tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN November 4, 2015 2:00am-4:01am EST
>> someone who has been a two-term governor of the state, widely considered to be in the mainstream of the party in politics, where bernie sanders has been -- he has his own ue chace it, he has not been the most effective member, liberal democratic senator. really effective democratic senators, ted kennedy, tom harkin. but sanders has chosen to basically be a voice but to actually do stuff, get things done, driving agenda. that had not been sanders so much.
>> presidential candidate donald trump held a news conference to promote his new book. he took questions from reporters and shared his thoughts on the presidential race. this is 35 minutes. thank you louise, i appreciate it very much. it's a great honor. i want to thank simon and schuster, one of the most magnificent publishers for years and years. i've heard about simon & schuster as being a fabulous, i was going to say the roles royce or the harvard or the yale but they really are a great one. i want to thank you very much. you have given us such tremendous support. we did this quickly and we think it we did it very effectively. it has been an incredible experience. we wrote a book and the title, tripled america's very tough
crippled america's very tough. i think one of the reasons we need to do what we need to do and one of the reasons we are doing so well in the campaign is weary tell it like it is and we tell the truth. america is crippled. we 017 and now 18 and very soon it will be $19 trillion in debt. we have a military that doesn't have proper instruction from leadership and we don't know what were doing. we are losing all over the world with trade deals with every country. know matter what country you pick, they are beating us in trade. we can't go on like this any longer. it is impossible to go on like this any longer. i always mention, as an example, a trader. we get sergeant bergdahl and they get five of the people they wanted. they wanted them badly and that's not the way it's going to work anymore. we will write about it in the book. we tell lots of different stories of lots of different
things and i think it's going to be very instructional and important to me which was instructional. when i did the deal, i think one of the reasons it was so successful, was that it was largely instructional. even today when i speak, so many people hold up the book the art of the deal and the other books we've done. this is one that probably, not since the art of the deal, i have to tell this to louise, have i worked so hard on a book. it was in a confined. of time that we wanted to get it out really, really quickly so that it pertains to what's going on right now. the moment of time. we got it done. david did a fantastic job. where's david? david did a fantastic job. all of my people did a fantastic job. they help me so much because we are doing a couple of other things right now so this was not easy getting the sin. but we see by the lines to park
avenue, they been forming last night and i'm going to be signing books starting at 12 o'clock, doing a couple of interviews and then signing books at 12:00 o'clock. that will be a very exciting very exciting time for me. we have fans who have bought the book and they just bought it and some have been online for 12 and 14 hours. i don't know how they do it, but they do it. they find a way. i'm looking looking forward to getting to the signing. does anybody have any questions? >> yes go ahead, katie. >> well i think it's a different book. we just had polls come out in iowa where i am leading. you saw the new pope from iowa? you saw the new poll in new hampshire where i'm leading it. i'm leading in georgia, texas, all over the place. are doing well. if you add in that, were beating
everybody by a lot. were beating the establishment. the establishment has let us down. i don't know. i don't know how his book is doing. i think my book is very hard-hitting. this is a different kind of a book and he is a different kind of person. my book is very hard-hitting. it says it like it is. based on what simon & schuster just told me it's selling like hot cakes. we are very different people. we have very different qualities. we are extremely different. i'm different from all the other candidates. look, nobody can negotiate trade deals like me. we are going to take the $400 billion a year that we are losing with china and that's going to be turned around. the $75 billion a year that we are short on with japan, the $50 billion a year that we lose to mexico, and that's right there will be a wall built.
a wall will be built and it will go up. people come into the country legally. i much different. you look at marco rubio, very, very weak on immigration. you look at ben, he's weak on immigration and wants to get rid of medicare. you can't get rid of medicare. it would be a horrible thing to get rid of. it actually works. you get rid of the fraud, waste and abuse and it works. when a man is weak on immigration and wants to get rid of medicare, i don't know how he stays there. go ahead john. [inaudible] >> no i think that marco is overrated. frankly, had bush been a better messenger, he has a better message. that was me delivering that message, it would've been a much different story. marco doesn't show up to the united states senate. he is representing the people of florida, which by the way that poll came out today and i am way up in florida over everybody.
but marco is a a sitting senator and he doesn't show up for the people. i don't think he should be doing that. bush gave a very weak message. it was poorly delivered. the facts are ultimately that marco will be hurt very badly. if you look at mr. singer, you have to see where mr. singer is coming from. when you see where he is coming from i think people will say whoa, we didn't know that. look at marco's stance on illegal immigration. it's it's really trouble for him. i don't see how he can win. okay, yes, mark. [inaudible] >> marco rubio's personal finances are discredited #zero know his personal finances, all you have to do is look at his credit card. he is a disaster with his credit card. i'll tell you what, i love florida. i'm in florida all the time. for years i have been hearing that his credit cards are a
disaster. i would think when you take a look at it you will find that. his credit card debt and his problems with credit card and what he did when he was running the party apparatus with credit cards, i've heard about it for years. you will have to find out. >> he has a very bad record of finances. if you look at what happened with his houses, he certainly lives above his means. there's no question about that. i'll tell you what. i don't really care that much. i want a room, i want to podium. let's get going because i don't really care that much. a lot of the people that are candidates and i respect many of them, not all of them but many of them, they felt it was very unfair because hillary clinton was given all softballs. i mean she wasn't asked one tough question. they didn't ask about the foundation or any of the
problems. they didn't talk about the email problem, when that came up bernie sanders lost his whole campaign. what he did was so stupid. in order to get a one minute soundbite and some a a applause, that's where he gave up his campaign. people aren't going to his rallies. he's finished. unless something happens, she will easily be the candidate. i will say this. she only got softballs. that's all she got. if you look at the way we were treated, it wasn't the same way. with that being said, i don't really care. [inaudible] >> your name is? [inaudible] >> well i think the republicans actually are doing a pretty good job overall. they coalesced at the last debate because it really started with me, the guy asked me a question and i think he is probably finished as a credible reporter. he was a disaster. it was such a horribly put
question and so obviously. the republicans coalesced around each other. it was actually pretty beautiful when you think about it. all we want to do is be treated fairly. with me, i don't care that much. just give me a podium. what i would say is this. the networks have made a fortune because of me, not because of anybody else. they were saying that the last cycle they had 2,000,001,000,000 people in the networks didn't even want to broadcast because nobody watch. nobody wanted to watch. now they have 25 million people, 24, 24 million people, 23 million people and 16 million people. give me a break. somebody said how did they get there and actually variety and hollywood reporter do report the stuff pretty well. much better than the political press. they said solely for one reason, it was trump. i'll take the credit. i think a wounded warriors and our veterans should be given
some of the ed enormous profits being made on these debates, enormous profits. by the way anything beyond what they envision. cnn was going to get $2000 for 32nd ad. they ended up getting 250,000. they went from 2000 to $250,000 for a 32nd ad. they are making a portion and i think they should give some of the profits to the wounded warriors and the veterans. that's what i want. [inaudible] >> i'm giving them away. i'm giving the profits of my book away to a lot of different organizations including the vet. >> who are you with? >> okay good. this is a new form of reporting. they used to come up with cameras. she came up with a cell form
phone. speak fast. go ahead. [inaudible] >> i have been amazing with respect to the hiring of women. this building was built as the head person who was fantastic, by a woman and that was at a time when you didn't see that in the construction. i have many, many executives upstairs and in different buildings that i have that are women. many at a proportion that is close to 50% or over 50% if i analyzed it. they get paid a lot of money and in many cases more than men doing the same job. women have always appreciated that about me. in terms of employment, i have really been stand out and i've been honored for doing so well with women. >> yes, go ahead.
[inaudible] >> are you going to be voting? i don't think so so let's go. >> we don't have to worry about the french right now. go ahead. [inaudible] >> what jeb bush was saying at the last debate? i don't know but he didn't say it well. what is your question there, behind you? [inaudible] >> your with telemundo, go ahead. i like telemundo. i'm suing the other company for 500 million. go ahead. because the country is doing so poorly. the country is doing so poorly. go ahead. [inaudible] that's good. they will have some demonstrations. oh good because it will get even
higher ratings if they do that. i think it's fine. look, i think they should demonstrate. ratings will go even higher than they are going to be. it's going to be one of the highest rated shows ever and they are very excited about it. i have a great relationship, as you know from telemundo with the hispanics. you treated me very fairly. i won the pole recently in nevada and other polls. i think i got 37% in nevada and leading everybody. i've got a great relationship with the hispanics. i have, working for me, thousands of hispanics. i've had tens of thousands of people over the years working for me. i am job machine. one of the things that does come out of every single pole and survey is that nobody, for the economy, nobody is even close. i am two, three, four, five
times greater than anybody else. you almost say it's about the jobs, it's about the economy and how will anybody be trump in all fairness question i've had a great relationship with rutgers and jobs and with the hispanics. i protect i will win the hispanic vote. i think i will win the hispanic vote. i predict yes, i think i will get the nomination and i will win the white house. i think eating hillary clinton is going to be easy because her record is so bad. okay. go ahead. [inaudible] >> that's the question i like. how am i preparing for my and out. i'm meeting with lorne michaels in a little while. after here we are going to sign, i have thousands people in line, but we are going to sign and later on this evening i'm meeting with lorne michaels and will start the whole thing.
we'll pick this gets and we will have a fantastic show and we will all have a lot of fun. my jab impression? no i don't want to do that. i don't like to show a person sleeping at a podium. tom is asking, can jeb make a comeback? i think it will be very hard. not about money. i think i came up with the energy. we need tremendous energy because we need a person that has tremendous personal energy to get us back on track. you can't do that when you don't have that. i think marco is highly overrated. highly overrated. he doesn't have it. all you have to do is look at his stance on things. jeb, he lacks the quality that you need. were talking about everybody in the world is ripping us off. you need a very strong person with strong energy. thank you very much folks, i'll take the job.
but, by the way, ben carson does not have that energy. we need somebody with tremendous energy to straighten out the military, isis and our horrible trade deals, to terminate obamacare and come up with something better for far less money. you need someone with tremendous personal energy. we have a president that doesn't have energy. you think obama has energy question he has no energy. he's been a horrible president. we need somebody with great personal energy so we can make great deals and do well in every other respect. certainly jeb bush does not have that in my opinion. i'm the guardian, oh, they treat me very nicely in scotland.
go ahead. good, thank you. well we just went over that, honestly. it's only going to make it hotter. another question? ahead. [inaudible] >> state again. you will see what we are going to do. the whole thing with anchor babies, i turned out to be right. a person has a baby, lives in mexico or asia or many different places, has a baby, walks across the baby and has the baby walks across the border and has the baby here and now were responsible for that child. i don't think so. they were right, i was right. they were wrong. if you wanted to do that in mexico or few wanted to do that
in any other country where you have a baby in that country in that country has that person for 85 years, including all of the cost of that person, they would laugh you right out of the country. you would be laughed out of the country so fast. that turned out, i was a hundred% right. were going to take care of it and it will be done in a very humane way but we are going to bring back our country and have a wall and mexico is going to pay for the wall and you know why they're going to pay? and i have great relationship with mexico. phenomenal relationships with the mexican people. they buy apartments from me, they work for me by the thousands. phenomenal relationships, but let me tell you, we lose so much money with mexico in terms of trade imbalance. $45 billion last year. plus we give mexico billions and billions of dollars.
they will pay for the wall. it will be very interesting. you know what, people will come into this country but they're going to come in legally. go ahead. can you talk louder? nobody can hear you. i know a lot of european countries are going to build walls to stop immigration. walls work. all you have to do is ask israel. walls work if it is properly constructed. not the walls that these politicians who are running our country who are a disgrace, all talk no action. they build a wall this big made drive a a car through. walls work. all you have to do is build a wall that works.
go ahead. [inaudible] >> we need pop and circumstance. good question actually. our country has no spirit. our country doesn't feel good about itself. the primary reason is we have no victories. where have we had a victory? where have we had ah aq victoryd trade question where have we had a victory as an example, this horrible deal that was signed with iran where were giving $150 billion and we lose everything. we lose everything. it's a laughing stock. worse deal, worst contract i've ever seen. we have no victories. i do write about it. we need some pomp and circumstance but we need spirit. we need a cheerleader. i thought, seven years ago when
obama got elected, the one thing i thought that he would be a great cheerleader for the country. he's not. he's he's been a great divider for the country. he has been one of the great dividers of all time. i'm not saying dress. it has nothing to do with stress. it has everything to do with the fact that he is very divisive. he has been a great divider and that should not have happened. >> yes. [inaudible] >> i will go anywhere they want. i don't care too much about the debates. i'm the one who gets all the nasty questions anyway. nobody else gets the really nasty questions. in a way maybe they're defending me, but i don't think the doing it for that reason. i think it's irrelevant. i think i like the debates and i've done well in the debates. every single pole set i won all the debates. i don't know if i did or not,
but i certainly didn't do badly. even cnbc pole set i won the debate. i like the debates, i think they're good for me, but we have to be treated a little bit fairly. as an example, hillary clinton, no tough questions. why didn't they ask about bill. why didn't they ask about all the different things. no tough questions. now that was staged by the democrats. frankly, they did a very smart thing in the way they staged it. while we are going to stage something properly also. as far as i'm concerned, i really don't care that much. i just want to debate. i think debating is a good thing and it's healthy and it gets everything into the open. but you don't want people who read a question, in my opinion his careers probably ruined or threatened. you can ask about anything you want. hillary had only softballs. all night long. it was like this, here hillary,
hit this one over the park. yeah, go ahead. [inaudible] are you from russia? >> alright i think our relationship with russia will be very good. vladimir putin was on 60 minutes with me three weeks ago. they have one of the highest ratings they've had in a long time. i'm going to give him total credit. we will have a very good relationship. i think with russia. maybe we won't. but i believe we will have a very good relationship with russia. i believe i will have a very good relationship with vladimir putin. go ahead. [inaudible] sounds okay to me. go ahead. [inaudible]
lie think there are a lot of economic issues. we didn't talk about trade. we didn't talk about devaluations, right. we didn't talk about corporate inversions which by the way, none of the other candidates, they don't even know what it means. but we didn't talk about corporate inversions where companies are leaving our country, massive openings because they can't get their money back and because they get lower taxes elsewhere. they are leaving and taking their jobs elsewhere. the corporate inversions syndrome is a very important thing to talk about. these are all things that weren't talking about at the debate. instead they talked about fantasy football. it was a big question, fantasy football. i'm saying saying what about corporate inversion. two and a half billion dollars, at least, i think it's probably twice that much, it's in other countries wanting to come back but because our system is so corrupt and terrible, they can't get the money back to invest in this country.
they don't talk about corporate inversion at the debate, they talk about fantasy football. go ahead sarah. you have to talk louder now. i was against the war in iraq very early on. i'll give it to you. yes i have it upstairs. i don't know, i'll give it to you upstairs. while you know, you have to understand, i was a developer. a lot of people didn't care about my view in 2003 or 2004. there is a writers article taken from a magazine about my stance in 2004, i i believe in july 2004, and it talked about my stance on how i felt about iraq. i felt very strongly about what will happen. you will destabilize the middle east and iran will take over iraq. that's exactly what's happening. they will take over the oil reserves which are among the largest in the world and in addition other bad things will
happen. the other bad things or are ices. i said that in 2004 and that was an article that was taken from a magazine previous to that. i felt that way for a long time. [inaudible] >> that's the best question you've ever asked me. finally sarah you're asking me this great question. sarah, from cnn, terrific person. do i think that it is time for some of the other republicans in the race that are registering zero in a couple of cases, they have zero with an arrow pointing left which i assume is it a mistake because that's less than zero, do i think it's time to have some of the other republican candidates drop out? yes. there are too many people. i don't want to get personal, but you can look at the poll numbers. if a person person has been campaigning for four or five months and they are at zero or one or 2%, they should get out.
like, look at me, i go to florida and look at the numbers that just came out of florida. 37%. georgia, those are real numbers. these numbers that these people have, and i often ask myself, i asked asked mark yesterday, what are they doing? i happen to think it is very bad for their brand. i think walker did a good thing. i think the way walker saw it wasn't happening, it wasn't going to happen, and he just got out quickly. he was favored, don't forget. i know it was before trump was going to happen. he was favored for a period of time. they thought he was going to win. what happened is he got out. i think the way he got out was great. i think he did a really smart thing for himself. frankly other people should get out. i would like to personally have more time to talk about the problems of the united states. more importantly, how to solve the problems, because we can
solve the problems. that's great question. people should get out. yes. [inaudible] eva. they just said said one of the biggest applause lines, is when i talk about my daughter of anke. she was just at fortune magazine for something like woman of the year. just say hello, hello, okay. she is going to be very involved and malan is going to be very involved. they will coming out very soon. she is going to iowa. when are you going to iowa? >> very soon. >> good question. i would say, i don't see threats. whatever it is i have to do. he said one of the top threats
to your candidacy? who knows. you are in a crazy world of politics. people change their minds. i'm going to make america great again. nobody else will do that again. i'm going to do it. i'm going to make it, in my opinion, better than ever before. i think that's awfully tough to compete with. one of the reasons that in my book, actually put financials in there, i show some of the developments and i have many, many more because you can only, at simon & schuster schuster they kept me 28 or nine pages but i show some of the great developments i have done that our soul successful and incredible and financially good, i show my financial statement from about two years ago. now it's even better but we didn't have it certified yet. i do that, not in a ragged oceans way, but i do that because that's the kind of thinking our country needs right right now. we are run by people who are
incompetent. i hate to use the word stupid, but you have to use that word in less than have bad intentions, which i don't believe they do, but we are run by incompetent people. we have incompetent leadership. there are so many things, like i mentioned corporate inversion. the democrats want the money to come back. who doesn't want it. the republicans want the money to come back. for three years the democrats have said we want the money to come back. in three years, the democrats and republicans agree, 100%, you have a vast majority, maybe everybody for three years. guess what. they haven't done anything. they can't even get along when they agree. so here's the thing where we can take trillions of dollars and bring it back into this country, rebuild big parts of our country with it. companies can spend that money in our country. we have everybody agrees it should be done for years and they can't do it. that's part of the problem. there's a lot of controversy
with mr. singer. there are those people who probably wouldn't want him to back, back, but we'll see. i'll talk to you. go ahead. [inaudible] >> oh they will agree. they just didn't want to go through the unfair questions because they weren't questions, they were statements. you see they were asking, they were giving statements in a sarcastic disgusting way. by the way, i think becky is terrific. i think carl is terrific. i think john harwood is not very good at what he does but i think becky and carl are traffic. john was disgrace to cnbc. well it's really an interesting question. the question is should the fed raise rates? they are not raising them because obama has asked them not
to raise them. in my opinion he wants to get out of office because we are in a bubble and when those rates are raised, a lot of bad things will happen or potentially could happen and in my opinion, janet yellen is highly political and she's not raising rates for very specific reason because obama told her not to. he wants to be out playing golf in a year from now and he wants to be doing other things and he doesn't want to see a big bubble burst during his administration. she's not doing it because the administration and president obama doesn't want her to. you've seen it. when there's a talk of raising it just a little bit. one of the problems we've had is our currency right now is not competitive with other currency.
if you look at the devaluation of china and japan and many other countries, they're making it impossible for our countries to compete with them. don't do that, if you do that, we will put a big fat tax on you. if you said that, they wouldn't do that if you had the right message. how about one more russian. howard you have another question?? i love him. he always treats me so nice. really i'm focused on one very important election. there are some good elections but i'm not watching any of them in particular. we will be out voting. the election that i am watching is the election for the presidency of the united states. in my opinion this will be truly one of the most important elections we've ever had in this country. we are so far behind. we cannot go another four years with incompetent leadership.
>> okay, what else? one more question. go ahead. that's a good question, okay. so simon and schuster came up to me. they wanted to do a book. they wanted it to do on success and how do you do this and how do you build it and that's what the book is largely about but we talk so much about the country. i settle do it but we have to talk about the country. what happened is they sent this incredible photographer up to do a book cover, to do a picture. he did some some great, almost as good as you, he did some great photos. i'm small smiling and happy and everything looks good. then he took one where i wasn't really think about a photo and it turned out to be a nasty picture. then the book was written and the title was given and the only really terrible picture i had was that one.
it's a terrible, horrible, nasty picture but when you're talking about crippled america and you're talking about all the problems we have, i can have a big smiley face up there so that's how we picked it. we picked the worst photo taken of me. i would have loved to have had a beautiful smiling picture but that doesn't go with the title of the book or the context of the book. simon & schuster agreed with me. said again. what? are the other republicans afraid to debate? while some of them should be. ml
sure, director of the warfare initiative at the center for a new american security and doctor peter singer, senior fellow at the new american foundation. the witnesses have testified before this committee and continue to warn that the global threat environment is the most challenging, complex and uncertain in 70 years. what is truly disturbing is that as we look to the future, the trends that are making the world more dangerous seem likely to persist and intensify. many of our adversaries are investing billions of dollars into reshaping their militaries and developing technologies to counter and thwart america's
military advantages. at the same time, the speed of globalization and commercialization means that advanced destructive technologists are available at militaries, terrorist groups and other nonstate actors. add to that, the harm caused by the budget control act in sequestration, we are now facing the dual problem of the quantitative and quantitative erosion of our military edge. reversing this trend certainly requires greater military capacity. there is still a lot of truth in the old adage that quantity has a quality all its own. that said, simply buying more of what we have now is insufficient. that's not how we will preserve our advantage or when our future wars. our enemies are not just investing in new defense technologies, technologies, they are investing in strategies to counter americans traditional military strength asymmetrically. hybrid warfare and anti-access in area denial capabilities. doing more the same simply plays into our adversary hands.
as the panel concluded, maintaining the operational and technological edge of our arm forces require sustained and targeted investment. i want to emphasize targeted where. we are witnessing areas in robotics and unmanned systems, miniaturization and directed energy and data analytics. this is not science fiction. this is happening right now. we better understand the implications of these changes for the future of warfare because we know our adversaries are working overtime to do so. this is a major defense acquisition challenge. these kinds of disruptive technologies are being developed more by nontraditional commercial companies than traditional defense industry. indeed, the top four u.s. defense contractors combined spend only 27% of what google does annually on research and development.
yet the defense acquisition system, all too often serves to repel rather than attract producers of disruptive new technologies. leading commercial companies are innovating on 18 month cycle, but the department of defense is stuck on an 18 year cycle. this is a recipe for failure in fixing this problem must continue to be a top priority for this committees acquisition reform efforts. it's not enough, however just to acquire new technologies. we must also devise new ways to employ them. it would be a failure of imagination merely to try to conform emerging defense technologies to how we operate and fight today. ultimately, we must recognize the radical potential that these capabilities possess in shape new ways of operating and fighting around these new technologies. the classic example is the tank prior to world war ii. at the time, all the major
powers had tanks but they could only imagine them as mobile artillery or armored calvary. it was the germans who first understood that a tank as a tank. they built entirely new operational concepts around it and realized its true potential. similarly, the united states navy in the 1930 adopted its self despite opposition at times, both internal and external, from a force tilt around their battleship to one organized around carrier aviation. key military leaders at that time anticipated the opportunity that aviation presented, develop ways to fight with aircraft at sea and prepared our nation to wage and win a new type of naval airfare. we face similar challenges now. instead of thinking about how cyber or unmanned systems or other new technologies can simply enable us to do things, we are already doing now, now,
we must discern the real potential of these capabilities. how they may be used against us and how they should be used by us. then we must rethink and reimagine and reshape our military around these disruptive new technologies. that's the only way we will sustain our qualitative military edge. this will require tough choices, , prioritizing for the future will not always be popular in all quarters of the defense establishment. advocates for the status quo will likely resist change. these are the choices we must make to ensure that our military will be ready to deter, and if necessary, fight and win our future wars. i look forward to the testimony of our witnesses, senator reid. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. let me join you and thinking our witnesses for their willingness to appear today to provide their thoughts on the future of warfare. each of you have contributed to
our discussions and i look forward to testimony. i sensed a theme of last week's hearing and one i expect will continue today. it's the need for offset strategy. we capture a distinct qualitative advantage over our adversaries. the presumption that the decades long technological superiority enjoyed by the united states and our ally will continue into the future may no longer be valid and appeared competitors learned from our past success and made advancements of their own. particularly in the area of precision and long-range strike, space and cyber. this has even impacted our nonstate groups like isis and al qaeda who are able to employ tools including drones and satellite communication equipment which would have been unthinkable only a few years
ago. as to be secretary of defense told student/year, as any good student knows, the fundamental nature of war is an interactive clash. a two-sided duel. action filed by reaction. while the u.s. fought to lengthy wars, the rest of the world saw what are the images were. they studied them and they set about devising ways to compete. they face the very real possibility and find themselves facing an arsenal of advanced disruptive technologies that could turn our previous technology advances on its head. arm forces no longer have uncontested access or operational freedom of moves. underlying these challenges are several technological trends that are reshaping the warfare. global investment by the global sector.
to compete we will have to develop an acquisition hiring policy. we need to incentivize some of those engineers to work with us. we have to protect the military and the agencies that are driving innovation that will shape our future military capabilities. pace of technology is accelerating in the dod processes are slower and more bureaucratic than ever. we need a 21st century enterprise to keep up. beyond acquisition reform, this includes the development of new military concepts of operations. for example those dealing with complex robotic systems, new rules of engagement on the battlefield, new regulations to expanded use of things like nanotechnology, artificial intelligence or biotechnology, and a new attitude, both
attitude, both in the pentagon and in congress that encourages the informed risk-taking and innovation that is characteristic of the people and company that are shaping the future. i welcome your suggestions on these issues and i look forward to your testimony. thank you mr. chairman. >> mr. alexander, welcome. >> thank you sir. chairman mccain, distinguished members of the community, i'd like to talk about what you addressed in your opening statements about where technology is going what it means for the future of warfare. i will do this rather quickly. i submitted a statement for the record and asked that that be put on the record. >> all statements will be made a
permanent part of the record. >> thank you mr. chairman. when you look at the rate of change of technology, what you brought up in terms of the cycle of where we are with the dod acquisition system and where industry is, 18 years versus 18 months, it's unacceptable. especially when you look at cyber security. when you think about the rate of change for cyber security, it's doubling every two years. that means the kids in college today, what they learn in their freshman year, half of it is outdated by their junior year. when you think about the volume of information that's being created, the unique volume of information, it's about seven eb. what that means is we are going to create more unique information this year than the last 5000 years combined. when you think about the staggering rate of that information and where it's going and you look at, on the civilian side, the top ten in demand jobs didn't exist ten years ago. that means we are teaching students for jobs that don't exist, using technology that hasn't been created to solve problems we don't even know our problems. there's tremendous good that will come out of this in terms of the future of warfare. and healthcare. and saving money for our taxpayers in the energy market and others. when you look at the revolution
that will go on in the energy sector and how we can stabilize our nation and other nations energy sector and not waste billions of dollars in fuel costs each year, year, this is a huge opportunity for our nation. with that opportunity comes tremendous vulnerability. when you think about what the defense department is required to do, it rests on that civilian infrastructure. it rests on the energy sector. the communications infrastructure and all the other medications that are intertwined. our nation, in order to execute warfare, depends on that being there. it's not secure. tremendous vulnerability. i'll just hit some highlights of what i think we are going to face over the next several years. you only need to look back on what happened in 2007, first distributed denial attack, 2000 eight, same thing. both love those were from russian hackers.
i learned this from my daughter. i use russian hackers. they are going after a nation. in it was sony and georgia. uniquely timed, the the russians entering into georgia. as you know, 2008 in october is where we found malware on the defense network. if you jump to 2012, we saw a series of attacks against our nation's financial systems, largely attributed largely attributed to iran. it was preceded by a destructive attack against saudi arabia that destroyed the data on over 30,000 systems. from 2012, august when that attack occurred to 2013, 2300 attacks against our financial infrastructure.
now when you jump forward to where we are today, with what's happened with target, home depot, sony and you look at what hit other countries, you are seeing that those nations, who disagree with us, are looking at ways to come at looking at ways to come at us. they are using the full spectrum of power, diplomatic, political, economic, economic and military. within military, the easiest form, for at least russia and iran, has been cyber. now we look at what's going on around the world today, you can see that what's going on in syria, if we have a disagreement with russia, or if there randy goes bad, or if we don't have a meeting of the mine on ukraine, or something pops up in north korea, i expect these countries to come back at us with cyber attacks. they can say, our guys didn't do it. it can cause tremendous damage. our nation is not ready for these types of attacks. across the board.
i think the cyber legislation that was brought forward takes us a great step down the road. i think there is more that needs to be done. within the defense department, only defense department can defend this nation in cyber. homeland security can set standards but when our nation is under attack, u.s. cyber command, nsi and nsa and fbi will be the first responders. let's look at what happened to sony and use that as a case to end my opening statement. when sony was hit, everybody can say will that's not critical infrastructure. i've got it. when sony was attacked, we would not allow, as a government, sony to attack back against north korea. the reason is, if sony is, if sony were to attack back, it could start a bigger war on the korean peninsula. that is the responsibility of government. but if sony isn't allowed to attack back, then who does that
for sony? that's where our government steps in. that's where our defense department is. that's what we are needed for. but we can't see sony's networks and i'm not advocating for the government to be in all the networks. what i'd advocate for is a radar system. when a company or sector is being hit, they can tell the government at large i'm being attacked. two things have to be occurred in order to do that. those companies need to up their game in cyber security and understand what's going on and they need to, to, much like a radar system, be able to tell the government some things going on. then, the government can determine what to do. in all of this, it has to occur at network speed. it is not a place where you can have someone in the loop making a decision. if they are doing nuclear
exchange where we are racing down the road building powerpoint student brief the white house on the next step when the missiles, and 30 minutes in the briefings come in 30 hours. in cyberspace, to go halfway around the world takes 67 milliseconds. that's your decision space. it doesn't provide any opportunity for us to miscalculate in this area. when you think about what those who wish us harm want to do, if i were a bad guy, i'm a good guy chairman, i believe, if i were a bad guy would look at this as a military campaign and say how do i want to attack our financial sector, our energy sector in our government. i believe those who wanna do us harm can do that much like what happened in 2012, but this time with more destructive tools against our energy sector and our financial sector. if that happens, the cost to our
nation would be measured in the trillions. so, where'd we need to go? i think that's one of the things chairman that we ought to discuss. where we go in this area and how we set up and organize within the government and set the rules of engagement and get things right. train our troops across the board and partner with industry. we have got to do both. we need industry to tell us what's going on. the government has to be there to protect the industry. i am not an advocate of us pushing money to industry for them to go fix their problem. i'm an advocate for industry upping their game and to have the ability to tell the government that something is going on. these are areas that i like to really talk about what's going on. when you look at it, on the internet, our nation is the one who created the internet. we were the first to do this. we ought to be the first to secure it. thank you mr. chairman.
>> thank you very much general. mr. clark. >> ranking member read, members of the committee, chairman mccain, thank you for asking us to come here today on this very important topic. i wanted to highlight some elements for my written statement to get the strategy we should be using to approach technology development in the department of defense. we got a very dynamic security environment today. we've talked about that in other sessions recently and a very dynamic technology environment as mr. alexander highlighted. what that is doing is transitioning several decades of military dominance that we've enjoyed since the cold war into one of competition peered we will now have to compete to be able to maintain our war fighting edge against our adversaries. to be able to maintain that we
have to have a strategy that goes after the kind of enduring advantages that we need to be able to have to deter in the future. the last time we were faced with a situation like this where we had a long-term competition against a single or series of adversaries was during the cold war. during that period, we used several series of offset strategies that have been described as being able to demonstrate to the soviets that we would be able to hold them at risk, attack their targets at home and attack their forces out in the field. these involve nuclear weapons initially with a new look at pres. eisenhower's strategy in the 50s and it was followed later on with the strategies that the defense was ready to use with stealth capabilities.
and low probability of detection sensor systems that would need to be able to be effective against the kind of sensors that the soviets are developing. does -- those entered the force during the cold war and we are familiar. he gave us an advantage that still is benefiting the us today in terms of the ability to strike targets it will almost any place on the globe. several benefits came from anticipating, developing, and moving into the next phase with an advantage that endorse. once again we find ourselves in a situation where we are geographically disadvantaged because allies are far away and we must project power to support them, and we are numerically disadvantaged because potential adversaries like china have much bigger forces than our own.
we need to look at the approach we took in the cold war of anticipating the next phase in the important warfare areas and missions and developing capabilities to be effective in. that should be the heart of our strategy we have been talking about, the 3rd offset should be looking at the next phase of missionaries that we think are important to deterring the adversaries we are facing today. some of those shifts are, i talk about them in detail in my written statement, to highlight the major shifts, undersea warfare is likely to see a shift from listening to summaries and passive sonar to one in which we use active sonar and nonexistent methods which will mean quiet summaries will not have the same benefit in terms of survivability. we need to come up with knew ways for counter detection using active system just as we do above the water, use jammers to counter radar and do the same thing underwater. we will see the continuation of the trend we saw toward
stealth and low probability sensors that started during the cold war that sort of went on hiatus with the soviet union's fall. so they will be the features of strike warfare going into the future. the em spectrum, we have been operating today with high power systems, very detectable systems, and we won't do that in the future but will move to systems that are increasingly passive. key technologies must be developed. and lastly, and air warfare the sensor advancements will result in a situation where fast, small maneuverable aircraft will no longer be as beneficial as large aircraft i can carry big sensors and large weapon payloads and air to air warfare. so those are key areas we must be able to take advantage of and build upon in order to be successful. general alexander brought of cyber in space, obviously an area of competition today.
operational concepts that leverage new technologies to build requirements that drive the acquisition systems and we also need to look at how we focus technology investment. today it is spread all over a large portfolio of areas instead of focused on the areas that will give us the greatest benefit strategically down the road. we are watering the flowers and hoping that some of them will turn into trees. and the last is how we develop requirements. acquisition reform has been a big topic and focus area. one key area is the need to refine how we develop requirements. when we developed the requirements for a new platform we start from scratch and define the requirements for it up front before we start building a thing.
instead, we must look at ways to build the requirements as we are prototyping technologies to get an idea of what will be feasible. what is achievable in terms of schedule and achievable in terms of the performance parameters of a particular weapon system which can be defined in large part by prototyping existing technologies and building requirements as you do that. we build requirements in isolation from expectation as to how feasible it will be. so it will be a keya key feature of speeding up the introduction of new technologies. we have an opportunity here with our current technological capabilities, many of which are maturing in mission areas that are important, but we need to make changes to leverage them, and i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> thank you, chairman, ranking member.
it is not to be here today. we are living in the midst of an information revolution that is sweeping in scope and scale. 3.8 trillion is spent every year on information technology which has more than doubled all spending by every country on earth combined. that is maturing and number of underlying technologies, sensors, computer processing, data networking that will have significant impact. and so we are seeing changes in warfare much like how the industrial revolution led to changes in world war i into with tanks and aircraft and submarines, and the us has been able to be a 1st mover in the information revolution and gave many of the fruits of this technology. now, the challenge that we have is this technology is proliferating to others.
we get an early move, but we do not get a monopoly. many of the investments are happening outside of the defense sector. we saw in the gulf for what some of these technologies can do in terms of significant to have conflicting significant damage and lethality. and there is precedent for these types of changes. the british developed an early model machine gun that they used for conquest all across africa, but in world war i they faced an enemy that also have machine guns with incredibly devastating effect. the british lost 20,000 men the single day. we are not prepared for the changes that are coming as the technology proliferates to others and continues to evolve and mature. thousands of antitank guided missiles now litter the middle east and north africa countries like china and russia are developing
increasingly capable warfare , all of which threaten our traditional modes of power projection. now that they have guided weapons they can target our forces with great precision as well saturating and overwhelming defenses. today missile defenses are costly, and the cost exchange ratio favors the offense. now, this vulnerability of major power projection assets, carriers, ships, tanks, bases coincides with an unfortunate long-term trend in us defense spending with decreased numbers of capital assets which exceeds the current budget problem and will continue beyond it and leicester are major changes. for several decades the per unit cost has steadily risen shrinking the number of assets that we can afford. to date our responses to build more capable assets.
we have extremelywe have extremely capable, qualitatively capable ships and aircraft and submarines and aircraft carriers, but this drives costs up further which has made sense in the world where others do not have weapons that can target us with great precision. and we have done so in many cases very deliberately trading quantity for quality. but this will no longer work in a world where others can target us as well. concentrate firepower concentrate firepower on our shrinking number of major combat assets, putting more and more eggs into a smaller number of vulnerable baskets. now, the department of defense challenges access area denial the problem is reasonably well understood. the problem is, and lots of different launching a new strategy a better ship or aircraft alone we will not solve the problem because with the acquisition system and the requirements that we have we will build something even more expensive it will be good.
so toso to operate in this area we need a fundamental shift in military thinking, disperse the forces can't disaggregate the capability and a large numbers of lower-cost systems, operate and deceive the enemy through deception measures in the course and we need to be able to swarm and overwhelmed enemy defenses would large numbers of lower-cost assets. early thinking is underway in many parts of the department. we talk about this 1st operation, the marine corps is also experimenting with distributing operations. also site.
a storm of low-cost operative assets. collectively these and at the next paradigm shift. a small number of assets as we do today. aa swarm of a large number of cooperative distributed assets. the main obstacles that stand in our way are not fundamentally technological. and within a reasonable defense budget if we are willing to make trades the main obstacle is conceptual.
>> this combines nonfiction style research with a fictionalized scenario of the 21st century great power conflict. shaping the geopolitics of last century. great power competition either by accident or choice in turn the scale of such a challenge demonstrates the stakes at hand which hopefully we will not have to wait for to drive change. in my written submission i cover five key areas, most especially in a great power context the needed actions we need to take to dealing
with a pattern of buying the pontiac aztecs of war, defense programs that are overpromised, engineered, and overpriced and in my remarks i would like to focus on one important issue since 1945 us defense planning is focused on having a qualitative edge to overmatch adversaries planning to be a generation ahead which has become baked into everything from our overall defense strategy all the way down the small unit tactics, yet us forces cannot count on that overmatch of the future. mass campaigns of state linked intellectual property theft has meantmet we are paying much of the cost for our adversaries.
redefining the observed the side-impact, hypersonic, high-speed rockets and missiles, 3 d printing, technologies that threaten to do to the current defense marketplace with the ipod did to the music industry. reshaping what is possible and maybe even what is proper. the challenge is the comparison that can be drawn between what is now or soon to be possible versus what we are actually buying today who fled to buy tomorrow. if you start at conception there all of the vote for you. locking in on a single major
program that is too big to fail and is not all that new. in this shapes not just what we buy but extends development time and expectations of how much people by decades into the future driving where reese to the horse. disruption is the new buzzword in defense, part of the outreach, we struggle with the dual meaning of the concept claiming to aspire for the new but to be disrupted, outdated and must be discarded. from programs to organizational structures to operating concepts. there is a long record of the government funding because they cannot supplant
the same goes for all the new and important ideas and proposals. to be adopted something will have to be supplanted. as you program for the future what you support and the new game changers are not just programs with thinking structures and organizations what you eliminated the old mattering more than any single additional planar tank squeezed into a budget line item. it may even be the difference. i would like to close by offering two quotes that can serve as guideposts. the 1st is from the last. want of foresight, unwillingness to act, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until
self-preservation strikes is stirring gone, these are the features which constitute the two have endless repetition of history and the 2nd is from professor at china's defense arguing how his own nation should contemplate the future of war. we must bear a third world war in mind when developing military forces. they must be mindful of the lessons of the past and acknowledge the trends in motion so that we can take the needed steps to avoid miscalculation and in so doing keep the world were where it belongs. >> thank you very much. you mentioned legislation that was recently passed on cyber was a good step forward. >> chairman,chairman, they key thing that must be clear and that legislation, when there is military response
required from actions that that must go immediately to the defense department. what i am concerned about his we set up process that is delayed the department of homeland security, inspected, and then sent. what i would encourages the development of a set of standards, think of these as protocols were both houses in congress could agree that these types of information hold no personally identifiable information when necessary for the protection of the nation and can go directly to all of the parties. i am not saying dhs out but ensure that they get it in real time. it would be analogous to a radar. that goes dhs. >> you said it is important to partner with industry.
i get the impression that industry is not interested in partnering with us. >> there are two parts to that. it has been an exciting year and a half out. industry is very much in the cyber security, very concerned about what they share with the government because of liability, but at the end of the day, they recognize that the government is the only one that can defend them from the nationstate like attack. >> the last manned fighter aircraft in your view. >> i do not know if it is the last. we may as well. the question is make a historic parallel thinking about the interwar years, the spitfire or to use it may be example the wildcat
systems, or whether it parallels the last best biplane. i would offer to the committee to explore that parallel history of the program, requirements and the world changed around it. all of the things that seem fantastic, a metal biplane that could go faster than previous and it was outdated before he left the development cycle, but they continue to push forward. his nickname was not the gladiator but the flying coffin. >> several other aircraft have inherited that moniker as well. >> the challenge is going to be -- we will buy the f3 five.
we will have to wrestle with issues that you have pointed out, the per unit cost, how that will affect how many we want to buy. i have a hard time believing that we will still be buying the same numbers we expect to buy now. the world will have changed, also integration with unmanned systems and what role it will play will be able to play in terms of partnering with unmanned systems for managing them. there is a sea of change. it is a program that many of the concepts were sent the year that i was leaving college. >> we all agree that the pentagon is not structured illinois the command system structured to meet the new challenges that the witnesses have aptly described. take a stab at how we should restructure the pentagon to
meet these new challenges. >> thank you, mr. chairman. one important disconnect that has come to light is that between what the pentagon is doing which is long-term acquisition and near-term needs. we saw this in iraq and afghanistan, the creation of these ad hoc policies, things that were basically silver bullets that the secretary had to personally fire at a problem to get it fixed. institutionalizing that is important not just for counterinsurgency the more importantly for major wars with the level of violence is likely to be higher in the timeline is shorter and the need to rapidly innovate is essential. the department has made some steps in that direction, but
there is more to be done in terms of getting a voice and then creating a pathway command the services have some of these individual to do rapid capability development. >> mr. clark. >> ii would say we need to look at having one process, how we develop the requirements and develop large man acquisition programs, ships and aircraft or we might want to have a more deliberate process and then a separate process where we acquire smaller programs, everything below that we can develop the requirements in concert with a technology demonstration prototype program, a lot of the technology is already
mature and sitting waiting. well, they could take advantage of a bridge at valley if we said everything that is not a large manned platform is able to take advantage of an acquisition process we develop requirements at the same time as the specifications and plans for the system. it would merge requirements and acquisitions. >> we would not need a thousand page document for a new handgun. >> exactly. new handgun, unmanned system , technologies that will harvest from industry or department of defense labs that have already been developed. the specifications we want in the final program very quickly based upon what has
been achieved technically. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you for your insightful testimony. it strikes me that we are talking about, as many of you mentioned, is disconnect between the reality we all recognize and operational practice, institutional outlooks, the equipment, the training, everything. the question is how we think those things up. one thought is by having exercises where we actually game this out in a comprehensive way to go the mentioning of the development of the carrier
can carefully about the threats any technology. where are we in the process of forcing the system by having comprehensive exercises that will force us to answer specific questions like how we organize our reorganize. >> senator, the 1st thing we have to do is look at expanding outlook homeless cyber can do to our country. in the military we focus on military to military engagements but an adversary will go after our military structure 1st. on more, take the we will of the people out to fight. we are seeing that. take down the power grid in the financial sector and
everyone will forget about these problems and we are essentially isolated, so we must step back and look at a more comprehensive manner, what it means for the defense department to protect the nation. there is athere is a great start with the way that the teams have been set up, but there is a long way to go, and we must have this wargame. during my tenure questions came up with folks like the trace said go to a separate service. ii was not there, but we must step into this area, and secretary gates had insight on how he would do this because it is a new way of thinking about warfare where our nation is at risk. in the past week it separate out the military to overseas and what went on in the country is others. in this area you cannot do that. the 1st thing they will go
after his are civilian infrastructure. and so they have to start with that and how we respond to that. >> thank you, again. >> senator, it's a great example because it was to fund the war fighters would get together at the naval war college and play out the wargame on the floor with play ships and models and everything and go out and do a series of experiments that seek to practice the concepts that came out of the process. the department of defense is reinvigorating its wargaming efforts in an effort to put the intellectual capitol, and those were fighting concepts that emerge, the best-of-breed, if you will, need to be taking out and experimented with an exercises using real systems in a real operating
environment. one thing that the department of defense is not do well is incorporating technologists into these discussions. we get a bunch of operators together and give them a problem and they know there are systems from the ship or aircraft, and they go play it out and figure out the best way to fight, but they are not taking advantage of what technology might offer them which is the timeframe we are aiming for. we need to bring technology experts in the no where technology is going but not necessarily how it will be use. you are more likely to get an operational concept that can leverage new technology and do something different that we did before, and the examples of the past of stealth or passive sonar are perfect examples where technology people came in and said, this is possible and they came up with a way
to apply it which is something that needs to have a better job out of it. >> your comment. >> yes. thank you, i could not agree more that the process of experimentation is critical, and it must be segregated from training in terms of qualifying. we send an army unit about ensuring the unit readiness and training. there may be room for taking units to try new concepts. and it is something that the department should be looking at. >> very rapidly the challenge in the existing system is the exercises either are about validating existing concepts. you here the phrase getting back to basics, or they are about allies, making allies feel better about themselves , partnership
capacity building, partner building. those were very valuable not just in showing what to buy and how to use but linking exercises to the personnel system, rapidly will budget is not preventative of it. it is often culture of implementation and finally been aware. i think to circle back to cyber security command that is the challenge we are taking new capabilities and putting some window boxes. we have built up cyber command the soul have a system where the pentagon's weapon tester found significant vulnerabilities.
>> thank you command i assume that gen. alexander's commentgeneral alexander's comment is that this is much broader than the department of defense, and we tend to look at ourselves at the stovepipes, but this is usually a comprehensive exercise involving the department of reserve, department of defense, everyone engaged, and i assume everyone agrees with that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the time that we had. i learned a lot in the time we spent together. it was meaningful, and i recall when i was 1st elected to replace the chairman of the intelligence committee who told me at that time, one of the problems we were never able to deal with this effectively have all this technology and things we have finding out and we seem
to be competing with ourselves. fbi, cia, nsa, homeland security, but i am seeing the same thing. we made headway. the 1st time all of the entities i mentioned were in one room together talking. you mentioned in your statement commercial private entities cannot defend themselves alone and that the us government is the only one that can should fire back. it seems to me, how this should be restructured because we have each one of these, they have a cyber division, cia and all that.
and he looked at it, and i would ask you to reach out to him and get his thoughts. directly from him on that was probably the best approach. that is where our country needs to get to. both of those must be synchronized as we go forward. if our nation is attacked and they take on the power grid and a massive damage where is your 1st priority for the future of the nation? something that has to be, how will i defend the country's 1st and foremost on the table. those kind of decisions have to be made. i have not been able.
>> i was going to bring up the effort you made, working with -- and they developed a great program. we have to watch what they are doing. have a passing this up everywhere? really quickly let me get back to the fact that the statement that was made by bob gates talking about how we never once got it right i can remember one of them said that engineers who will no longer need ground
defending america number one priority again? >> sequestration is incredibly on strategic, but it is a camea came to shooting yourself in the foot not shooting yourself in the head. >> mr. chair. >> thank you.you. i acknowledge that there are difficult domestic political compromises, but it is clear that we are not spending enough on defense today in order to adequately defend the country. >> yes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you for being here today. if i could, which country or group has the most to gain from attacking the cyber attack? , russia, china, i sil?
>> each of them have different objectives. when we disagreed on crimea we saw increased attacks against companies like target and home depot. >> how would that benefit them as a country? >> they allow their hackers freedom. they steal, make money, we get hurt, russia sends an indirect message. the same thing in a rain. you look at the disruptive attacks on wall street and what they are doing is sending a message. you sanctioned us, we will fire back. in china it is different. china is all about building the economy. they are stealing everything that they can to grow their economy.
i think it is the greatest transfer wealth of history, and interestingly, we could stop that. you know, if i could, what senator reed and in half brought up, if you put those together and ask where we don't have a major effort with industry, industry is willing to pay their portion i am convinced. if they do there part right in defending what they need to you could stop attacks, and we should do that. >> let me ask you about the nsa. we are talking about the outside interest. what have they done to stop the edward snowden's of the nsa from inside attacks?
>> we set up a program. >> was it aa surprise to you? i am so sorry to interrupt you. i know when you were there. >> i was surprised a person we had entrusted to move data from one server to another was not trustworthy. >> you had him at a high level. >> well, his level was exaggerated by himself. he was a low-level system administrator within important job of moving information from the continental united states to servers and hawaii and in doing that dictated from those servers. you are seeing, it is interesting. more than 50 percent of their concerns come from insider attacks with things that are going on, you have got to do both.
i think that we did a good step, but you know an important point. >> but you think that they have been taken to shore it up so that it does not happen again. you are not sure private organizations have taken your advice or lead? >> we ran tests, gained, and ran back toward data. >> and how damaging was the information that he has shared or stolen and taken with? >> it was hugely damaging. you can see what the dni recently said, the fact that some of that information has gotten out and our ability has been impacted. the same thing on terrorist attacks.
>> do you believe snowden should be treated as a traitor and try to such? >> i do. >> thank you. >> i was drawn with you and your comments about breaches and the issues on general alexander which is important. i do not sense that we are having any significant threat to individual american liberty. apparently the president knows everyone that owns again we don't have anything like that.
i will ask you and mr. clark about that. first of all, are you familiar with the legislation? do you think it is a step in the right direction? doing need to go further? i'll be vulnerable, and can we take action to eliminate vulnerability? >> i am not 100 percent steeped, but i am aware of it. >> let me give you an example. the issues we face was 15,000 not claims. the answer is, as the commander responsible they
cyber attack and also this idea that we need to modernize our networks to reduce the number of separate systems and reduce the amount of surface area. instead we need to bring more of those in the same enclave in today it's a lot of different systems that are interconnected as opposed to one system which goes back to the automation idea. a couple of other things. we have to deal with the fact that no space the advent of knew technology like microsatellites in servicing robots, but the
idea that there are countries that are developing satellites that are designed to repair or service will put new batteries and other satellites could be used to attack a satellite without generating the type of debris that we would assume would deter someone from attacking a satellite in space. we have to consider those as well in terms of how we develop our satellite infrastructure that we depend on. >> would you like to add to that? >> i wouldi would just add that an important component of enhancing our resiliency in space is off space bar caps on networks for redundancy command it is our to protect assets but also to reduce the incentives for attacking them in space. there was a program to build a joint network to do
communications and sufficient navigation and timing for a number of years that is sufficiently underfunded. so that is something to add to thinking about strategic resiliency. >> aa note of caution and maybe a little bit of disagreement on the panel. we should not lean too much on the cold war parallels of deterrent and mutuality of response thinking that showing our ability to hit back with liver 100 percent security and also the idea of the quick timeline. yes, cyber moves a digital speed, but attacks take not days but months and sometimes years to put together. on average it is 205 days between when an attack starts and when the victim finds out and turn your best response and cyber attack is
not to have back within that 30 minute window with nuclear weapons but maybe to pause, study from last year them into areas that they cannot cause harm. parallels are not exact. the model is more on deterrents by denial to networks of smaller, cheaper, microsatellites, the same thing in cyberspace , the military and the civilian sector and within that ii hope we are willing to look at alternative approaches as job trying to take new capabilities and problems and put them in the old boxes. i would contrast our defense approach and the way it has not done a great job of pulling in civilian talent. estonia was mentioned as a model of a victim, one of
the 1st victims,victims, but they have also built up a level of national resilience that we don't have.have. i would suggest the model of the estonian cyber defense late as an alternative jar parts that might be positive. >> one of the problems with the estonian model is the privacy issue that causes many of the industry's here, companies to be resistant to that model. senator shaheen. >> thank you for testifying this morning. if i could, i wish toi wish to ask each of you to give a brief response. do you think the biggest threat comes from the great powers, the great power competition that you refer to, or do they come from
terrorist groups in non- nationstates? >> i think the greatest concern comes from nationstates. the most frequent attacks come from hackers, terrorists, and others. >> mr. clark. >> the greatest threat will be from nationstates. >> i would disagree. in terms of large-scale nationstates can bring more power to bear but this issue of frequency and likelihood is absolutely imperative. >> general alexander, i think i understood you to say that we can stop attacks , and you preface that by talking about the importance of the private sector in their willingness to invest in there own cyber
security. if we can do that what is the impediment, and how should the operation be organized? >> there are several. having the right cyber technology, a holistic and comprehensive approach that allows a commercial entity or company to understand when they are being attacked or exploited, humility to share that information, the ability for the government to receive and respond,, and i think it easier where the wargaming and other things go on. what will your response be if these events occur? you have thought that through an no how and what they will do. >> again, if we can do that should it be organized under cyber command or should it be organized someplace else? why have we not done that already?
>> this goes back to the organizational structure that was asked previously. parts of the sign dhs responsible for the resiliency, the department of defense and then the department of justice who is responsible for criminal activity. what secretary gates said is you have those three talking about the same domain, and you can go quickly from a non- nationstate actor. you have to have wargames and we have to go through that. we have to organize it and we do not have the legislation. >> are you suggesting -- suggesting we should organize within the department of defense? >> it must have a key, if not the lead role. when push comes to shove and down to follow someone has to respond it is the defense
department. if our nation is under attack they are the ones that will be held accountable. >> thank you. you wrote about the dangers and how our adversaries be able to exploit what our military does take you explain or suggest what we might do to respond to that. the ability to take large amounts of data, but there is also an element of transparency. we have seen this transformed domestic policing. this era of ubiquitous smart phones, and i worry that
armed forces of the ground are not adequately trained and prepared. we have seen one off incidents every action is recorded and tweeted in real time, something i do not think that we are prepared for nsa this from personal experience. were occasionally we have interactions with the population where things are rough. it is difficult, but having them go viral is a different kind of environment. >> my time is up, but if i could ask one more question. sec. gates when he was here reference the fact that the us information agency and
our strategic efforts to communicate pale in comparison. and so how do any of you suggest we better respond? and should those efforts given the challenges of transparency that you mentioned, the need to do a better job in these areas, how do we do that command to should have that effort? >> i think that it is worth exploring the idea of a new agency. certainly we need to adapt communications to the digital and social media age. >> ii think one area we have not fully exploited since the cold war is taking advantage of the demonstration of new technologies