The merchandise. This is chriss book. As soon as were finished go get a copy one way or another. I watched the gestation of this book. I remembersh a powerful lecture that christa gave two years ago in aspen where we are virtually, talking about the need for defense modernization. It was a startling wakeup call. I ate it writing a column about it. It began a conversation with chris that was part of his effort to develop this book and the arguments in it. So i want to ask chris take us all on the journey has been on and yet shared some with over the years. The book starts if you have read it yet with a really chilling account of whatth would happen n the first hours and days of a war with china and our maybe thats a good place to start explaining to people why we have a problem with it comes to defense technology. Thank you, david. I preshould you taking the time to do this and appreciate your friendship, guides throughout the sole process. Its been invaluable to me. The story begins for me in the type that is spent on the Senate Armed Services committee better part of a decade supporting the committee and senator mccain looking very closely at the u. S. Military, how we were investing money, how we were not investing money and ultimately how we match up against energy great power competitors first and foremost china. The reason i bought the book was a growing concern that i have been and have now that were losing our military technological advantage, that as result of that our ability to deter conventional conflict isy also eroding, and that is increasingly putting us into a very dangerous perilous position. I tried to make this visceral to people in spelling out what it might look like, god forbid, f the United States military had to fight china. There are a lot of reasons why that might end up happening. Its not a were the United States is looking for obviously but for many reasons we could end up finding ourselves in that type of the situation. The problem we have is that for 30 years our adversaries have gone too school and now the United States builds and operates our military. China in particular has not sought to play the same game we play. They have sought to pledge of again. They have recognized u. S. Military is built around very small numbers of very large exquisite, expensive come heavily manned, hard to replace military systems, vehicles, ships, aircraft, platforms and theyve made a a conscious eff, a deliberate effort, and urgent effort to build military capabilities to call into question how the u. S. Military operates and what it operates with. What i spell in the beginning of the book is the concern that if we ended up in this conflict our Forward Operating bases, our land bases in asia, laces like guam, bases in japan would come under immediate and withering attack from very precise and very large quantities of precision guided weapons, crue missiles, ballistic missiles, increasingly Hypersonic Weapons of all different ranges and types. Our naval forces, rc basis, aircraft carriers would face a similar onslaught of very large quantities of relatively lower cost very precise weapons, and the ship ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, the socalled carrier killer at the ship christmas with a ballistic missile. Our sort of air power would struggle towo get close and struggle to be relevant because of a very dense integrated air Defense Systems the chinese have built and fielded. All of this with an idea towards pushing the u. S. Military farther away making it harder for us to operate and ultimately engaging with the Chinese Military refers assistant destruction warfare which is the fielding of capabilities to rip apart the critical enabling technologies and capabilities that the United States relies upon to operate ourat forces in combat from our satellite networks, our intelligence apparatus, or commit a control enterprise, the ways in which we move information and command threat to our military systems and operate effectively. Again, here to the changes military is feeling very advanced technologies from highpower jammers and cybersex and Electronic Warfare two very consciously after the ways the United States military operates and my bottom line on this is they made a lot more progress than most americans realize. The situation for the United States is a lot more dire the most americans realize. Chris, thats a chilling account, our role in which her character having to move east away from china to escape attack, our beautiful f35 exquisite fighters cant get to the turkish because they cant refuel because refueling planes will get shot down. You said talking with senator mccain years ago, i can only imagine the conversation in the situation room with a choice would be between surrender and lose, or fight and lose. The question obviously is how do we get in this terrible situationw of vulnerability, io the kind of scenario you just described where the chinese have weapon systems doctrine that will render our beautiful weapons, i do want to say useless, but at much less powerful. How did that happen . As ice in the book as you just said no and as i cant say enough condemnatory to suggest that china is ten feet tall and the United States has no effective means of responding. O. And is heading in a worse direction. How did we get here . There is a handful of things. One obvious reason is that for the past two decades we have been very focused on the events that followed 9 11 and the wars we were fighting and global counterterrorism operations. That was an enormous strain on our decisionmakers and resources, but that is not the whole story. The reality is that during that period of time in over the past 25 years, the lions share of our Defense Budget, upwards of three trillions of dollars of the Defense Budget has been going towards modernization efforts that did not have anything to do with the wars that we were fighting. Me, ak that is where, to lot of the failure resides. Ultimately, i think it is an intellectual failure. We have misconceived the nature of military power and what we are building a military to do. We have what we refer to as a platform centric you of the world view of the world. We have optimized our defense enterprise to produce military things, vehicle, ships, and enterprise that are relied upon for many decades, and we have sought to make them incrementally better. We have optimized our Industrial Base to produce those kinds of results. Nothe reality is that is what ultimately wins words peace. Rs or keeps the the outcomes we are trying to achieve our better decisionmaking, better quality action, better understanding of the world, and the ability to do that faster than our competitors regardless of the tools that we use. Part of the problem exists in how we conceive of military power and the fact that we build programs and budgets on an Industrial Base with special interest support complexes all focused on producing more incrementally better versions of the old things we relied upon for a long period of time. At the same time, we have failed to recognize how far emerging technologies have advanced, particularly in the commercial world. Mentioned a lot of those upfront, but just by way of an example, the parking lot outside of the Office Building where i am now has commercial tesla themles that have onboard computer processors and graphic processing units that are hundreds of times more capable and powerful than the supercomputer on the f35 strike fighter, which is referred to as the flying supercomputer. The defense world has simply fallen significantly behind the commercial world in a lot of respects in respect to Artificial Intelligence and emerging technologies. I think the underlying reason if i could point to one is hubris. We came out of the cold war so far ahead of the next competitor and enjoyed the period of military dominance for so long, that we began to believe that the ways we have always operated, and the things we relied upon to deliver our dominance would forever be the things that would achieve that level of military primacy. We failed to recognize that in that time we have been disrupted by our competitors and disrupted by the nature and evolution of event advanced technology. If that mindset does not change, and we do not realize that we have to get out of the way of the way that we conceived david on the question of how did this happen, i want to ask you to talk about on which you advantage, the role of what senator mccain like to call the military congressional complex, the Iron Triangle that keeps existing procurement system ever greater refinement of existing systems, keeps the whole thing rolling forward. Maybe you could talk about that needcle to buying what we from the perspective you had when you are at the committee, the things you saw happen despite your efforts and sometimes efforts by senator mccain to turn the course. It just did not happen. Why is that . Chris that is a great question. You are right to hit upon the idea this is an ecosystem involving the congress and the department of defense, the special Interest Groups outside of government. Certainly the Industrial Base and also the Many Organizations involved with National Defense. The problem i see is not the nature of the system pretty think the nature of the system is not going to change. It is going to be what it is. I think we can wish away elements of it, wish it was going to be otherwise than it is. I really do not think it is realistic to hold out hope that defense reform has to be predicated upon a transformation of the political system. The reality is often the incentive that governs the system are out of whack, and they generate the same outcomes yearoveryear which is as we have been talking about kind of building more intimate incrementally better versions of all things at great cost at great levels of technological sophistication. They are not necessarily the in thewe need to prevail competition that we are now involved in. I think the reason is this is an establishment that is conservative, and there are good reasons. Bureaucracy exists to slow the pace of change. I think the problem that we have is the system has become so optimized in producing the same types of things, manning the same things, wanting to build that same things, it becomes difficult to change the incentives governing the system. To do that you have to affect it all levels. It is not enough to try to make change at the congressional level in the absence of the leadership at the department. This is something that is possible to change. In my time at the senate i certainly saw efforts where congress was involved in the right ways toward making hard investmentsreasing in new technology that the department was not fully aware of. This has happened before. The m q nine reaper and the largely, that aviation began through congressional earmarks. This is something that incentives can be changed, but we have a system often with the pace of change is slow. There are few incentives for people in the government and parts of the ecosystem to make change, to shift the way we do things. It revolves around the systemic failure to understand and seek to compete different ways of achieving that outcome we are seeking rather than producing better versions of the tools we have relied upon. David let me remind the audience that you can join this conversation in a few minutes. What you should do if you have a question is go to your to to onnt to participant the screen and hit the raise your hand button and then we will see it and we will know you are interested in asking a question. Onera thing interesting thing about you have done is the strong belief in the need to modernize our defenses that you have written about in the book, and you have gone out and tried to do it yourself. Chris is the chief strategy industries. Ndel i think it would be interesting to hear about what you are doing now, the new systems that you are trying to build, what you hear about in the technology world, and then we will talk after about why it is difficult for companies to get in the door. Chris we are a technology startup. We are three years old. We have been working since the day we were founded to try to provide more advanced capabilities to the National Defense enterprise so certainly the department of defense, and u. S. Allies and partners overseas. Thesecus is taking emerging technologies like Artificial Intelligence and ,rying to build Solutions Capabilities addressing the problems that military operators and National Security professionals have. Not to kind of meet the requirements laid out 10 years ago, but to try to solve the problems in a and different ways. A lot of the work that we focus on, and this is a broad statement about the nature of these technologies, going back to what we were talking about earlier, what we are really , bringing new technologies into the force, is fundamentally enhance Human Understanding and decisionmaking, the nature of action we can take. I think there is a lot of confusion around what these technologies can and cannot do, misunderstanding and concern thet building skynet or terminator. There are at it, certain things these technologies are going to be good at doing now. There are a lot of things that they are not doing now and they should not be put in the position of doing now. At the basic level, i boil it down to the dod is awash in data, much like the rest of the world. Actuallydy is we are not taking advantage of all of the information we have paid we are making it the job of tens of thousands of people to sift insightst and generate , kinda prepare the military for the dangerous jobs they will have to perform. It is slow and manual and brittle and not very dynamic, and that increases risk to our men and women in uniform. It wastes time. Where these technologies can shine is around making better use of the information that we understandingsg that will protect the force and save innocent lives, but humans in the position to make better decisions about important issues of war and peace in life and death. And ensure that whatever actions are taken are originating from human agency and always have human Accountability Associated with them so you can trace the action back to someone who is accountable. To meet that is the crux of the issue, as long as we can ensure that process is taking place, these technologies will rapidly develop and add value. It has to occur in that operational and ethical framework. David if you read his book, which i hope you will, you will see a detailed discussion of the different unmanned systems, air, land, that for relatively little money can be brought to bear, with cost comparisons between the weapons that we have now and the ones that we could have. Assuming that there are these Great Companies with great ideas out there and know how they could be helping our defense in a costeffective way, they confront a procurement process, that is intimidating and overwhelming. A lot of Companies Give up. Could you talk about that problem, that people with good ideas do not have the scale in terms of ability to do the paperwork to get into this loop. It is National Defense, not a free market. It is significantly defined by the government but it is governed by incentives. That is worth focusing on when you try to unpack this question of how new people can do Better Business with the department of defense. What i have seen in my time in the senate, doing a lot of work for senator mccain to try to reform this process, and then after government in my life, that the timelines are too long for Small Companies. For larger companies, they can ride out the multiyear process from generating requirements to programming, acquisition ,rograms, selecting vendors going through the competition process and then getting money appropriated. , six this is a multiyear or seven years in the case of larger systems, sometimes over 10 years long. The problem is for Small Companies, they need to be able to return investment quickly, be able to show that they are generating traction for the work they are doing. I think too often the problem in the National Defense world has been that when we start a lot of new programs, we have out lot of or prototypes or projects efforts that get going, and its never been easier right now as a result of the reforms from me from recent years and other focused organizations bringing these companies and to do work, the problem has been none of it scales. Hundreds of Companies May come in and have the opportunity to get a small contract and build a small prototype, but there is not a mechanism that takes those companies or programs, the best performers across what is known as the valley of death from a small scale prototype to a largescale program. Establishment the needs to focus on, the next administration, whichever stripe it is, is creating mechanisms to identify who the true performers are among all of those new people coming in and doing small amounts of work for the department of defense and identifying who will be the next companiesthe star capable of critical National Security at scale. That is how you begin to change the Industrial Base, as Small Companies become larger companies, hire more people, it looks like a viable business Business Model for investors, and it is a place where engineers want to go work and investors want to invest. The problem that we have had for 30 years is that as start ups in other sector of our economy have gone from being small startups to billiondollar unicorns, there are two examples of that in the defense world in 30 years. It is a very small group of companies that have been able to crush that threshold, and its because they have had the resourcing behind them to just play out these long timelines. That has got to change to level the Playing Field and reduce the barrier to entry some more of these companies can not just to work and do nothing but do work and scale it to build more Successful Companies and products and help u. S. Military regain the competitive advantage. Invite ournt to viewers, if you would like to ask a question to go to your participant your tabs. Then we will be able to see you in colonie for a question. Call on you for a question. I want to ask you a general question. A lot of people in our professional agencies, the military and Intelligence Community, spends time looking over their shoulders towards the political authorities in a way that is worrisome. How is your evaluation of the military is doing in its independence . Where do you think things are now and what would be your thoughts Going Forward about the right balance for the military in terms of politics . Hris great question that is becoming increasingly alarming. I think the security professionals, certainly when i was on the hill there was always by patterson support for the institute bipartisan support for these industries, a degree oftrust from the standpoint not believing that there conspiracy suffer conspiracies afoot. To meet the erosion of trust has been worrisome. I think the u. S. Military is hanging on. I think they have weathered this prewell pretty well in light of the many ways this could have played out. I think the instant you cite with general milley, i think you recognize people himself in a compromising position and was quick to come out and correct the record and admit that shouldnt have happened. Those are the kinds of things that keepsadership the institution on track. I think it has been difficult for them to maintain that line. I think that is where civilian leadership is essential. Wherenot want a society we are treating the military like a priesthood. We want strong civilian leadership. Part of that leadership is sheltering the military from these kinds of political interests, something that i think is becoming harder to do as more of this process becomes politicized. I hope that is something we can move away from an recognize if we keep going down that path, it will lead us to some pretty dark places. That the u. S. S military, i think they have done a admirable job of keeping out of politics, constantly making it clear that the loyalty is to the constitution and the oath they took when they joined the ranks of the u. S. Military. That is something that will continue to guide them moving forward but at the same time policymakers are going to have to recognize the ways that we want to rely upon the military and the things that we need to keep them away from. My hope is that on a bipartisan basis Congress Continues to play a role to help that process of ,iving them military cover sheltering them from politics that could be dilatory us deleterious. David we have some wonderful questions. I will start with two people who are special members of our aspen family and ask each of them to put their questions up and then we made bundle some questions further. Harmon. O begin with jan jane thank you. Isave to say that Congress Left without you and john mccain fit i thought you were highly skilled as staff director of the committee. I have a question related to everything we have been discussing. First i have to confess, i was part of the military industrial was a because my district huge deal to the economy, the economic driver to be doing that. It does not excuse the fact that they could evolve and do better, but just so i put that out there. I question is, it first relates to the capacity of congress, yes reform defense report and think about new systems, but most members of congress are analog, at least in my day. These are digital systems. We are educating staff at my center, but can members of congress wrap their heads around , the concepts and systems that we need for the future . The second part of my question is david raised the issue of justligence, and it is not making sure the leaders exercise their capacity to put the country first, but also what i would call a purge of our Intelligence Community recently , as we think about what systems to field, chris, against the future track, we have to think about how capable are Edward Soares are. If we do not understand their intentions, we could miscalculate them. Capacity of congress and the Intelligence Community. For your kindou words. With respect to the congress, i think both at the member level and the staff, the institution would be well served by the efforts that you are engaging into up level the understanding of these technologies. That is important. What i would say is i think we also have to recognize ultimately what these technologies are being brought to do is solve problems. Technologystify the and what it is doing, and you should not have to be a data scientists to understand this value, nor should you have to be a 20 year military operator. What i sought to do in the book is unpacked this to make it more accessible to the general audience. I colleagues in the congress, think a lot of that has to do with kind of boiling the problem , you know, what it is we are building the systems to do, which is improve understanding and action. I think you can begin to contextualize what these can do and cannot do there are ways that you can demonstrate to people so it is tangible how these technologies contribute to improving understanding and human decisionmaking, making us better and faster. I think thats where people come to see the bats were people really come tol see the value of the underlying technologies and what they can do to enhance our competitivenessit without having to get into the nature of the algorithms and the false positives and other things that engineers are going to focus on. I do think its possible. It has tos be framed the right way and focused on the right problems. With respect to the ic, i couldnt agree more andnd i thik thats ultimately what were just talking about which is the erosion of trust in our professionals. Whether its our foreign foreie uniform military, our Law Enforcement officials or our professionals in the Intelligence Community. We have an admirable tradition in this country of people who serve in our government who are certainly individuals but to answer a calling higher than themselves, that sort of Render Service to the country regardless of which administration is in power, regards of which party is in power and to see the erosion of that trust in our institutions and the belief that these are just sort of yet another political actor on the field to me is deeply, deeply worrisome. Thats something were going to have to rebuild in this country and i think its going to have to start sooner than later because if that erosion continues, if we can no longer trust that we have professionals in our National Security ranks who are there to serve the nation and call balls and strikes, then we devolve into a real state of political chaos and we are at risk of that now. Weve got to correct any future or were going to take a pretty dark path. Lets turn to a question from another giant in National Security, senator sam nunn. Is the senator still with us . Can you hear me, david . Yes, i hear you. Speak up, and christmas wedding. I was thanking chris for his Great Service when he was on capitol hill working for senator mccain and continue service to come look for f to reading the book. Protuberances ms. Lee been extremely difficult at a guess that with eventh more difficult. I wonder about ash Carter Initiative with Silicon Valley and whether that plays any role here and whether that should be continued and addresses some off these problems that you point out. My second question deals with the Constitutional Responsibilities of congress. My guess is that the Founding Fathers would it said that the two most important response thoseos of congress under the constitution article what is appropriate in money, number two,on declaring war. Of course the war powers act has not worked. It is not working and no one seems to be overly concerned about it,t, although weve beenn wars in the middle east where everybody thinks we ought to get out but we dont. We cant findwh a way for almost 20 years now. So does Congress Really need to reorganize in order to fulfill its role and the constitution the war powers which is pretty darn important but he seems to be its almost in total default . So to accept the questions. Thank you again, chris. Look forward to reading your book. Thank you very much, saturday. Its great to be with you. On your firstur question, initiatives have been launched in recent years, you mentioned that the fence universities are good and are number of organizations like that that about proliferated. These are good things. They are playing an Important Role in trying to build bridges to the Technology Community to createt pathways for startups ae new entrance or companies that have not traditionally done nationalav defense work to get started. The critical thing as i sang earlier that is to lacking is how do we scale the best performers . Thats only what going to revitalize and help remake our defense Industrial Base, make any more competitive and dynamic ecosystem of technology we can operators gilbreath and just a small number of very Large Company says we have today. With respect to the war powers act and the question of war powers and authorization for use of force, this is something i could not agree with you more, is a problem that people recognize on a bipartisan basis is a problem that congress has delegated a lot to the executive branch with respect to the conduct of war, the authorization for war, sort of how these conflicts are governed. The big flag that i would offer is that in the attempt to reframe this what you think is important, the Congress Needs to resist the temptation to try to be an organization of 535 commandersrb in chief the proper role of the congress in the authorization for use of force is identifying and defining the mission we want our military to accomplish. We have to be able to then as a congress to defer the execution of that military operation to the president. I think the reason we have had an inability to get this system right, to modernize it, as you said, its the lack of trust that existed between the congress and the president on that basis. I saw it when i was in the senate where you had a Republicancontrolled Congress and the democratic president. I think the same is true now where you have the vision of power the congress and a republican president. Ultimately, the congress has to be in the position of defining the mission but then comfortable delegating the execution of admission to the president while still having oversight, control of the funding, mechanisms at its disposal to correct things that it sees going in the wrong direction. Will create more problems than i think we will solve. David we currently only have two minutes left, im going to take the top two names, please keep your questions if you can, 20 seconds or so, nancy and then be conwell asked the question and then well come back to chris for a final comment. Nancy. Is nancy there because i am not hearing her question. Lets go to the next one, if he is there, we will ask you to give your question. Good afternoon, thank you so much for taking my questions i am really grateful for this session, thank you so much for organizing it, thank you for your book and for coordinating and interacting, my question is about the current pandemic, as youde have noticed is a disease and there are several which we have dealt with in the past, hiv, bullock, they all come from jumping from animals to humans, could this pandemic be used as a technique and what can we do to prevent future such viruses in such pandemics because we have elive market, not only in china but several markets in the u. S. Also. Good question, thats a chilling way to indent but a good question for you. A chilling answer, as i worked on this book and spent a lot of time looking closely at these emerging technologies and advanced technologies, the one that i am most concerned about is actually not Artificial Intelligence, as much as people are concerned about that, its biotechnology and specifically around the question of biological worker, historically biological warfare has been the classic example of indiscriminate weapon, wanted to released into the environment it moves around persontoperson and uncontrolled, undirected way by human beings. The concern around biological weaponry inn the future is for fthe same reasons that we can tailor make medicines that are unique to an individual or unique to a group of individuals. You can do the exact same thing on the dark side with respect to biological warfare agents, specific strains of disease and its something that i think we need to be very cognitives of, and what our competitors might be doing in this regard, that to me is a huge area of concern and yes, then reason pandemic rings that into focus to a certain extent, is something i think will have to pay a lot more attention to as a country moving forward. My thanks to chris for usual superb account of these issues and let me turn thiss over now o our leader who will introduce the next session. Actually, since it is baseball season, lets go into extra innings, i want to ask you both one more question before we turn tomo john. Chris i have been so impressed over the last two or three years as you, david and i h and membes add been debating this big issue, how do we form the u. S. Military, how do we take advantage of these technologies and to militarize them so we dont lose our Competitive Edge, here is a question for both of you, david youre a great student of this, do we risk losing our military advantage to china, can either both of you or either you see a scenario where the United States becomes effectively the number two military power in the world because china has been more focused on a. I. , biotech, quantum, and those technologies for military purposes, i dont think any of us want to see that but is it in the realm of the possible if we do not act . Chris and david. I will take a stab first and would love to have david enter as well, i think its absolutely a possibility. I think the course that we are on is a course that will take us there. And it is not because were not spending the money, its not because we dont have access to fantastic technology in america or somehow we have less Human Capital where people are less focused, we have all of that going for us. The problem that we have is the inability to recognize that if we dont change course, were going to indent in the future that you just described where we will have lost our military advantage and all of the attendant consequences that come ceth that, the things that we take for granted in terms of diplomatic influence, economic influence, the ability to stand behind the things that we care about with some weight behind us. These are all things that are going to road as we lose the military Competitive Edge which is playing out, i think us for fundamentally change that starts with the recognition that we have to make significant changes into it with a sense of urgency. China has you said is moving out without sense of urgency in a naturally mobilized way and we should not treat them as theyre 10 feet tall, we also should not minimize a challenge either. We should not build ourselves up and pat ourselves on the back too much because i think at the end of the day, the types of changes that we are talking about are going to beic significant, they will have to plan for very long period of time and i think the thing i would end on, even if we are successful, i dont think were going to get back to military privacy that weve enjoyed for the last 30 years. I think were moving in to a new competitive environment where we can help to deny China Military privacy which they seek or military dominance in the region which they seek. But we also have to recognize we are not going to turn the clock back to 1997 or 2002. We are going to be in a fundamentally different competitive environment where were going to have to rethink about National Defense as increasingly how we achieve defense in the absence of dominance but i think that is something that we can do and we can achieve our National Security interest, even in the absence of the military privacy that weve enjoyed for the recent decades. Thank you. I am flattered to be asked, all give to brief thoughts first on the 10foot tall question, i recently been looking as carefully as i can at the evidence about always capabilities as a provider of the telecommunication and 5g and assessed by the british and by their best experts with the Communications Intelligence arm which has a public National Security center. And when they look carefully, it is a weakness in waterways product, the software is spotty, there was a lot of holes in it that were vulnerable to injury or manipulation, their inability to build their own ships mean the designation of always cutting them off needs within 3 12 months they will be unable to supply their custome customers. That is well short of 10 feet tall, i can give other examples, i think that is important to bear that in mind. Let me close at a brief. 1 of the most powerful increases book that we havents talked about increased engages the underlying strategy question as he thinks about getting the right weapons, he things about using those weapons to foster the right strategy, we have a strategy sensor victory in world war ii magnified by a victory in the cold war of projecting power in our fight two wars at the same time, this global superpower intervening projecting and as chris says the chinese have a very different view, they want to prevent other people, us from infringing on their interest in chris, if i read you right, we need to take a little bit more of the way the chinese do of having a strategy that seeks to prevent them from doing something that would harm us or our allies but is it really so much about trying to project having this grandiose ambition that lend themselves well to the weapons that we historically have comens about his accretive part of what chris presented the book and i urge people to take a look at those chapters. David and chris, thank you, theres been a compelling discussion, i agree with david, chriss book is an important book with early American Interest in what we do around the world and maintainingin american power, i want to thank you both for very serious and help will discussion. The acting commissioner of u. S. Customs and Border Protection mark morgan discusses the protestant portland, oregon hosted by the heritage foundation, live at 2 00 oclock eastern on cspan2, online at cspan. Org or you can listen live on the free cspan radio app. Heres a look at congress as we begin the week, after President Trump signed executive orders related to the covid19 pandemic, lawmakers from both parties say they are open to further negotiations on a more comprehensive relief package. Right now the house stands in recess for the month of august holding sessions every three days between now and labor day. In the Senate Majority leader Mitch Mcconnell says he plans to remain in session in case an agreement is reached, no votes are currently scheduled for when the Senate Returns later today but if the deal is announced, members of both chambers will be given 24 hours notice to return to the capital for votes, as always follow the house live on cspan, the senate live on cspan2. During the summer months, reach out to your elected officials with cspan congressional directory that contains all the Contact Information that you need to stay in touch with members of congress, federal agencies and state governors, order your copy online today at cspanstore. Org. Weeknights this month for future booktv programs as a preview of what is available every week and on cspan2. Starting at 830 eastern, new yorker staff writer marsha provides her take on life in the u. S. Since the election of President Trump, then thomas, chief economist for Bloomberg Economics discusses why the chinese economy never collapses and what would happen if ever does. Later Hoover Institution fellow michael talks about the geopolitical bribery between countries in the Indo Pacific Region of the world and enjoy book tv on cspan2. Right now the british house of commons is on summer break with the next question time scheduled for early september