I will handgs off, things over to Andrew Hunter to introduce our first speaker. Good morning, everyone and thank you for joining us. Im Andrew Hunter, director of the Defense Industrial in desk initiative group. This event is an collaboration between our two programs. For those who of wondered about the definition of collaboration, we are giving you a demonstration this morning. Its my pleasure to introduce senator tom cotton to give us some great remarks and a preview. Senator cotton is the senator from arkansas. He serves on a number of important committees in the senate including near and dear to my heart, the Armed Services committee. He also serves on the intelligence and banking committees and chairs the Economic Policy subcommittee on the banking committee. Inyell county in arkansas and attended harvard and harvard law school. We will not hold that against you. He served a clerkship in the court of appeals and was practicing law after the attacks on september 11 and he decided to change his career path and joined the United States army. He served five years as an infant surely officer as an infantry officer. In a short time coming he earned an aweinspiring number of awards including the bronze star, the combat infantry badge and the ranger badge. After leaving the army, he spent a short amount of time and mckinseyg work with rand and won a seat in the house of representatives and did such a good job and was chosen by the citizens of arkansas to serve as their senator. We appreciate you joining us on the podium. [applause] thank you. Thank you for the warm welcome and thank you for the kind introduction. I want to thank you for hosting us. Before i get to the topic at hand, i 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 you to learn about his hasty surgery over the weekend but also was grateful to hear about the prediction and full recovery. In the meantime, 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 efforts. Perhaps expressing best which is for senator mccain is a digression from the topic of russia. Never overlooked the threat that russia poses to the west. Unlike many western politicians the last 17 years, senator mccain clearly saw the k the g and the b in senate and Vladimir Putins eyes. It was a mistake to think of the cold war was over. The soviet union layered aggressive ideology over the old russia problem but that problem remains with us today. As it always will be. Far from a coincidence i would suggest that an old kgb officer took power in russia less than a decade after the soviet empire expanded. Therefore, the history of the soviet era and the u. S. Russia relations remains vitally important today. Our 30 yearaching anniversary of an important moment in that era, the ratification of the intermediate range Nuclear Forces treaty. 30 years on, its still a ofarkable achievement president reagans statecraft. Not merely imposing numerical limits on Weapons Systems but eliminating entire an entire class of weapons, namely landbased weapons with a range of 5005500 kilometers. Those missiles pose unusually high risks in europe. And movede stockpiled rapidly making them difficult to monitor. They cut warning time for launch down to just a few minutes. In 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, deploying american built missiles to europe in 1983. A decision that was protested widely in the united , protest thatope 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 treaty, in my opinion. On the one hand, russia benefits treaty thane inf does the United States. After all, we dont worry about missile threats from canada or mexico. And the 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. Contrast, is a vast land power of eurasia with potential rivals in close proximity. By limiting these missiles from europe, rushing gained security in the most likely theater of a general war from the superpower most capable of striking in its territory for, the United States. On the other hand, the inf treaty only applies to the United States and russia so countries on the eurasian speak in and here i particular of china, have complete freedom to deploy intermediate range missiles. Moreover, the lack of these missiles in russias arsenal deprives russia of a potent tool to gain leverage as it always seeks to do. Putin has resolved this ambivalence in a simple way cheating on the inf treaty. By state department accounts, russia has been testing a new Cruise Missile that could strike western europe since at least 2008, at least nine years. In fact, the Obama Administration repeatedly warned the kremlin to cease and desist. Tate department, formally declared russia in vilest of the treaty in 2014 and every year thereafter. Yet they never followed up in any meaningful way. Its no surprise that according to media reports, russia has deployed two battalions of mobile 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 absence while. Cruise missiles Vladimir Putin has to velti missile that counteracts china, threatens the small countries on his periphery, and divides nato politically. The truth is, this is nothing new for russia weather in the soviet era or the Vladimir Putin era. The russians take a hard view of the trees they signed. Does the treaty serve their interest question mark if it does, they abide by it. If it doesnt, then they dont. On theiets antiBallistic Missile treaty in 1972, for instance, because it served their interest. U. S. Technology was more ananced and if we developed official an effective Missile Defense system, their deterrent would not deter that much. That did not stop the russians from pushing their lock. Largears, but maintain a base radar that plainly violated the abm treaty. Until the soviet union finally agreed to seven yearsat radar after we first detected it. From their perspective, the treaty and is violation was a bargaining chip. To the russians, any treaty is just another point of leverage, especially against nato, not an inviolable commitment. I would suggest its time we look at the inf treaty in the same way, beyond what our current commitments are couple we should ask ourselves what should they be. What set of commitments will protect our National Security and how should we adapt our current commitments to our current needs. For the time being, its probably best to try to preserve the inf treaty but only if russia comes back into the into compliance verifiably. Save the infto treaty is to show the russians that we will walk away from it if they dont come back in compliance. Vladimir putins calculus is 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 than to uphold its commitments. Thats why i have introduced intermediate range Nuclear ForcesTreaty Preservation act which would direct the pentagon to take 4 immediate steps to apply pressure to russia. First, develop a new intermediate range cruise with a 100ed up million investment. Under the treaty, we do not test, produce, or possess landbased intermediate range missiles but we can conduct research on how to improve other missiles such as extending the range or a depth and them for 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 inf treaty but also prepares us and our allies in case the treaty becomes obsolete. I am pleased to say that the National Defense authorization to includey voted safety 5 million for this program. I understand some of my democratic colleagues plan to offer an amendment on the floor to remove this provision. Relish,e, actually, i this debate on the senate floor. We will see how many of the democrats will discover their inner cold war warrior in her willing to put their money where their mouth is. Second, authorized 500 million of funding for developing new defense capabilities. To put it bluntly, russia is going to develop a new missile and we should develop new ways to shoot it down. This would neutralize the advantage russia seeks by violating the inf treaty. For instance, we could speed up anddeployment ofsea landbased missiledefense 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 cannot hold intermediate range missiles, that does not mean our allies cannot. It also does not mean we cannot help them. For instance, the polish government has been acquiring air launched Cruise Missiles for some time. I suspect were so might be interested in ground launched Cruise Missiles as well. Therther suspect might make kremlin less keen on ripping up the inf treaty. We would present russia with a very simple choice you do you observe the inf treaty or we will not renew our commitment 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 start 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. Will not keeps their inf commitments, why should the United States continue other treaties that benefit them . These proposals are sensible steps consistent with their treaty obligations and measured responses to russian provocations. We must remember, russias violations of the inf treaty are not isolated but rather, part of a pattern of provocative behavior whether its annexing crimea, meddling in our elections, or insulting our diplomats in moscow or harboring Edward Snowden or busing american ships and aircraft or giving aid to the teleban, providing the missiles were used three years ago today to shoot a civilian aircraft out of the sky. Russia is deliberately probing our defense is all over the grillo and looking for weak spots which is what every provocation must be met with a firm and unyielding response. Put simply, we remain strategic andetition with russia intermediate range missiles are just one part of the central element of that competition. Military modernization. At aa has engaged breakneck pace of modernization under Vladimir Putin. Its essential we modernize our military and we hope to maintain over match against russia. Perhaps you have heard our Army Generals say that nato is outgunned and out ranged in europe. What they are talking about are the very weapon systems that are banned from the inf treaty. Even if we do remain in the inf treaty, we urgently need to modernize our military and especially the army which would do the brunt of any fighting in europe. This is why the report being released by cs i. S. Today is so important and why i encourage everyone to read it carefully. Of course, we also have to remember that we are in strategic competition with countries besides russia. The inf treaty was the landmark agreement 30 years ago. The world we now inhabit is very different from that world. Thing, its not a to power world anymore. When reagan and gorbachev shook hands over the inf treaty, china was beginning its freemarket reforms, i ran was locked in a and indiaition, iraq and pakistan right Nuclear Power and two years before, hard as it may be to believe, north korea signed a 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, no other country is a party to the treaty. As a result, our troops and their allies in the asiapacific face an increasingly aggressive china with more than 90 of its Missile Forces falling into the intermediate range. The specific command and our allies lack a single groundbased longrange missile to keep china and check. The United States cannot afford to take a onedimensional view of old treaties because of the threats we face which are no longer onedimensional. Afford certainly cannot is to stand by like chumps while Vladimir Putin treats on the inf treaty openly and notoriously. Does, as it always consistently marshals just edict strategic advantage against the United States with a series of provocations calculated to operate just below the threshold of retaliation. Rangeing and intermediate Cruise Missile is perhaps the most provocative step as yet because it would eventually allow russia to hold all of our bases, all of our troops and all of our allies in eurasia at risk. The time has come to put an end to this. Thee cannot compel bear to return to his den, we can lay traps around the world. Thank you all. [applause] thank you, senator. Kick us a great way to off. I thought i would start with a couple of questions and then open it up for the audit for the audience from there. First of all, because the Trump Administration has a Nuclear Policy and a missiledefense policy review going on, why shouldnt Congress Just sort of sit back and wait until thats all done before moving forward with this legislation . Se, cotton what you would find in that review is similar to the proposals in our underlying registry legislation. These ideas do not come from me. This comes from military planners and department of defense. Months on and Congress Needs to take its proper constitutional role in addressing some of the real challenges we face from threats around the world. Let me 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 ndaa. Inf treaty was mirrored in a couple of ways with respect to the material breach, declaration and in terms of a program you spoke about. Surprisingly enough, the white house opposed those. I wonder if you might speak to that. Do you think that will stick, how do you account for that, and will and how long will the Administration Policy last . Sen. Obama it was crafted by era bureaucrats. I cannot imagine that when we pass this legislation the president will oppose it and that h. R. Mcmaster would recommend he would veto it. I suspect once secretary tillerson secretary mattis recognize the widespread support for these provisions that they will likewise project the recommendation of these obama era bureaucrats. Record, material breach is short of calling this an abrogation of the treaty. Its an effort to bring russia back into compliance. I suspect wiser and tougher heads will prevail in the administration. Let me ask one more question you highlighted the question of russia politics on that kind of thing thats getting so much attention. You asked inyear, an open Senate Intelligence committee hearing, the director of the cia, if there was some reason to believe that russia was using active measures or covert influence to weigh in on our discussions here at home about Nuclear Modernization and missiledefense. What was the impetus for that question . Believe some reason to that russia is involved in that big discussion as they have been involved in some of the other things . Sen. Cotton have you heard the parable of the scorpion and the frog . Asks the frog to take him across the river and the frog said you will sting me. River, theoss the scorpion stings him and it was in his nature. Use in russias nature to their tools. The kgb had efforts to manipulate western opinion in europe and the United States about the deployment of the intermediate range Cruise Missiles in 1983. There was much soviet money behind the mass protest 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