Sen. Thom Tillis sits down with SFR

Click Here for the Audio Version

Frank Gaffney: A man very much in the forefront of the war of ideas at the moment is the freshman Senator from the state of North Carolina. He is Senator Tom Tillis. He serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee, also the Judiciary Committee and several others in the United States’ Senate. He formally was the Speaker of the House of North Carolina’s House of Representatives, and is always a welcome guest here at Secure Freedom Radio. Senator, thank you for taking some time during your state work period. We’re glad to have you with us. Especially given the traveling you have been doing, I know this is difficult to fit in, but it’s great to talk with you.

Sen. Thom Tillis: Thank you.

FG: I would like to start with your thoughts on the subject that is very much top of mind for us, mainly the Iran deal. You have been properly critical of it. I think you have done some important cross-examination of administration witnesses about its contents. As you see it now Senator, how do you view the seemingly, sort of across the board concessions, that have been given to the Iranians, for not very much in return.

TT: I feel like it is watching a bad movie, where you just can’t imagine that the plot is true, but you have to look at it on several levels. First, Iran is going to continue to be the major state sponsor of terror in the world; hundreds of billions of dollars, arguably a lot more, are going to go into it now that they are going to have sanctions relief. We are negotiating this deal and trying to rationalize that we are going to shore up our conventional capabilities in the region, but I think that is reversed. I think our conventional capabilities should have done where they needed to be to keep the region stabilized, before we were able to economically address a country, and also apparently allow a country to continue build up or accelerate its conventional capabilities. We just heard about the Russian bill with the missiles this week, which the administration says is technically not in violation but we are disappointed with it. Look everybody in the administration acknowledges you can’t trust Iran. Everybody in the administration acknowledges that they’re going to push the limits and possibly cheat, when they get caught say they are sorry, but maybe not go too far to have the sanctions snap back. I’ll tell you it’s just a flawed deal. We probably do need a non-nuclear deal with Iran; this is not a right one.

FG: Yeah, what we’ve got on this count is, and so many others as you say, is seemingly a collapsing regime, that was designed and did to a considerable degree restrain the Iranian side. It didn’t stop their nuclear program, but at least made it a bit more difficult for them to pursue it. If you look at what’s now developing Senator Tom Tillis, do you think that there will be sixty votes in the United States Senate to at least to debate a resolution of disapproval and adopt one? Perhaps not enough to override a presidential veto, but what is the sense of sentiment of your colleagues given this travesty.

TT: I think the likelihood of getting to sixty so that it could be debated, is far greater than the likelihood of getting to sixty-seven to have the president’s absolutely certain veto over the bill. I believe the Democratic caucus owes it to the American people for us to have a debate on the floor, so that we can educate the American people and memorialize the issues that exist with this debate. The proponents have their say. I believe this agreement is going to go down in history as a bad agreement that did not achieve the safety and security aims it set out to achieve. I think that we should do it. So are we likely to get a closure vote, yes. Are we likely to get sixty-seven votes against it? If it were taken today, absolutely not. The question is whether we can educate the American people and have them put pressure on their Senators to vote to send the administration back to the negotiating table, to negotiate a better deal.

FG: Yeah and I guess what rides on this is it seems to me is whether a minority, a partisan minority at that, in one chamber of the Congress, might be able to voice this very defective deal on all of us, and I pray you’re right that we will have a proper debate about this, and that we will use what remains of the recess period to good effect in terms of educating the public about the dangers of it, and thereby educating some of your colleagues. Let me just ask you, I know that you’ve just returned from a trip to the Western Pacific. One of the reasons why I am so concerned about what we are doing, not just in terms of emboldening and enhancing the offensive capabilities of the Iranians, but sort of clearing the way for a lot of other aggressive actors around the world to become more aggressive, is kind of the hallowing out of our military. Would you talk from your perspective as a member for the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Tom Tillis of North Carolina, about your experiences in Asia recently, with a congressional delegation, and whether this is a moment where we should be in fact hallowing out our armed forces?

TT: Well I think that is a great point. In our way over to the Asia Pacific we got a briefing form Pacific Command, the head of Pacific Command, who is concerned with China’s reclamation projects. You know they’ve taken three thousand acres of land and developed it for what appear to be military purposes for the last eighteen months. Now some people say we’ve been reclaiming forever. About a hundred acres over the last seventy-five years have been re-claimed by a couple of other countries. China has re-claimed three thousand over about the last eighteen or nineteen months, and clearly for military purposes. The landing strips, just short of what is needed to land a space shuttle, that doesn’t seem to me to be for peaceful purposes. So since 1999, China has almost doubled its physical capabilities, its conventional capabilities down in the Asia Pacific area. At the same time we are pretty much static. By 2020, they will have a quantitative advantage. We will still have technical capabilities that they deal to counter, but we are really reaching a point where quantity has a quality of its own, and China is gaining that advantage. I think the president in response to that says he’s going to do rebalancing. That’s a great idea shipping assets to the area where you might have a flare up. The problem with it is because of sequestration and the administration’s policies to draw down the military. Although, we are increasing the percentage in an Asia Pacific on a relative basis. We are reducing the capability on an absolute basis. Completely wrong direction and I think that our partners in the region agree.

FG: And there isn’t enough to go around to do what we continue to need to do in places like the Middle East notably with this Iran business, to say nothing of the Russian aggressive behavior towards Ukraine, and perhaps others of our NATO allies. Let me just ask you Senator, you have been, as I say, a member of a committee that is trying to do something to turn around this hallowing out, the sequestration program, specifically as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. The President is threatening a veto over those efforts. Where do you think this stands and are we likely to see some enhanced investment in the military, the only one we’ve got at a very dangerous time?

TT: Well I don’t know if it’s just posturing. If the president vetoes the Defense Authorization Act, then that really demonstrates how out of touch and disconnected he is with the Congress, because it came out of our Armed Services Committee, with solid support from Democrats. The spending levels it targets are similar to the President’s budget. We may have some differences in priority, but what we’re trying to do is shore up the devastating effects, or get rid of, or take the edge off, the devastating effects of sequestration. I for one think we need to repeal sequestration and fight the battle over whether or not we should increase spending in non-defense areas, but Frank we are at a dangerous point with our Navy getting back to pre-World War II levels, our Air Force to the lowest level in its history, and drawing down our army and our military services to levels that I think are very dangerous when you have Russia, you continue with the threat of North Korea, China, the Middle East. So to me I hope this is only posturing so the President may get a few more things while we are conferencing with the House. But veto the Defense Authorization Act, to me is irresponsible and I think is disrespectful to the men and women who a trying to defend our freedom.

FG: Yeah whose sacrifice as well as service is probably going to be much more needed in the future, even than it is now. Senator Tom Tillis, again thank you, I know you just returned from a long travels over seas in connection with some of these same responsibilities. We appreciate you sharing with us your insights as well as your leadership on this effort to stop the Obama bomb deal as I call it. I pray that you’ll be successful in that and that you’ll come back to us again very soon. In the meantime stay well sir. Enjoy your rest of your recess.