Good afternoon and welcome to the Conference Center here at Hudson Institute. I am the president and ceo of Hudson Institute, our mission is to promote u. S. International leadership in Global Engagement for secure, free and prosperous future. We are absolutely delighted to welcome back senior senator from indiana, senator todd young with us here at hudson. Today he is a guest in our bipartisan speaker series, dialogue on American Foreign policy and World Affairs with Hudson Institutes chair, Walter Russell mead. The discussion series is designed not to solely focused on the urgent news but also on the important news, that is to say, the broader questions and dilemmas affecting u. S. Foreign policy. Senator young still needs no introduction here at Hudson Institute where he is spoken many times. Hes an important voice particularly on Development Assistance and on the role of congress and u. S. Foreign policy in u. S. Foreign policy decisionmaking. Hes very much a conservative internationalist and critical for policies issues, marine corps captain, urges degrees of university of Chicago School of business, university of london before graduating from the Mckinney School of law at Indiana University picky making the bank bob mckinney was familiar the hudson trustee comments himself also a navy Academy Graduate and still are good friends at Hudson Institute even though our headquarters are now in washington. The senators served three terms in the house of representatives before being elected to the senate bill from a 2016. He will of course be an dialogue with someone else who needs to introduction here at Hudson Institute, Walter Russell mead, the dean of absorbers for Foreign Policy whose mustread global view called in the wall street journal is most widely read column on u. S. Foreign policy today. The senator has a hard stop at 12 45 p. M. So without further ado let me give you an warm welcome from all of us at Hudson Institute and turn the microphone over to walter. Thank you for the introduction, thank you, senator, for coming. Its great to see you again and greatly at hudson. Thank you so much for having me. Its great to get hudson again especially in light of the hoosier pedigree of this institute. Thats right, a proud former hoosier like a lot of other folks. This syrians conversations which some of you may remember we had center to chris murphy recently are intended not to do the usual journalistic sort of gotcha thing, but to give people in our audience here in this room and watching us on tv a chance to hear what american policymakers and serious Foreign Policy folks say when you get a chance to really express themselves. You can agree with it. You can disagree with that, but our hope is that after one of these conversations you have more insight into how American Foreign policy is seen by people who make it. So store young, i wanted to start up by asking you about the indopacific and i guess we used to call it the pivot to age. Im not sure what were calling it now, but trying to shift resources and attention into the indopacific has been a theme weve heard in several president ial administrations, but it somehow seems hard to do. Its a little bit like don corleone. We keep getting dragged back in when we were dating. Where is the pivot to asia, and what do you think we can do to advance along this . Well, youre right, there has been a branded or a rhetorical pivot to asia according for some time now, but its unclear the extent to which we have really been able to dedicate the appropriate amount of resources and attention to it. Its one of the reasons its important to reassess our military presence, in particular regions, and how we are spending our military resources is we need to move more towards naval, become increasingly dave list as a military so we can cover the large stretch of ocean in the indopacific region. We need to strengthen our alliances in that region and some improvements are being made in that respect or im not sure its helpful when we create uncertainty among our allies in the asiapacific, its i think at every turn we need to reassure them because the chinese in particular as engaged in their adventures activity are giving essential our allies the choice that. They can either be accommodationist towards the power located most closely to them but the one who tends to be a more transactional and predatory terms, often times. Or instead they can take a chance on the United States of america and a liberal International Order. I think with some work to do with respect to reassuring our allies in the region. Moreover, whether its the military presence in foreign areas, places like afghanistan, or the institutional focus in the state department and in other agencies of the government on places other than asia. I think that that slows us down. We know that the greatest existential threat as a look out a generation or two back to the United States is china on account of its population, its different values set, and its growing economy. And so i would give us an incomplete if i were to grade us, but we really need to be engaging partners and allies on every front, diplomatically, militarily, the mil to mil relationships, intelligence sharing where we can. And then a real point of emphasis that i have been trying to sort of elevated in terms of our Public Discourse as chairman of a subcommittee that oversees International Economic policy on the Foreign Relations committee is we need a coherent Economic Strategy to help work with these nations, to partner with these nations, and alternative frankly to belt and road and some of the predatory approaches that china in particular has taken. So this would be support for Infrastructure Development . Support for Infrastructure Development, so we passed the build act which will allow us to crowd in a lot of private money. Thats the Real Advantage to the build act because the United States can actually get an equity stake as can other countries whenr countt development they give Development Assistance in Major Development projects. So the build act was an important stride but i go far beyond Development Assistance peer we need more free trade agreements, multilateral where possible. I know where the Transpacific Partnership agreement and are sort of a bipartisan consensus during the last president ial election not to enter tpp. So we accept that political reality and move on and try and identify other countries come hopefully large economies with whom we can forge closer economic relationships. And then i think we need a coordinated strategy with partners and allies on things like energy. I think we need to come up with a written plan which ive called for in terms of investment in some key front your technologies come just as the chinese are doing. So, for example, 3d manufacturers artificial intelligence, quantum computing. These are all areas where the United States, if we are not making some strategic bets, we are going to fall behind im afraid, and weve met with success doing this historically. You think of darpa which laid the predicate later for the internet. These dont always succeed, but if we dont try, if we dont invest those resources we are sure to be outpaced by other sort of state capitalist models. Youve been going back to the middle east now for a minute, youve been one of the strong critics of saudi arabia in the senate, and had spoken very seriously about wanting to put some conditions on the aid and have a strong response to violations of human rights there. I know you went to saudi, you visited the region earlier this fall. Did you come away from that with any change in perspective, or where do you think we are now with saudi arabia . Every time i travel, my perspective changes, which is why i find travel so valuable and spent more time in us and i will continue to travel but youre right, i have been critical of saudi arabia. I have given criticism where criticism is due, and that given wholesome credit where that is due. On the one hand the saudi is in bs in particular is really trying to modernize his country and that something i came to more fully appreciate as i visit the country. Women are becoming increasingly empowered. There is a bit more breathing space for civil society. Thats not to say this is the United States of america or alexis de tocqueville would marvel at current saudi society, but they are modernizing. And i think longerterm this is a real opportunity for the home of mecca and medina to send a signal to the rest of the muslim world that you can indeed modernize once the economy and ones culture over a period of time, and reconcile that with the muslim religion. On the other hand, the way the saudi arabia is partnering with the United States and the emirates has carried out the military operations in yemen were deserving of the very vocal and direct criticism that i believe they violated International Humanitarian law, denying food, fuel and medicine to houthis and others in the country of yemen, thus radicalizing people who would not have other wise radicalize and further destabilizing the country at a time when 20 Million People were on the verge of starvation. And creating an environment that was fertile for iran to come in and provide more wherewithal to the houthis. Its a very complex situation but this is a complex partnership with saudi arabia that we likely will need to maintain for some period of time. Because the greatest threat in that region, something that was reinforced during my visit was clearly iran. Iran continues as all of your viewers know, they continue to try and develop nuclear weapons, continue to improve the military technologies, including Missile Technology in which those weapons could sit come and engage in terrorist activities and adventurism throughout the middle east. And so that destabilizing presence is a threat to not just those in the region and ultimately the United States. So its important for us to maintain a dialogue with sometimes bad actors and complicated partners like the saudis. You mentioned you would seen some changes in saudi is policy towards yemen that you thought were positive come in separate . Yes. Let me commend the government for making changes. They are targeting they are targeting a Different Military targets has improved. Im persuaded of that. I spent a lot of time with now ambassador as well as some top government leaders in saudi arabia, spent some time directly with mbs and myself and senator king who travel together felt like we left there with a much fuller appreciation, that they are making significant strides in the saudis understand that they need to bring that conflict in yemen to a political resolution. And they strike me as dedicated to doing whatever they can to make that happen. They are pulling in the expertise and the diplomatic weight of the emirates, level positive relationship with iran. And together they are all working collectively with some other gcc countries to try to stabilize that front region. Given the latest news from iran that the move on enriching uranium and so on is accelerating, how would you advise President Trump to proceed with iran at this time . He needs to maintain a maximum Pressure Campaign, but really i think the key is going to be to have a whole diplomatic initiative, visavis the european. We really need the europeans on board so that we cannot just bilaterally apply pressure, visavis the iranians, so europe, we will ensure remains on board with trying to bring iran back into a position of better behavior. Weve had our challenges, first with respect to military contributions from our nato partners in europe, but we need to make every effort to patch up any hurt feelings, to enhance trust, and to try and Work Together with the nations who still arguably our closest in terms of sharing values and vision of a liberal International Order that we have. Well, that brings me to some comments i president macron recently of france that, i i thought you might bring that up. laughs i tweeted last i can i wonder whether nato was really dead, or just mostly dead. Reminds me of monty python episode. Not quite yet gadget. Exactly. And in Princess Bride when he comes back. Yes. Where do you think nato is and what should be done about it . So to stick with the tortured analogy here, improperly stimulated, you know. Not braindead. In fact, as i said we share a common history with so many of these Eastern European countries. We share common western values. I understand our distinctions between every nation, every country, but they are our best shot and we are their best shot. This is why macron spoke up. Because i believe that so many european leaders fervently hope that we could breathe more life back into nato, and i believe its in the best interest of our country to do that. I also relatedly think its important for us to try and establish analogous relationships with pacific countries im going back to the indopacific question you started with. So i know aipac is not a mutual security alliance, but it could evolve into something more robust come into something more ambitious, and you know, look, our values and our alliance system, not the first to conceive of this idea, our greatest assets, geopolitically speaking, and the chinese, the chinese have to pay others. The chinese have two higher partners. The United States genuinely has friends and allies and like any friendship they need to be cultivated and sustained to endure. President erdogan of turkey is going to be visiting washington soon, and when we think about nato and the problems with nato, turkey has a way of coming to the fore. What do you think, what is the message you think the United States should be giving president erdogan . The yogi berra message, when you come to a fork in the road, take it, right . You cant have it both ways. You cannot at once purchased russian weapon systems, in this case the s400, the air Defense System which is designed to shoot down the most sophisticated americanmade military aircraft. You cant at once do that and remain a high level partner of other nato countries. So i dont know precisely how this gets resolved but i think thats the message that needs to be said. And here again Work Together with our nato allies to figure out a path forward. I do understand theres some competing dynamics with laying down the law but also wanting to make sure you dont fully push erdogan into the russian orbit. Understanding that there will be another leader or set of leaders who follow erdogan, and then they follow that model and as opposed to the erdogan autocratic model. All of these things will have to be factored into how we scope any sanctions regime that we might decide to impose in any future actions. I eagerly awaiting this meeting and the readout from the conversation. Okay. One of the requirements for having for strong form pulses having a strong domestic economy. There are a lot of people in the United States who would wonder why were spending all this money on other Peoples Security or aid to other countries when we have so many problems here at home. How do we build that economy and how do we build that consensus at home for a more active Foreign Policy overseas . Sure. So we build the economy by following sort of macroeconomic basics. We need a favorable tax regime, not just with respect to the domestic environment but with respect to international taxation. We recently made significant improvements on that front. We need favorable regulatory environment. We need trained people so we actually need further investment in human capital, especially i would say for rankandfile americans, those who dont aspire to attend a fouryear college. We are trying to rethink higher education, thats a key part of our National Security because as you said, to the extent our economy grows larger, we didnt have the wherewithal to invest in the military technology, occasionally the foreign assistance that is required to advance our values and to defend our values. The other component here is immigration reform. Look, i stayed a bit of economic. I know there are two ways to grow an economy. One is to make individual workers more productive. Another is to bring in more workers. I havent figured out how to nudge individuals into having significantly more children through a public policy. And so in absence of that we should embrace the Great American tradition of inviting others into the country to help contribute. I do think we should move towards sort of what the canadians, the australians and many others have done, which is a skillsbased immigration system so that those who come into this country can maximally contribute on day one to the growth of our economy. In terms of how that all translates into our power, our ability to project force and values abroad, it takes resources to do that. During the time i was in the military and in recent years that has meant aircraft carriers and so forth. We are going to entering a new era, a tech era, where its going to take a tech era, intimate did some of the latest Asymmetric Technologies and the ability to defend against them. And so, you know, there again much of this will come come one of the great things about the United States is so much of this will come from private Sector Investment and privately led innovation. But there remains an outsize role in this area i think for government funded research, often partnering in unique ways with the private sector. When you go home to indiana and to talk to folks there about Foreign Policy and american interests and so on, what do you find they are interested in and what questions do they have about where we are headed . We have a high rate of military enlisted in the state of indiana, and were the Largest National guards in the country. They want members of the Foreign Relations committee and members of congress more generally to be constantly questioning our presence abroad, to place in the growth and to speak on their behalf as we consider additional troop commitments or sustaining existing troop commitments. So thats one thing i hear particularly from military families and veterans. Another thing i hear about is the growth of our economy and extent to which others playfair. I think President Trumps credit, he elevate the importance of intellectual property theft, which is not just something that the United States is afflicted by, but so many of the countries, and china is the main violator of this. And other predatory economic practices. So thats why i have introduced some legislation calling for the administration a Global EconomicSecurity Strategy calling for the administration to work across departments of government and with other countries to come up with a written plan to address these things moving forward in a multilateral basis. You hear a lot of talk about a gap between the Foreign Policy establishment and the opinion of ordinary americans. Do you find evidence of that gap as someone who, again, spends a lot of time with people outside the beltway . I think, you know, naturally members of the Foreign Policy establishment, as you put it, believe that rankandfile americans, hoosiers, spend more time inking about Foreign Policy than they do, right . Most americans are like people, members of my family. We think about our our families. We think about our neighborhoods. Maybe occasionally states and national issues. What happens in yemen rarely, you know, meets the dinner table conversation, at least it did at my house growing up. And it still doesnt with my nine year olds these days very much. So i think sometimes we overestimate that, and thats what is especially important i would say, thats what i feel dutybound and i think other members of congress have the duty to speak about these issues publicly, especially when we have had, you know, a military engagement lasting 18 years and afghanistan. We rarely debate this issue. We certainly dont debate it in a fulsome man on the floor of the United States senate, as are a lot of structural reasons for that. Is there enough time course we have judges to vote on. I understand there are a lot of competing priorities, but nonetheless, we i went to the men and women in uniform we owe it to the men and women in uniform to elevate these issues, to educate the American People about what is going on, and to rethink our position from time to time as circumstances change. This i think brings me to what often seems to be a part of the lot of American Foreign policy issues now, which is, and maybe not just Foreign Policy, but congress has sort of lost authority and lost direction, and in general in domestic policy meets both the executive and judiciary have claimed that empty ground here and in Foreign Policy its mostly the executive. How does come as a senator how do you view this trend, first . I think its ironic, those who studied Early American History in the framing of our constitution, James Madison had a fear it would be the legislative branch that would serve as a vortex for all the power of the other branches of government. Hack, we cant give powers away quickly enough. Congress does not want to make difficult decisions and its not confined to Foreign Policy. We passed very vague logs, punting on the difficult decisions, leaving the details up to the large administrative agencies here in washington, d. C. And then we come home and limit the unelected unaccountable bureaucrats for ruining our lives, right . So thats why i introduced the reins act to help address that structural challenge. With respect to spending, we delegated a lot of Spending Authority to the executive branch and then war powers in particular, a whole other conversation and have to get into but when you still have on the books and authorization for use of military force dating back to just months after i entered the u. S. Navy after high school, 1991. Thats a real problem that shows that congress hasnt even been doing basic housekeeping with respect to war powers. So we need to claw back some of this authority. Its been a real point of emphasis of mine, in fact, within weeks of being sworn into the Senate Becoming a member of the Foreign Relations committee i introduced, this was back in 2017, and authorization for use of military force against isis. Now, some can claim, i understand, a very earnest and serious argument that the 2001 aumf applied to associated forces that were derivative of those forces originally targeted and, therefore, allowed us to fight against isis. But i feel like at some point after been 16 years those powers become attenuated. And we have a to reaffirm for support, reconsider and a public setting what our men and women in uniform are doing. It takes some measure of accountability as a new generation of elected officials charge with overseeing these sorts of conflicts. Listen, i can remember back even before 1991, and i can remember back in the vietnam era hearings that the senate Foreign Relations committee almost central to the public debate over questions like the war in vietnam, and senator fulbright would have his point of view and other senators would disagree but there was a public debate over basic questions of American Foreign policy. I find if anything today that has kind of moved over to the cable news shows. It has ended his move elsewhere, too. Let me, before i riffed a little bit, let me command chairman risch. I held up a vote at a business meeting we had in the Foreign Relations committee. I agreed on the substance. Rarely do i do that but i said mr. Chairman, youre not going have my vote on this one if we dont have a hearing on war powers. He wanted my vote. Hes a pragmatic man. Hes also a man of his word andy held a Committee Hearing on assessing the various aumfs we have out there. This is really important to me, but sort of, and maybe we will strike some people as an opting to bring but we have passed a full authorization bill when authorizing new authorities and changing existing legal authorities under Foreign RelationsCommittee Jurisdiction since chairman any guess . Jesse helms. He nailed it. Walter is just, i grew up in North Carolina and jesse helms was a very thorough guy. My former boss for a couple of years, chairman richard lugar, an incredible statesman for whom i have incredible respect, came very close. He asked what we now call and authorities bill. See more abbreviated bill, but nonetheless if youre not passing an authorization bill, i tell this to Lindsey Graham all the time because he is chairman of the appropriations subcommittee. That turns Lindsey Graham into both the authorizer and the appropriator. He isnt he is a very powerful person, right . So my own police, my conviction is that if we cant make floor time to consider an authorization bill for the senate Foreign Relations committee, then lets at least start bootstrapping it to the National Defense authorization act. Lets get it done, lets get it in the muscle memory and then maybe someday this super eight committee can become once again a fullfledged supercommittee. So just took some of the audience maybe with this, what would an authorization bill from the senate Foreign Relations committee do . You know, what would it change . What effect would this have . So there are authorizing committees and then there are appropriating committees. Authorizing committees are charged with coming up with new legal authorities, many of which allow new expenditures, or changing existing legal authorities. So we could shut things down that are irrelevant, or repurpose certain functions of our federal government. The Appropriations Committee is charged with taking whatever budget, you know, amount has been agreed upon through the budget process, and allocating it to some of the things that have been authorized. The Appropriations Committee will remain a powerful committee, but its not good policy to mix the two. If were going to mix the two, lets just dispense with, you know, this notion that we have, to make distinct functions because youre not making much policy if youre not passing authorizing deals. You are doing oversight which is very, very important, and so speed is so an authorization bill in your view, the committee would think that do we need to restructure the state department, do we need to reconfigure our priorities so you actually get a sort of legislative the guidance to the department, is that the idea . Thats exactly the idea. And, unfortunately, symptomatic of not passing an authorization bill, its not uncommon now for the full committee to invite highlevel administration witnesses before the full senate Foreign Relations committee. We dont see them for months, and we later find out that they have appeared before lindseys subcommittee. You know things are unmiss when thats the case. Interesting. Yes. All right. We have a few minutes left and we had some questions from the audience. So let me see we have a question here that says the Russian Foreign minister in a speech in paris said that the usa wants to establish a ministate in northeast syria. What is your view about that . Look, one of the primary planks of russian Foreign Policy these days is to misinform people worldwide and try and distort through propaganda of the United States intentions. So no, were not trying to establish a ministate. The goal for a long time has been to maintain a measure of stability in northeastern syria. One could argue that the recent, you know, withdrawal of our troops and reinsertion in a different location did destabilize the region, but nonetheless theres been no effort to maintain a ministate. Heres a question i wish i had thought to ask you. What are the u. S. Most pressing problems in Foreign Policy now and the next 50 years . laughs thats a great question. You know, i really think that our economic growth, ensuring we remain on the cutting edge of innovation, in education so that we might advance our American Values is really, its our primary Foreign Policy challenge. I guess the second one that comes to mind is continuing to nurture our alliance system, right, and repair it where necessary. That can occur bilaterally. It can also occur by utilizing the many multilateral forms of the, many of which the United States created to get may need to be refashioned so that they are suitable to the the 21st century. The question about the events in hong kong and what looks like like a bit of an escalation there on the part of the authorities. How should the u. S. Respond to whats happening in hong kong . Is there something that we can or should do . I believe its helpful when senators, members of the house of representatives are vocal about maintaining not Just International law but ensuring our values are respected by our partners and sometimes our adversaries. So to the extent we do that it gets more diplomatic leverage to her own diplomats, and look, the chinese, they dont want to develop a reputation worldwide as the great sort of malefactor, as a human rights violator. But do they have gulags . Yes, they have established gulags. Yes, they are violating the terms of the law that ensured that hong kongers could remain free, at least until china assumed full control. And so we need to blow the whistle on that. At the same time this is not the cold war. We need to maintain economic relations, mil to mil relations, and so forth with the chinese because this is a much more fluid situation. So speak up and we will continue to reassess the situation. I know the administration is doing that as well. We have another question here asking about kleptocracy and asking what is congress doing about dirty money and political influence associated with foreign governments . What are we are we doing enough . Is there more that we can do . Im sure theres always more that we can do some and im open to suggestions. So anyone who feels like you have some good ones, either those in the audience are those watching on cspan, visit young. Senate. Gov and please submit them. Were always open to good ideas. You know, we have spent a lot of emphasis during just the last couple of years on Chinese Investment in the United States, and ensuring that our companies dont become woven into the fabric of chinas state capitalist models, the socalled cfius legislation. That was really important. When you think of smaller economies, say some latin american economies or african economies, we know that where there is fraud, where there is kleptocratic behavior, you know, freedom tends not to thrive and trust in the government is very low and that often result in violence as well. This is what our Diplomatic Community in particular is out there trying to address these things. But this as with so many other challenges can only be properly addressed by working with other countries so that we can bring to bear all of our wherewithal, diplomatic, economic and so forth, in order to bring leaders and governments into better behavior. That sounds like a Kleptocracy Initiative here in hudson that there is an open door senator jones office for your proposals. Another question from the audience that asking what can the u. S. Administration do to convince the north koreans, kim jongun, that is time to denuclearize . Thats a great question. I credit the administration for sort of trying to change the game, flip the script. I really do. I think at some point its the old definition of insanity, trying the same thing over and over again that is failing, and try again. We had tried a sort of cautious approach, strategic patience, and the Trump Administration moved away from that, sought direct engagement and the Pressure Campaign that is met with mixed success, admittedly. But i think we need to continuously look for opportunities to sort of change the game. Theres frequent speculation, though its hard to get great intelligence about whats occurring in north korea, that there may be some internal threats, internal to north korea, the kim jongun who holds really all the cards. And those come to the extent we can exploit some of those threats, that would be a good thing. But we need to be very careful. Because, to put it mildly, he is impulsive and reckless and very dangerous point. Fortunately, there is other world leader who can be characterized in those terms. Senator, i want to be respectful of your time and a note you had a hard stop at 12 45 comes with the audience can be seated while the senator gets away, not really make his escape, thats not the right way to describe it. Thank you very much for sharing this time thanks so much. applause [inaudible conversations] thank very much. Were delighted to have you here today. My name is john hamre. Im the president at csis. And when we have events with outside groups like this we always start with a little safety announcement. I just want to you know louiewherever