Treat, not one but two part discussion on u. S. Missile defense policy. Part one will be the gentleman sitting next to me, right, center to tom khan from arkansas. Part two after his keynote address as well as q a session will be what hope is a lively debate on Missile Defense with Joseph Cirincione and rebeccah heinrichs. Im going to keep my remarks prebrief doesnt want to spend as much time with senator cotton as possible. It goes without saying that washington is faced with severe challenges when it comes to missiles and the proliferation of missiles throughout the world. Obviously north korea is very much in the news to get the departments of it short, medium and longrange Ballistic Missiles and the ability at some point his homeland. Senator cotton has been the forefront of advocating for a robust Missile Defense strategy. His remarks will be around 20 minutes or so. After that will open the floor to questions for about 25 minutes. Please keep in mind during the q a to state your name and affiliation as we are very much on the record as you can see by the different cameras. As time is limited please keep your question as compact and precise as possible. With that, senator cotton, the floor is yours. Thank you all for joining us today to discuss this very important topic. The defense of the homeland is the most basic premise of american grand strategy and it has been before this country was founded. If you read the bill of particulars in the declaration of independence you will see one of the complaints was that the king was not protecting american citizens from attacks on her own land. Theres been a consistent theme since the founding and the revolution war and american strategic discussions, whether its the sacking of washington and the burning of the white house during the war of 1812, the premise of the munro doctrine that we would let powers of the old world have a saline into the new world for which they could threaten the homeland. The cuban missile crisis was resolved in part by the u. S. Making commitment that we would not attack cuba again absent the deployment of offense of weapons capable of striking our homeland, and after the 9 11 attacks the world saw the kind response the American People demand with our citizens are attacked on our own soil. Its also one reason why we have all those Forward Deployed basis in places like europe and the middle east and east asia on the eurasian redlined tickets to assure our allies and help defend them more than anything its forward defense for the United States and our citizens and our territories so that if anyone is going to be fought its going to be fought at an away game on our enemies turn. Not a home game on our trip if thats what Missile Defense is a musthave our military. Its only becoming more so in the future because our rivals are continuing to advance their ballistic and Cruise Missile technology. I divide the threats we face into shortterm and longterm. Shortterm threats north korea, longerterm threat to countries like iran, russia and china as they develop and deploy more advanced systems. As a preview there are four things we need to do to counteract these threats. First and most self is to increase our defense spending the second is to spend some of that additional money on integrated layered ballistic Missile Defense systems. Third is to help our allies develop their own missileDefense Systems, and fourth is to reconsider and reevaluate the Intermediaterange Nuclear forces treaty. First, let me turn to the threats that we face. First, and most immediate, north korea. Asked secretary mattis said recently in testament to Congress North korea is the most urgent and dangerous threat to peace and security that we face. This year alone north korea has been testfiring two or three short and mediumrange Ballistic Missiles per month. They are working on submarine launched Ballistic Missile technology as well. Everyone agrees its only a matter of time before the North Koreans and flight test an intercontinental Ballistic Missile capable of hitting not just white or alaska but noticed its main lender as president obama warned president elect trump during the transition that with good was the most urgent crisis he might face. I should hasten to add even if north korea struggles to miniaturize its nuclear technology, their attack in the water lepore import remind the world they a vast stores of chemical and biological weapons which can be delivered by Missile Technology. One must we buy the reliability of north Koreas Nuclear command and control systems. They are developing for instance, road mobile evidentiary submarine launched Ballistic Missiles. One must wonder whether or not those commanders will have will be under the full control of north koreas National Leadership in a crisis. Second, iran. Since the joint conference a plan of action beside iran is tested Ballistic Missiles on at least 14 different occasions. The irgc five Ballistic Missiles into eastern city last week in an attempt to strike isis targets. I would suggest are tied to send a signal to both the United States and israel. Moreover, there are reports that iran is supporting elastic Missile Technology development in yemen to the proxies the houthis. Finally by the time i ran nuclear deal requirement sunset i would suggest that to have Reliable Delivery systems for any Nuclear Weapons program. Third, a country that sometimes escapes notice is pakistan. One cannot discount the possibility that one of pakistans over 100 Nuclear Weapons might fall out of the country come out of that governments controlled potential into dance of extremists. And, of course, a loose Nuclear Weapons in the hands of a test group is exactly the kind of threat Ballistic Missile systems is designed to stop. Next is russia. As i do when here is well aware, the russians to make in the Worlds Largest inventory of Nuclear Warheads. Russia is also tested and deployed a groundlaunchd Cruise Missiles that violates the Intermediaterange Nuclear forces treaty. The vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff testified this year to congress that the russians have quote violated the spirit and intent of the inf treaty and to do not intend to return to compliance. He also said quote the system itself present a risk to most of our facilities in europe. In other words, russia is violating treaty from which they receive greater benefit to the United States and, therefore, need more without paying any consequences. China, the pla navy has for ssb is giving beijing a credible sea bass nuclear deterrent. China also is not a member to the inf treaty. Therefore they have developed a number of dual use missile varies in a 500five and 50 km range that contribute to the at the access areal denial strategy. In east asia. Moreover, both russia and china are blurring the separation between nuclear and conventional weapons use. Some may say ballistic Missile Defenses are provocative to our adversaries because it could stir the balance of deterrence. But i would say the balance is already being disturbed by these technological advances as well as these blurred doctrinal lines. Russia sees it a weapons a limited nuclear use against conventional military targets as a way to escalate, to deescalate in their terms, to end the conventional conflict on favorable terms for russia. China likewise is beginning to rethink its no first use doctrine which can occur a of course at any point of to the decision to use a Nuclear Weapons in a crisis. Chinese military journals discuss the use of Nuclear Weapons as a highlevel component of and at the access areal denial strategy in the western pacific. With regard to china also must note that we have to deal with the fact the size and the quality of its Nuclear Forces remain largely a mystery to us as a little transparency on what Nuclear Weapons they may have produced and whether and how they are concealed. Deterring what we dont know about of course is a very difficult task. If our adversaries are contemplating use of Nuclear Forces as part of normal warfare, and i would suggest we woulbe best advised to develop ballistic Missile Defenses instead of clinging to a deterrence framework that theyve already discarded. So what do we do about all these threats likes first as i said the most fundamental decision we have is increasing our Defense Budget. With that comes the requirement of repealing the budget control act. The budget control act was passed in 2011 in a very different world than we face now. Congress has repeatedly made it clear that they cannot abide by those limits. After spending caps we need to affect briefly in 2013 Congress Passed a twoyear budget followed by anonymous follow by and an under this. Congress did not in 2015. If congress doesnt act to repeal the budget control act i predict well see a continuing resolution in september, another to your budget in the fall, another omnibus this december, another omnibus in december 2018 and we will repeat that cycle once again between 192020 face. It will mean not Wise Investments because her minister will not have the kind of longterm stability and predictability they need. Only 47 senators were in office in 2011 to vote for that bill. The 112th congress was not the Constitutional Convention to the budget control act is not the constitution. The budget control act must be repealed. How should we spend that money . We have a lot of needs, a lot of conventional needs, a lot of needs to modernize our Nuclear Forces. But the threats that we face also required that we accelerate the deployment of integrated and layered ballistic Missile Defense systems. That incorporate forwardbased assets with space sensors and groundbased interceptors in the United States and begin to explore Airborne Systems as well. In the short term we need to be able to stop the limited icbm attack threat from states like north korea and potentially iran. Over the long term though i would suggest we need to be able to stop an attack from near peer adversaries as well. I was pleased to see the Missile Defense agencies successful groundbased interceptor test last month that destroyed an incoming missile from the pacific. Were not on track to have 44 groundbased interceptors deployed by the end of the year. To accelerate our ballistic Missile Defense progress, ayes spotted the advancing american Missile Defense act along with senator sullivan, senator cruz, senator booker, ended a mansion, Bipartisan Group of simpson recognize the threats that we face, some of whom own citizens face it the most gratefully. This legislation will authorize another 20 groundbased interceptors that would excedrin the development and deployment of advanced interceptor technologies as well as the development and deployment of a spacebased sensor layer. It will also exert the Environment Impact statement for our interceptor site on the east coast as well as one in the midwest of the United States. And it would require that dod report on the possibility of up to 100 groundbased interceptors distributed across the United States and asked for the specifics about optimal locations and the possibilities of transportable groundbased interceptors. In addition i think the Missile Defense agency should rapidly develop and demonstrate an airborne Unmanned Aerial Vehicle boostphase intercept capability. The concept would be to involve, would involve High Altitude long endurance uavs equipped with laser payloads loitering for days at a time rotations would be managed by a ground crew. Why would we do this . Intercepting and this will in the boost phase before ags midcourse is the holy grail of ballistic Missile Defense. Because the missile is moving slower, therefore easier to track and it is still intact. No decoys or debris are deployed. Also of course is over its enemy, the enemy territory, not over our territory. All these things combined make it increase the problem of an intercept and the impact of an intercept. The concept is of course challenging, mainly due to technology. However the technology is rapidly advancing. I believe with more investment and exploration it is a feasible concepts. Third, we need to encourage our allies to deploy their own ballistic Missile Defense systems. Forward deployed u. S. Missile defense assistance and allied ballistic Missile Defense information sharing supports our goals of protecting the homeland, extended deterrence and assurance of our allies. The United States has deployed 2000 launchers to south korea but the new south korean government has delayed the default of four additional systems in an attempt to appease china in intimidation of south korea. The japanese are currently debating whether to deploy either the thaad system for the aegis sure system. We should encourage them just as we should encourage our allies in the middle east, United Arab Emirates have purchased a thaad system. The United States has approved for sale to qatar and saudi arabia thaad system as well all to from a renter in europe t has been one year since nato deployed aegis sure to romania. Instruction is underway on a polish aegis to shore site and for ages capable aegis destroyers or color based in spain. All of these developments plus more that could be on the way will help develop or help create the kind of layered theater system that our troops and nationals as well as our allies and their citizens need. Fourth and final, i suggest its time to read i wait the Nuclear Forces treaty. It rush is going to test and deploy intermediate range Cruise Missiles, then logic dictates that we must respond. After all, as i said, russia benefits more from the inf treaty then does the United States. Unless we believe that canada or mexico are going to develop intermediate range missiles anytime soon or that we would allow them to be deployed to cuba. None of which i would imagine what happened. Yet i rush is violated with impunity a treaty from which they benefit more than do we. Its obvious that pleading with Vladimir Putin regime to uphold its treaty obligations and stop brought russia back into compliance nor is it likely to do so. Therefore strengthening our deterrence and are specifically our Ballistic Missile deterrent in russia. Pacific commander testified we should take a look at renegotiating the treaty because it has become his words, a unilateral limitation on us. Since the United States and rush are the only two nations who are a party to a treaty russia violating it, the United States is the only country on earth that is not at least exploring if not developing and actively deploying cruise and Ballistic Missiles in the range of 5005500 kilometers. Thats i propose intermediate range forces Treaty Preservation act, all aimed at taking steps that are permissible within the inf treaty but also to pressure iran, russia to come into compliance. The legislation would establish a program of record for a dual capable road mobile ground launch Missile System with inf ranges and facilitate the transfer of inf ranges system to allied countries. In the late 1970s and early 1980s under jimmy carter and Ronald Reagan the United States successfully use such a dual track approach to bring the soviet union to the inf negotiating table. The legislation would