tv Sen. Jim Inhofe R-OK on Armed Services Committee Priorities CSPAN December 18, 2018 6:47pm-8:04pm EST
exploring the history, traditions, and role of this uniquely american institution. >> please raise your right hand. >> wednesday, january 2nd at 8:00 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span. >> c-span where histories unfold daily. in 1979, c-span was corrected as a public service. and today we continue bring you unfiltered coverage of congress. the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. next senator jim inhofe talks to students about the national defense university in washington. he shares thoughts on u.s. defense strategy and how it compares to other countries
hw bush, we ask this in jesus name . >> what a great guy he was i would be surprised if most of you did not see the funeral yesterday, he had quite a career. this is the first time i've been here, and i've been here a lot of years but have not been out here. it's a pleasure to see here -- to see you and respond to your questions. it is fitting that we are gathered here and i say this i say this with a show of hands, to all the students who are here. i can see it by the uniforms, anyway, you may be shy but you won't be when you get out of this thing. it anyway you folks know about
american heroes and about george bush and what we went through yesterday and about lincoln and washington all of our heroes but there's probably you don't know much about and that is george marshall. he had more titles than anyone else he had chief of staff, secretary of state, secretary of defense, one of america's greatest warrior spirit his works. remind us of the great responsibility placed on the shoulders of those entrusted with providing for the common defense and he said, we are now concerned the piece of the entire world in peace can only be maintained by the strong. this is true. he was the one who, after world war ii was saying that, we learned that time and we would one day be involved in the
whole world, the fact that we would -- only be concerned about ourselves, this was a time when this actually did work, but at that time we had two oceans separating us from our enemies and it was a different world. we paid the price in world war ii it was the greatest single calamity in the history of our country, so we learned that the problem is, and that is my message, we have slipped back into this area, but we don't have the opportunities we had at that time generation believed it was time for america to have the defense of the free world and to maintain the peace, america must be strong. so in the years that followed, america rebuilt the defense send europe with the plan
called the marshall plan that you've all read about that. it was successful. she was a great american hero. we still hear about him. we are heirs of the peace and prosperity of marshall giving us our generation we have achieved, it's up to us to regain the inheritance. doing so will not be easy but just like marshall did, we confront the challenge of preserving peace throughout the strength of this world. >> this is also for everyone here to be aware of, those of you who are senior officers, and i appreciate you being here and i will share with you that we have some problems out there. i'm older than all of you guys and i can remember growing up i assumed we had the best of everything that america always did and we knew the threats out
there at that time but the threats are different right now than they've ever been before because, as was pointed out during trump's message, when he said our peer competitors are out there and they are doing some things better than we are doing it i look and i see the equipment they have compared to ours that they have been busy. we will talk about that. then you go to the next group, the threats we have from north korea and iran, another segregated area of threats we are facing and we still have the islamist terrorists and they are actually more undercontrolled and it was but for someone like me i could remember the good old days two superpowers, they knew it we had
but this is not the case now, they bombed us and we died and they died, not a superpower were worried about as much as someone who is not a superpower with the equipment and the ability to kill us. this is different than it was before. these are the threats identified by the national defense strategy which offered a way to preserve peace in the 21st century and it's up to us to follow it and that's what this is about today and wanted to give you a few perspectives. i believe the decisions that matter most in preserving peace and defending our way of life will not be made in beijing or moscow, those guys don't want peace these decisions will be made by you guys.
john mccain believe that also, were not thinking about picking up the torch i believe we must choose again to lead the free world we must defend both our interests and our values and restore our military advantage and we must strengthen alliances tried to reach out to get new partners. to get people in here. i have to say to my friends who are part of the program and here in the audience that was going to expand that the relationships that have developed at this level once we have these relationships we are friends for life. so, this decision will guide me here at
the national defense university. let me do something i wasn't gonna do before to hurry this up a little faster. we have a six point program. these are my priorities as the chairman of the committee. first, we will use the national defense strategy to report as a blueprint. this is significant, this should be, this ought to be required reading for everyone in this room. this came out and we had a hearing on this two days ago and of all the reports i've seen i was eight years in the house armed services committee we've had countless reports coming in . this is the best and we've all said this was put together by democrats and republicans and was truly bipartisan and every person on here was
appointed by either a democrat or a senate member or republicans that are not afraid to say the truth. everyone tarnishes the truth and they don't let people know the real threat. he will like this because we went through the last presidency when we had all the problems in our relative power with peer competitors. this thing right here if you read this, in one area they talk about some of the conditions and threats we have in this country. i say this particularly to you military guys here, this is right out of the report the commission that we will use as a blueprint says unequivocally that they are not adequately resourced and they listed a direct quote america
is near the point of strategic insolvency. america's military superiority has eroded to a dangerous degree their edges diminishing or has disappeared in the last few years. now, it's not just -- who's the bad part. we knew it. we knew it was coming and it's no surprise that you guys should know it we saw this coming back during the obama administration with chuck who was a good guy when he said, this is a direct statement. when i read this out to real people in the real world and i tell them american dominance can no longer be taken for
granted. we are using the qualitative and quantitative edge advantage over adversaries, in terms of artillery but in terms of we can't let the navy off your either because the cnl of the navy says for our entire fleet, we had 62% so, anyway we knew the problem was out there we had to start making up for it and this is where it's all found. so, we have six priorities. the first priority is this. to
continue to get the authorization bill , to get out early because quite often it does not get out early and we have to have it out and we are committed to getting it out before the fiscal year end which is october 1. we would do this it's not a problem. it's true that i did not take over this position until a few months ago but i was also doing this on an acting basis before that. was not busy and set a record getting our defense authorization out, it's the quickest in 40 years. so, that thing we will do the reason we have to do that is we have to get out of the mindset of cr is this, it's a disaster. so, we don't want that to happen. that's the first thing. the second is to reboot. a lot of people have talked about
some of the problems that we have with other departments, some areas where we are not as good, we are not doing as good a job as our adversaries. right now up to two years we had a brigade combat team and only 30% working that we couldn't deploy them for maintenance same with the army in a aggregation brigade. the marines use the f-18's, but only 30% were flyable because of maintenance issues. you've got to talk about these things, defending america is supposed to be the number one priority and it's been my priority but now and then you will get an administration where it is not a priority that
defense strategy commission report released to this month warned americans that they might struggle to win wars. we might struggle to win but perhaps lose a war against china or russia, we're talking about now, there's no time to waste that we have to restore america's military advantage the cost will be measured in american lives. that might've been avoided, so we need to prepare our army for high-end conflict by reinvesting in areas like logistics and we need to modernize our air force fighter and bomber fleets and increase procurement with more advanced munitions and expand the capacity and lift certainly
intelligent surveillance we need a larger naval fleet and i was in norfolk on monday and it's kind of disturbing. are doing a good job but it's only place we can make aircraft carriers but when we see what the competition is doing have a's chart -- i have a chart that shows were within two years of china passing us up in this capability the aircraft carriers down there have to mimic the guys you are familiar with and it works, we've had 750 so there is a problem, the
elevators that carry weapons don't work so right now we can take off and land and we don't see it in the future but we are looking and thinking there's a good possibility that we will be that shows that we started out in the year 2000 318, the chinese made the right now the lines are crossing and they pass us in another two years. some this is something the public is not aware of and i hope the public is watching and communicating that we have a problem and have to fix the problem and this is one area
that we have to do, like -- >> like hypersonic's, this is probably the only audience i can talk to is with this is in the thing is,, putin lies a lot and i don't believe this talk to groups not like a group of people not from there when you think about what you can do but we've changed how many hits per minute or per hour to a fraction of a second so we have
these things that are happening in china and russia that are making great headway. so, i don't want to underscore the significance of that to this group. to say there is a fair and significant consequence made as the u.s. sought to reduce the list of nuclear weapons brings up another problem that we've been toying route since the 60s with modernizing our nuclear weapons arsenal and then we just quit doing it. all the times we weren't doing it, both of our peer competitors were doing it and they're making great advancements right now. is the 2018 nuclear posture review pointed out, since 2010, no potential adversary has reduced either the role of nuclear weapons in the national
security strategy or the number of nuclear weapons it fields. rather, they have moved direct we in the opposite direction. , russia's nuclear doctrine emphasizes the coercive and military value and the threat of nuclear weapons. russia believes they could de- escalate the conflict on a verbal terms by conducting a nuclear first strike and russia is engaged in comprehensive modernization of this arsenal and you know if you don't really believe this it is something you want to believe. there's an article march 7 in the rhnd -- in the event that russia should decried -- decide to declare war on nato, including our country nations, they would win.
there. it's real. is not like it used to be but it's not like the olden days and then it's china, if you want to be scared look at china. it also modernizing its were arsenal seeking to achieve its own were triad through a strategic bomber. they are working on bombers and they are now saying they are there. are still the western china is a real force. i just got back from the south china sea i took five members of the services committee. look down there and see which and is doing. they are everywhere. the islands they are creating, seven island so far and they are equipped with nothing but bombs and military equipment. our allies in that part of the world, the philippines and all
over there, they think they are preparing for world war iii to look at all the presents and the things they are doing down there. they have time to decide whose side they will be on. you see it not just there but all over the world as a mission for many years in africa and so, i am very familiar with that. china didn't have anything out there in the terms of a military operation. 7 miles away, as far south in africa and tanzania. so, they are there, it's a scary thing. the national defense strategy commission describe the combination of america's aging arsenal in the modernization program and this equilibrium, russia is modernizing in china
we parked about the rest we talked about the nda and we talked about the situation and modernizing our force for great power competition that is russia and china. the fourth one is caring for servicemembers. dod civilians and their family, medical attention. this is something they have an advantage over us, i'm talking about peer competitors, they don't care about people, they are expendable. we've got to continue to do that or we won't have a military. the fifth armed services committee will maintain the focus on defense reform and conduct rigorous oversight to pass an audit. were doing that now and with that we will be able to talk to the american people will and let them know to bring the most
out of the tax dollars. to promote reform, you know, as i mentioned before i spent eight years in the armed services and 24 years in the senate and i can tell you right now i don't remember one year that we didn't try to do something with reform. i'm from oklahoma and i'm familiar with artillery and i remember when we were going to put together the crusader, by the way that's part of the conservative republican that did that. in the future combat system fcs , so, this is something we will have to change and that will be a prime thing, the fifth thing that we will have in the senate
armed services committee. all of these can -- require arm services orders and the most important is to discuss the sixth priority, returning to strategy driven defense. the national defense strategy commission, were unequivocally that the national defense strategy outline is not adequately resourced and that our nation is very near the point of strategic insolvency. that the scary thing. the commission has done a great service by courageously outlining the key defense enterprise challenges we face and it's very tough of a conversation to have but to avoid it at our own peril. so in 2019, the mission is clear
, until they on the defense and eliminating the threat we all know officers with the threat that's out there and passing on time, what were gonna do is have to have the sufficient funds to carry out the national defense strategy. it would be easy all you have to do is make sure that everybody knows and the government knows that the number one thing and priority should be defense. it's something that should be a no- brainer for people here with the orientation know what were talking about but the general public doesn't. a lot of the media is making them believe that we don't have any threats out there, but i can tell you right now with the things that we are doing, that
the priorities have not been there and they have to be in their. , the liberals say that for every -- and of course this is the policy that for every dollar you put in social programs but that's not the kind of parity. there's an old document no one reads anymore of the constitution and in the constitution there are two things that are really important and we are supposed to be doing that and here in washington that we are supposed to be defending america and infrastructure that is what we are supposed to be doing that's our priority and if we have the priority we can do that but what we are proposing is to remove the areas that affect
the military from the restrictions, i am a conservative and have always been ranked in the top three of the senate and the house but i've always need the exception defending america and the infrastructure so i was grateful for the top minority leader with senator jack reed working together. we should continue down the path to the strategy driven budget to sustain sufficient double funding. our contractors, it costs a lot more if they don't know from year to year what we will be doing. so, we really feel we are working together and things are happening but what we've got to
do is not repeat the mistake of the obama years by returning to the arbitrary budget cut. remember how much he cut in defense, by the way, i'm trying to stay within the timeframe but i will tell you that if you forget everything i've said or if you're one that doesn't believe what we went through and we will try to get out of, remember this, between the two years using constant 20 $18, between the years of 2010 and 2015, our defense spending fell from 794 in 2010 to 586 billion five years later, that is 24% reduction over five years. i am looking for some kind of
expression to drop this down to $700 billion. when we got out of this thing in 2015 and made a commitment we will start being competitive and working in the right direction. things seem to be working pretty well at this time and we were able to make some changes but i can assure you, i spent the day before yesterday almost 2 hours with the president and the vice president and with john bolton in the administration talking about what we are talking about now that we will have to get a priority, maybe something like exempting military others a number of things we can do but the main thing is we are going to be in a position where we
can be primarily with our peer competitors. the president knows that so there is no strategic rationale but i do recall the words of reagan who said there's no logical way that we can say, let's spend x money less, anyone who advocates a percentage or a specific dollar, in defense spending should be made to say what part of our defense would you eliminate and he should be candid enough to acknowledge the cuts and what that would mean. but that is what we should be doing and that is what we will be doing and i know you hear these things and you got to keep in mind, there's one group that knows this and doesn't have to be told and that's you and that's don't trust the media.
i'm concerned that some in the administration and some in the house and the senate have talked about a challenge of reforming the entitlement programs which is something we could do but talking about doing away with some of it with the programs that we have in terms of the triad as an example. the threat is out there and the threat is greater than it was in the past. so let me put in a plug before i finish up for the president. everyone hates trump, they do, they don't like him, every time i hear the tweets i cringe a little bit. it would be kind of nice if he had bounced this offer change the wording but how else can he
circumvent a media that hates him. if he stops to look at the success rate these three down as some of you in this room might be one of those who hate trump but you need to recognize what he's done. number one, the military. we are reversing what happened in the military that 225th -- hundred $20 billion is being changed. -- $120 billion is being changed. more than any president has done and it to your period in the history of america. he has done that. the economy. 4% unemployment, still unemployment -- still unemployment under 4% and that
is way down compared to where it was before. so we probably have the best economy we've had in our lifetime. that doesn't really fit into the presentation but you got to realize this guy is doing a great job. when i talk i don't talk is a member of the senate, k and i just at our 59th wedding anniversary those are the ones i'm talking about. look at the statistics and we will have to do this. we made progress in the readiness recovery with the modernization for the great competition and i think were doing a good job and emerging trump to consider. we went into
if you take the increase from this year that the two-point 1% increase , that's all, that's not even -- it's a zero growth budget so, i realize that no matter what the budget and congress receives from the administration, the budget control act with no budget agreement in place that we are being told to expect the worst but i don't think that will happen so i believe and we all know that we need a bipartisan budget agreement in the last two years but i think we will be able to do this.
>> i find out a lot more when i'm in afghanistan in a mess hall, from our kids than i do from some in washington. they are watching what were doing, don't think for a minute they don't know you -- i don't know. they know about china and russia and the threat being posed. they are aware and the one thing we don't need to do is send them a message that we can't get along and agree on a reasonable budget and we are not going to do this.
to compete with that, i would just say that we are back to george marshall again who said, we are now concerned with the piece of the entire world and the peace can only be maintained by the strong. then there's reagan and we remember what he said. we need to modernize our activity, because if we don't have it you might have to use it. we want to keep a strong america and the capability and i hope that will happen to us. with that i will open it up for anything you'd like to talk about.
>> all sit there, if you been married 59 years you know to do what you are told. [ laughter ] >> the good thing is we have set aside some reading days at the end of the month to review the strategy. [ laughter ] >> i really mean that. it's a great document, you know what i mean when i read it because it tells the hard truth about where we are today and you don't get that everywhere and that's why i think it's important for people like you to be aware . >> that's right . >> i like to build on a couple things you brought up for review. to start with the budget, one of the colleges and the focus of the curriculum is on resourcing the national security strategy and the first time i talked to students in this auditorium i talked about a proposal to create a national defense university by george washington but, the point was it was a great idea but there weren't enough resources similar to what you just said,
there's a part of that with george washington who addressed congress in the first budget to prepare for war is one of the most effective -- effectual means that preserving the peace. in the media, you've commented that 733 billion for defense spending is a floor not a ceiling and that has been widely cited and you've characterized past budget as late, inadequate and shrinking. i like to ask if you believe the military is on track he fully funded and resourced in fiscal year 2020 and why are you saying that 733 billion is a floor? expect the reason is for the next five years
>> you got to have a minimum of 3 to 5% increase after inflation. we didn't really do that, i mentioned we went from the old figure to $700 billion to $733 billion but, even if we go to the $733 billion, that's no growth. because, if you do the math, it's a two-point 1% increase. so, i would say that even everyone we've asked in the committee, granted their own military has agreed that no growth, can't go below no growth and that's the reason for the figure. >> >> the budgets relate, inadequate and shrinking, what are the characteristics of our budget that would enhance
rather than undermine our readiness and national security more broadly. >> more broadly it's prioritizing. again, i know i talked about that and i know i may have talk too much but it goes to the constitution of what we are supposed to be doing. when i jokingly talk about the good old days, we had two superpowers but that is not the way it is anymore. these people, when you have rogue nations like iran, this lousy thing we did where we did nothing but ship billions of dollars to them so they can continue being the world's leader, if they have the capability, they've already shown, clearly -- this is the kind of threat we have and that's why my best answer to your question is that we've got
to get the priority in the understanding. this is the most significant thing we can deal with today. >> we've been more -- we spend more on defense than china and russia combined but how do you determine how much we should be spending? >> you hear that all the time and i suspect that you don't believe that but i do know a lot of people are saying that on tv every day two things, first of all they lie. we don't know what they spend their why should they tell us what they spend. secondly, i remember of the .4 of our priorities is what we are going to do. they don't have to do any of that stuff, they don't care what's gonna happen to our people, so, we don't know what the price tag would be and thirdly, they have total control of what they do and
what they report, so any time you see china doing as i mentioned and what they are doing in tanzania and what they are doing around the world and throughout the middle east, you know that they are everywhere spending, the best answer i can give you is it's not true . >> okay . >> the national defense strategy and past military strategies that i want to shift the allies , our student population includes wonderful representatives of those allies and given that skill the breadth of our competitors they recognize the value of the alliances. what we are doing,
for one thing, our allies, i mention this we are talking to the philippines, japan, people kind of question if we have the strength to be good allies, because that's not what they see, they see what china is doing throughout the region. so, we have got to have the allies and in fact, i kind of like what's happening now with the islands created in the south china sea because people are now saying it started to affect the allies in the area but one of the big differences now and before is if you look at some of the european countries and other countries around the world, they know we don't have the resources we had at one time we don't have the
resources to participate with them so, we've got to build that up, it's one of the things you will see in this change in the distribution within the budget, what can we do that will help us in these areas. to and -- another discussion that came up last tuesday in the white house, when will be be in the position with these allies and the question is how much will we take. they are trying to get them to come up in nato .
>> mr. adam smith said number one, the nuclear posture review cannot afford what they are talking about. he goes on to cite the $22 million debt as beyond what we can afford. others are saying we need to choose between nuclear and conventional modernization and state the obvious but, the nuclear weapons are driving the national debt, can we afford to keep the whole triad?
>> we are two different people >> he's a good man and i like him personally, we've gone through several of the big four conferences with the defense authorization bill. we will continue to do this. but, i think he made a mistake when he singled out our nuclear modernization because, as i read in the report, this was agreed to by all services, but that's our number one concern and threat that's facing us now, what has happened to our nuclear capability and when all the sudden we wake up and find out that we are dealing with something that started back in the 1960s and the last major improvement made in the 1980s at the same time i don't think we are even aware of the fact that our peer competitors were
doing that and as a result the report comes out and the only threat is this nuclear -- i think it's a bad choice and when we got to sit down and talk about. i'm hoping that -- and by the way i think we will see, even though the democrats to get down to the areas affecting america . >> when you bring up the 2018 national defense strategy for
great power competition with china and russia is the highest defense and the commission report that evaluated the strategy said that america's military superiority to the backbone of the global influence and national security have eroded to a dangerous degree. so, what are the specific areas you have with the military advantage over what russia and china have? >> i would have to go to the podium i have a sheet on the areas were china and russia are superior to us , there are seven major areas.
areas such as shipbuilding, i mention that in nor folk so we don't have the capacity they are ahead of us in the area. hyper sonic. i'm inclined to think and the question that we asked but, now that we are seeing what we have , this is an evolution that gets us into another period of time with a huge impact on the groundwork and i'm inclined to think they are ahead of us in that electronic warfare they are competitive or ahead of us, the triad has done more in
china and russia as we've been saying and we hope the countries are doing more in africa but in what areas do you see chinese and russian activities and what should we do to better compete? >> it's primarily china because there's a saying that america will tell you what you need and china builds what you need. they don't hire anybody in africa, they bring their own labor and in this is part of their plan and they do this, there's not one and i'm familiar with the things that are happening all throughout africa the coliseum's are being built and all the infrastructure being built, it's out there and they are doing it but there's not one i can think of where we aren't coming out ahead. they want their oil and their energy got something that they have that china does not have. so, they
would be the ones i would be most concerned about. what i thought you were going to ask because it wasn't too long ago that we were talking about, and in fact they were talking about making changes and bringing the troops out. there is some merit to that we like to drop that out. we need activity in africa but the problem is that africa is too big have a problem in someplace the east coast to the west coast, so, we talked to them about this, dedicated to africa we wouldn't necessarily have to have the troops that are there. obviously we have to have the ones that bridge the embassies and we understand that but if something happens, we respond
and we had to do work in zimbabwe and somalia, between those three areas, you are talking about crossing the united states, so, that might be a better way of covering our interest in africa than actually trying to have it populated and having them dedicated to do that. >> i might be wrong on that one but -- >> i'd like to open up questions for the national defense community students. what would you like to ask?
>> we are glad to have you here , 2000 years ago -- said -- if you want to be prepared to live at peace be prepared for war. i'm also grateful for george marshall who also said that you cannot compete by bringing more but the same. my question is how you see the roles of the united dates in not only convincing but encouraging the alliance and not only spending more for the defense systems but to developing them and bringing new technologies . >> it's a big world out there with a lot of areas of gray
with different answers to the question some in western europe and that we talked about. i was in lithuania not too long ago and in their case and in many of the former soviet union countries that are still very strongly on our side, we -- they want to have our presence there and the presence is really more of a vision that they want, it's fine when we go in but they'd like to have us have dedicated people in those areas and in some of the areas we are doing that. john bozeman is in on this issue trying to do that so depends on the country you are in. i didn't get the source of the first quote when you said who the person was how did you hear the answer?
he was a roman historian that lived 59 years before christ up until just before christ and he said that if you want to live in feast prepared to war . >> that it is, exactly like george marshall. more prominently quoted was ronald reagan because, in order to not have to use, during the time he was in office not to have to use it you have to have it. if you don't have it then you have to use it and it's too late. that is exactly what he's saying and it's true. >>
>> we need a microphone down here . >> he's pretty loud . >> [ laughter ] >> my name is robert lee with the state department. thank you for your time and your service. you folk guess on the importance of defense in your rightly involved and mentioned the need to protect the funds from a percentagewise budget cut . there's been the nuclear triad but there's also another triad of sorts for national security, the three they could stool that the defense secretary talked about in terms of defense, diplomacy and development. what are your thoughts in terms of what this should play in our national security and whether funding for those should be protected? >> i think it's very important, i believe that my friends on the senate relations committee,
we do talk to each other. we don't always agree -- i think we are in agreement and i'm in agreement with my friends in the former relations committee and we talk about this issue all the time but, if you are in negotiations on somebody, it could be a peace initiative or anything else that you are also -- they are better off if you are the strength. i always remember what phil gramm used to say that he said we all lust for the days when the lion and the lamb would lie down together and when that happens we want to be the lion. [ laughter ]
on for 20 minutes then i was. one thing i had was the document on this. if we eliminated all defense we would still have a deficit. there's only one way to address that, and that is entitlement reform. i would be very supportive of entitlement reform. there are programs that people are talking about. that is where the money is. that's where the savings is. i don't think a tax increase will do that. what we can do is reprioritize. when we went into the situations we went into for the fiscal year in 2018, we had to do something. what we did is we gave a new priority. we did break this option in 2019. first of all, we need to reprioritize. secondly, we need to exempt the
defense spending from the budget caps until we get this corrected. the only way to correct this is to go after entitlement reform. i am one who will support that. good morning. lieutenant colonel heather fox. this question will be very similar to the previous one. it's a follow-up in a way. i will dig a little deeper. we have heard quite a bit about our resources against terrorism, and that sort of thing. what concerns me more is the budget that is the foundation for all of those resources that we would need to fight them. when we see statistics like our
debt is at 78% of our current gdp, and if nothing changes, it will be at 152 percent. with those types of numbers, with the concern that we do get to that point, confidence in the you -- the dollars or bonds could falter worldwide. do you consider our debt and economics problem or defense problem? >> i had to go back and say, you will not resolve this without the reforms of mandatory spending. that's where the money is. the discretionary part of the budget is very small. that is why use a statement, if you did away with the military altogether, you would not be in a position that we want to be in. it has to be entitlement reform. you had to reprioritize this. i have to give you the same answer. let me qualify some of this year. i have always been, you can
come and visit me in my office, i have pictures where i have been the most conservative member for many years in the united states tenant. i am concerned about this. i have 20 kids and grandkids, i am worried about them paying for things we are allocating today. we have to get to a solution to the problem. you cannot do it without entitlement reform. i am willing to do that. we have different people working on that. we have a finance committee and a budget committee. we will have to do that in order to resolve the problem. i am glad you feel that way. i cannot do it on the backs of our kids. i am from the italian navy. with the national security strategy, we are not talking about china as a threat. also, i don't think anything is changing. we know very well
that china ships are increasing. they are increasing more than united states ships. as far as quality comets another matter. they have very old ships. they cannot compare the united states navy. my question is, why are we changing? what is changing between one year ago and right now? >> changing the threat with china? >> china is not a threat, is defined as a competitor. >> what you think of increasing [ indiscernible ]? it could escalate in a way with the two countries.
[ indiscernible ] i'm not sure i understand what you are saying. on sanctions, that is another issue altogether. i am from oklahoma. we are an agricultural state. we have been punished by sanctions with this administration. on the other hand, it seems to be working. over here, things are different . over here, we have worked on this for a long period of time. we have been at a competitive disadvantage for quite a long period of time with the chinese in negotiations. i do think we are changing and we can have a happy ending to that thing. in the meantime, we do not keep in mind, i say we are competitive. i also say threat. when i made my presentation, i talked about a threat. i'm talking about china having equipment and resources that we do not have, and modernizations. they are in two areas where
they are our allies. they are sitting back and wondering, is america really? who is the threat to who in that area? all i can say is, i consider anyone who has anything better than we do, militarily, to be a potential threat. my job is to try to minimize that. we have time for one more question from the audience. >> this is where someone stands up with something crazy. >> i would like to ask you a question on the unique relationship between the senate, the sack, and the military, from general officers coming up to testify on the hill, and staff coming out to visit us in the field. what are your expectations and what you recommend to us as we
move in our career? >> there is a program that was started under the first bush administration. it gives us people from the services. i rotate mine around. i have one with me in the audience today. it is a great program. it lets people the military know how things are run. it is a shock treatment to most when they get up there. it is great. during the timeframe that they are there, i am talking about the military fellowship program. they come in for one year. you fall in love with them during that year. you depend on them during that year. when they leave, they go back and tell the truth about what the problems are and why. for example, they will serve in an office where defending america is not a priority. they
get back to where they can actually talk about it. i cannot think of anyone who will be better informed. there are probably some here. >> i will not mention his name, we had a president that did not like the program and did not think it was good. he did not think it was a good idea for the military to notice what's going on. i disagree with that. it's a great program. we like to have them dialogued together. i can assure you, as one who is with me now will be leaving at the end of december, he is going back much better equipped to defend america and be a good soldier then he was when he came in one year ago. >> thank you very much for your time. i have one question before we go. it is very unpredictable. we caution students about the future. i would like to hear your prediction on the orange ball. >> oklahoma is going to win! [ applause ] thank you.
tonight on american history tv, programs on immigration. next historian catherine benton cohen, on inventing the immigration problem. the commission was formed by congress in 19 -- 1907 one an influx of immigrants was seen by many as a national crisis. and i-30, an interview with the historian about the history of the united states-mexico border wall. after that, real america, and in 1952 film titled high wall, made by the anti-defamation league.
at 11:30, black truth and history looks at u.s. immigration policy. this very government was created in the spirit of mutual diplomacy. >> let's follow the constitution. >> they establish the senate to protect people from their rulers. it is a check on the house. >> the fate on this country is in the hands of congress and the united states senate. the senate, conflict and compromise, a c-span original production, exploring the history, traditions, and role of this uniquely american institution. please raise your right hand. wednesday, january 2 at
8:00 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span. coming up, on the c-span networks, 10:30 a.m., members of the presidential task force look at the risk to children from lead poisoning. the house returns at noon for work on end of year spending measures. we host a discussion on the criminal justice reform bill with senators. the senate continues work on that bill in the morning. on c-span three, at 9:00 a.m., we discussed trade between united states and china. house speaker paul ryan delivers his farewell address at 1:00 p.m. from the great hall of the library of congress. at 2:00 p.m., the veterans affairs committees hold a joint hearing on improving va health care. here is historian catherine benton cohen talking about her book, it inventing the immigration problem. u.s.
immigration commission, better known as the billingham commission was formed by congress in 1907. it was at a time when a large influx of immigrants was seen as a national crisis. the panel was named after his republican chairman, the senator from vermont. the house is an effort issued a 41 volume report on their findings in 1911. all right, we will get started. welcome everyone. welcome to this installment of the washington history seminar. as many of you are aware, this is a joint venture of the national history center. i am delighted to cochair the session , as always with the professor