in the administrations support you could get the votes in the house as well. Again, just because you repeal the budget control act doesnt mean spending will go up. I know the Congressional Budget Office may say spending goes up when you repeal the budget control act, but the Congressional Budget Office says a lot of things that just arent so. Like every year we worried for 17 years about paying for the socalled dock fix, which were reductions in the rates of reimbursement to doctors using medicare, and every year we found a way to push those off. We finally ripped off the bandaid. We should do the same thing with the budget control act because we know that those across the board cuts are not going to go into effect if past is any prologue. Theres no reason to think the 115th congress will be any different than the 114th or the 113th. All right. One last question and we will take it right over here. Thank you. Nicole at with the the washington times. Im curious what kind of timeline you see for Going Forward with this with bringing russia into compliance or otherwise eliminating the treaty or considering other options before we have some kind of disaster on our hands, and specifically what might the consequences be if we dont move forward with this quickly . Well, the provisions in the National Defense authorization act, which have the support of both republicans and the democrats, would be enacted into law later this year. That ball was passed every year for over 50 years. Theres no reason it wont pass this year. Theres no reason to think those provisions wont survive. On that time frame you are talking about a matter of months, not years. I would encourage the administration to take every action it can as well to put more pressure on russia to bring it back into compliance. Right now we have many European Partners who want to play like ostriches, stick their heads in the hand and pretend russia doesnt have this system because they dont want to face the consequences of making that announcement. I would encourage the European Partners to face reality, pretending russia doesnt have a Cruise Missile that can strike their territory is not going the eliminate the threat to their set zens. That is always the case, bad news doesnt get better with time. We should all face up to the challenge that this Missile System poses to us and take the steps necessary to bring russia back into compliant or take the steps necessary to counteract and defeat that threat. Well, senator, thank you for coming out today. Thanks for your leadership on these issues. Please join me in welcoming. Thank you. Thank you for your time. [ applause ] sunday on American History tv on cspan three we look at two u. S. President s. At 6 00 p. M. Eastern john f. Kennedys life in photos. You know, the wonderful thing about the kennedys is they never pushed photographers or writers away. They didnt care how they were photographed. They didnt care, you know, whether the tie was fixed, whether the coat was on, this or that. They knew that if they made themselves accessible to the media, they would be published and, of course, it was a groundswell. Theres no question about it, that the Media Coverage of jfk was just the first time we had ever seen anything like it. That will be followed at 8 00, looking at Ronald Reagans relationship with Pope John Paul ii. All paul kangor discusses his book a pope and a president , john paul ii and Ronald Reagan and the extraordinary untold story of the 20th century. John paul ii sent a cable to reagan saying, im praying for you when he was shot. Now reagan sent a cable to the vatican saying, im praying for you. It developed the worlds most exclusive prayer society. As for moscow, if theyre worried at this point about a kinship between the pope and the president , now they better really worry about it. American history tv, all weekend, every weekend on cspan3. The New York Times reports after six months of deliberations and occasional quarrelling, the Top Republican tax neglectors in congress and the Trump Administration declared thursday that they had united behind a set of common principles that would guide them as they move to complete the first overhaul of the tax code in three decades, and saying that they would do it by the end of this year. Treasury secretary Steven Mnuchen testified on capitol hill this week on the 2018 budget for his department, along with irs commissioner john koskinen. This is an hour, 40 minutes