tv DNI Dan Coats Testifies on World Threats CSPAN March 9, 2018 8:00pm-10:32pm EST
quantitative edge that we have enjoyed for such a long time. rising powers like russia and china have been investing in military modernization, contestally to america's capabilities. china is increasing spending and fiscal 18 by 8.1%. over the last year, the third straight year in a row they have massive increases to their military spending. it is important to point out that russia has made advances in weapon systems in clear violation of the treaty, which putin touted just last week. while our response here at home during the last administration was to provide our military with inadequate funding, budget era ofinty, now in a new great power competition, of russia and china, china which we
witnessed during our meeting last week. land for those purposes. it is a pretty scary thing. you summede up gravity is higher than any time then at the cold war. thank you for being here. >> also thank you the strategies says a central challenge facing the nation is a reemergence with russia and china and this replaces terrorism with u.s. national
security. russia and china poses threats we must better understandy. the objective and in doing so consider the full-spectrum capabilities of adversaries from the high-end platform to regular warfare approaches. without strategic -- for the full range of capabilities with military modernization asymmetric with conflict to undermine the lack of democracy. we have a cleared i understanding of president putin's assertion to have the great power status using every tool at its disposal to stabilize the rules -based international order the most pressing is that russia is already launching an assault later this year but we have
barely heard that the white house isro not correct but with those dod components against other attacks against those fundamental institutions of society. we need a whole government approachoa with that competition that we face no response alone that china is a large entrepreneurial country to ensure that it hears the rules -based i am deeply concerned of the deep militarization with u.s. technology and intellectual property against its neighbors with the economic retaliation against korea for accepting platinum -- bad deployment necessary. china should destabilize and
the strategic reality and to complicate challenges to his inclusive leave focus on competition at the expense by rogue regime and terrorist organizations and other nonstate actors. for example facing a clear and present threat that must be contained and deterred to take catastrophic advances and instead come up with a robust deterrence strategy with strict sanctions. also with robust effort the strategy must be contained that they must pose if we engage with the strategy and adequate resources especially the state department in coming years.
iran complies with the obligation however i ran continues with the development of ballistic missiles particularly in syria and yemen. while the caliphate shows that isis has been dismantled, it directed inspired for some time to come. likewise it continues to launch spectacular attacks before us. afghanistan to have a violation of threats with those militant groups many of which have proven resilient under military pressure. we saw a sustainable approach to efforts in afghanistan without follows on the heels from last year at the same time we hear reports like
russia may be seeking efforts with adversaries in the television to play with them -- tell the band to play a spoiler to our efforts. i look forward to your efforts and thank you for your services. >> thank you. since a quorum is no present please consider lieutenant general before the committee this last week to be director of national security agency the united states cybercommand with the deputy administrator through the nonproliferation. >> i moved. >> second? >> all in favor say i? director coats, we appreciate you being here.
and we would like to hear from both of you we have a lot of questions. >> . . . . first aid conflict higher than any time since the end of the cold war invented appear go that can be described as a race for superiority against our adversaries who seek to so division in the united states and we can us leadership.
it is important to remain vigilant to the range of threats to provide security for the american people. i will provide an overview of top threat starting with functional topics and moving to regional threats. much of what is said by the chairman and the ranking member will be reaffirmed and reflected in what i say so i will keep this as brief as possible. let me begin with cyberthreat which is my greatest priority for our office. from us business to the federal government we are under cyber attack. state actors is the greatest cyber threats the democratization of cyber capabilities worldwide enabled and emboldened a broader range of actors to pursue their
activities against us. we assess that russia is likely to pursue even more aggressive cyberattacks with degrading democratic values and weakening our alliances. persistent and disruptive cyber operations will continue against the united states and other allies, urging, using elections as opportunities to undermine democracy and undermine our values. we will see chinese, uranian and north korean actors to improve the scope and scale of cybercapabilities. let me talk about weapons of mass distraction, state efforts to modernize, develop or acquire delivery systems for underlying technologies constitute a major threat to the united states and our
allies. and russia will remain the most capable wmd power and expanding nuclear weapons capabilities. state and nonstate actors including the theory regime and isis possess and have used chemical weapons in syria and iraq and we are concerned about other actors pursuing biological weapons. my third topic is the terrorist threat which spans the sectarian gamut from isis and al qaeda to lebanese, hezbollah, state-sponsored activities of your and and other affiliated and nonaffiliated terrorist organizations. us-based homegrown violent extremists remain the primary and most difficult to detect sunni terrorist threat in the united states. isis is a pretty us interest in iraqi in syria despite territorial auspices and will rebuild in the region and
enhancing attacks worldwide. and prioritizing long-term strategy on attacking the united states with us interests abroad. and foment regional instability through involvement in syria and other militant groups. let me briefly transition, we will be talking about commercial space and we need to look to the heavens as well as the earth in terms of threats to the united states which we can discuss that in more detail. russia and china have been expanding space-based reconnaissance, communications and navigation systems in both countries seek to mature counterspace weapons to reduce us and allied military effectiveness and perceptions
of military advantage in his mr. chairman, ranking member, both of you touched on various regional issues. we saw the news relative to north korea, hope springs eternal, we need to learn a lot more relative to these talks and we will and the ic will continue to do every possible collection and assessment we can relative to the situation that exists in north korea. we will be talking about that issue. i want to note that china will increase its regional influence and shape outcomes globally and take a firm stand on regional claims and use it's one built one road initiative to increase its reach to locations across the eurasia, africa and pacific. looking at salvation and afghanistan we assess the security picture, modestly deteriorate in the coming year and kabul will bear the brunt
of taliban led insurgency. began national security forces face a steady performance with coalition support to maintain control of major population centers, and our assessment pakistan-based militant groups continue to take advantage of safe havens to conduct attacks including against us interests. moving to russia we assess flat reboot and applying options beyond russia's borders, and thomistic opposition leading up to the presidential elections. we assess that putin will resort to authoritarian tactics to remain in control of challenging its rule. russia perceives past efforts as successful and views the 2018 midterm elections as a
potential target. we see russian activities designed to exacerbate social and political issues in the united states. in the next year we assess russia will use propaganda, social media, sympathetic spokesmen and other means of influence to build on its wide range of disruptive operations. and other locations as well. we assess russian aggression in the ukraine will persist as we seek to bolster its ability to defend its territorial integrity. let me turn to the final regional plan that i plan to talk about today, middle east and north africa. this region will be characterized by political turmoil, economic fragility, civil and proxy wars, air and will remain the most prominent sponsor of terrorism and adversary in the middle east, provocative and assertive
behavior increases potential for actions in iraq, syria and yemen, turkey is seeking kurdish ambitions in the united states and into northern syria complicating counter isis activities in the region and forces located in the area. syria will face continued unrest, 2018, spikes in violence occurring in the mask is to recapture urban areas we are now witnessing. i will pass over in the interest of time our assessments on the rack, the situation in yemen and other conflicts. the conflicts around the world today displaced more people since world war ii and these
present major humanitarian challenges. and something i would like to present, deeply concerning that increasingly fractious political process particularly with respect to federal spending a straining our ability to properly defend our nation. the failure to address long-term fiscal situation has increased the national debt funds to $20 trillion and growing. the continued function is unsustainable and represents a dire future threat to our economy and national security. from a national security perspective, mike mullen first identified the national debt as the greatest threat to our national security. and numerous respected national security leaders of both parties including the current defense secretary jim matus. it is vitally important for all of us to address the challenge to take action as soon as
possible. and really undermines the ability for national security. i will turn this over to general ashley and take your questions. >> ranking member read and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to the defense intelligence agency of a global security environment and address threats confronting the nation. my statement for the record details a range of challenges, competitors, foreign military capabilities and transnational terrorist networks. in my opening remarks i would like to address a few areas. north korea. north korea is a critical threat to the united states and our allies in northeast asia. north korea later kim jongun has pressed his nation down a path to develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles to reach
south korea, japan, guam and the united states. he has instituted a rapid missile development and flight test program that has over the last week 2 years brought north korea closer to its goals. north korea conducted its 6 nuclear test in september last year which generated a much larger seismic signature than previous tests. currently young gang invested in training to increase the threat to south korea. north korea's nuclear and missile testing deepened the regime's isolation. and additional sanctions, kim shows no interest walking away from nuclear and ballistic missile programs which additional missile launches near certainty, and if
pyongyang seeks to refine its weapons design and reliability. in 2017 china armed forces with sweeping organizations to enhance the ability of people's liberation army to conduct joint operations with short duration, high intensity regional conflicts, greater distances from the chinese mainland. chinese military modernization includes capabilities for long-range attacks against adversarial forces, and the pacific ocean. china is leveraging to a certain sovereignty claim, features in the east, the south china sea and china india border region. beijing's military modernization programs are expanding with an intent to invest in a range of motion's beyond china's periphery. and us and allied forces at
risk at greater distance in the chinese mainland. russia views the united states as the primary threat to national security and geopolitical ambitions. the kremlin seeks aspheric influence of former soviet union states with eastward expansion of nato and ensure that no international issues are addressed without russia's input or its expense. the criminal views the strategic nuclear force and foundation of russia's national security with modernize general-purpose and nonstrategic nuclear forces as critical to meeting its congressional military threats. russia's aggressive actions abroad over the last several years, military intervention in syria and ukraine, and
increased moscow's geopolitical profile. afghanistan, in south asia in the past year, defense and security forces protect major propagation centers and deny the taliban strategic gains. as conducting intermittent attacks and increasing rural terrain, and challenging vulnerable locations. ear and remains the primary nationstate challenges us interests and security in the middle east and continues to improve congressional capabilities to defend its homeland.
he ran has the region's largest ballistic military arsenal that can strike throughout the region, 2000 km. following implementation of the plan of action in january 2016, international atomic energy agency continues to report that he ran has not enriched uranium on levels with limits on centrifuge numbers and monitoring of nuclear fuel and heavy water stocks. and modernizing the military filling to capacity and partners in the region balancing a desire to gain its integration to the global economic system. cyber. our top competitors are developing and using cyberspace to increase operational reach to military civilian systems, exploiting vulnerabilities and
challenging the adequacy of our defense. terrorism. isis suffered setbacks in 2017. losses in iraq and syria and persistent counterterrorism operations against isis global network have impeded its ability to exploit instability in a region where it operates. isis members are dispersing and prioritizing clandestine networks preserving core capabilities, isis capabilities have been degraded in numerous countries. it remains a significant threat, continues to inspire more attacks throughout the west than any other terrorist organization. al qaeda also remains a serious and persistent threat to us interests worldwide. finally, advanced technological threats. our competitors develop more advanced technologies which oppose increasing challenge to war fighters, decisionmakers and the intelligence community
and the ability to strike targets at a greater distance. developed of quantum technologies, artificial intelligence is enabling new military capabilities and competitors prioritizing research, quantum computing to supply the means for heightened communication systems and break encryption algorithms. with this brief overview i look forward to the committee's questions. >> excellent. i mention centered arounds and sullivan south china sea, it was disturbing to witness what is going on because we didn't do the magnitude, the effect it had on our allies in the philippines, taiwan, south
korea, it is intimidating our allies. the word reclamation is not accurate because they are not reclaiming, they are creating land and without any legal authority to do so. it is obvious it would be done to use for military purposes which they have on these islands, not just 10,000 foot runways but missiles and the rest, this is very dangerous as we look at it and see the effect it is having on our allies but china is producing in addition to their increased spending a dozen warships a year, developing long-range weapon systems and fifth-generation fighters. after three years of increases in defense spending. this is what is going on right
now. it is a major thing that is having an effect of challenging us in the united states as the body leading the free world. so to start with you on your view, what do you think they are doing specifically in that part of the china sea, aggressive fortress out there. what is the reasoning? >> it is clear that china is willing to take extraordinary means expanding its influence not only over the region as you suggested in the south china sea but the road for china, i have learned i don't want to clarify the actual number but a
report was released recently, an unclassified version that china will spend $1 trillion in 68 nations establishing its geostrategic positioning, not only economically for economic purposes and trade purposes but use of military facilities with self of china sees, they were not paying that much attention to it, all of a sudden had islands, 10,000 foot runway's not just for bringing tourists over to enjoy the beaches but establish military presence so they are definitely expanding regional influence and global influence, spending extraordinary amount of money
on that and upgrading military as gen. ashley noted in his remarks and has become a world power and that is their goal. >> the goal of intimidation? that is what is happening right now with our allies, the fear that i have, maybe looking at us and china, which one decided, what do you think? >> i talked with countries that are allies of the united states, they want to be allies of the united states but they -- they use a lot of drones, a lot of credit to these stations, very attractive, they don't have those resources to build roads, build facilities but it is a designed purpose and that is a threat to the future of america's influence around the world.
>> the statement that was made, the opening statement by our president back when kim jong un made threatening statements about his nuclear button and people were critical of our president that he was saying something that came from the heart and was the reality in terms of power he spread to the united states and it worked. a matter of hours after that they contacted south korea and that we are going to join you in the winter olympics and watch the effect it had on people. i agree when you say hope springs eternal. no reason to believe kim jong un is going to be a changed person. but the news last night that he made a response to the message that was sent and is ready to negotiate, stop his nuclear activity and testing, do you share my somewhat optimistic
view of what happened? >> i don't share your optimism. that is a show me. we will see how this plays out. >> we will write that down and see who is right and wrong. >> thank you for your service, your testimony. i appreciate your intellectual honesty but today you start off with your major concerns encroaching in our elections and asked other members of the intelligence community, haven't heard about what is being done. to your knowledge, are you aware of a formal meeting of the nsc in which this was normally discussed but formal
recommendations to counter this activity were presented to the president for decisions? are you are aware of anything like that? >> there are ongoing discussions among a number of agencies, department of homeland security, debarment of defense, state department and others relative to the cyberthreat. our office recently met with three of the most current agencies dealing with this to talk about the effect of cyber on the upcoming elections as well as the impact of that. it is a whole of government approach. i discussed it personally with the president of the united states, he said i assume you are doing your job, all of you, who head up these agencies relative to cyber but if you need me to direct you to do it, do it.
since we had our discussions on the threat assessment, it is a top concern. the white house is engaged and has been. rob joyce and others have been leading that effort but it is a current discussion underway in terms of how we best address not only the defense but ways to respond to this to prevent us being vulnerable to attack. >> again, the discussions i think are ongoing. the plan of action and direction to take action seems to be missing and somewhere in that is the president, the nature of his office and our constitution. >> working with congress in my last term in the senate was
working to identify legislative action regarding critical infrastructure and putting a cyberplan in place. has to work with congress what policies we would provide. >> homeland security, defense. it starts at the top if we are going to get anything done. let me change subjects. the last several months i visited us forces in south korea, djibouti, smalley and jordan. one of the disconcerting discoveries is we don't have ambassadors in south korea or jordan, we do not have an ambassador in somalia, we have troops in contact in somalia, critical equities in these other countries. does it disturb you we don't have a state department engaged across the globe in terms of national security and your
intelligence operations? >> i like to see ambassadors get nominated, but that is a question for rex to listen to address. there have been ongoing discussions on that but i don't have inside knowledge on the decision-making process. >> thank you for your service. you point out the chinese are investing a huge amount of money in quantum computing. if this technology is realized it would be revolutionary. i say that emphatically in terms of encryption, identifying vessels underwater, etc.. do you think the united states is putting sufficient resources behind this effort? >> i can only speak to the chinese investments was i can't
speak to where we are as a nation. i can elaborate on chinese aspects. >> are you making the depth, the scope of this investment clear to your colleagues that do have a responsibility to inform leaders about what we should be doing? >> we are. >> thank you. >> thank you for your service to our country. i am curious, you indicated you had direct conversations with the white house regarding cybersecurity. do you believe there is an appropriate and clear policy with regard to cyberwarfare? >> it is a work in process and needs to be in process and
there is real concern that we take action because we are seeing results of our adversaries using cyber to degrade any number of things in the united states. putting a plan together, it needs to be a whole government aid in because various forms not only government but private institutions, companies, business, financial, etc. are being threatened with this and it is a significant threat to the united states. >> you made very clear the seriousness of the cyberthreat. for the last several years national defense authorization act specifically directed there should be a policy established. have you seen progress made the last several years and who is
heading it up? >> it is the whole of government, white house involvement and agencies involvement, specific answer to your question i don't think the progress was made quick enough to put us in position with the firm policy and understanding what our adversaries no relative to how we are going to deal with this. it is a dicey issue. we know the capabilities and been on the losing end of those capabilities about other cyberactors, starting retaliation for actions taken from an offense of response have to be weighed in the context of all that, critical infrastructure which a number of efforts are underway to protect that infrastructure. but from a policy standpoint we haven't either from the executive branch defined
exactly what that is and how we are going to support those defenses. the question of response, something that needs to be discussed, pros and cons how to do that. i have personally been an advocate playing offense as well as defense. we have done a pretty good job on defense, and the policy of the united states. >> the chair of the cybersubcommittee and sen. nelson, ranking member, we came to the same conclusion you have that this is a critical and primary source of threats to the united states now and in the future. the whole of government, we do not have appropriate policy in
place and it should be as you suggested a primary point, i agree with your assessment, the science board for the department of defense made it clear with regard to cyberattacks our defensive capabilities will not match the offense of capabilities of our competitors, requiring deterrence be enhanced. i'm pleased that you feel the same way, and the cyberpolicies now and in the future. >> one other quick one, with regard to space, on page 13 of your items has to do with threats in space, between what our policy is right now with regard to our capabilities in space and what our competitors
are doing to limit our ability to utilize what has become technical capabilities, gps and so forth. are they in a position to shut down our use of space in a time of war? >> our assessments have been we hold a significant advantage in space. our assessment also says china and russia are seeking to catch up with us, and relative to the military use and protections we are providing to maintain that advantage we now have. >> whether it is russia or
china they understand the dependency we have on space, they are developing capabilities for how to counter that whether it is a direct energy weapon that is terrestrial or an attack satellite, jamming from the ground so they are looking at how to develop a layered approach to deny us that capability. is admissible for us and for them as well. >> they are better at it then we are? >> they are in the development stage at this point. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you for being here. it is nice to see you back in the senate. i want to understand what you said to sen. reid. i understood you to say when you raise the concerns about needing to respond to what russia is doing to interfere
with the potential elections in 2018. what you heard from the president's you should do what you need to to fort that. do i understand that correctly? >> the question that was asked relative to cyber, the direction to go forward on cyber, i did not understand to be said in the contest of russian influence. >> you haven't heard anything? from the white house or the administration directly responding to interference from a number of intelligence officials and into our election cycle. and no direction from the white
house and the administration. >> there is concern about an ongoing effort of russians to interfere with our elections. the white house is well aware of that, as we all are. agencies have been tasked to address this, and also included working with state and local election officials relative to protections to put in and our job is to do the warnings and the assessment and provide the warnings. >> don't want to interrupt but that is a direct contradiction from adm. rogers before this committee. he said he had not heard from
anyone in the administration of the white house about taking any action to respond to what russia was doing to interfere in our elections but still sounds like you are saying something different. >> one component of many agencies, dhs has taken the lead, the white house has been engaged in the department of defense, other agencies have been engaged on this. >> can you tell this committee what is being done to respond? is that something you can tell us in this open hearing so i can reassure my constituents that we are trying to address this? >> much of what is being done or is being examined to be done would fall in classified areas. i would be happy to address in a classified session.
>> i want to urge you and the ranking member to hold a classified briefing for this committee so we can hear firsthand what is being done to respond. let me ask you to change the subject a little bit. last week before his state of the nation, in his state of the nation speech, vladimir putin bragged about russia weapons that can evade our missile defense system and can strike anywhere in the united states or the world. is that an accurate assessment of what we understand russia to have developed? >> the state of the union in context. in election year is coming up. it was for consumption of a domestic audience which i will say we are aware of the systems he spoke about. they are in the research and development phase was any further discussion i would have
to go to classified session and we can talk about those. >> i hope we will hear about that in the classified session. that got a lot of attention in the united states. can i also ask you both when you talked about the threat from weapons of mass distraction you talked about sarah and gas in syria but no mention of chlorine gas attacks in syria which we know are happening almost regularly. is that something we consider a weapon of mass distraction? how are we responding to that? >> we do consider that a weapon of mass distraction. probably more use of chlorine than sarah and. we are assessing this most recent attack. we do not have full information yet relative to that. each side is blaming the other. we don't have the assessments made yet but we are concerned
about this and i can come as you saw the president's response to the attack last year. this is something that is under serious discussion as we speak. again, something that needs to be discussed in classified session. >> i remember the president's response last year and that is why i raise it. given the serious humanitarian conditions that are happening in syria for us to allow those weapons of mass distraction, chemical attacks, to continue, goes against all humanitarian assessment of what we should be doing. >> i couldn't agree more. >> director coats, general ashley, good to see you again, thank you for your service. i would like to start with you please. in your opening statement you note us allies and partners,
the willingness and capability of the united states to maintain its international commitments may drive them to consider reorienting their policies particularly regarding trade, away from washington. as we await the president's decision on tariffs on steel and aluminum. it is important that we consider any national security implications this might have, those tariffs was the national defense strategies, to strengthen current alliances and foster new partnerships to combat threats around the globe and from your perspective, what message would he say to allies, and how our relationships with other countries and national security efforts?
>> the threat we see around the world, knees to be in the context of who is on our side and who our adversaries to maintain to address these. when gen. mattis talked about situations like this, working with allies, but trade is one of many threads that tie us together. there are pro-plaps and cons. and was done so in the context of national security concern that certain types of materials like steel and aluminum were important for national security purposes to have that capacity
relying on foreign entities and what might be adversaries that might be later. our job is to assess things after they have 2 provide information to our policymakers to make determinations on the policies. i'm not in a position to discuss trade but the ic will discuss what we have to influence to provide policymakers. >> i often notice anything we are attending, defense talks, the security conference, not only do we talk about national
defense that trade in the pacific, and the chairman stated we returned from an overseas trip a couple weeks ago and often times those partners do emphasize the need to remain strong trade partners because where there is absence of us trade we see china stepping into close those gaps. obviously i am a strong supporter of our trade relationships. director coats and gen. ashley, from that experience we have the opportunity to talk about the challenges we face on the korean peninsula and we have seen where north korea has garnered support through illicit trade and we know north korea has exported ballistic missile technology to countries
like you ran and syria. talk about how the intelligence community can help in aiding and restricting the flow of illicit materials overseas as briefly as you can. >> proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, very seriously, try to track that to the best of our abilities. we know the history of north korea for cash and other reasons particularly critical now as we are dealing with a serious situation with north korea. we have seen work around sanctions that have been imposed by the north koreans to achieve revenue and support their military. it is something we take very seriously, a very high priority for us. >> is that something through
the military community to work with partner nations to share information to stop that trade? >> you want to sensitize all the nations that would be a where the risk my client might interdict that. the challenge with some technologies is due will use and some of the chips are not prohibited. when you start moving from a maritime standpoint you see more aggressive behavior in terms of catching shipments like that. that kind of aggressive action will serve interests to interdict that but sensitizing that in those reasons the potential movement of commodities tied into a missile or components you would use to build that is something we would share across the defense department's. >> thank you very much. >> sen. boone.
>> thank you for your service to the nation. have you read the indictment against 13 individuals that recently returned by special counsel? >> i read a summary of it. >> have you agreed with me that russia committed an act of war against the united states by interfering in past election detail graphically and dramatically by that indictment. >> if you describe it, it is not a conventional war but a war of influence. >> it constitutes an act of war. russia itself described it as informational warfare. >> to determine if something is an act of war against the
united states. >> i would call it an act of war, it is continuing. >> that is what i said in my opening message. >> never directed you to do to russia what they are doing to us. >> directs me to do my job and my job is to provide intelligence that formulates policy. >> to take any specific action to deter or retaliate against russia or attacked of war on our country. >> there are issues but i can't do that here. >> you are talking to the american people, russia attacked our nation. can you assure the american people the president told you to take effective deterrence action in addition to what we are doing in the past? >> the president told me to do my job, to oversee 17 intelligence agencies.
to our policymakers. >> to counter, deter, retaliate, take any action or divide the plan against russia. >> these are issues i would like to discuss in a classified session relative to this. >> the american people deserve to know whether the president directed intelligence officials to counter the continuing act of war on our country. let me shift questions if i may. i'm sure you are aware of public and private information. at least we for countries discussed how to influence and manipulate certain officials. >> i have seen that leak.
>> they discuss how to manipulate jared kushner through his business arrangement and family financial difficulties, lack of policy experience. can you assure us you are taking effective action to protect our national security against that manipulation? >> we are doing everything we can to protect united states citizens from harm from abroad including what you just described. once again, we provide the intelligence, provides information to policymakers to make decisions how to go forward. >> jared kushner no longer has access to top secret classified information but continues to have access to secret information, correct? >> he has a temporary security clearance as do several others, general kelly has taken the
position that we need to shorten that list. it is in process right now but these decisions are made by the fbi. >> is and his continuing access to that information a threat to our national security? >> i don't believe it is a threat to our national security, no i don't. he now has under general kelly's direction had a temporary access to some types of information but not highly classified information. >> sen. grassley and i have written to the white house and the director of the fbi asking for a full explanation of the continuing security clearance process because i continue to believe it continues to be defective and i hope you will
cooperate in that review. >> we will certainly cooperate. .. cooperate. drugs can you assure as you will take action in the event that any foreign government seeks to manipulate a member of the white house staff? director coats: well, once again i want to make clear that taking action is a policy decision. to power. truth truth to those who make this policy decisions. to the extent that that community can participate in those actions, that has to be formulate through >> that has to be formulated through policy. we are very much a part of all of these discussions. yes. >> senator fischer. >> thank you mr. chairman and welcome gentlemen to gear this back to the trends we are facing as a country i know in
the posture review it was stated that russia mistakenly assesses the threat of nuclearse escalation for first use would serve to d escalate a conflict with terms favorable to russia referred to as the escalate to de-escalate strategy. and that is disputing that assessment denying that russia has such a strategy do you agree with the npr assessment to de-escalate the strategy with that doctrine. >> and has been for some time and i understand we cannot discuss in great detail how you arrived at that conclusion but is it fair to say the is with senior
leaders and those capabilities? >> with the overarching what they think of the nuclear triad to the deterrent strategy that is the same triadd it is the escalate to de-escalate or escalate to dominate and the strategy is a strategic cause you are back into talks and discussions and with that situation their national n vital interest russia proper was at risk. >> with the npr does state a limited first use could paralyze the united states and
nato but the russians do believe that would happen to end the conflict on terms favorable to russia. do you agree? >> yes. that is the desired outcome. >> thank you both of your opening statement with the increasing capabilities of with russia and china do you agree with the assessment since 2010 global threats and conditions have worsened markedly with respect to nuclear threats. >> yes ma'am. >> kim jong noon with a conventional military and we focus extensively so can you explain to be invested in the
modernization of conventional forces. >> a lot of that is focused on terms of modernization integrated to those weapons part of that inventory. the change from his father from kim jong-il is with his father you do not have that level of discipline and rigor that we would associate ready to go to war. kim jung-un has taken that readiness asked specht -- aspect very seriously. there is a significant ability with at 38th parallel with the amount of damage they could do and causing conflict. >> thehe sanctions regime is impacted north korea's efforts to modernize the conventional
military? >> it is starting to happen. >> in a general sense? or a specific area where they are looking at modernization? >> i will take that into a classified session. >> what element of the conventional force poses the greatest risk to south korea as well? >> the sheer number of artillery pieces and ballistic missiles into south korea. >> i am short on time but on the evening of february 7 u.s. forces repelled an attack in syria. do you believe the russian mercenary groups are acting under the coordination of the
russian government? >> i cannot say that executed withit the knowledge but not that particular maneuver you are referencing. >> if i could follow up with you later i would like that. >> we have two votes coming up at 11:00 o'clock so we can work through this senator will be voting and then we can do this together. >> you and others have testified it is a fact and to testified has no authority both you and he pointed out is
the lead agency. but with the department of homeland security already working to make sure that infrastructure will not be vulnerable and who is responsible to counter social media? also the department of homeland security. >> that is a whole of government as the agencies are involveds and to put together.
>> the agency is well aware of the needs to do this and one coherent strategy with the executive branch. >> who is in charge? to bring everybody together with homeland security and fbi, a lot of those entities somebody has to take the lead. in the context of $120 million specifically to deal with interference. should the state department be the lead agency to come up with a whole government approach noting also the 2018
elections are right around the corner. why do we not have a strategy already. >> the white house is actively engaged this is a high-priority from the national security committee it is a topic i understand has to be addressed and we are addressing and that only to be defensively ready so i don't have a specific answer to your question which agency or which individual person taking the lead at this point.
>> with a hundred and $20 million from the stateadnc department exactly what we are talking about? >> think that is a decision has to be made with the president and the white house and to be undertaken as we go forward we do have a cybercommand which you just confirmed. >> i hate to interrupt you but i am running out of time. and is not a top priority for the president. i have a question regarding that southr korean officials and they are beginningh to negotiate on the denuclearization between the two leaders. with the nuclear capabilities
and the role as the can on -- as the discussions continue and as the envoy comes back and to give the details of what is discussed i happen to have a long history in a previous life watching both democrat and republican administrations trying to reach an agreement with north korea. and kim jung-un is unpredictable but also very calculated and he views possession of nuclear weapons as essential to his well-being as well as the well-being of his nation and all efforts in
the past and it has bought north korea time to achieve what they want to achieve going out with back to the clinton administration that gives them time to further develop if hopes brings eternal to draw a very clear line with the nuclear capability until that happens we cannot have an agreement with them.th maybe this is a breakthrough i seriously doubt it but hope springs eternal.
>> we are glad you are where you are that general ashley when talk about skeptical versus optimistic for me on your side i am pretty relatively new to the senate but there is an article in power.el and then they should try to take the steps congress takes to put their money where their mouth is in terms of declaring war. i do have a question about russia when we talk about conventional weapon systems we talk about a standoff with a better understanding of what we need when we talk about an
actea of war do we have the nature of the capabilities to the point you haves confidence it isn't a fair fight? >> we are doing all of the assessment that we can. with the efforts of the adversaries well aware of the threat and have to start thinking as we look up into space as well as here on earth and to use those same kind of principles to assess what is happening here because warfare could be a major issue. and with the actions of a
hostile nation to identify what they did so is it that we are really trying to sort through those fact patterns to know exactly and then how to respond? is that a fair way to characterize it? >> part of what you are attribution so getting into things like cyberit is more problematic do they have a pretty good capability and it is global and the previous question with regard to those other capabilities with the technology to have that capability of those weapons system.
cyberis a weapon system. although we never have what's failing so that line of which is extremely bored so if you ask if there is some form of conflict behind closed doors the answer would be yes. it is hard to make that determination to say what constitutes an act of war? >> in my remaining time with the markup looking at the resources i will just ask the question what more should we be looking at that you consider are particularly helpful or not helpful? and the other general ashley
has to do with the work we are doing with our allies and how you gauge the health of the relationship with the nato partners and what more we need to do their. >> starting with the partners and then to lay out those key liness to be more efficient with governance and effectiveness that partners and the appreciation we cannot do this by ourselves our success is integral they will bring insights and capabilities and capacity we don't have. we need to take a look at
intelligence sharing and how do we better integrate? the way we should look at some of these problems is a problem inin south africa then maybe there are seven nations contributing to that in those relationships that partners are there so that is an area to push the envelope. >> just to address the s nato situation we see nato as recovering n and russia ussr dissolves what is the role for nato? thanks to vladimir putin a wake-up call the the russian bear came out of hibernation he wasn hungry and went to grab
the countries like crania and ukraine and issues with georgia so nato is now back in business. they have a ways to go where the trend is right disappointing that the country i was ambassador to and the country most capable to provide that strength and resources is not living up to its weight and with the election that just took place doesn't point to any additional move in the right direction. having said that. border nations upping their game exercises are taking place have a grandson who was an airborne ranger they're doing these exercisers --
exercises on border nations. intelligence division has been stoodbe up twice providing a significant coordination and integration of intelligence nato has not had before so they are upping the game and they see the threat coming and want to be prepared but we are moving in the rightre direction. >> director coats with cyberi hear the phrase whole of government approach is a catchall for someone else's job we hear this over and over again the whole government approach is not a substitute for action or a cyberdoctrine so when will we expect an actual cyberplan from this administration?
>> i cannot give you a specific date but we will continue to provide asan much information that we can gather to the policymakers. >> and would love to hear somebody say the buck stops here instead of the whole government approach what have you done to expedite thiss process or at least create a sense of urgency in the white house? >> daily and weekly i have interactions with people at the white house we discussed any number of issues it is clearly an issue for the national security agency. and the nsa at the white house and for others. there are ongoing discussions with the whole range of threats that we face. as i earlier have said there are not yet has been a formulation of the lead agency
that would work with the congress on legislative action or putting a policy in place there are complicated issues. >> we are running out of time. last week i asked admiral rogers of our response to russian cyberattacks has been adequate enough to change theirto behavior he said we failed to change their calculus and their behavior has not changed would you agree with this assessment? >> i would agree. >> is a possible to change someone'ske behavior like vladimir putin without imposing a cost for actions? >> i believe that. >> how should we impose those cost on russia? the question how do you assess the retaliation and impact and what that leads to? that is the operative question. >> what about sanctions is
that appropriate? >> because this body passed a law nearly unanimous that require the presidentes to sanction individuals with financial ties to russia were at least wave distinctions to certify russia has reduced cyberattacks against the uniteded states. both of you told me a few weeks ago the intelligence communityy is still seeing activity in the run-up through the 2018 election and i think your phrase was the united states is under attack. so why on earth hasn't the administration found anyone to sanction? >> as you have seen 13 named.uals have been terry min nguyen has indicated shortly he will bring out a list of sanctions on those individualss. >> you are talking about the
13 individuals indicted by the special counsel? >> correct it goes beyond that but also to others i don't know what names are on the list we provided that information to the department of treasury forea determination i'm told it is coming soon. >> so you were asked to provide analysis to support the treasury department's decision? >> i don't know if there was direction i just know if we were engaged to provide intelligence on this subject continuously. >> but with their initial decision release of names they didn't sanction any individuals at that time were you asked to provide analysis with that decision? >> i would have to go back and check if it was part of
regular ongoing provision of information but i would be happy to get back to you. >> i will forward to that we talk a lot aboutut sanctions against iran and north korea but it seems like there should be a focus on this. >> thank you for your appearance today the national security strategy says it is a great new era and terrorism remain serious until those threats become catastrophic supported by nationstates one way or another but then to talk about russia and china the robe nation that is the most urgent threat like north korea to follow up on those conversations we had today director coats you said we are
still ascertaining what has happened on the grand peninsula over the last few hours with the sought korea delegation and what that means is that your understanding any talks between north korea and the south korea and the united states areea talks without any concessions made to north korea? >> my current understanding is concessions. >> part of the problem we got to where we are over the past twoin or three decades just to get them to sit down and talk with us? >> correct. >> it is one thing to talk with an t adversary we did that with the soviet union. >> talk is cheap. >> so we shouldn't play charlie c brown and lucy without football? >> there has been a football with a lot of mrs.
>> people talket about deterring that makes up the of the north korean leader and regime. i want to reference a report from the new york times last week with un panel of experts to say north korea is expected of exporting large amounts of material to syria and missiles to deliver those chemical weapons do you care to report? >> there has been transfer historically betweenko north koreasc and syria relative to what is going on we have discussed that in classified session. >> that sounds like what north korea would do given their history? >> it sounds like it. >> that makes them different from the soviet union which of course had an arsenal to destroy the american waybu of life but they rarely transfer
those weapons technology to rogue nations like syria. correct? >> i am not sure i have enough information to say yes or no bu but. >> it is very risky to transfer chemical biological technology if you care for the long-term preservation of your regime but given the diplomatic situation of north korea and makes it different during the cold war. >> let's turn to a brief comment you made with senator fischer about the indirect fire systems north korea has on or near the dnc. the lakeld of fire? >> im not sure of the phrase but it is symptomatic of casualties.
>> also north korean military weapons are soviet era systems. do we know what percentage are rocket and artillery systems that means by definition 27 yearsrc old? >> yes. >> do we know what percentage are well-maintained? >> my understanding the level of maintenance is pretty good but her expectation is the systems will work. >> what about the availability of parts and ammunition rounds the systems would need? >> that becomes more problematic with reply on deaf supply parts. >> not for the international arms market do we have an
assessment of the north korea armies level and how they can operate? >> we watch their training exercises showing discipline and expertise i don't know if i can take that all the way down to the crew level but i made a comment kim jung-un is far different from his father with a level of rigor to the training regime to make sure the crews are ready. >> piling those estimates on top there is question of the overall effectiveness of north korea indirect fire systems may be less than what he suggested but still a great threat to south korea and american troops on the peninsula? >> still great threat. >> what about air defense againstt u.s. aircraft. >> i will take that into a
closed session that is a more complicated answer. >> okay thank you. >> thanks to our two witnesses i want to applaud your prepared testimony i know you have to summarizeat briefly at the top of the briefing but it is very strong and in particular both focused on projected conflicts leading to migration and displacement with security challenges caused by displacement and general you said october 2017 those projected conflicts increase at the highest levels on record so we will come back to that ined a second and director coats you have a strong sanction on climate change i have been disappointed with someal of the environmental agencies and not
talking about it but you are straightforward about the challenges thate are presented inin this section and i encourage my colleagues to take a look so would you agree the title of the hearing is worldwide threats but one of thes best way is to have a stronger alliance? >> i agree with that. >> i agree. >> here is a concern i have about the administration there seems to be a number of areas we are isolating ourselves from a allies could be the failure to nominate ambassadors or proposals to reduced her medically the budget state department with usaid. theis pulling out of the united states with the paris accord
to pull out of a koreanic trade dealal or nafta or tariffs which could suggest a trade war with allies. or even our own diplomats i worry very much with that isolationist attitude to deal with worldwide threats i am very nervous about this right now. two things that concerned me since you both focus on the refugee challenges we even talked about this is a significant phenomenon whether war or violence or national disaster with corruption causing migration we have seen those challenges that have
been compounded in europe in december the u.s. announced pulling out of the un complex for global migration was voluntary in the un with a unanimous agreement september 2016 to sit down and talk about new best practices completely voluntary no incursion into the sovereign ability to make your own immigration decisions for the trump administration announced the u.s. was pulling out of discussions citing sovereignty as a reason which is a non sequitur because the whole idea was that no nation would give up their sovereign ability to do anything but we would have a dialogue how to deal with a significant security threat that you each have b identified. why is it a good idea for the united states to pull out of a global discussion as a way to
deal with human displacement problem that you identify in your testimony? >> i am not familiar with that particular decision or why that was made and in a larger sense relative to what you are talking about, it is easy to look at the way we have conventionally done things but also easy to see they haven't always worked. we have seen potential upsides to some decisions made that have caused nations that have been adversaries or allies to change their position like nato that criticism that came for criticizing nato has resulted in the fact that many nations now have common line to agree that you are right we haven't held to our commitments or treated nato as
necessary. a number of nations now have changed their position and other benefits and decisions that are positive. so let's do it the way we've always done it conventional doesn't always work. >> i get that to question existing institutions is one thing but it was an initiative just being started. there was no history or bad action but a decision by every nation in the world in december of 2017 to talk about human displacement problem that you eachth testified to to achieve real gravitas and figuring out how to deal with it and then decided they didn't even want to be at the table for the first discussion so it wasn't a critique but a unilateral decision that the u.s. was being a nonparticipantd i don't know
how that benefits the united states or the world given your s. testimony of the seriousness of the problem. >> thank you both for serving in your role then great counselov to the president so let me see if i can go over some highlights is it still the policy to deny the north korean regime to be hit by the icbm? >> absolutely. >> so we have rejected the idea to give them the capability to contain that? >> yeses. >> because if they get capability or sell it or share it we see bad actors. so now to follow that through as a last resort military action is on the table?
>> it is on the table. >> when it comes to the iranian involvement in syria do you believe we have a sufficient strategy to contain the threat? >> we are certainly working on one and it is a constant discussion how we see that problem and clearly it is a major issue that needs to be addressed. >> congratulations on your fight against isis you have done a great job assuming you come of the counter strategy the sooner the better. i just got back from israel and i was informed basically thousands of rickel -- rockets and missiles pointed at israel give any reason to doubt that? >> no. in response to your previous question there is a strategy in place with this difficult
part of the world. >> we can do that and close setting. i will be honest i got back from israelac and jordan. do you agree with the idea the united nations has failed protecting their interest? >> i agree. >> i don't think i can make that assessment. >> israel told oursr delegation they need more ammunition and backing from the united states to go into southern lebanon because has a lot has integrated apartment complexes in schools and hospitals. they have made civilian targets. does that make sense to you? >> given the sources obviously we like to talk about that in
detail in a closed session but yes publicly that has been pretty clear. >> just to let the committee know they are making precision guided weapons and they cannot do that without iran but still the policy of the president? >> yes.e co one of the concerns is the sunset law? >> that is correct. >> with the mere passage of time without limitation. >> and the policy of the united states and then to re- imposing shins? >> and to be enriched but takes a year to put weapon together and then to think we
need ane better deal and then to assume may change under time? >> that is a reasonable assumption. with legislation with people from the private sector to give a's recommendations regarding the 2018 election. can you give feedback? >> i would be happy to do that. >> how lucky mine -- likely they would be compromised? >> we have not seen evidence with those malign activities
but it is highly likely we just know how much or when. >> we have a policy of mutual assured destruction who can wipe out the country do we have anything likeha that? >> not to my knowledge. and was cyberspace at your own peril. >> thank you for the job you're doing for our country. >> thank you for your testimony and your service. general ashley what is your definition of political warfare? how do you defineor that?
and then have to use the phrase the whole of government that implementation that is targeted toward the populace at large and in context and then back in the 60s what they do is use the level of influence to make a decision that you think is your own. so in the context of the last couple years the ubiquity of communication but that has been a strategy since the 1960s. >> what we haveou talked about very easily could be defined as political warfare so are we engaged with an adversary
across united states? >> i don't have a term to say it is warfare but the information confrontation. >> in terms of political warfare? >> can i interrupt for just a moment? >> it is in the context of that. >> i have to look at that exact i definition. and just recently reading a report by authors and found emerging threats section in the report to these threats the future of political where feller -- will fare in the digital domain and are still
fatally -- fairly basic vulnerabilities in the social media ecosystem and lack of awareness with the media and policymakers in the three and five year term the tools will become more advanced and difficult to detect with technological advancements of artificial intelligence will open opportunities for maliciousy actors to effectively what we have seen sodd far. and by russia and eastern europe who have affected western systems and it seems inevitable. what do you make of that statement? attribution could be more difficult but and then the
russians tried a number of elections like chechnya or france or germany and in that heavy-handed nature and then become more suspect and then to question if it is true with a particular outcome. >> and then to see some of it because of the artificial intelligence becoming extremely difficult. >> the ai application with the analogy and then to talk about it.e
>> a lot of this misinformationin to the increasing fashion basically big data and do you believe that is a significant threat. >> and with the social media platforms and other types of platforms that are engaged in that is the intelligence community engaged in conversations with these platforms to understand we need to cooperate? >> is that necessary? >> so take the context of big data and in the character war
with those things that are happening on the intelligence standpoint to see the indications with conflict that is coming your way. and then to see that in him that morning that was one of the big applications for big data. stomach that is a critical capability. >> thank you for the indulgence of my colleagues to go out of turn and then to come out of hibernation it is an accurate description of what is going on.
and then to grab countries would you agree? be mike i would agree. but by and large the commander-in-chief doesn't look interested in hunting bears which is very frustrating and then not feeling the of the united states and not being commanded to use the tools that we have to go afterrs russia. and as indicated now colluding with iran. the best ally in a very dangerous neighborhood is israel. i want to get that on the record but also asked quickly about the security supply chain for the weapon system. this is what concerns me. and now we know the
requirements to have proprietary information in return for opening the market could cause down the line should we require u.s. companies to tell us if russia or china is requiring them to open up the source code? >> i don't know if that has been made or implementation that would bear some legal examination ofon the issue but it is a concern looking at the supply-chain we are in opposition legally against
those companies i don't have the answer for that. >> i don't know if we put those in place but supply-chain risk management it is critical. we have to be more cognizant and less naïve and on that acquisition side so for example if i have a contract and you have a subcontract and then to preclude that from happening. and then to cover those relationships.
and to require u.s. companies to know to reveal source code with w that software in order to do business with those who are not always ourre friends. and to require more transparency with the protection through the supply-chain. this committee on a bipartisan basis give you the tools that are necessary with those desperately needed protections. >> thank you senator mccaskill. director coates, she made a statement that you agreed then another that you were not asked so let's see if we could expand on that.
and with that lethal aid and has been calling for from the united states is that correct? >> general ashley has more knowledge and the weapons we sent to ukraine but that is pushback. >> so we are engaging the bear? >> we are showing a good faith measure in ukraine as well. >> one of the most strategic acts in the next few months or the nextt few years that russia can't demonstratively lose in
the ukraine. >> with that national defense strategy now states for long-term security competitions with china and russia is that correct. >> in that case we are engaging the bear. general ashley you are not quite as optimistic as senator inhofe when the hearing first began talking about north korea.
i suspect you have seen this movie before? >> are you here to expound on why you don't share much optimism. >> at the unclassified level everything that i have seen there is a great deal of opaqueness nothing will it take me down a path for the hard right turn but that possibility is there but you see that sincerity. >> should be dismissed that out of hand? that you follow with caution and engage.
>> coming out in december to have classified briefings it was a public study and very startling under plausible scenarios united states could actually lose the next war and listed several reasons for this and one is we have to fight it so far away from home but our adversaries are catching up with us in technology. did you have a chance to look atat that study? >> i have not. >> okay. director coates have you xp mac i have not but we have
seen a great deal of intelligence relative to the psychological capabilities now available to nations that didn't have advanced capabilities before. there is a competition and a race with conventional warfare probably changed when we prevailed in desert storm. and then given those capabilities that were demonstrated so we see those types of threats and use of technology to achieve those threats. we are fully aware of that the budget has been increased significantly to make up stuff that was static in the past administration.
>> we could follow up with the omnibus but understanding general ashley it was stunning to many americans that a report could say we could conceivably under plausible conditions could lose the next war. what do you say to someone who makes that statement? >> i have to look at the assessment is holding deterring? i do agree about closing the gaps and capabilities as they come at us in a asymmetrical way and the technology gap is closing. commitments it is hardob to posture because there is always that time distance to move in a position
for air pollution, biodiversity loss and scarcity are likely to feel economic and social discontent and possibly a people through 2018. it goes on to talk about the risk of humanitarian disasters, water and food shortage, population migration, labor shortfalls, power outages and the possibility of abruptt climate change. the notes indicated it is 100 to 1,000 times the natural extension race. i just want to point this out as your report indicates a serious issue of national security. we are seeing some intensity of
the. the implementation has extended the amount of time needed to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon from a few months to about f a year providd it continues to adhere to the major provisions is that the intelligence community that has thus far adhere to the deals major provisions? >> that judgment is no material breach of the agreement. >> and begin reading from your report t that also enhanced thee transparency of the nuclear activities mainly by fostering improvede access to the nuclear facilities for the iaea and the authorities under the additional protocols. so if the agreement were aggregated we would lose that the visibility is that not correct? >> we've built a number of w capacities relative to that even since the agreement.
claims the south china sea and taiwan but then it goes on to talk about its efforts fulfilling the initiative to expand the economic reach into d political influence. my question is what is the assessment of what china wants and are they moving toward military aggression and the enlargement of their territory or are they looking more towards the political and economic influence in the region lacks >> it appears to be the latter. while china is modernizing its military and increasing its spending, most of it appears to be done in the aggressive purpose and they clearly have a strategy of using credit and loans to countries around the
there was the unprecedented delay of the people the president put forward in terms of the national security foreign-policy area. i certainly wish if we were talking about t challenges thate could agree to expeditiously move some of these as opposed to delay. there's been a lot of press reports about these campuses throughout the united states and how kind of the dollar diplomacy in the top universities. they are start to wonder what these institutes are up to. first of all to you think that
china would allow for the equivalent of trying to put forward james madison institute's order alexander hamilton institute is about freedom, liberty, free speech, the rule of law you think china would allow that? >> we certainly don't have any assessment that i could give you given their control over what is done in china through its institutions both public and private. >> have you looked at these institutes on the campuses and what they are trying to achieve and what their goals are and are they actually spying on the chie university'she like i said there's been a number of articles just in the last few months.
>> there's been significant interest in fact we have some studiesti going on, some investigations relative to what china is doing and how much of it is linked to the chinese government policies rather than students just coming to get a good education. we take that very seriously in assessing where china is and where china is going. i know you've had a lot of questions. what we try to be more specific i would like to get a sense of your confidence with regards to the critical issue of the capability that can hit all of the united states were a particular interest in the non- contiguous united states alaska
and hawaii what are your estimates right now of the ability to arrange those areas. we know they tested the abilities with the intercontinental ballistic missiles they have the power to reach all parts of the united states. we know k they tested a high yid nuclear device. they will continue to do these testings. specifics of what you are asking is better moved a closed session. >> the president has put forth a red line to have an intercontinental ballistic
missile that can hit the united states. has north korea crossed that line >> line >> i think the policy is still in place. >> do you think they will cross it within the year 2018? >> we will do everything we can to assess what he's thinking and that the regime might do, but it's been on the board as you might know. is it likely that he will cross the red wine this year would you describe the red line? stanek a ballistic missile that can range the state and the united beats we know they are pursuing a capability.
pick i of the committe the committee on foreign investment in the united states reviews acquisitions to ensure they don't threaten national securitthe nationalsecurity andf national intelligence investigates the risks. china and others were using ways to acquire your early-stage technologies and if these arose the competitive advantage i would like to explore that just a little bit. as the head of the national defense intelligence, you look at foreign acquisitions through the lens of national security
risks to the supply chain for the government and military. so, i want to pick up one places where senator mccaskill laughed off. given that they will continue efforts to acquire the technologies, how well are we identifying th technologies that are critical to maintaining the military advantage over our adversaries both in the near futureth and beyond? >> if i can let me narrow the question. a good job of identifying you've got to know that it's within your lan to take a look at. >> when you talk about how they
acquire some of it is legal, some of these illegal in this uncertain about their own technology now. >> i am a little concerned about our ability to monitor this in advance. let me ask this do you believe that the investment in scientific research is critical to developing those technologies that maintain the military advantage? i think it's important to be proactive in identifying. that is the point i would like to underline today and another question i want to ask one of the tools we have to hold russia accountable is sanctioned. congress overwhelmingly passed a law last year requiring sanctions on anyone that engages in cyber attacks on behalf of
the russians. the trump administration hasf t imposed the sanctions even though russia will continue trying to interfere. so last week i asked the director of the message it sends to vladimir putin when the trump administration doesn't implement mandatory sanctions to counter the russian cyber attacks. admiral rogers said come and i will quote him i believe president putin has come to the conclusion that there is little of a price to pay and that therefore i can continue this activity. he concluded by saying clearly what we have done hasn't been enough. do you agree with admiral rogers? >> i do believe what we have done has not been enough sanction in the other consideration of secretary of treasury indicated i think as early as next week he may be listing some of those sanctions,
but clearly we have not successfully countered how to deal with some of these. >> so you agree we have not done enough. how about the statement when he says i believe president putin has come to the conclusion that there is little price to pay meaning for the russian cyber attacks and he can therefore continue this activity do you agree with the admiral on that? >> i think they have seen some success. i don't know to what extent they believe the success they wanted to achieve. i do support has been discussed with the transparency. our job as intelligence communities informing the american people of this that they take more exercise and better judgment andt terms of
what is real news. >> our job is only to inform the americanic people? >> i did not say that is the only job i said is one of the things we do. >> did you agree with the statement or not? i didn't hear whether there was a yes or no. >> there is more we can do and it is under consideration. >> democrat or republican as americans we should all be a flop that vladimir putin thinks he gets to play a role in the outcome of our elections. we need to prevent that from ever happening again. >> that is why transparency is part. >> i am all for transparency that if the administration doesn't implement sanctions as required by congress that we are nobut we arenot using every tooo detour russia from undermining our democracy. >> as i said, he's going to be announcing those within a week. >> thank you mr. chairman.
>> thank you mr. chairman, gentlemen, thank you for your service and for being here today. director come in your written testimony you said iran remains the most prominent state sponsor of terrorism providing financial aid, advanced weapon and tactics and direction to the militant terrorist groups across the middle east and cultivating a network ofan operatives across e globe as a contingency to enable potential terrorist attacks. as you know as a part of the deal, billions of dollars flowed into iran including 1.7 billion in unmarked cash delivered in outlets in the dark of night. in your judgment, have some of those billions of dollars, has some of that money been used to finance terrorist operations? want in your judgment is the
greatest terrorist threat posed by iran? >> iran has a lot of activities going on right now but it seems to be theof greatest current met threat is the support forti hezbollah and hezbollah is positioning itself against israel and has turned into the hotspot and iran has made it possible to move into a territory very close to israel and honor themselves to the point that it can turn into a major conflict >> indeed in recent weeks we saw for the firstst time ever a draw and crossing into the air space piloted by iranians. what do you see as the consequences that on now feels strong enough, belligerent enough to be directly leading attacksra on israel with iranian
weapons? >> it could have very serious conflicts. as a result from all of that we know israel will not be able to tolerate that kind of threat directly on their border andto o it i think is a situation of significant concern. >> and are they continuing their research and development and testing of technology? >> they continue to develop and test the missiles. they claim that it is not for the purpose, but there appears to be violations of security resolutions relative to what they are doing and that is where the activities or that we were concerned about. >> the missiles they are testing they are not merely short-range missiles thatt might strike, but they also include icbms that
could reach the united states? >> short-range and medium-range they do have a space launch vehicle which we've tested a couple of times. reliability isn't there. so if you ask me if they have the capability, they do not is aspirational, yes. could they take that space launch vehicle and start moving it towards the capability because that's many years out. >> dode we see indications triva sharing their research and development with iran? >> from the standpoint of the ballistic o missile program it started back in the 80s. there was a technology and where they want to be right now is self-sufficient so they want the ability not to depend like they did in w the 80s so
self-sufficient in terms of how they were developing. >> let's shift for a minute to north korea. in january 2018, they publicly called for contact travel cooperation between north and south korea at them yesterday hosted a ten member delegation of the officials in pyongyang and according to the national security adviser led the delegation and signaled the clear intent to pursue the denuclearization and is willing to hold talks with the u.s.. director, do we have any reason to believe that he would be going to give up nuclear weapons? >> he has repeatedly stated that he would not give that up. you see that as an ex essential to his regime's survival and his own survival. we have seen nothing to indicate otherwise that he would be willing to give those up.
>> what do you make of these statements to theco contrary? is it simply propaganda o is sit is your assessment? >> i think it is too early to assessment. we need to hear from the interlocutors who will be coming here as well as the south koreans to discuss what they have discussed. i spoke earlier about my history of watching this movie a couple of times before with both republican and democrat administrations and the frustration of getting into talks and not succeeding and buying them time to do what they want to do, so i have very low confidence if their intent is for what we have seen no evidence to that point come to that decision. >> do you have a view on this question?er
>> everything we have seen leads us down a path that the preservation of the regime from any kind of an external threat is simple to that weapons program taken away from the likes to have given up programs that put them at risk. it was surprising to see that this morning and we will see where the talks go. >> thank you, senator cruise. >> let me make a comment on that, because i'm glad you brought that up. we talked about this earlier. general ashley and i had a disagreement. let me tell you why i feel a little differently than those of. ii, also have been here while yu have been here and we listened to these indices this before. you've got to keep in mind that he just came off of eight years with a policy from the obama
administration and then all of a sudden when the response came and he responded in a very straightforward way, he being our president, then all of a sudden the phone call is we want to participate with you and i was watching this because i was there atic the time in the south china sea and i thought at first then with what happened last night is something that is kind of unprecedented under some conditions. i'm a little more optimistic than your hope springs eternal but i do think and i want to think that this aggressive behavior of our president is going to have a positive effect. >> i think we would all like to think that and hope that is the case but i think we should go