Skip to main content

tv   Sen. Cornyn Discusses Global Threats with the Hudson Institute  CSPAN  March 31, 2021 12:50pm-1:44pm EDT

12:50 pm
a fellow at the hudson institute shares her insights on america's relationship with china. >> know your enemy and know yourself. i don't want to say enemy, i can save know your opponent or challenger. that is something we have to understand. if we don't understand that portion than everything else won't matter because it doesn't address the fundamental issue which is the communist party and its tendencies and its goals. >> find the weekly where you get your podcasts. >> texas senator john cornyn sat down for a conversation on threats posed by russia, iran, and china and the need to secure america's supply chain. -- doing --
12:51 pm
>> he has led numerous initiatives to build upon national security policies including his recent bill signed into law that protects manufacturing -- to hunt and supports u.s. service members and their families. leist -- his 2018 legislation to update security reviews was one of the more -- defending against the risks of the chinese communist party. we are grateful to have the senator here to help us understand what is the most uncertain, unstable, and insecure world that many of us
12:52 pm
have ever seen were studied. from iran, to north korea, to russia, and a threat posed by the chinese communist party. america's national security will confront serious challenges all at once. information technology has made it easier for a and fiction to reach our living rooms and our homes in a way we have never seen before. thanks to the alarming nuclear force threats of russia and china we are facing the real risk of a nuclear arms race. this time it is one where the u.s. is watching from the bleachers. you have never better seen the relationship between national security and economic security than we see today from the complements of china incorporated. the cold war seems simple by comparison. senator, hopefully you can help
12:53 pm
us to better understand how you see these national security threats and how you think the senate will respond to them together or in conflict with the new administration. the floor is yours, thank you for joining us. >> i think you summed it up well. i was particularly impressed you could pronounce the name of the county where i first held a district judgeship, most people stumble on that one. you and i have known each other for quite a while, i was one of jon kyl's biggest fans when he was here in the senate and i know you worked for him a long time. it's good to be back with you and at hudson. i appreciate the great work you all do. you provide a lot of intellectual firepower we can use in making policy. as you described, the current situation is more dangerous than the cold war, that makes me nervous, but i can't disagree
12:54 pm
with the confluence of issues that we are facing including the nuclear threat and i'm sure we will talk about nuclear modernization and the importance of what ronald reagan appropriately called peace through strength. i met -- i am ready if you are. >> with your indulgence i will start with art conversation -- a number of national security facilities, i will argue that one of the most important -- every single u.s. nuclear weapon in our active stockpile -- a singular importance in our stockpile. when i was on the house armed services committee i was -- when you go to this area you see critical to mission is, how passionate the workers are about the service they do for the nation, and you see how old the
12:55 pm
facility is. you see the metal bins with high explosives to keep rats from eating away at them. much of the infrastructure looks like the original world war ii construction. we talked about the importance of maintaining and modernizing the nuclear triad of nuclear weapons delivery systems. those weapons don't come out of thin air. they have to be built, maintained. can you talk to us about the importance of not losing sight of the modernization of this complex and the debate about modernizing the u.s. nuclear deterrent? >> until the new start treaty was ratified there was no agreement to build new plutonium pits for nuclear weapons. that focused on the importance of refurbishing the existing nuclear weapons.
12:56 pm
i have been to that area many times in amarillo, texas where they do that work. it is kind of shocking to see them take these old weapons and try to add additional features to upgrade and modernize them. i'm not sure i saw a electric tube, but you get the idea. they have had to upgrade those. obviously with no real testing going on for nuclear weapons, all of this is simulated. we hope that these weapons, once modernize, are going to be effective even with these very old kits. the new start treaty, senator kyle -- to begin production, the goal is to produce 80 new ones a year. i think between one of the national labs and the former
12:57 pm
facility there in south carolina , but to me, my visits at the nuclear test site in the vat a and going to the national labs, i don't know why it came home to me so starkly, but you begin to wonder why we have not had a nuclear weapon used since hiroshima and nagasaki echo it's because of the deterrence and the mutually assured destruction that we have and the reason why we cannot let our adversaries make a mistake, miscalculate, or underestimate our result in our country and our way of life. through the cold war, russia was convinced that if they initiated a nuclear strike that it would result in a response that would
12:58 pm
threaten that country's survival. unfortunately, nuclear weapons if used would threaten the world survival, but at this point there are so many. to your point, i think keeping our weapons production capability up to speed, making sure we have not only refurbished the only nuclear weapons we haven't modernized modernize them, but also make new plutonium pits that can be used for nuclear weapons is an important part of that deterrence. that commitment, i think we need to keep congress's the feed to the fire to maintain that effort to modernize our arsenal and keep the triad. i know there is some talk about a limiting one of the legs of the triad, but i think at some orton that we maintain our capabilities on land, in the air, and at sea. >> if pentax is the crown jewel
12:59 pm
of that complex, the big texas statehouse in amarillo is the hidden secret that only the real experts know about. senator, many of the progressive -- are counting on the biden administration to unilaterally acknowledge stricter declaratory policies or to abandon the triad by walking away from the bipartisan obama, trump, nuclear modernization program. in your view would that be a mistake and why? >> it would be a mistake. the first reason i think it would be a mistake is because of the impression that it would create in our adversaries. principally russia and china that we are not committed to a strong nuclear force posture and maintaining that deterrence that is the key reason for our nuclear stockpile and our weapons systems
1:00 pm
-- sometimes people look at it and think, it is unnecessary or we can eliminate one of the legs of the triad, the ground-based, the strategic deterrent, which will replace the minutemen, and i think that would be a terrible mistake because it would give our adversaries the impression that we are backing down and they could miscalculate and think that they could engage in a nuclear strike that would not threaten their survival but would threaten hours. tim: i agree completely. you mentioned the new start treaty, you are one of the 26 republican senators who voted against the treaty. it was ratified in the end in wendy 10. in the 10 years -- in 2010. in the 10 years since, --
1:01 pm
as former secretary of state, mike pompeo stated, only 45% of russia's nuclear arsenal is subject to the limits. meanwhile, that agreement restricts 92% of america's arsenal. president biden decided to extend that treaty for five more years without any concession by russia. without any effort to constrain china's buildup. what did you make of president biden's decision to extend the treaty? was it a lost opportunity? what does it tell us about our national security? sen. cornyn: i think it was a squandered opportunity not only to include the new weapons that russia has developed, but also to bring china to the table. china's nuclear buildup is pre-opaque to us, -- is pretty
1:02 pm
opaque to us, but they are fast at it. it also logs in this extension -- locks in this extension that russia has when it comes to low yield nuclear weapons. they are concerned about a land war against nato in europe and they view these as an essential part of their war plans, and i think that it is hard to get the approval by congress for us to build low yield nuclear weapons here in the u.s. so it locks in their numerical advantage and does not include more modern weapons which they have developed and it fails to include the other major nuclear power, china. i am not absolutely sure what kind of deal we could have gotten, but we really did not even try. the trump administration did try
1:03 pm
and held out the prospect of changing the agreement rather than extending it or maybe just extending it a year and keeping the conversation going. i think this is a missed opportunity by the biden administration. tim: if i can keep you on arms control for another minute or two, you are a member of the senate committee on intelligence. you have written about how russia misused our treaty, how they were able to knees use that treaty to threaten national security. -- able to misuse that treaty to threaten national security. i am curious if you can talk about why this withdrawal was both necessary and proper. sen. cornyn: it was really outdated because, at the time, basically, flying over the united states, flying over russia or the soviet union would have been the way to identify
1:04 pm
various military buildups, now we have overhead satellites and sophisticated capabilities, so it has become obsolete, but we also knew that russia was using this as an opportunity to commit espionage in the united states. i hate to say this, but russia cheats, whether in the open skies treaty or the imf treaty that limited ground-based look we are -- ground-based nuclear missiles. putin was trying to get a pr advantage and act like they were the holdouts, but they were cheating all along. i think ending this treaty -- outdated was the right thing to do. tim: you are also a member of
1:05 pm
the senate judiciary committee, the subcommittee on the constitution. a responsibility of the senate is the responsibility to advise and consent on treaties and nominations. many have argued that the biden administration should go back into the open skies treaty, they have argued that the senate, having previously given its consent to ratification, the administration does not need to go back to the senate again. it has been reported that the administration -- i am asking how the set reacts to what appears to be an unprecedented proposal to evade the senate's authority on the treaty because of the constitution? do you think the feds will use their authority concerning nominees to flesh out what is permissible and what is not as a matter of law and the constitution to make sure that the senate's authority is not eroded? sen. cornyn: i think the biden
1:06 pm
administration is going to look for opportunities to do everything from reenter the paris climate agreement to it looks like they want to reengage in the jcpoa, which is supposed to constrain iran's development of nuclear weapons. i am pretty confident they are going to look for ways around the senate in terms of our constitutional responsibilities, but we need to remind them that it is a 50-50 senate. they did not exactly get a mandate for some of these policies and there is going to be significant pushback. you are right, the senate is in the personnel business, they are going to need to get people confirmed. we are going to need to get some of the nominees on record to the extent we have not already confirmed them, we have already
1:07 pm
heard from a number of nominees about what their approach is going to be. i believe that they will find a willing partner among republicans on these issues unless they want to do just try to do something pretty unilateral and fairly radical in terms of invading -- evading the senate's role. it is a mistake politically, because if you have a bipartisan buy in to some of these agreements and things go south, it is not unilateral blame, everyone shares responsibility, so i think it is both good in terms of building consensus, but it is also good in terms of if you are worried about getting the blame if things go south. tim: thank you. you talked about the jcpoa, so i would like to pivoted that.
1:08 pm
president biden made a key point in his election campaign that his administration would make the united states a participant in the jcpoa, a deal that president trump with to the united states from in 2019. -- withdrew from in 2019. i am curious, where do you see the senate, where do you see senate republicans on the question of rejoining the jcpoa or using the leverage that the trump administration provided the biden administration to try to hammer out a better deal? sen. cornyn: i was encouraged when i asked an ambassador, the
1:09 pm
nominee, now the new director of the cia, the director of national intelligence, whether it would be permissible for iran to get a nuclear weapon, both answered no. i also remember when prime minister netanyahu spoke to a joint session in congress, he was not happy with the gc poa -- not happy with the jcpoa because it paves the way for iran to get a nuclear weapon. that was the fundamental flaw in the jcpoa, that it also gave number one state sponsor of international terrorism the past -- a pass on their terrorist activities, mainly operating through proxies. a nuclear iran ought to scare the living daylights out of every person in america and in the region because they are the
1:10 pm
most dangerous, i believe, regime in the middle east. they are an existential threat to our allies and friends at israel -- ally and friends in israel. i am not forgiving them a bunch of money, i think the maximum pressure campaign that is secretary pompeo led under the trump administration has had some impact, and i think we ought to keep the pressure up until they are willing to come to the table and include all of their malign activities with a copy hands of agreement and agree that they will never be allowed to get a nuclear weapon. tim: i appreciate that. the sanctions only work if banks and corporations are willing to go back into iran, they are
1:11 pm
willing to invest. it seems restoration of the jcpoa, the next republican administration, which may be only four years away, would likely withdraw from the jcpoa, it does not seem like a good investment for an american or european or asian business to go back into iran if the administration refuses to go back into the jcpoa. you have been an attorney general, a judge. if you were advising a corporation, what would you advise a corporation about going back into iran if the jcpoa was brought back and all of our sanctions were taken apart? sen. cornyn: i would say don't do it. this goes back to what we were discussing a moment ago, this unilateralism by
1:12 pm
administrations, particularly in matters involving national security, or a mistake. i know bipartisan consensus building is hard, but it is hard , but it is the only thing that provides durable and predictable policies for the united states, something that i would hope we would all want, so this idea of taking temporary advantage and skirting any senate confirmation of a treaty or trying to do things on their own as an administration are shortsighted and don't provide the certainty for american businesses that might want to do business in countries like iran. tim: senator, bipartisan support , bipartisan commitment, doing things to the proper channels, that seems to me to take us to the question of what we do about the greatest threat to our national security, china
1:13 pm
specifically the chinese come party. -- china? specifically the chinese communist party. we don't have a grievance against the chinese people, it is illegitimate regimes. senator schumer has announced he plans to move a comprehensive china bill through the senate. maybe one of the things, with such a broad policy measure, you cannot be think about using reconciliation. i am curious what you think are the bipartisan possibilities for cooperation on china in the senate, and maybe if you can make a little news, give us a sneak peek on what you want to try to include in such a comprehensive china bill. sen. cornyn: china is one area
1:14 pm
where we are, i think, pretty close to unified. obviously, things like the covid-19 virus has revealed our bonded abilities when it comes to our supply chain, from everything like personal protective equipment to semiconductors, and that is the topic we can talk about more, but senator warner and i, he is the chairman of the intelligence committee, this is a bipartisan concern. concern about china's cyber activities, it's rampant theft of intellectual property -- its rampant theft of intellectual property, they have been telling us what they are going to do and they want to make sure they get access to strategic foreign investments in the united states to our cutting-edge intellectual property and the know-how to take it back and copy it and
1:15 pm
build it in china, which is a threat to us economically and from a security standpoint. i think this is one topic, and if it is approached with the idea of building consensus and working together, i think it has great promise. the one area that i have been working on, as i alluded a moment ago, is this vulnerability when it comes to semiconductors, the smallest, most powerful semiconductors which are made from a single source, in taiwan. they have committed to building in arizona, but local and state tax incentives are not enough to level the playing field in terms of the expense of these hugely expensive manufacturing facilities. in the meantime, that u.s. is contemplating building one in the united states while china is building 17 in china.
1:16 pm
obviously, that is a problem. tim: let's follow up on that if we can. semiconductors are the oil of the current industrial revolution and from a national security perspective, many worry about whether cutting off japan's oil make a war inevitable in the 1930's. today, for the reasons you outlined, the u.s. could be on the losing end. 60% is made by taiwan. with his which then -- which is within range. there was not much appropriated funding. there are republicans, democrats, and appropriators. what is the way i had here? we talked about this at the beginning.
1:17 pm
as a free-market republican, what is the appropriate balance between the market and government-denied -- government-led industrial policy? sen. cornyn: jimmy carter said if a country in the middle east blocked it, it would be an act of war. that is how vital access to oil is to our national security and other countries as well. i like that analogy on semiconductors. if china cut off our access to these cutting-edge micro-electric circuits that won everything from f-35's to your cell phone, it would be equivalent, and that is a good way to think about it. i've made use that in the future. -- i may use that in the future. it does raise the larger issue
1:18 pm
about industrial policy. like you said, as a free-market conservative, i believe markets are more efficient than government mandates and control, but i'm afraid china has changed the playing field so dramatically by their investment in everything from 5g to artificial intelligence to quantum computing and now semiconductors, and their goal is to dominate the world and us economically and as may become increasingly belligerent, out of the south china sea, and threaten taiwan. they are battling their saber very loudly. this is another reason why, when he talked to a guy like chris wray, the fbi director, about the counterintelligence threats that china poses, everything from confucius institutes to
1:19 pm
students studying in the united states that are coerced into cooperating with their intelligence agencies, china seems to be everywhere. and you are right, sometimes people want to make this an issue about the country of china or the chinese people. this is the communist party's game plan. we need to up our game in order to compete. i have changed my attitude towards strategic investments in the technology and if we don't do it, our adversary well. we will be worse off for it. yes, the bill, the chips act that mike warner and i are sponsoring includes a provision for a tax credit that would be useful for any semiconductor manufacturer that wants to build a lab here in the united states.
1:20 pm
it is not company-specific. or it may be that we get an appropriation in this new china bill. one of the best meetings, the only meeting i have had at the white house since president biden has been in office has been on this topic of vulnerable supply chains and i do believe that there is bipartisan consensus, particularly on the semiconductor front. we have also asked our other experts and smart people to help us rack and stack, what are the other supply chain vulnerabilities that we have that are important? let's focus on some of those as well. tim: i will pull on that thread a little more. people talk about decoupling or strategic decoupling. ppe, semiconductors, those are things we don't want to rely on
1:21 pm
the chinese communist party four. but other things -- chinese communist party for. but other things, t-shirts and sneakers, presumably we don't care as much. sen. cornyn: the other day, it has been a couple months now, i saw a corporation, there was a quote that said russia is a rogue, not a bible. china is a rival, not a rogue. -- not a rival, china is a bible, not a rogue. -- china is a rival, not a ro gue. there is room for us to work together in terms of trade, but i think we underestimated the communist party's commitment to keep their police state and a
1:22 pm
closed society an authoritarian government. we thought maybe if they became part of the wto, they would become a flourishing democracy. that did not happen. i think we've got some targeted areas like intellectual property, cyber, where they are obviously very aggressive and we need to push back and push back hard. things like keeping the south china sea open for navigation is an important area. again, getting back to where we started, i think the best way to keep the peace is to be strong and to be an unenviable adversary for another country. recognizing we have a problem is the first step towards a solution and i think there is broad recognition that china is
1:23 pm
the number one challenge for us. i don't think military conflict with china is inevitable, but if they missed out late or misinterpret our commitment to maintain our military strength and economic strength, there could be a miscalculation at mistake and we should avoid that. tim: a recent meeting between the united states and leaders from the chinese coming as party in alaska was dramatic and tense. it is unclear what, if anything, practically came from it. i am curious what is your take away from the meeting. how do you assess the early days of the new administration's policy with respect to the chinese communist party? are you hopeful or worried? sen. cornyn: i actually was a little encouraged by secretary blinken's pushing back. i was not surprised at the aggressiveness of the chinese negotiators.
1:24 pm
they have become increasingly belligerent and arrogant. they may have been probing to see, what is the attitude? is it going to be weak response or strong response? i think that probably was an important testing of commitments and determination and i thought secretary blinken acquitted himself well. we will see what comes from that , but obviously, if china knows that we are not going to be strong in our response, they will take advantage. so i thought that was encouraging. tim: we talked about you are a member of the senate subcommittee on intelligence so i don't have to tell you about the threat to our way of wife posed by the ctp. -- way of life posed by the ctp. director wray said, you need
1:25 pm
to be clear about the scope of china. the chinese communist party believes it is in a generational flight to surpass our country. we talked a little about this, but on the topic of preserving u.s. technological leadership, you have been a leader. when i worked on the house armed services committee, several members were instrumental in leading the charge in the house under foreign investment -- on your friend investment -- foreign investment. what did you get right, what did you get wrong? sen. cornyn: the committee on foreign investment in the united states foreign investments. we got a little pushback from the chamber of commerce and others who did not -- we thought we were trying to discourage
1:26 pm
foreign investment in the united states. that is not the case. we wanted to be clear about what the risk would be if the chinese communist party, as they have done, made investment, not only inquiring the intellectual property but also the know-how to be able to take it back and make it in china. before you can do business in china, they basically want to get all of your intellectual property and all of your data as a condition of doing business there and that is a shortsighted step if you are an american company or international company wanting to do business there. my impression is other countries, our friends and allies who have similar challenges, are looking at what we did in the foreign investment act.
1:27 pm
i know that has now been stacked up and it is working more aggressively, they are reviewing more cases than they had been in the past. we also extended this to things like buying real estate next to a u.s. military base, which can be a footprint for intelligence and other espionage against our national security. i was pleased that we were able to get that done. we were lucky, we were able to get it out of the banking committee and put it in the defense authorization bill in the short as in a short period of time. -- authorization bill in a short period of time. tim: one of the key provisions of the act, the perfection of
1:28 pm
so-called emerging technologies, things like artificial intelligence. unfortunately, almost three years later, that provision has not been implemented. congress is about to release another report on implementation of that section, it will be the fourth report that details no significant effort to protect these technologies. senators schumer and kotten have talked about the failure to release these controls for maintaining advantage over china. i am curious how you see the implementation of sections like this. are you satisfied with the job the department has done or are you thinking about a change in
1:29 pm
how the technologies are protected? sen. cornyn: it sounds like i need to talk to senator schumer and senator cotton and join with them in those concerns. there are technologies that we don't want other countries to get their hands on because of their importance to national security. if the commerce department is not policing that the way they should, that needs to be corrected. we now have a new administration and we need to make sure that they are committed to enforcing those export controls as well. i appreciate your highlighting that. i will follow-up with senator cotton and senator schumer because that would be a big vulnerability. tim: i appreciate that. as a hallmark with the new competition of china -- with
1:30 pm
china, national security is no longer limited to the national security committee or foreign relations committee, it is now in banking, health education, labor,every senate committee, ey executive branch agency, is now looking at china competition. i earlier quoted fbi director wray. in the same speech here at hudson last summer, the director stated, we have now reached the point where the fbi is opening a new china-related counterintelligence case about every 10 hours. there are nearly 5000 active fbi counterintelligence cases currently underway across the country, almost half related to china. ". with your early discussions with the new administration, for example the recently confirmed attorney general, mr. garland, are you comfortable that the fbi and department of justice's
1:31 pm
china mission will continue and be reinforced the way it needs to be? sen. cornyn: i'm really glad director wray is staying on. i'm a fan of his. on this topic, i've said that she is a pretty stoic guy. does not show a lot of emotion. but on this topic, he is animated, in my experience at the judiciary committee. i also see an organization you are familiar with, the senate national security working group. i sit on it with senator feinstein, being a cochair, designed to work across jurisdictions and our committee structure to focus on national security. we need to do more of that. i think part of the cross jurisdictional work is because i had become concerned that our structure, our silos within the
1:32 pm
congress, are an impediment to the kind of collaboration we need to have, which as you point out does not reside just one, but across many different committees. we will be using, hopefully, that apparatus, as a way to do the kind of collaboration we need to do across committees that have an impact on national security, which is frankly just about all of them. tim: senator, that is great. we've touched arms control, and we spent some time on china. i would like to close on washington, if i can. the administration came in. over the last four years, lots of tough talk on russia. both parties united in pushing back on russia. i'm curious, when you think about russia's use of chemical weapon against their people, and
1:33 pm
for example in the united kingdom, when you think about the attacks, where should we go with russia? and if you have any specific thoughts, how would you like to see the administration respond? sen. cornyn: i think we need to take mr. putin -- we need to recognize who he is and what his aspirations are. obviously, you remember secretary tillerson when he was at the state department said is to putin wakes up every day thinking about where are the americans having problems, and how can we make it worse. i thought that was pretty interesting. but obviously putin thinks of the demise of the soviet union as one of the greatest historical tragedies that ever occurred, and he has been very aggressive at injecting russia
1:34 pm
in places all around certainly the middle east and europe, and anywhere else he can get a leg in. and they, through their active measures, and exploiting our social media, and frankly the gullibility of some of our mainstream media, have been trying to denigrate the united states, whether it is our elections, create chaos, havoc, misunderstanding, distrust. this is part of an old kgb playbook. it is just that the tools they use now are a little bit different than they were back when vladimir putin was in i guess dresden, working for the kgb, when he got started. we need to be very clear right about the russians. that does not mean we should not
1:35 pm
try to find common ground when we can. there may be some areas where we can work together with the russians. but the primary threat is nuclear weapons. we talked about the new start and the lost opportunity that was to include some of the newer ones they have created. and along with the threat of hypersonic vehicles that can deliver a warhead in just minutes, that is a real concern and something i know we are playing catch-up on. but i think some of the recent press, where i think president biden has called putin a killer -- i don't know who was surprised by that comment. it may have been impolitic, but certainly the russian intelligence services have a well-deserved reputation for
1:36 pm
using those kinds of methods against their critics and other people who they think are a threat to their reputation and to their country. so yeah, i think we have got to be -- we have got to call it like it is. we have got to be, to use a word i used earlier, clear right about who these people are and what their aspirations are. only then, i think, can we provide an equal but opposite reaction, and eliminate the chance of mistake or miscalculation which could then get us in a potential conflict, which obviously we all want to avoid. tim: the late senator john mccain described russia as a mafia-run gas station. as secretary blinken takes off for brussels this week for his first nato foreign ministerial -- is first in person opportunity to talk to many of
1:37 pm
our upper -- our european allies, i'm curious what message you would like him to take from the senate. where would you like him to help our allies go that the senate stands on some of the important questions about the future of data, how to handle russia, how to handle china? sen. cornyn: well, i have been a little disappointed in the new administration acting like whatever the policies were of the previous administration, we are going to do the opposite. or disparaging the efforts of the previous administration, the trump administration, where they actually did some good. i mean, getting more participation by the members of nato in our mutual security, making sure that the united states taxpayer did not bear the whole burden, i thought was a very positive development by the trump administration. but rather than dwell on those sort of "we're going to do the opposite of whatever they did, i
1:38 pm
would hope that they would go into this very clear eyed, again, about what the risks are, and what we need to do with our allies. i happen to believe that we do need our friends. if it is one thing that we have in america that china and russia don't have, it is friends, friends and allies looking at things like in asia, the quad coming together to keep the navigation lanes open with india , australia, japan, and the united states, working with nato as a counterbalance for russia and their continued aggression, particularly in places like ukraine, but not just limited to ukraine. it is a tough and dangerous world, as you said at the very outset, and we begin looking around all these various places in the world where our adversaries are involved.
1:39 pm
what could spin out of control? we just have to remain very vigilant and committed to making sure that we are the preeminent military power in the world, and that we use that piece, along with our alliances with our friends, to keep the world a safer place. tim: senator, it is not our link to dispute needlessly controversial questions. we don't play "gotcha" here. but i saved a question for last as we round up our discussion. i have to ask about the great christmas brisket controversy of 2020. was this another lefty smear campaign against good republican brisket? is there a divide between those who like a dry rub and those like a wet rub? sen. cornyn: i think it is like barbecue. different regions of the country like different kinds of barbecue. i was celebrating my wife's
1:40 pm
brisket recipe on christmas time on twitter and was shamelessly attacked by those who preferred a different recipe. but i think that says more about social media and what anonymity will do to people's beliefs. they engage on topics that really don't deserve a lot of attention. but that was amazing, how long that went on. but it also shows how important barbecue and brisket is in texas. people feel very strongly about it. tim: like i said, sir, one of the secrets of texas. everybody can get a 72 ounce steak. thank you very much for today's discussion. we covered nuclear weapons, arms control, iran, china, and russia. hopefully, all of our viewers will have greater confidence
1:41 pm
that we have strong and smart and prudent leadership in the senate, willing to work on a bipartisan basis to face the remarkable challenges that our national security establishment has to address all at once. in the old days, we had the cold war. we just really had to worry about the soviet union. it is a multipolar world. we don't have that luxury. i will let you close, if there are any takeaways you would like our audience to have. sen. cornyn: tim, thanks to you and hudson for hosting today. as i said earlier, i think organizations like hudson that have the expertise are an invaluable source of information for the senate and congress and staff as we wrestle with these difficult policies. as you know from your experience working on the hill, members of congress tend to be generalists. they tend to have a lot of
1:42 pm
different issues they have to address. but there is no more important issue than our national security. it is job number one. and the expertise and the willingness to work with us to help us sort our way through these policies is something i deeply appreciate from you and hudson. so thank you for that, and thank you for having me today. tim: senator, thank you very much for taking time out of your busy schedule. we appreciate you here, and we want to thank you again for your time and your service. sen. cornyn: you bet. >> republican senator mike lee of utah give his thoughts on executive power under the constitution. you can watch that today at 3:00 eastern. later today, we will take you live to pittsburgh, for coverage of president biden's economic plan based on info structure projects. coverage starts at 4:20 eastern and online at
1:43 pm
in the u.s. supreme court heard oral argument today over what kind of compensation college athletes should get. they will issue a ruling by the end of june. see the entire argument tonight at 9:00 eastern here on c-span. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government, created by america's cable television companies in 1979. today, we provide c-span viewers a public service. >> minnesota governor tim walz delivered the state of the state address on sunday. he spoke from a high school where he was once a teacher. the democratic governor talked about the state's response to the covid-19 pandemic, reopening schools, as well as the economy, during his speech. gov. walz: half a million minnesotans have contracted covid-19.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on