in publishing with book tv podcast about books. with current nonfiction book releases, plus bestseller lists, as well as industry news and trends through insider interviews. you can find about books on c-span now, our free mobile app. or where we get your podcasts. >> american history tv, saturdays on c-span two. exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 4:15 pm eastern, the 65th anniversary of the department of justice civil rights division, created by the civil rights act of 1957. the celebration focuses on the work of the division for the decades. it honestly contributions of leaders, staff, and alumni. and a pm eastern on lectures in history, university of california history professor

kathryn old stat on how the red scare involved into a wide-ranging conspiracy theory on the rise of communism in the united states in the s a 1950s. exploring the american sto watch american history tv saturdays on c-span two. also find a full schedule on your program guide, or watch online anytime at c-span.org slash history. >> adam smith is a top democrat on the house arms service committee. he talked about international threats that he labeled cringe, which stands for china, russia, iran, north korea, and global extremism. his remarks were part of a conversation on u.s. defense policy. in washington d.c.. it is just over an hour and is enacted by protesters with the anti war group code pink.

>> good afternoon and welcome -- as is melanie, we are honored and privileged to have the honorable adam smith in the state of washington to join us and discuss the defense policies. let's give a brief word of introductions. we will hear from congressman and his thoughts to open it up.

we look forward to you joining us with your questions in the last 20 minutes or so over the next hour. i think many of you know that congressman smith was chairman for the past four years, spanning two presidencies, two national defense strategies, and not going around around the world. he's also now a member of congress with 26 years running in the state of washington, ninth district. before joining congress, he was the youngest state senator in the country. before that, he was living and demonstrating if you read his bile. -- went to law school and a lot of important work, really holding two jobs at the same time. one of them in my office, before showing the house of representatives after 1996

elections. he's worked on the foreign affairs committee, and intelligence. and had a number of jobs in the house armed services committee. where i trust congress when will you'll be remaining as the ranking member, i don't even know that for effect. >> that's set now. the house improve that. >> excellent. >> with that news, please join me in welcoming congressman smith. [applause] >> i appreciate that, i'm looking forward to the discussion. very, very interesting. we have a fairly coherent national security strategy at this point. the implementation will be the challenge. i think we have to start with, what is it we're trying to accomplish? what do we want in terms of u.s. national security, what we want in the world? what we want has become a cliché at this point, a rules based international order. we want a system that maximizes economic and political freedom, and that sets up a system to resolve our disappearances,

peacefully. through international institutions. there's a lot of stuff below that, but that's the big picture. from a national security perspective, we have to ask ourselves, what are the threats to that? for that order, and to our internal security here in the u.s.. that threat environment is fairly well understood, and has been for a while. we know it's evolving and growing in some ways. that's china, russia, iran, north korea and global extremism. transnational terrorist groups. i've done this joke before panels before, we came up with an acronym from that. cringe. china, russia, iran north korea and global extremism. credit to baron young smith of the house staffer came up with that. that's what we're looking at. and that group threatens us. a lot of times, people want to get into questions, which ones greater? how do you rank them? what order? and that is important in a sense of how do we deter each of those threats individually and figure them out, overall, i think it's important to

understand one thing all those folks have in common, they want to blow up that international order, they want us out. down. wherever you are in the world, china wants us out of asia, iran wants us out of the middle east, russia wants us out of eastern europe. and north korea also wants us out of asia. the transnational terrorist groups want us out and gone, period. they want to reduce our influence and push out. we are a threat to their autocratic ambitions. that's the threat environment that we have to be aware of. how do we meet those challenges? deterrence is going to be incredibly important part of that. we need to have a military that is strong enough to convince all of those groups, they're better off not attacking us or our allies. so, that's certainly an important part of it. more important part of it to my mind, the partnerships. building the alliances globally and regionally that are

necessary so we can work together with our allies and partners. to achieve that end. the other important piece of it is, even as i list those threats groups, when you have -- and to some degree, russia. our other goals to get to the point, we're not in conflict, we don't want conflict. china and russia are both going to be major, global powers going forward. that's not going to change. we just want to make sure their inter global powers that are not threatening everybody else. that's we want to work with. while we're figuring out, and this new china special committee that's been created, i think that's gonna be one of their big challenges. we're not in a direct confrontation with china. we are strategic competitors, as i believe the name of the committee implies. how do we work through that? >> that's the overall environment. i would say two more things before we get into the q&a here. what's the biggest threat to

our ability to achieve that? first of all, it's two things, one, we have to sell that narrative. i just said, it to three minutes whatever it was, it in my head. most americans still ask questions like, what do we care what happens in north korea? why do we care what china does with taiwan? why are we so involved and invested in conflicts across the world? we have to do a better job of making that case and giving that narrative to the american people, so they support those efforts. and understanding within a lot of contexts, which i'm sure will come out in question and answer period. so, that's a big thing. the second big threat to it, we have to maintain our own representative government here at home. the threats that have happened to undermine u.s. democracy are real. and the rest the world sees it. by now they're saying, we are promoting war, economic and political freedom. i heard some people after what happened in brazil a couple of days ago said, sadly, one of

the things the u.s. is boarding now's election denialism. that's a problem. it's a big problem, certainly domestically. if you want to maintain a representative form of government. it's also a problem internationally. if you're running around the world trying to work with our partners and talk to them about how we need to achieve political freedom and economic freedom. and we seem to be questioning it at home. knock on wood, the last election move just in the right direction. i always like to quote liz cheney at this point, who after the election said, it was a victory for team normal. i think that's exactly the summit up. it wasn't all democrats. that's not what it's about. or a lot of republicans who won two. by and large, the hard-core election denying insurrectionists lost. in many instances, they did not lose by as much as most of us would've liked, but one of my favorite expressions is, looks like a aligned driving the box score. we won. that's the most important thing. we move that in the right

direction. the last point, is a pentagon point. many folks have been writing about in terms of the policy we need to implement to put us in the best position to have that adequate deterrence with the defense department. we've really got to update the military to the modern fight. the modern fight is information systems, first of all. so crucial. information systems, missiles, drones, missile defense and counter drones. we have got to get better at those five things. the large platforms, still have a place. but they're not as normal as they used to be. the lessons that we're learning from the fight in the ukraine and need to be applied. and we are grinding our way in that direction. i'm disappointed in the last two years, we have not been able to mothball more existing weapon systems. that we blocked the pentagon, in my mind, into many places. in terms of getting rid of

cruisers in elsie s's and be ones enough 20 twos and c-130's in a whole bunch of other things. mike rogers, incoming chairman of the committee and i are on one mind of this. we work together, we've got to be able to make sure that we're spending money where we need to spend it for the modern fight that we're now facing. we've got a lot of work to the on that. obviously, whole bunch more going on. i want to get into question and answer and dive into those details. >> congressman, that was a fantastic framing. i think we -- >> the framing was not actually fantastic. right now, the two real security threats to the world or nuclear war in the climate crisis. and unfortunately, congressman, the way that both the democrats and republicans have been pushing us. in this war in ukraine, where we definitely condemn russia, but we need negotiations, if we keep pouring millions and millions of dollars into this war, we're taking us to the brink of a nuclear war. let's listen to the chair of

the joint chief of staff, mark milley, who said, seize the moment, go for negotiations. raise your hand here if you like to see negotiations. instead of a nuclear war. none of you. come on, there's gotta be someone. >> i'll take that as the first question, i think it's a good point. >> i was asking the audience, actually. i know, you're good cheer for the iraq war and for other wars. you know, really have a lot of illegitimacy when it comes to using diplomacy, not war. i think, let's just put it in the context. >> so, you don't hear any sort of discussion. >> yeah, i just want to end my point here. which is to say, it's a shame that 30 democrats who signed a letter to biden calling for negotiations were so pilloried by people like you in the democratic party. >> i didn't pillory them at all. >> their letter at the 24 hours. the democrats have to get back on board of calling for negotiations. and not leave that to the extreme right of the republican

party. like marjorie taylor greene. they should not be the ones with the rational voice and all of this. calling for negotiations. democrats have to step forward, have to put the pressure on the biden administration. and say we need negotiations not more war. >> the real security is the climate crisis, better getting people housed. and not focusing on weapons. we need billion dollars going to war. we need social services. >> well, actually, i think it's worth having that discussion, and i will say that i met with the chairman of the joint chief of staff this morning, you will not be surprised that he doesn't actually agree with that. the notion that we need to get to a peaceful resolution in ukraine, we can absolutely agree with. but there's one reason why we don't have a peaceful resolution in ukraine, that is because russia doesn't want one. russia continues to bomb an attack. i think, presenting arguments

like that, simply adds fuel to putin's fire. and gives russia the blank check to go ahead and continue to commit the war crimes they're committing in ukraine. we want to get a peaceful resolution, russia does not. so, step one in that, making russia no they can't succeed. putin has shown, he'll kill us many people as he has to. if he thinks of for one minute he can take over ukraine. what we are doing, in defending and supporting the ukrainian people, is the best thing we can do to get to a peaceful outcome. the peaceful outcome that they claim they want. just letting putin roll over ukraine and bomb it into oblivion and then move on to the next country? that's not gonna bring about peace. >> thank you. and thank you for your example or way of handling contentious situations. >> i guess you've seen worse. >> i have. >> i want to follow up on the national defense strategy's. also, pick up where you left off in your opening comments about some of the technologies

that you'd like to see us emphasize more. you gave a good list, which is a little bit different than the sort of clichéd hackneyed list we often hear people a spouse. however valid it may be. a, i hypersonic weapons, et cetera. you got a little bit more specific. i wondered if you wanted to just add any more thoughts on what kind of change to the u.s. military you'd like to see, by 2030. any additional examples of where these 2018 in 2022 national defense strategies can be implemented to achieve the defense of the rules based order and prepare for greater deterrence, better deterrence, of russia and china? the way you emphasized we must? >> you talked about cyber, you talked about robotics, you talked about a number of other things. how would you like to see those implemented? what kind of alternative combat structures, or kind of alternative deployments around the world. i'm not asking for a comprehensive answer. but a couple more examples. >> no, i think it starts with,

we have to create a pentagon that better implements innovative technologies. i think that's where it starts. all that stuff that you're talking about, is very specific point in very specific answers. the biggest impediment to it, and i seized upon this in the summary from an article in foreign affairs magazine six months ago, maybe longer now. basically, it said, the pentagon right now is set up to run like a 1950s car company. when it needs to be set up to be run by a 2022 technology company. like an apple, or a google. that encourages more creativity. and a whole bunch of layers there. that one would have to go down into. you think about the fact that in the 1950s car company, we're pretty much doing the same thing every day. we just need to do it as efficiently and as quickly as possible. you put that ball there, put that thing there, then we have the quad at the end of the. whereas, in an in -- economy, such a rapid pace of

change. how do you identify new technologies, how do you encourage those new technologies? how do you implement them, how do you make that change? the pentagon is a slew moving your coffee. idea>> the gru is actually a pry good example of this. ash carter said it up, very good idea. to make investments into new technologies, but it's already. you get an idea for something that's going to solve a defense problem. you can get some money out of the gru to do that. that's great. but then we get to the point where it's like, wow. okay, what you've developed, this is great, we want to buy this. we want to use this. well, we got away for two years. because of the whole, we don't have the right color of money here. we can't buy it we got gotta go through a permit process. we lose that innovative technology. because in the rapid, fast moving innovative technology world, they don't have to use to wait before you buy the product. also, do we encourage creativity within those people who work at the pentagon? are they rewarded for going,

you know what, i'm supposed to do it this way. but i think it would be if you did this we get there quicker we solve the problem. right now, you are not encouraged to think that way. you're encouraged to go, okay, here's the list. i have this standard joke that i make about this that i wish i could be like thinnest for one second, snap my fingers and make half of the requirements of the pentagon go away. i don't care which half. let's just start there, and free up more people to make creative decisions. that's not exactly what you're looking for in that, that is the most important answer. look, we've got, when you get into a fight, like is happening in ukraine, the creativity kicks in. iran start sending those drones over, instantaneously, everyone's like how do we take things down? they are not doing an rfp, they're not doing a program of record, they're not going, you know, if it turns out that a shotgun can take these things down, we're gonna go by 1000 shot guns were gonna go do it. that's the type of creativity that need to be in there on a

regular basis. to your point, in terms of systems, it does come down to obviously, we need more missiles. and we need more missile defense systems. there's nothing terribly sophisticated about that. we just a to make them. and it does get sophisticated terms of make them better. if you had a better missile that's hard to shoot down, a need to make more of those. the enemy has a better missile to shoot down, in need to make something that's better at shooting it. that's where the innovation is. it a transformation from masking a lot of firepower in one place to distributing that and increasing the legality in that way. that changes a lot of things, it doesn't mean that we don't need aircraft carriers, we don't need f-35s. we might need fewer of them. they might not be as necessary in as many places. we need to start thinking in those terms. one final thing, as i was talking about the narrative, the protesters in the state

that they made, one of the things they have to deal with in the narrative. for the last 20 years, the u.s. has been engaged in a lot of fights. afghanistan, iraq, we used to refer to as the global war on terror, the decisions that were made in all those things, weren't all outstanding. and we kind of have to own that. i'm always for a humble confidence, if you will. which is to say, we acknowledge our mistakes, we're not coming at this as you are with us or against us. america first. or we know better, with the best, most exceptional country in the world, therefore, if you do what we say. i think we can all sort of put that to bed. we all make mistakes. we all have strengths and weaknesses, let's acknowledge those, let's work in a partnership to build a better world. and uncooperative way. i think it's really important, because the partnerships that we're gonna need to build, in the middle east, in asia and have traveled all over the world last year, meeting with a bunch of countries, we go to a country and say, we don't want you to do business with china.

here's what china is going to, do global. they're gonna be like, okay, but, we've got a live in this neighborhood. how do we work with you and with them? as a whole things a bunch of things we need to do, to be a little bit more humble about the approach we take to playing the role in the world, that i still believe u.s., we absolutely have to play that role. a lot of people look at some of those mistakes in the last 20 years and say, let's go back into the shell. can't do that. the world will not be better off if we do, that we certainly will not be better off of do that. we have to do it in a more intelligent, as i say, more humble way. >> so, thank you. a lot of thoughtful approaches to strategy there. i wanted to ask, how we're going to pay for the innovation and the new capabilities, if we have to tighten belts more? -- reflecting back on your chairmanship in your previous service, you've been very interesting to watch on the

physical front. because, notwithstanding what was said earlier, you never want to just throw money at the pentagon, you've always been cognizant of a need for fiscal responsibility. you've had a real eye on american domestic needs. so, for all those reasons, and because now the shift in power in congress there's a distinct possibility we won't keep seeing these big increases in the defense budget. i guess my question is twofold, one, why did you go along with the budget increases in recent years? which are even more typically than president biden requested? but to, if we had to tighten belts, is the kind of list of economies that you mentioned earlier, where we should look, in other words, you mentioned older systems, we should retire? or do have any more radical ideas, for example, certain kinds of weapons or altogether unnecessary. it sounds like want to keep some aircraft carriers, some f-35s at sarah. i wondered, if you had any other reforms or economist at the list that you already mentioned. >> i would say, the biggest one off the top, let's get rid of

the systems that the pentagon wants to get rid of. that is the continuous fight that we have with the systems that i listed earlier. you can save a lot of money if we get rid of those systems. i think you could absolutely do that. then also, those basic procurement reforms that i described, taking a problem solving approach instead of a requirements. program of record approach could save an enormous amount of money. overall, i think the approach should be, you know, let's look at the budget we have. and then what we need to do. and look at it from a cost effective manner. i think part of the problem, and the biggest argument that i make, essentially, over the last four years, all address your issue on how evo did on this budgets in a second, if you look at it and go, we need more money. well, you're gonna throw more money at it. if you needed and say, this is what you got. okay? make it the best of it. and i use this line many times before.

-- that he has not yet seen the entity that can't be cut by 10% and didn't get better or what they do. if i say that anybody at the pentagon, they gasp. and do i believe that we could cut the pentagon 10%, they could get better or what they do? yeah, actually i do. it might not happen. but it's at least possible. you need to get into that mindset, okay? not, oh my gosh, we have a problem, please give me another check. believe me, it ain't just the pentagon that looks at the world this way. i've been dealing with public policy for 32 years, that's always the approach. we don't have enough resources. the world is what it is. in the world, there's a finite amount of resources. unless you happen to be elon musk or jeff bezos. for the most part, anything you're trying to do in this world, you gotta find an amount of resources. when you get really good at, it is when you accept that. when you say, i'm gonna make the best of what i have. i don't have, other than what i've listed which is not

insignificant, just look at it that way. we have to live with $80 million. can we do? it absolutely, we can. then you've got all the partners. there's other people out there who are now starting to step up. because the threat from russia and china has become very real after ukraine and after what the threats that president xi has been making to taiwan. you've got countries like japan, they're in town this week. i was in japan a couple months ago, they're taking this very seriously. the figuring of how they can drum up their defenses. australia, which until a couple of years ago it was like, i know you say china's bad, we're gonna work with them. and then you had that whole covid thing. just fascinating, it's amazing how you can screw things up with just the tiniest little thing. australia, literally, this is all they did. i don't know some are in the middle of a covid pandemic. they said, china, look, you're not being terribly transparent here. it would really helpful to us dealing with this pandemic, if you let us know what's going on. china was like, -- you will not do that. full on trade war on them.

beef, they went off all the other stuff, australia was like, oh my god. we can't deal with these people. so, we better make a contingency plan. that's happening. we can build those partnerships and meet those threats as well. you ask me in a campaign, what i rather have an extra million dollars? most of the time i'm gonna say yes. but you're not, in many instances, gonna have. that live with what you've got. really focus on the question. instead of spending all your energy saying how can i suck another 20 billion dollars out of people. i had that argument, i made that argument. i lost that argument. in committee on the floor. and i do believe that we need a defense budget, we do. so i think that defense budget should have been 820 instead of 158 whatever wound up being? sure. but i've used this line many times here recently, i believe in democracy more than i believe in my own opinion. which by the way, is something that a lot of folks on the far-right and far-left could

take to heart. you don't always have to get your way, for whole bunch of different reasons. one of them is, you might be wrong. that's the whole wisdom of crowds thing. that's the whole point of democracy. a whole bunch of different voices. you don't have to burn the house down, just because they didn't give you what you wanted. it might be okay. >> well. very good. one more question on strategy, they want to ask about military people and readiness, the state of the force, and then maybe i'm gonna press you briefly on russia and ask you to expand a little further before handing off to melanie for some questions. i know she's got to chime in, and then for the audience. in the pentagon, as they've tried to figure out ways to achieve the national defense strategies of 2018 in 2022, madison austin strategies, and surprising amount of agreement as colin said on the stage a couple months ago to us. they came up with a lot of different buzzwords, alphabet soup, acronyms. initiatives. and a lot of them sound good,

some of them mean something, some of them sometimes overwhelm you with just get the numbers of letters and abbreviations. i wonder, if there's anything you want to give a shout out to in terms of the various innovation efforts that are underway now? on this list of few possibilities, you can choose from this list, some of the list, it -- there is the so-called joint domain from commander control jets, c two. which is trying to build a more integrated communications sharing information network across services. which is always a priority, always hard to do. there are initiatives by the air force to disperse its basing through the broader indo-pacific. the european deterrents initiative, pacific -- which are designed to try to get more generally dispersed our bases. the last one dimension, a multilateral effort, two of them. the aukus agreement with australia in the uk, and then the quad. more informal arrangement with

india, japan and australia to expand our cooperation and push back against china. some of those are more pentagon -- those some of those are about foreign policy. anything that strikes you as the most important or worthy of an extra boost? >> well, i think that's actually a really good summary. both of the strategy and of all the steps that are being taken to implement it. i think it's worth saying the president and his team are doing what they need to do and they have the right strategy. i agree with all that list. the couple things that i would highlight, when that you didn't mention is similar, the space architecture. and the idea of having a more distributed system. doesn't focus on just a couple of exquisite satellites. and more distributed network. that's going to be crucial. in terms of our communications ability. which is going to be crucial, and that feeds into the jets, which is the whole ball game. situational awareness in the ukraine russia fight is the whole thing.

we saw that with the most recent strike on the russian barracks, it was so devastating, because they're using their cell phones. part of it was because they're using their cell phones, part of it because russia -- ukraine had to set up, so they could take advantage of that. those i think would be absolutely key, one other thing that i would mention, on the b 21 program, and i don't understand all the instant outs of this. basically, if you look at the way the f-35 was set up, and implemented. and the way the b 21 was, that difference is one of the keys to us being able to make this work with us money. then we would like. whatever that number is, the b 21 has been a much more efficient on the -- they built a competition into, -- to a very large degree. i would say that the sentinel, the g -- program is similarly efficient, i don't think we necessarily need it, but again, i lost that argument unlikely to ever win that argument, but if we're gonna build it we, might as

well build in a more efficient and effective way. implementing those strategies in terms of how you build weapons systems to get them closer to on time and on budget, in fact, i think i was walking into a b 21 brief sometime ago. i happen to walk by a colleague of mine, hey, what's going on. i'm going to be 21 program. i joked and said, you're gonna tell me that it's going great? it's on time, it's under budget. i laughed, i don't think i've ever walked into a briefing like that in the last 50 years. everything seem to be like, well, it's just a software problem. we're working on it, it's the tanker, f-35 whatever it is, i walked in the b 21 brief. it was all good. progress can be made. >> also. i would like to ask you about military families, if you want, you can leave a comment on veterans to. i know this group is near and dear to your heart. you've been their champion as a chairman and member throughout your career. what's the state of all volunteer force, and the families behind them. how worried are you about the

recruiting problems that we've seen develop in these last couple of years. >> i've had a conversation with secretary austin and chairman milley just this morning on the subject. first of all, there's a lot of good news, in terms of the support that we've given to military families. certainly on the veteran side, the pact act, makes a huge difference. in terms of making investment in veterans, this last cycle, good pay raise, but we also had an increase in the number of people who could meet the basic needs allowance. they need access to, that increased housing allowance, a variety of other steps to help. the service members and their families. we definitely at this point have a recruitment problem. we got a plan to deal with, it i think one of the biggest things to remember, the biggest reasons we have a recruitment problem, two years of pandemic, they have been able to recruit in the same way they traditionally record over the last two years. secretary austin told me today, they haven't been in high schools for two years. they haven't been able to go out there and do that

recruitment. i think they're backed up and they're doing that in a very effective way. it's a challenge. also incoming chairman rogers and his top priority, how do we meet those recruitment and tension goals we definitely will need a plan to try and step up and deal with that. right now, it continues to be a problem. >> do you feel like the plan is in developed in recent years to try to approve the readiness of equipment? and the overall availability of airplanes in ships has borne fruit. really concerned five, seven years ago, about the force being worn down. is it looking better you in terms of readiness? >> we've still got a long way to go. we are starting to better understand the systems and have a better plan moving forward, by the way, a i and software systems are huge part of that. this is how we're gonna find and do a lot of the pentagon to understand all what all do we have? a few years ago, palantir had a contract working on a system, just let the army know who is working for you and where are

they on a given day? okay? used to know that. an easier, a niche there, if thousand different systems. put all the systems together, now you've got access he got a software system, here's who we got. here's who on stick leave, and all the. that integration in the same can be done with maintenance. to understand, okay. but i'm not an engineer, i'm not a mechanical anything like that. just getting ready to die. we'll fix it now. and that all is part of a machine learning can do to put you in a better position to do that. cost-effective manner. >> my last question, and then -- wants to follow with some of her own. as do with russia and ukraine. you mentioned earlier, the importance of making sure putin doesn't when i want to ask you to take out your crystal ball a little bit at least offer some conjecture on where this debate needs to possibly go in 2023. specifically, do we need to just keep the spigot open as much as possible for ukraine? and maybe even accelerate the

provisioning of equipment, maybe think about things like tanks at a more substantial level than we have so far? the other part of the question, it's on point, in 2023, do you anticipate the possibility that we should really be asking president zelenskyy to think about some form of negotiation, where it doesn't get all of his territory back immediately? or maybe there are concepts like shared sovereignty or long term referendum, or something else, that is unbecoming as it may be to say or to contemplate, putin's aggression is not completely reversed, but nonetheless, some sort of stable peace can be created. rather than keep fighting this thing year after year. -- >> dealing with our friends from earlier, it's a myth that those things are taking place. chairman milley, secretary austin, a whole bunch of people are regularly having conversations with our ukrainian counterparts. there also, now, a brief gap in that, having conversation with the russian counterparts?

having conversations about this? understand, right now, putin has decided that he is just going to keep going forward. his maximalist goals have not changed. if those maximalist goals change. then we can start having a wide variety of conversations. right now, it's wrong to say that the choices, the choice that you just described, painful though it may be. of letting russia keep parts of ukraine. it's not even on the table. it's not there to be talked about, because russia is not interested. so, you know, right now, the first step we have to do, is again, stop them. i think ukraine is having more success on that front than people popularly understand. they push back, they've taken territory, i think they're in good shape. yes, we're going to need to continue to support them through the spring. while continuing to have conversations about what that future might look like.

step one here, again, it's convincing putin that he can't have what he wants. which is a completely subjugated and take it over ukraine. that is still going to take some work. it said, and it's terrible, it's horrible. anyone who says that we are excited because russia is engaged in this war, is an idiot. i'll say that bluntly. we are not. this war could stop tomorrow, i don't think there's a single solitary person who wouldn't sign up for that. putin made his choice. what we're trying to do is to make sure that he stopped. >> melanie? >> great, thanks. congressman, i'm going to echo my gratitude for you being here and point out that at brookings we very much value clarity and composure in good humor, thank you for arriving with an abundance of all three today. it's much appreciated. now that we've looked inside the pentagon a bit, i actually want to reverse us back to where you started the conversation, pull back out and

situate what it is at the pentagon is doing within the larger context of national security. and the national security strategy. in particular, the relationship between the united states and china. you mentioned the perspective that china russia and others are invested in and actively trying to break the international rules based order. that has been in place in the post world war ii era. i'm curious, in particular, about china. do you think that that is where the vision ends? is it just to break the system? or do you have a view on what china's vision for world order is? >> well, i think it comes -- i wouldn't be so blunt as to say, yeah, that's where it ends. but it's certainly where it starts. it certainly about 75% of it. they just don't like the fact that the u.s., and sometimes the western world, sometimes a broader array of the world, because japan, australia, a

whole bunch of countries not in the western world who are part of the. i think they view that as restricting their ability to do what they want to do. i understand, this whole fishing thing, which people don't talk a lot about. china's violating the territorial waters of countries all around the world. and overfishing areas. they basically want greater freedom to do what they want to do, without someone looking over their shoulder and saying no, you can't do that. that is a huge part of it. i think their broader division, as so many countries in the world view, as we sometimes fall too and that gets back to my let's be humble instead of exceptional and will have a better role in the world. we pick a dozen different countries in the world at one time or another, fairly sizeable empires. there's always some more on with those countries who, oh, it be great if we were back when the persian empire ruled the world. where the roman empire, the greek empire. it's like, that's not particularly helpful.

i think there's a big part of that in china. the whole century of humiliation. we're all gonna get humiliated at one time or another. let's not make it our life plan to avenge that. all kinds of bad things are gonna happen if you do. by the way, that's an individual thing. as well as a nation thing. i think china is very much into that. he's built up this image, i think it's part of it. china should rule the world, and they are. they're big, the powerful, the great. none of them should rule the world. you gotta figure how to get along. they're struggling, mightily, to be more modest in that approach. to the extent they have anything specifically on the table, it would be, it's not replace that a lot of countries to run their business. we're not gonna care about human rights, were a friend of mine deal with cambodia, one of those countries that caught in the middle. their complaint to us, china, all money no judgment. u.s.? no money, all judgment.

and i think that's a decent summary. i would say, maybe we can even that out a little bit. china's vision of no judgment whatsoever, no matter what you do, no matter how you treat your people were just gonna look the other way all the time. i think that passes for what their vision is. and it's extraordinarily problematic, we need to push back against it. the other hand, they're not nihilists. they're not suicidal. you can't rule over a world that's completely destroyed. the game of thrones analogy in their, rolling over the ashes. we all know that turned out. if you can watch the series, you know. but anyway. so, they or a rational actor that we can work with another regional basis. that's gonna be the trick, the key, how do we find those ways to work? so we don't go into, no, we should rule the world? no, we should rule the world. let's chill, let's figure how

we can work together. to have some sort of semblance of peace and stability for all of us. >> on that note, can i ask again about the select committee on china. that is just been formed. >> sure. >> do you think what you have just described is identifying ways for the united states and china to work productively in so far as we can? and to deal with the places in which we can't and ways that are constructive rather than conflicts you will? is that the operating model that you envision for that committee? or stated alternatively, what is your hope for what it is that the committee will do and produce? >> yeah, let me come out this way. my hopes and my visions aren't necessarily the most relevant thing. what's actually going to happen, i think is the key. it's to be determined. right now, we're talking about who should be the democrat ranking member on that committee. who should be part of it. you're starting some preliminary conversations with

congressman gallagher about what -- it wants to take that. it could go in a couple different directions. it could be incredibly productive. strategic competition is going to be very important on a whole series of different realms. or, it could become a china bashing exercise. i have worked with congressman gallagher for a while. he's a very smart, very serious person. that gives me cause for optimism. he wants to take this in the right direction. on the other hand, i think i'm surprised the times some of the people who just fall into full-scale china bashing. talk about how terrible china is. we can't let them do this. we have to stand up against them on every single turn. -- cuttable agenda but the state. they will have to be big enough for the both of us. we can look at china and say, you should be doing that, it should be doing that. we're gonna force you to stop. we're not, actually.

where does that go? i think it's tbd. gallagher's gonna have a lot to do with it. also, there or other members of his caucus who are going to influence that process. it's crucial that we have that commitment. voted for yesterday. despite some people's misgivings. really important that we have that conversation, on a legislative side. it could absolutely go sideways, in a way that creates more conflict than it solves. >> i'm gonna pull together to non obviously magic elements of the conversation so far, which happen to be humility and military technology. i'm curious about your view on the technology export regime, those export controls that the administration placed on china. in october. with the metaphor of a tall offensive burner very small yard, focusing on semiconductor and computing technologies that

are important to military advances. putting aside the welcomed comment on the substance of the export controls. i'm interested in your view about how that fits in the broader construct of u.s. china relationship, also how it relates to the entirety of the bilateral, multilateral economic relationships and alliances in partners and allies that are affected? by those export controls? >> yeah, the more inflammatory part of the second, which is i'm sure they look forward to. the first part of it, it absolutely makes sense to begin to look, less reliant on china for so much manufacturing. starting in the late 90s, and moving forward, china became the corporate easy button. all over the world. it's where everybody wanted to go. massive market, obviously. low cost labor, no environmental restrictions, and we started making a whole lot of stuff in china.

and by we i mean the globe. not necessarily the u.s.. i understand why it was. were definitely listening in that direction. i think a huge part of strategic competition is becoming, the globe needs to become less dependent on china. putting aside for a moment, china's more problematic behavior. it's not that good to be that wholly depend on any one country in any scenario. it doesn't have to be that way. we're starting to see this happen. certainly, domestic u.s. -- circuit boards, the chips act all this other stuff. also, vietnam. malaysia. mexico. latin america in general. there are a lot of other places, particular now that china, their cost of living has gone up. so, that absolutely needs to happen. i have a very strong bias that is highly unusual for someone on the armed services committee. that is, we place too much emphasis on trying to not

share. and the notion that, you know, we have this leadership here, as long as we just hold on to it, make sure that nobody ever sees it. we'll be fine. i don't know, i kind of think china could've figured out a lot of the stuff on their own. not to say they didn't steal a bunch of, it i understand that. if we overemphasize making sure that we have this export restrictions, we hamper our ability to build the relationship we need to build. one of the big problems of that right now, australia, and with other countries in particular, aukus is a great idea. a lot of promise. it could also -- we've got to share stuff. if you're going to be able to be effective in building those partnerships, we are not going to be able to make absolutely everything that we need in the united states of america. not gonna happen. it's a global economy, it is what it is. until we have one of those postapocalyptic moments, it's going to be -- so we need other countries. if we keep telling them, no, we're not gonna share this with the. we're not gonna share that with. you can see this, you can see that.

it's gonna make that a very hard. it's not the work you don't need to have all these other rules to restrict it, we've got to be more broad and how we look at it, and see that if we're restricting that ability, we are restricting partnerships, the other thing we're doing is we're making harder domestic u.s. companies to either maintain, or in some cases, obtain leadership in those areas. because they're cut off for markets. gosh, you go into those export controls, yeah, i know you shouldn't be selling nuclear launch codes or whatever, but there's times when the restrictions are such, if you have a bolt that happens to go into a military thing, and then it goes over here. you can't sell it over here, because it goes over there. and then people say, okay, i'm not manufacturing in the u.s.. i need to get out of here so we can so most of the people who want to buy it. so, i think we need to balance those things. >> i'm gonna take the prerogative of one last question before we move on to the audience. it probably won't surprise you,

i'm gonna ask about taiwan. and u.s. policy to deal with taiwan. i think it's pretty standard fare in washington these days, to hear people assert very strongly, we must deter china from acting forcibly against taiwan, to what you can say, i like ice cream also. it's not a controversial position. where things get interesting, isn't thinking about how we ought to go about doing that. from what you've seen at the national defense strategy, and the changes in services are undertaking, in modernization efforts. how do you think that we are doing in terms of aligning ourselves will to be able to deter beijing, not just in the military domain, and lest you think it is an exclusive military problem, but within the group of integrated deterrence, all of those operating together. are we in better shape today to

deter that use of force than we were four years ago? >> let me answer the question, i think when a lot better shape than most people think. i think there's a lot of hand wringing and worrying, we tend to make our enemies ten feet tall. and imagine that they're capable of all manner of things that would help us in the face of the. i don't believe that's the case. the number one approach on deterrence, to make trying to think that if they attack taiwan, it will not go well for them. it will be a net loss, a strategic failure. i think we're doing a better job of that than people realize. part of that is having an adequate military deterrence. we're working with taiwan, to make sure that they're able to do that. and that we have assets, we have partners. i think we are doing the people realize. in fact, i think it was just -- finally came out, if china goes into taiwan, they're gonna lose. we've heard so much about the opposite side of that argument.

i think we need to deliver that message consistently to china. don't do this. it will not and will. our goal is to make sure they don't do it. so, we don't have the conflict that would come, again, not to keep leaving so heavily on this point, the partnerships are really important. i think china's belligerent towards taiwan, towards the region, is beginning to have a negative effect. i mentioned the australia example. certainly, japan. i started to step up and be more concerned. you've got the philippines. duterte was a weird dude, hard to tell what he was thinking of doing. but marcos, is no particular friend of the united states, for obvious reasons. but he is mindful of the threat that the bully next door has. so, are a number of other countries in the region. if china starts to see that, that too is part of that

integrated deterrence that they're like, maybe our belligerence is not actually serving our own best interests. that's where we get to a better place. >> great, thank you. mike, i'm gonna handed over to you now for the questions. >> great, we've got about ten minutes left. please, wait for a microphone, goodbye yourself will take two questions at the time. we'll start over here with these two. against the wall. >> thank you, thank you congressman for your comment here today. my name is aimee nelson, i'm a scholar here at brookings. i know you're very supportive of the new start extension, when the question was raised. obviously, this is a really difficult time for arms control. from the demise of the atm treaty, to the cfc treaty, open skies. inf. facing a lot of arms control problems. my question for you is, what's next for new start? and what's next more, broadly, for arms control?

>> my name is roger, i'm an author and editorial contributor to the hill newspaper. first, thank you for beginning your presentation by setting the stage at the level of theory, understanding that the purpose of our defense is to preserve a rules based order, and to deal with threats to that order. it's important for the question that i'm hoping you can help give us a better understanding on. since the nixon doctrine in 1969. every u.s. administration, from ronald reagan to barack obama, from donald trump to jimmy carter, has said our allies need to do more. you're getting rich, this is no longer post war, you're rich, you should do more. no president has really dealt with -- nixon came closest to saying,

why? was nixon with a level reddick said, so we can do less. you do more, we'll do less. and will all be better off. since then, the general rhetoric is, you should do more, and then we'll think about what impact it has on the global environment. no commitments you just need to do more. period. the most recent iteration of this in the last 20 years was burden sharing and the result of burden sharing is we'll have to see where we are when burden sharing is underway. and it's now obviously underway. germany in japan have announced major increases in their defense spending. the question i'm hoping you can help explain is, is there are a relationship between what we now call burden sharing, or increased spending, on the part of our allies, and the u.s. level of spending? there's been a recent variation in the sense that if they do more, we need to do more? we can't be left behind, if

they're doubling their defense spending, we need to double ours? is there a relationship? >> to your question. first. the number one biggest thing we need to do an arms control, start talking. the big challenge, china has never wanted us to talk about the stuff. they were trying to catch up. russia, they've got their issues, i think we need to be passionately in favor of dialogue. and the idea that, you know, russia, china u.s.. none of us want to destroy the planet. not the objective. there are a whole lot of new weapons systems being developed, new capabilities that have all manner of implications. for this sort of balance that were able to achieve. with the former soviet union. let's start talking. where those talks go, i don't know, just getting over that threshold, it's still a debate around here. chairman milley has gotten

chewed out for calling up the chinese defense minister. of course he's calling the chinese defense minister, he has to. let's put that idiocy aside. and say let's start talking. all three countries have weapons, it already scares the living -- out of people. they knew what's -- it would scare them even worse. let's start talking about how we can have our competition without destroying the planet. that's number. one as far as burden sharing issue is concerned, i never particularly liked the whole frame of that conversation. obviously, nobody really personified that mistaken approach more than donald trump. basically, had the opinion, what they do for us? we do everything for this, we do nothing for us. screw him. we should give them all -- the post-world war ii order, that we enforced, and we spend more money on it no question about it. we also benefited more. than anybody else in the world. and it's not even close. 4% of the world's population, 20% of world consumption?

look at we've been able to generate in that world order. so, we're not doing south korea a favor. we are pursuing our strategic interests by providing them with the resources necessary to make sure that north korea doesn't invade and blow the whole friction world. i never accepted the idea that the rest of the world's -- i felt like the rest of the world can go, wait a second, how come you've got all the stuff? which is a bit of an exaggeration, i'll grant you. it's more than benefited us. as far as what's happening right now, again, you know, burden sharing is the wrong way to put it. we want to get them all invested in the idea that this world is in their interests. i think this earnestly it up. and president biden has had a lot of success, obviously, what russia did in ukraine, which i started to say in taiwan. is driving a lot of that. i think that's the way to look at.

we have a distinctive interest here, we've got a bunch of people involved. who does what. i'm not gonna be terribly hung up on one specific dollar figure, one where the other. let's look at burden sharing as a shared responsibility to get to a global place. and understand, u.s. is doing just fine. no one's been taking us. in any way. we are benefiting from this. >> time for one last round, let's take two more questions please. and limit geographically dispersed across the crowd. we'll take a gentleman here. just to your right. and then over here. with the tie. >> hello, my name is andrew, i'm a forensic adviser associate and kpmg. my question is, regarding what you mentioned earlier about innovation. and how should be run more like a tech company. so, how can partners in industry help with that process and help with innovation in the in the department? >> thank, you over here please.

last question. >> thank you so much, ellen -- committee on national legislation here. two quick crystal ball questions for you. likelihood of the 2002 aumf being revealed this year. and then what is the likelihood of congress finding itself debating a trillion dollar defense budget this year. >> we'll start there and then come back to the tech question in the second. i think it's highly unlikely we're gonna be looking at a trillion dollar defense budget this year. the biggest challenge we have on that, just to have a budget. okay. the legislative hostage takers, let's go with that. don't seem to care if the federal government functions. on the debt ceiling, on the appropriations bills, they've shown a willingness to take hostages and a certain enthusiasm for executing those hostages. whether necessary or not. that's gonna be a.

challenge i think we're heading towards a trillion dollars, you hit upon a sore subject for me. we gotta repeal the thing. i'll tell you now, i'll give the inside story here, i was trying to do something else. they actually wound up doing at the pentagon was objecting to it. the congressman i was talking to, our lawyers say, and i said let me just cut you off right there. because i am a lawyer. i'm not a good lawyer, i didn't practice much, lawyers will always say, if you do this all these kind of terrible horrible things could happen. if you're listening to the lawyers, we're never gonna do anything. and the lawyers alike, well, for screw that. if congress can't repeal and aumf and specifically pass the takeout saddam hussein 20 years after the guys in the grave. there were not doing our job. and you can give me all the legal crap about what the pentagon can and can't do, because of all this. no. get rid of it. whether or not we will, highly unlikely. i've had that argument, a run

up against these people and i've lost every time, i don't see any reason it's gonna change this year. but i will try. as far as the technology companies, the biggest thing, is engage in the defense world, stay engaged. i know that can be frustrating. because of the thing i said earlier about how it's really hard, when you have something, the pentagon even at the pentagon says they want. just up front, finding the people you need to talk to to make your pitches difficult. even if they say they want it, then actually getting them to buy it can be vastly more cumbersome than if you're selling in the private market. stay engaged. be a little bit -- understand at the end of the day, there's benefits there. i think, not to mention palantir twice in the same session, palantir did not start off with the best relationship at the pentagon. the salafism any companies do, suing them. and with good reason. now, they're integrated. i think they would tell you,

they're benefiting a lot from that relationship. certainly, the providing an enormous amount of service which they're being well compensated for. they're also benefiting from learning, and that has applications on the commercial side. there's a lot of great stuff going on in the defense sector that, whether you're talking about space, whether talking about a, machine learning. it has crossed over implications. stay engaged. and then we're gonna work on our end, the key here, the whole creative tech company versus auto company is, you gotta have a problem solving mentality. that's the way i describe it. not a requirement, not a please tell me all the steps that i must take. that will guarantee me to -- tell me what your problem is. a close of my -- princess bride analogy. one of my assets, what are my liabilities? here's what i'm trying to do, when we got?

and then you just let me use it. tell me gotta do this in this and this, and talk to these people, and those people. here's what i'm trying to do, here's my tools. let me go solve the problem. the hacking for defense folks up at stanford are doing really good stuff on this, undergraduates. stanford undergraduates, really smart kids. and they gave a real world pentagon problem. and they say, solve. the fast anything about that, every one of these groups that i talked to of student said, the first thing we realized the question they ask just wasn't actually the problem that needed to solve. here's what you really need to do. they went after it. go to the pentagon, the bad situation, they would've just spent ten years and a couple billion dollars trying to solve the problem that they knew was in the one they're trying to solve in the first place. gotta be able to innovate. solve problems, use the assets

that you're disposal to solve them. i think tech companies can be great at figuring that out and doing now. >> my friend, what a tour de force. thank you, please join me in thanking our friend. [applause] on thursday, the senate -- will hold a sit at on the train

derailment disaster. federal and local epa officials, and the ceo of norfolk southern railroader, expect to testify before the committee. watch the hearing, live thursday at 10 am eastern on c-span 3. c-span now our free mobile video app, or online at c-span.org. >> since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress. from the house and senate floors. to the congressional hearings. briefings, and committee meetings. c-span gives you the front row seat to how issues are debated and decided with no commentator, no interruptions. and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government?

c-span is your unfiltered view of government. were funded by these television companies and more. including talks. >> homework can be heard. squatting in a diner for internet work is even harder. that's why we're providing lower income students access to affordable internet. so, homework can jusbe homework. cox connect to compete. >> cox. -- as a public service. along with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> american history tv, saturdays on c-span two. exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 4:15 pm eastern, the 65th anniversary of the department of justice's civil rights division. created by the civil rights act of 1957. the celebration focuses on work of the division over the decades. and honors the contributions of leaders.

staff and alumni. and at a pm eastern, on lectures in history, university of california davis history professor, catherine homestead. and how the red scare evolved into a wide ranging conspiracy theory, on the rise of communism in the united states. in the1940s and 1950s. exploring the american story. watch american history tv. saturdays on c-span two. and find a full schedule on your program ide, or watch online. anytime at c-span dot orglash history. the supreme court heard oral arguments in a case on dna testg requests from convicted offenders. texas death row inmate, rodney reed, was onvicted in the 1996 mder of a 19 year old woman. mr.eed claimed he was innocent, and his legal team brought evidence that implicated the victim's fiancée. his defense sought dna testing from evidence at the crime scene. but were denied. justices in the case are considering the statute of