Transcripts For CSPAN2 Senator Tom Cotton On Russian Military Strategy In Europe 20170719

Fellow at the Missile Defense program at csi us. Todays event is entitled the russia challenge in europe, implications for the imf treaty and army mobilization. This is a joint event between the Defense Industrial initiatives group directed by andrew hunt who you will see in a minute and the Missile Defense project which i run. Before we get started at bigger events like this we ask folks to familiarize themselves with the surroundings in case you have access or Something Like that, take the stairs or take some exits to the back. You can look to me or andrew for that sort of thing. To kick things off i will hand things over to Andrew Hunter to introduce the first speaker. Thank you for joining us. Im Andrew Hunter, the Defense Industrial initiatives group, as tom mentions, collaboration between two programs, those wondering what the collaboration is trying to give you a demonstration this morning. It is my pleasure to introduce senator tom cotton who will join us and give us great remarks and the preview. Senator cotton, senator from arkansas who serves on a number of important committees in the senate including near and dear to my heart the Armed Services committee, it starts with the Banking Committee and serves on intelligence and Banking Committee and chairs the Economic Policy subcommittee on Banking Committee. He grew up in arkansas, in harvard and harvard law school, we will try not to hold that against you, the clerkship in the court of appeals 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 infantry officer on active duty and earned in such a short time and i inspire a number of awards and decorations including the bronze star, combat infantry badge and ranger tab. After leaving the army spent a short amount of time in consulting work from mckinsey and won a seat on the house of representatives and did such a good job and chosen by citizens of arkansas and appreciate you joining us. The podium is yours. [applause] thank you. Thank you from the kind introduction. The center for strategic and international studies, thank you for hosting us. Before getting to the topic at hand, expressing briefly what i know is everyones best wishes for a speedy recovery for john mccain. I was as startled as any of you to learn about his hasty surgery over the weekend but also grateful as any of you to hear about the full recovery. In the meantime this means i have to start raising twice as much as i normally do to make up for john mccains absence but perhaps expressing best wishes for john mccain isnt a digression from the topic of russia. After all he never overlooked the threat russia poses to the west. And like mistake many western politicians for the last 17 years senator mccain clearly saw the k, g and b in Vladimir Putins eyes. A serious mistake to the cold war was too generous. The soviet union laid an aggressive global ideology over the old russia problem but that problem remains with us today as it always will be. It is far from a coincidence that an old kgb officer took powerless in a decade. And the history of the soviet iraq and Us Russia Relations remain slightly important today. And approaching a 30 Year Anniversary of an important moment in that era, ratification of intermediate range Nuclear Forces treaty. 40 years on it is still a remarkable achievement of president reagans date craft. Not merely imposing limits on Weapons Systems but eliminating an entire class of weapons, mainly landbased missiles with range of 500 to 5500 km. Those missiles pose unusually high risks in new york. They can be stockpiled and moved rapidly making them difficult to monitor. They can warning time to a few minutes in contrast to intercontinental missiles. It was deeply provocative when the soviet union deployed such missiles into Eastern Europe in the 1970s. Nato had no choice but to respond. President Carter Planning steps that president reagan carried out by deploying american built missiles in europe in 1983. A decision protested widely in the United States and europe, protests that were funded in no small part by the kgb. For the next week for years that we decide the negotiating table until they reached an agreement. Today Vladimir Putin and Russian Strategic thinkers remain ambivalent about the treaty. Russia benefits more than the United States from the treaty. After all we dont worry about missile threats from canada or mexico and the deployment of intermediate range missiles to cuba would plainly reach the understanding after the cuban missile crisis that the United States will not accept offensive weapons stations on that island. Russia, by contrast, is a vast land power of eurasia with potential rivals in close proximity. By laminating these missiles from europe, russia gained security in the most likely theater of a general war from the superpower most capable of striking its territory. The United States. The imf treaty applies only to the United States and russia. Countries on the european perimeter. And particularly of china for the freedom to deploy intermediate range missiles. Moreover the lack of these missiles in russias arsenal deprived rush of a potent tool to gain leverage as it always seeks to do. Vladimir putin has resulted ambivalence in a simple way, cheating on the inf treaty. By state Department Accounts russia has been testing a new Cruise Missile that can strike western europe at least 2008, at least nine years. The Obama Administration warned the kremlin to ceaseanddesist. The state department formally declared russia in violation of the treaty in 2014 and every year thereafter. No surprise that according to media reports russia has deployed two battalions of intermediate range Cruise Missiles. Vladimir putin is eating his cake and getting in the habit too. Russia remain secure in the european theater by the absence of us Cruise Missiles while Vladimir Putin developed a new missile that counteracts china and small countries on periphery and divide 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 eye view of the treaties they signed, do the treaties serve their interests, if it does they abide by it. If it doesnt they dont. The soviets signed the antiBallistic Missile treaty in 1972 for instance because it served their interests. Us technology was more advanced, if we developed an 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 phased array radar that plainly violated the treaty. The us protested until the soviet union finally agreed to dismantle that radar. Seven years after we first detected it. From their perspective, the treaty and its violation was a bargaining chip. To the russians, any treaty is just another point of leverage especially against nato. I would suggest it is time we look at inf treaty the same way. Beyond our current commitments 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, it is probably best to try to preserve the inf treaty but only if russia comes back into compliance promptly and verifiably but the only way to save the inf treaty is to show the russians that we will walk away from it if they dont come back into compliance. Vladimir putins calculus is very simple. He gains more than he loses by violating the treaty so should we should refer to that calculation by making it more possible for the russians to violate the treaty than to uphold its commitments. Such as extending the range are adapting them. For instance, we can develop a landbased version of the tomahawk which reason lunch 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 the National Defense authorization act recently voted out of the Armed Services committee includes 65 million for this program. I distance of my democratic colleagues and can offer an amendment on the floor to remove this provision. I welcome actually, i relish this debate on the senate floor. We will see many of the democrats have discovered there in her cold war in the last six month are willing to put their money where their mouth is. Second, authorize 500 million for funding for developing new defense capabilities. To put it bluntly, if russias going to develop a new missile, then we should develop new ways to shoot it down. This would neutralize the advantage russia seeks by violating the inf treaty. Her instance we could speed up our deployment of c 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. So even if we cant build intermediate range missiles, that doesnt mean our allies cannot. It also doesnt mean that we cannot help them. For instance, the polish government has been acquiring air launched Cruise Missiles for some time. I suspect warsaw might be interested in groundlaunchd Cruise Missiles as well. Which i further suspect might make the kremlin less keen on ripping up the inf treaty. Finally, we would present russia a very simple choice, either you observe the inf treaty, or we will not renew our commitments to other treaties. Specifically, the legislation would prohibit further funding are 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 man on russias. The second is the open skies treaty which russia needs more for overhead Imagery Intelligence than we do. If the russians will not keep their inf commitments, why should the United States continue other treaties that benefit them . These proposals are sensible steps consistent with our treaty obligations and measured responses to russian and provocations. For we must remember, russias violations to the inf treaty are not isolated, but rather part of a pattern of provocative behavior. Whether its an extra crimea or meddling in our elections or salting our diplomats in moscow or harboring Edward Snowden or buzzing american ships and aircraft, or giving aid to the taliban, providing the vessels that were used three years ago today to shoot a civilian aircraft down to the sky. Russia has delivered a probing our defenses all around the globe. They are looking for weak spots which is why every provocation must be met with a firm and unyielding response. Put simply, we remain strategic competition with russia, and intermediate range missiles are just one part of the central element of that competition. Military modernization. Russia has engaged at a breakneck pace of modernization under putin as essential we modernize our military. If we hope to maintain overmatched against russia. Perhaps youve heard our Army Generals say nato is outgunned and out range in europe. What theyre talking about are the very Weapon Systems that are banned by the inf treaty. So 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 csis 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, but the world we now inhabit is very different from that world. For one thing its not a to power world anymore. When reagan and gorbachev shook hands over the inf treaty, china was beginning its freemarket reforms, iran was locked in a war of attrition with iraq, neither india nor pakistan was a nuclear power, and just two years before, hard as it may be to believe, north korea had 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 our allies in the asiapacific face an increasingly aggressive china with more than 90 of its Missile Forces falling into the intermediate range. That Pacific Command at our allies lack a single groundbased intermediate range missile to hold Mainland China at risk. This question can be left to another date 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 cheat on inf treaty openly and notoriously. Russia as it always does it is consistently marshaling strategic advantage against the United States through a series of incremental provocations, calculated to operate just below a threshold of retaliation. Deployment in the range Cruise Missile is perhaps the most provocative step as yet because it would eventually allow russia to all our bases, all our troops, and all our allies in eurasia at risk. The time is come to put an end to this. If we cannot compel that they are to return to his den, we can at least lay painful traps in his bath around the world. Thank you all. [applause] thank you, senator. That was a great way to kick us off. I thought it would start with a couple of questions and then open it up to the audience from there. I thought i would really just, first of all, ask because the Trump Administration has an Nuclear Policy and the Missile Defense policy review going on, why shouldnt Congress Just sort of sit back and cant wait until thats all done before canada moving forward with this legislation . First, i think what youd find in the review will be similar to the proposals in our underlying legislation as well as what the house and senate Armed Services committee have included in their version of the National Defense authorization act. Second, these ideas do not come from me. This is a validated requirement that comes from military planners within the department of defense. And third, these reviews are important. They are valid, but we are 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 executivecongressional relation therefore a moment. Last week the white house issued a statement of Administration Policy with respect to the house ndaa, and in terms, the inf Treaty Preservation act provisions were reared in a house ndaa in a couple ways including with respect to the material breach declaration and also in terms of a program which he spoke about. Surprisingly enough the white house opposed those. I wonder if you might speak to that picky think thats going to stick . How do you account for that and you think the Administration Opposition is likely to last . Statement of policy was crafted by obama era bureaucrats at the state defense department. I cannot imagine that when it passes legislation the president will oppose a comfort h. R. Mcmaster would recognize and feet away. I suspect once secretary tillerson and secretary mattis recognize the widespread support for this provision festival likewise reject the recommendations of those obama era bureaucrats. Whenever the program of record versus r d is really talk to me defense planners can dance on the head of a pin. Second, material breach is short of calling russia complete abrogation of the tree. Its an effort to bring russia back into compliance with the treaty. I expect wiser heads will prevail within the admin session. One more question that i open it up. You highlighted the big thorny question of russian politics and the kind of things getting so much attention. And earlier this year you asked an open the Senate Intelligence committee hearing, he asked 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 our Missile Defense. What was the impetus for the question . And is there some reason to believe that russian is involved in that big discussion just as theyve been involved in so many other things . You heard the parable of the scorpion and frog . Go for it. The scorpion as the frog to take across river. The scorpion that have across river the scorpion stings a front end of proxies why did you stingley . Now well the scorpion said because its in my nature. Its in russias nature to use deception, manipulation, subversion and subterfuge. During bob gates memoir he writes at length about the kgb effort to manipulate western Public Opinion in europe and the United States about the very deployments of these intermediate range Cruise Missiles in 1983. There was something money got the mass protest 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. It simply what russia does that remember, rush is a country tht now has a gdp barely of less than 10 of american gdp. Gdp is smaller than california, texas, new york. Smaller than italy actually. Twothirds of 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 marshaling vast resources, and what the call active measure campaigns what we would call propaganda or covert influence is one of the ways russian weather in the soviet era or putin era as long the temperature chief that advantage by molding western opinion and dividing nato countries between themselves. Great. Why dont we opened up to the floor i think. Since this is about modernization, ill turn to andrew to get us started. And for other folks, just wait for the microphone and identify yourself and ask the form of question. Take you for those remarks. You obviously illustrated in your speech and made reference also to Army Leadership comments about the army being arranged, outgunned in europe and increasingly so. Your Senate Armed Service Committee Mark and airlines place when after this, increase modernization for the army. My question is, because theres so many things that you can increase or seek to accelerate in the armies Modernization Program everything pretty much has been at a standstill for some type it 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 general buller, the chief of staff of army makes. We cannot send our sons and daughters today into combat without them being fully prepared trained, equipped. However, modernization is tomorrows readiness. I can look being a mother or father in arkansas in the eye and tell them the army would up with her son or daughter in combat today without being fully prepared, trained, equipped. If a parent of an ageold asked me that im not sure i can 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 weapons or missiles. They are big. They exist in a comprehensive offense. We talked about the 355 ship navy or 100 other the 21 bombers. Thats the thing any kind of lehman can get there had around stealth aircraft and so forth. Army systems are harder to get your hands around. The nature of a Brigade Combat Team is harder for the army, for a layman to get his or her hands around as well. But the point weve made to our colleagues, i know there are some wargames after the some of you probably seen, is that absent much greater and quicker investments in the readiness on front in, modernization in the mediumterm, that will no longer have overmatch against countries like russia in the european theater. And any effort or any kind of major mechanized war on land which in and what he says will never be fighting on, we do fighting on land everywhere, we fighting about land everywhere, would pose serious risks to our soldiers and to our National Security. Its a harder case to make on a layman storms and is for the air force and the navy but its an urgent case to make. Why dont we get a few more . We will start with sydney and keep your hands up and i will get a few more. Hi, sidney freberg from breaking defense. To address both the large and odorous elephant in the room, you have talked about the importance of understanding the russian is a competitor, that they are relentless, that they seek to influence our domestic political debates. But there are lots of signs of this initiation has been dangerously naive on that front, be it collusion in the campaign at a scenic proof of that so far, but being willing to meet with people not realizing the russian intelligence cutouts, being willing to say we can work with these people, or even form a cyber unit. 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 realpolitik that you describe . Some of your comments fall within the scope of our review on the Senate Intelligence committee or director muellers investigations i will leave it to those matters and wont comment further on that. But 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 Dimitri Medvedev that they would have more flexibility to deal with Missile Defenses after election . Was it naivete when Hillary Clinton press the reset button with labrador after the ukraine, as a country be invaded to tell the government of the coach to do nothing provocative to stop the russians . That contest can look at with this administration has done. Put its have a look at some of people have appointed to their high office, whether its a jim mattis or mike pompeo or h. R. Mcmaster to shortly after the bilateral meeting in hamburg. Look at what donald trump campaigned on. Investing more in our defenses come expanding Missile Defenses, accelerating Nuclear Modernization, pumping more american oil and gas. None of those things look very good babysitting in the kremlin. None of those things are supported Hillary Clinton or wee much democrats in the campaign either. Weve struc instruct their maint in syria wrong footing bladder putin showing the cant protect that client. Where started to take a tougher line on iran. Were 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 eight years of the Obama Administration. So i have to dispute the premise of the question that he Trump Administration six months in his been anything other than tougher on russia when it comes to the real world. I see question writer in front. Hi, im hank, worked in ish and then it the Senators Office and i set up the process and laid out the options which led to euro missiles and thus the inf. And later on in 1998 i got to visit a former ss20 base. By the way, there were no us as 20 to put in east europe. They would avoid all across the soviet union. And i got to kick the tires of this replacement, s as 25. 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, the Cruise Missile is [inaudible] transporter. And i never found any evidence that it was nuclear. Do you know that this Cruise Missile is nuclear . In fact, i found opposite views. Side dont want to comment on the intelligence about this particular Weapon System has been widely reported in the western media. I will say, however, that the stabilizing nature of the new mediumrange missiles in europe is not limited to nuclear missiles. Its also the case that any other kind of high explosive warhead could be inherently destabilizing in europe as well. Thats why rush it in its soviet form wanted to eliminate the entire class of weapons, not just simply limit the number of those weapons. Okay, who else . I saw a few more up. Lets start with the front row. Do you think you could just speak a little bit generally on your opinion on the armies current modernization efforts on and if you think that the right focus moving forward or something to think they should be focusing more on . Need to move faster, need to be clear about priorities. A lot, some of those properties as i mentioned in my speech are currently prohibited by treaty obligation but we need to be prepared to move quickly should entry to become obsolete in the meantime we should everything we can within the context of our obligations internationally to increase the lethality and survivability of all of our landbased systems, whether thats active armor systems or increasing the size of canada would have you. In addition we simply need to expand the instinct 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. When professor be going around the treaty and ignoring the principle of it . Vladimir putin is violating the letter of its of someone accuses the u. S. Of filing the spirit im not such of the concerned about it. Real quick, would it be possible or a better step to possibly renegotiate the treaty given that it is 30 years old and time to change at this point . We should certainly not renegotiate a tree from the position of weakness where our only counterpart in the treaty is violating the treaty and, therefore, dictate the terms and want to impose on us. Thats why the right posture next to the greater pressure on russia to come back into compliance with the treaty. Should they not do that then we should not remain in a tree whn we become literally the only country on earth [inaudible] i saw one over here, right here and then won on the back. We will start here. Senator cotton, break with political. You referenced in your speech the fact 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 the United States should be taking to respond to the threat of chinese Cruise Missiles that come outside of leaving the treaty . Its difficult for the United States to fault a nation thats not committed by treaty for developing Weapons Systems that would be banned by that treaty. What the United States should be doing do is taking a much firmer line with china in all manners of interactions. To put more pressure on china to stop its aggressive behavior in the asiapacific. So north korea is in headlines a lot today. Theres still that scope of pressure we can bring to bear on china, that if they dont help us with the north korea problem more, they will feel some pain. We should be much more active in the South China Sea to make it clear that were going to work with the other nations and our allies to prevent child from militarizing it and dominating it. The ndaa also includes several measures designed to bolster taiwans defenses or to push back on chinas campaign of International Isolation against taiwan. If it passes as it is written on the committee, the ndaa would probably be the most protaiwan piece of legislation since the taiwan relations act. Those are just examples of things we can do to take a firmer hand with china, which we certainly should do. Okay, right in the back. Voice of america georgia. Send a come in 2008 nato, there is a promise made georgia and ukraine when they would become nato members. A lot has changed since then, 20 of georgia still occupied and crime he is an expert do you see its plausible to the anytime soon nato extend in Eastern Europe . And followup question would be are you worried about russias attempt to destabilize the region and to bolster at the american antiwestern attitudes, especially in its neighborhood . Well, at the moment its not obvious that path that georgia and ukraine have taken to native while they still of Russian Troops on their soil. Our immediate objective should be to bring pressure to bear on russian that they leave those lands, that they get back crimea to ukraine and leave Eastern Ukraine and northern georgia. Secretary tillersons, at a bilateral meeting in hamburg was very clear that the sanction we can put in place on russia relatively tepid and ineffective though they been will remain in place as lawyers there are Russian Troops and russian backed rebels on ukrainian soaker the second part of your question, of course russia tried to destabilize and divide the west. Again thats what theyve been doing for decades, not just in soviet era but in the putin era as well which i can suggest have a lot more historical continuity and discontinuity between them. They did it 1983 when he helped fund those massive protests against the deployment of inf forces to your. They are doing it today in elections in western europe and our election here. They are doing it to snap military exercises, or increasingly bellicose. This is something that russia does and its why we have to meet these kind of provocations with a ferment unyielding response. Who else. I see one and a front and one in the middle. Sir, max muller, state department. You mentioned possibly dropping the inf, if thats in u. S. Interest d. C. It possible to limit the inf and pretty much started her arms race in europe . And also reassure allies not create additional like factionalism . What was the last part . Do you see it possible to eliminate the inf and also reassure our allies and not create additional fraction listen in nato . So currently the inf is bridged by russian one situation we cannot tolerate is at russia remains a violation three to while states remain the only country in the United States that reference of building a potent weapons system. Several generals have testified in congress that they see no reason to believe congress will come back into compliance picket the current state of affairs remains the same i agree. Thats why my legislation is designed to put pressure on russia to come back into compliance. If they do not, or even if given the shifting nature of competition we set its own interest or longer be part of that treaty, then yes, we should withdraw. We havent reached that point yet bu but i suspect we will sor rather than later. As for the european divide with the europeans always divided to a degree. They are defined in part because the russians used subterfuge, inception and there some european caution strongly oppose president carter and president reagans decision to deport inf forces in the late 70s and early 1980s but it turned out very whether there are other European Countries that sean supported it. Its a matter of u. S. Come it so use diplomacy to try to maintain political unity among our nato allies when confronted with such series threats as russia deploying once again Cruise Missiles that can strike all of europe. I saw the gentleman in the middle. 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 it incorrect . On a specific points i make it my legislation were talking about different spin 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, wes were talking about tens of billions of dollars in the longterm, hundreds of billions of dollars right now over the coming decades. I would argue very simply that our defense spending is not what drives our deficits. Its that what drives our longterm debt. If anything, it helps control longterm debt because it ensures the safety in the security of american interests around the world. We are a global power with Global Trading interest, therefore, we have a keen interest in global order. And our defense spending has never been a driver of our deficit. It actually in the longterm Health Control it, keeping peace and stability around the world to keep our economy growing and healthy and by the depredations of a general war. What really drives our deficits or longterm programs as well as weak Economic Growth over the last ten years. So we can attack that from the growth cyber tried to get our economy growing at a faster pace, more people back to work. In the long correct address the solvency of our healthcare and retirement programs. Those provide an important social safety net but theyre also rapidly running out of money in the nearterm come in the next eight to 12 years years or so. Ultimately our Defense Budget is that what drives our debt and, in fact, anytime you try to balance the budget on the backs of defense you spend more because you evidence catch up with you the jet to invest in a crash course of investing capabilities that have weathered. So you left off therewith, the question of addresses getting closer to her capabilities. In your remarks to talk about the problem of overmatch. Let me connect a couple of the things here, part the provision of your bill that calls for more missiledefense including cruise Missile Defense against both inf noncompliance Cruise Missiles and others as well you can also kind of you may say theater Missile Defense for europe. Let me kind of connect that with the others i do, thats modernization the army is other with his multidomain battle think what seems to to be a lot about kind of bring you the army of in more agile way to near peer threats. And yet ou air and missile defes are in many ways by a lack of modernization for many years. Do you want to speak to that about what we need to get from moving from the patriot, something capable of handling these things . Is an important challenge, the army often goes to the cycles where if things were going to get to fight a war the way we like to fight it or will be able to dictate the terms of which the wars fought, our enemies are seen 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 focus on heavy mechanized warfare, its competitors. Didnt do much uncut exigency. Something the army had learned to do back in the vietnam era. Obviously went to rapidly shift in the middle part of the last decade learning more about how to do Counter Insurgency effectively and we get it pretty effectively in iraq and afghanistan especially during the surge air of both of those worse. However we have now been 16 years in which we dont have an adversary with air power, which with complete air dominance. Its understandable that Army Commanders fighting a war where you have ever dominance against guerrillas and insurgents would oftentimes be neglecting combined air defense the plants would be neglecting investment in those capabilities. But as weve seen just in the last eight years, especially the last 16 years, how rapidly the threat of firemen has shifted as china and russia both have increased the pace of military modernization, especially the pace of military modernization design to keep us from ever fighting a war like we fought against iraq in the 1991 picks it is a really urgent priorities at the army needs to address and Congress Needs to provide the money for them to address. Who else . Writer in the front. The army identified the need for 360 degrees sensor for Cruise Missile, news things all the Cruise Missile back in 1993. A quartercentury ago and we still have it. My question is, should the United States consider adding at the country to the imf treaty in order to prevent russia from establishing for lack of a better term proxies to develop their landbased missiles . The first prerequisite for any future of the inf treaty for russia to come into prompt and verifiable compliance. Should that happen then you put latin putin of russia back in the position at a mention in my speech, that there surrounded by coaches at the can build a striking russian territory with air mediumrange missiles, and can might have an interest in that scenario working with the United States and this country is on its periphery to add other countries to the inf treaty. Do i think that is probable . No. But the immediate prerequisite for any kind of future multilateral inf treaty is for russia to come back into compliance with the treaty. Okay, we have time for probably two more and take a quick break before the panel, so who else . One up here. Sort of going back to the budget issue, do you have an opinion on congressman thoren varies reform effort with moving lots of money into base budget and breaking caps . Is a concern at all the budget control act must be repealed. It was passed as congress is rushing out of town in the summer of 2011 to increase the debt ceiling can get onto the august recess. It was designed to constrain spending it did briefly for a couple of years although i to say its probably as much to do with the new Republican Congress after trillion dollar deficit and the early obama era that was a Budget Control Act Congress has proven itself though im capable of adhering to the budget control act caps. And 2013 we had a continuing resolution in september, to your budget in the fall come an omnibus into some and another on the best in december 2014. Thats exactly what happened in 2015 and 2016. Today its the middle of july. Looks like were heading towards a continuing resolution in september, some kind of to your budget deal in the fall it doesnt constrain spending, and omnibus spending bill in december at another on the spending bill in 2018. And we will top off that issue with the same to your scenario playing out in 2019 and 2020. The budget control act is not the constitution and the 112th congress was not the constitutional convention. We should simply repealed outright and congress should do its job and set priorities with taxpayer dollars on a yeartoyear basis. And if the republican party, the party thats always stood for strong National Defense and an abundant with the budget control act has been repealed cant invest more and 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 the cycle of crs to the repeal, whats it going to take . 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 they know the history i just like to have no recent believe that w were magically going to adhere to those caps and the democrats are going to willingly agree to reduce domestic spending and shift that money into defense spending when they have the status go working in the favor, which is draconian budget cuts on a 5050 basis into the Defense Budget which only counts for 20 is federal spending. The democrats would like to see it repealed as well because they want to have more spending on the part of us like housing and urban development and commerce and so on and so forth. I think you have the votes in the senat senate and i think wie work and the administrations support you could get the votes in the house as well. Just because you repeal of the budget control act is an spending will go up. I know the Congressional Budget Office might say spending goes up when you repeal the budget control act, but the Congressional Budget Office is a lot of things that just arent so. Just like every year we worried 17 years for paying for the doc fix which were reductions in the rates of reimbursement to doctors using medicare. Every year we cant wait to push those off and th it finally went off the bandaid. We should do the same thing with the budget control act here because we know that those acrosstheboard cuts are not going to go into effect and theres a reason i think the one of 15 congress will be any different from 114 for the 113th. One last question and well take it right over here. Thank you. Nicole with the washington times. I am just curious what kind of timeline specifically you see for Going Forward with this with bring russia into compliance or otherwise eliminating the treaty are considering other options before with some kind of disaster on our hands . Specifically, what might the consequences be if we dont move forward with this quickly . Deprivations at the National Defense authorization act which have supported both republicans and democrats would be enacted in law later this year that bill was passed of year for the last 50 years. Those no reason to think it will not pass this year or those provision wont survive. On that type from your talk that of months not years. I would encourage the administration to take every action he 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 head in the sand and pretend russia doesnt have the system because they dont want to face the consequences of making that announcement. I encourage those European Partners to face reality, pretending russia does have a Cruise Missile that can strike their territory especially if its base of leningrad is not going to limit the threat to their citizens. As is always the case bad news doesnt get better with time so we should all face up to the challenge that this Missile System poses to us, take the steps necessary to bring russia back in compliance or steps necessary to counteract and defeat it up threat. Senator cohen thank you for coming out today and thank you for your leadership on these issues. Please join me in welcoming