tv Paul Nakasone Confirmation Hearing for NSA Director U.S. Cyber Command... CSPAN March 15, 2018 8:00pm-9:15pm EDT
not just a city on a hill but a city that cares and loves one another and is willing to work with one another and understand that politics is indispensable to bringing our progress for as many people as possible. >> "q&a," sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. up next, the senate confirmation hearing for paul nakasoni. nominated to be the connect director of the national security agency. then a house hearing looking at operations in the congressional budget office. after that, a discussion on the future of the obama administration's school discipline directive. and now the senate intelligence committee confirm igs hearing for paul nakasone. and commander of u.s. cyber command. this is an hour and ten minutes.
i'd like to welcome our witnesses today. i'd like to call this hearing to order. lieutenant general paul m. nakasone, president trump's nominee to be the next director of the national security agency. general nakasone, congratulations on your nomination. i'd like to start by recognizing your wife susan. she's here with us today and your four children david, joseph, who are both high school juniors, sarah who is studying at the university of chicago, and daniel, who is at the university of virginia. you've got them geographically spread around. i know from personal experience just how important a supportive family is. to each of you, susan, i hope you pass it on to the kids,
thank you. our goal in conducting this hearing is to enable the committee to consider the nominee's qualifications and to allow for thoughtful deliberation by our members. lieutena jun -- be able to ask additional questions and hear from him in open session. general nakasone graduated from st. john's university and earned a master's degree from the university of southern california, the national defense intelligence college, and the united states army war college. he served honorably in the united states army for over 30 years, including deployments to afghanistan, iraq and the republic of korea. prior to leading the united states army cyber command, general nakasone commanded the cyber national mission force at the united states cyber command. general nakasone, you are being asked to lead the national security agency during a period
of significant debate about what authorities and tools are lawful and appropriate. i'm hopeful that moving forward you will be an influence and influential and forceful advocate for those foreign intelligence tools you believe are necessary to keep the citizens of this country safe while protecting american privacy. as i have mentioned to others during their nomination hearing, i can sure you that this committee will faithfully follow its charter and conduct a vigorous and realtime oversight of the intelligence community, its operations and its activities. we'll ask difficult and probing questions of you and your staff, and we will expect honest, complete and timely responses. you've already been reported favorably out of the senate armed services committee on 6 march of this year, and i look forward to supporting your nomination and ensuring its consideration without delay. i want to thank you again for
being here. i look forward to your testimony. finally, yesterday the committee received a statement from the electronic privacy information center and asked that it be entered into the hearing record. i would ask members for unanimous consent that that statement be entered into today's open record. hearing no objection, so ordered. i now recognize the vice chairman for his lengthy comments. >> thank you, mr. chairman. since no one's here, i'm sure people are going to be hanging on my every word. general nakasone, it's great to see you again and welcome. i believe actually this is the -- since you're the first director -- as director of nsa and cyber com, this is the first time as nsa direct you'or the f time you've appeared before the hearing.
obviously, general, if you're confirmed, you will take charge of one of the most important assignments in our government and the intelligence community. you'll be entrusted to lead tens of thousands of dedicated men and women in the nsa. it will be your job to ensure timely and ask sit intelligence is provided to our nation's leaders and war fighting. you'll be responsible to protecting our military networks, safeguarding the unique capabilities of the united states and outsmarting our adversaries. and as commander of u.s. cyber com, you will also be responsible to -- for responding to threats and conduct operations when ordered to do so. at the same time, as we've discussed again, you must ensure that the nsa operates within the law and that continues to protect the privacy and civil liberties of americans. the nsa's activities must continue to operate within the parameters of that law, particularly the fisa law, with
fool-proof mechanisms making sure no americans are targeted without warrant and will continue to be subject to robust oversight by this committee. your nomination, i believe, comes at a critical time. as i look around the world, i see threats and challenges to our country, to systems of international institutions and alliances that, frankly, have maintained peace and prosperity since world war ii. we've also seen domestic threats to the nsa's ability to execute on its mission, with a series of leaks that have challenged the agency and at times undermined the morale of your workforce. the nsa must provide the best intelligence on extremist and extremist groups, rogue regimes, nuclear proliferation and regional instability. i'm concerned about the potential rise of nation state adversaries and their policies which aim to disrupt the international order. in particular, we should all be alarmed by the destabilizing role played by vladimir putin's russia, which threatens both the united states and our allies.
as we've seen by their recent activities in the uk, there are very few restrictions mr. putin has put on his agents' actions. the heads of our intelligence agencies were here a month ago and all indicated that russia will continue to try to interfere in our elections. activities that demand a strong united states response. our country, i believe, must develop a whole of government response to strengthen our defenses. i believe, and we've, again, discussed this, would like to hear more about this today, that we need a clearly articulated cyber doctrine that will deter nations like russia from going after our crucial institutions, whether they be civilian, military or in the private sector. we've got to make sure they know whether it's russia or other adversaries that there are consequences to their actions. i believe that our lack of action to date has, frankly, encouraged nations not only like russia but china and others, frankly, to act with impunity.
i also worry that we're on the cusp of what i'll call a paradigm shift in the technological development and not one we're well-poised to prevail against well-resourced competitors, who are willing to engage in not only a whole of government, but a whole of society effort to obtain economic advantages and access to our most sensitive technologies. the top dozen chinese technology firms that have already entered or poised to enter the united states and western markets in stark contrast to our country, these firms maintain relationships with and provide access to the chinese government that is unlike anything we've seen with out developed nations. while we want to encourage an open economy, what are the potential risks to our society from these developments? now, china is still behind the united states in r & d exte expenditures, but not for long. their r & d spending is increase
being i about 20% a year. by comparison, our expenditures are increasing 4% a year. the lines will shortly cross. china's position itself to be a global leader in artificial intelligence, quantum computing and bioengineering and that brings serious implications for our privacy, economic and national security. i believe the nsa will continue to play a critical role in keeps our country ahead in this ever-changing world of emerging technologies. finally, i'd like to hear your thoughts about the dedicated men and women of the nsa. your workforce of dedicated intelligence professionals. these are men and women who work in silence to keep america safe. now, they've taken a beating sometimes recently, from those who falsely call into question their motivations, their dedication and their honesty. i know these attacks own scour the truth. my colleagues on this committee and i know that at the nsa headquarters, the memorial wall lists the names of 176 nsa
kriptologists, military and civilian who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country while serving in silence. i'd like to hear your plans on how we maintain that worldclass workforce going forward. again, thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing and i look forward to the general's comments. >> if you would stand and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear to give this committee the truth, the full truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? >> i do. >> please be seated. general, before we move to your statement, i'll ask you to answer five standard questions the committee poses to each nominee who appears before us. they require a simple yes or no response for the record. do you agree to appear before the committee here or in any other venue when invited? >> yes. >> if confirmed, do you agree to send officials from your office to appear before the committee and designated staff when
invited? >> yes, mr. chairman. >> do you agree to provide documents or any other materials requested by the committee in order for it to carry out its oversight and legislative responsibilities? >> yes, mr. chairman. >> will you ensure that your office and your staff provide such materials to the committee when requested? >> yes, mr. chairman. >> do you agree to inform and fully brief to the fullest extent possible all members of this committee on all intelligence activities rather than only the chair and the vice chair? >> yes, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much for your answers. we'll now proceed to your opening statement. after which i'll recognize members by seniority for up to five minutes. general, the floor is yours. >> chairman burr, vice chairman warner and distinguished members of the committee, i am honored to testify here today for my nomination as director of the national security agency and chief central security service. i want to thank president trump, secretary mattis, director coats
and general dunford for their confidence in nominating me for these important positions. i'd also like to thank my wife susan for being here. i owe much of my success to her love and support throughout nearly 25 years of marriage. today our children, sarah, daniel, david and joseph, are all in school and will be unable to be with us. we're tremendously proud of them and thankful for their selflessness and support. i'd also like to thank admiral mike rogers for his 36 years of commissioned service for the nation and for leading nsa during a time of incredible transformation and tremendous growth. i thank him and his wife dana for all they have done in service to our nation. i commissioned in the army over 31 years ago as an intelligence officer, and for the past three decades have served in intelligence and leadership positions both at home and abroad, in peace and in war. if confirmed for this position,
this will be my fourth assignment to nsa. in my previous assignments to the agency, i've always been impressed by the phrases that greet everyone who enters that building. defend the nation, secure the future. these simple directives capture the critical role the nsa plays in supporting our military and senior policy-makers while safeguarding our freedoms. i know that the national security agency is a special member of our intelligence community and of unique importance in the defense of our nation. throughout the agency's 65 years of service, one constant has remained, the quality of the people. these men and women are national treasures and they are engaged in the missions that can only be called one of a kind. if confirmed, i know this workforce will be the foundation of nsa's future and continued success. my focus will begin and end with them. throughout my career i've been
both a generator and consumer of nsa intelligence products and know firsthand the critical role the agency plays both as a combat support and signals intelligence agency. the importance of delivering accurate, reliable and timely intelligence products cannot be overstated, and if confirmed i commit to upholding the high reputation of the agency as a provider of objective, mission-critical signals intelligence and support of our military and our government. i recognize that our nation's adversaries continue to pose threats and posture themselves to reduce our global advantage. in light of this, the importance of an effective national security agency continues to be paramount to our national defense. i also recognize that we are at the edge of the technological frontier for our nation. the future that the next director will face presents challenges and students from rapid technological evolution, including machine learning, artificial intelligence, and
quantum computing, as well as the growing capabilities of the technological industry. if confirmed i know that a strong public-private partnership will be needed to ensure this country benefits from the technology being developed and implemented today's and into the future. finally i recognize that this nomination is to lead both u.s. cyber command and the nsa. although the co-location in cooperation of the two powerful organizations has been critical to their growth, i also see them as two unique entities, with their own identities, authorities and oversight and mechanisms. i'm committed to assessing the needing of both to optimize their individual success in the best defense of our nation. if confirmed i will ensure that the agency's intelligence consumers can continue be-to-rely on timely and accurate products delivered with integrity to maintain an advantage over increasingly adaptive adversaries. i will always ensure the national security agency upholds
full compliance with our laws and the protection of our constitutional rights. i am deeply honored to be considered for these leadership positions. if confirmed, i look forward to working closely with the committee and the entire congress to ensure we leverage our opportunities and also address our challenges. chairman burr, thank you for this opportunity to be here this morning. i look forward to answering your questions. >> general, thank you for that statement. thank you for your service to the country. one could leave with what you've accomplish with a great career, but i think greater things are ahead of us for you and for this country and we're grateful for your willingness and your family's willingness to take this next chapter. before we begin, i'd like to advise members pursuant to senate resolution 400, the committee received this nomination on referral from the senate armed services committee on 6 march, 2018, and we have 30 calender days within which to report this nomination to the full senate. it is my intention to move to a
committee vote on this nomination as soon as we possibly can. therefore, for planning purposes, if any members wish to submit questions for the record after today's hearing, please do so by close of business today. with that we will go into the five-minute round by seniority, and i'll recognize myself first. general, leaks of classified information this committee takes very seriously and we believe it puts sensitive sources and methods at risk. and can, in many cases, cause irrepairab irreparable damage to our national security. already taken actions by imposing enhanced penalties on those convicted of unauthorized disclosures. if confirmed, how do you plan to address the security of sensitive and classified information at the agency?
>> mr. chairman, the safeguard of our national secrets, the safeguard of our capabilities is one of the most important things the next director will continue to address. if confirmed, my intent is to look to make sure that the security -- the enterprise and secure the network initiatives that nsa has undertaken to date are timely, are accurate, are on target to ensure that we continue to have the safeguard and security of our national treasures. with that being said, i would also add, mr. chairman, that there are two elements that i see as we look long term to this issue. first of all, is continuing to hiring great people that work at the nsa. not only hiring them but also training them, developing them and ensuring that their long-term careers with the nsa are well tended to. the second thing, though, is we need to also understand that there are control mechanisms that we as an agency need to continue to look at to ensure
that we have the ability to not only safeguard our network but also secure our environment. >> general, do i have your commitment that if such a leak happens that you will as timely as you can notify the committee and will you continually notify the committee on progress that the nsa makes towards preventing and deterring unauthorized leaks? >> certainly, mr. chairman. >> thank you. general, the committee authorization act of '18 and fiscal year '17 included provisions to enhance nsa's ability to recruit and retain science and technology, s.t.e.m. employees. nevertheless, nsa employees still will be compensated less than their private sector counterparts. how do you plan to recruit and retain those top s.t.e.m.
candidates, especially given that there is that compensation gap between government and the private sector? >> mr. chairman, first of all, thank you to the committee for the intelligence authorization act. i think that is a very, very important element, important ability for the next director to be able to leverage in the future. as i take a look at nsa's workforce and my previous experience, the one thing that sets nsa apart is their mission. i believe the most critical thing that we have to continue to do at the national security agency is to ensure our people understand and are able to work this very important mission. defend the nation, secure the future. this is what i think is essential for us and is our advantage as we look to the future. mr. chairman, i would also say, as we look to the future we have to continue broad abilities to recruit from a very, very diverse population.
academia, industry, with inside our government. i think this is critical to attract our best and brightest people. >> general, are you familiar with nsa 21? >> yes, mr. chairman, i am. >> would you just briefly comment on your views on that initiative, which is to more -- to prepare for the 21st century a more efficient, effective nsa. >> mr. chairman, nsa 21, as i understand it, the largest reorganization of the agency since 2000, and that's significant if you consider the fact that 70% of the agency has been hired since 9/11. it was designed to improve obviously and focus on people, integration and innovation. it was designed to address a number of changes in our environment, changes to our networks, changes to competition for our workforce, changes to our budget. i would say to date it has just
been ensubstantiat been -- i would ask if i could have a little bit of time to take a look, evaluate what has been done, look at what's been successful what may need assessment and continue that dialogue with the committee. >> you've got a commitment to do that. with that, my time is expired. the vice chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. again, general, congratulations on your nomination and thank you for your service. one of the things i think this committee prides itself on is our strong working relationship with all components of the intelligence community. and as you're aware, we have had an ongoing investigation into russian activities stemming from the 2016 election. for the record, will you commit to ensuring that this committee will be provided with all the information requested pursuant to our ongoing russian investigations? >> i will, mr. vice chairman. >> thank you. at our last open hearing, we had all of the heads of -- all the principal intelligence community agencies. every one of them, including
your predecessor admiral rogers reconfirmed their support for the january 2017 assessment that russia interfered in our last elections. i want to get it in for the record, do you agree with that january 2017 ic assessment that russia interfered in our 2016 elections? the second part, editorial comment here, in light of their success in those efforts, do you expect further interference by russia in our elections, and for nat matter, interference into the elections of our allies? >> mr. vice chairman, i agree with the 2016 assessment. i -- unless the calculus changes we should expect continued issues. >> we would look forward on working with you on making sure this committee is going to have a public hearing next week on this issue of election security and i'm very proud of members on both sides of the aisle and how hard they've worked on that, and if confirmed we would look
forward to working with you on this issue of election security. one of the things that i've found and believe is that we don't have i think a clearly articulated cyber doctrine at this point. that not only defends our government but also deters adversaries. i think i can better articulate our strategy vis-a-vis second-level states like north korea and iran and terrorist threats like isis, but i am concerned with near peer adversaries. we don't have that clear cyber doctrine. and know that you're just coming into this position, but who do you think in the administration is in charge of developing a cyber doctrine policy that would deter, whether it's chinese left of our intellectual property or russia misinformation and disinformation campaigns, who is going to be in charge of developing that doctrine and where do you think it stands at this point? >> senator, ultimately i would
an disthat strategies such as this would come from the executive branch, perhaps the national security council. however, i would anticipate all elements of the government would contribute to the strategy. in terms of if confirmed my role i would anticipate that i would provide my insights to both the joint staff and the department of defense as this strategy is developed. >> with your strong intelligence background, i hope we can count on you to be part of that. i think it is time that we have that clearly articulated doctrine. this is not a criticism in this case of the current administration, this has been a problem that i think has plagued our nation for more than a decade. one of the areas that i constantly come back to as i think an example of where we need a doctrine is how we deal with the dramatic increase of devices that are connected to the internet, the so-called internet of things. roughly at 10 billion devices connected now. that number is estimated to go
to 20 to 25 billion within the next few years. the director of the g.i.a. ashley -- the internet of things was an area of exploitation for potential adversaries. how do you think we will go about securing devices connected to the internet and do you think there ought to be at least a basic policy put in place that would say that the federal government's purchasing power ought to be used with some determination that we only would buy devices that, for example, are patchable and don't have imbedded pass codes so we don't, frankly, imbed within our federal government enormous new vulnerabilities. >> so, senator, certainly awareness, as you talk about the internet of things is very important for us to understand both the opportunities and certainly the challenges here. i think there will likely be obviously movement that will have to come from the private sector on this. in terms of policy decisions, i
would defer that to the department of defense as they weigh into this, but my sense is that we have to have a very candid discussion about the growth, the explosion of the internet of things, and most importantly, the impact that it could have on our economy and certainly our national security. >> again, i think you can play a critically important role here. i would just hate for us five years from now to realize we've bought billions of devices just within the federal government and they have actually increased our vulnerability. thank you for your responses. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, vice chairman. senator blunt. >> general, i wish to start where senator warner did. admiral rogers who we all have great respect for got a lot of attention recently i believe on the house side saying he had been given no new directions as to how to deal with things like russian interference in the elections. so let's take that in two directions. one is, do you need any new
direction, in your view, to deal with defending against those kinds of attacks? do you have all the defensive authorizations you need not whether you have all the equipment and staff you need, but do you have all the authorization needed to defend our institutions against outside aggression? >> so, senator, certainly in terms of defending the department of defense networks, i think that there are all the authorizations and policies and authorities that are necessary. >> what do you need about the nondepartment -- you know, nsa, what if somebody is attacking the state department or some other -- >> so if confirmed as the director of the national security agency, the authorities for the national security systems falls within the purview of the director of nsa and i believe has the authorities upon which he would be able to execute that defense. >> do you need more authorities
to work with state and local election officials? >> so certainly there would need to be a policy decision, senator, that would indicate that there would be, you know, more authorities for cyber command or nsa to be able to do something like that. >> but for the federal government and for the military, your defensive role is clearly understood? >> so certainly for -- on the nsa side, for the national security systems it is understood, and on the cyber com side for the defense of d.o.d. networks, certainly understood. >> i believe this was senator warner's question, maybe worded a little differently, how do we develop a more well-understood response, an offensive guideline, if you would? how do we -- what do we need to do to ensure that our adversaries know that there is a price to be paid beyond just us trying to subvert their efforts to get into our networks?
do we have an offensive strategy and do we need one? >> so, senator, i think both senator -- vice chairman warner and yourself speak to this idea of a strategy. what is the strategy for the nation in terms of cyberspace? i think that strategy is being developed in terms of how we defend ourselves certainly is important. and it would lay out roles, responsibilities, functions of the major elements of our government and i think that that is obviously one of the things that would help, both internally for the elements of our government, but also externally, as you say, to provide a set of left and right boundaries, perhaps, for our adversaries to understand. >> well, i think a determination to create where those boundaries are and what we might do may need to be made outside of your agency, but inside your agency i can't imagine a more important person to be at the table when we try to determine what -- how
that -- how that determination could actually be implemented. think there is a strong sense that there is too much of -- no price to be paid at this point by people who try to either steal our intellectual property or interfere with elections or whatever else they might try to do. the other area where i think you may have to look for an even more expansive role is the acquisition equipment, signal intelligence equipment by other agencies. i think you have a role to play there and one of the many hats you'll be wearing in this job. do you have concerns that other federal agencies might be buying equipment that could in the future be troublesome for us? >> senator, i certainly have concerned. i think the recent statements bit department of homeland security and the directives with regards to select anti-virus
companies throughout the world and the ensuing national defense authorization act that prohibited the use of select anti-virus products within our government is very, very important for the future. >> well, again, i think you bring the information to the table on that. my last question would be something we've talked about before, particularly at the cyber command level. what's the value of the reserve force or the national guard? i know missouri has a really good cyber unit. i think cyber units in the reserves, back to maybe the chairman's question about how we have the talent we need. how do we bring that part-time talent to our -- to use to our benefit? if that's a good idea, in your opinion. >> senator, i think it's a tremendous idea. in my current role as the commander of army cyber, our army is building 21 cyber protection teams, ten in the united states army reserve and 11 in the national guard.
what you indicate is critical for us as we look to increase the best and brightest of our nation being able to commit to the defense of our nation in cyberspace. the guard, the reserve have tremendous talent that we look to in the future to provide us what we often term the strategic depth for our nation. so i'm very, very pleased to serve with those fine americans and hopefully in the future continue to be able to incorporate and to promote their service for our nation. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator wyden. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. chairman and colleagues, just a quick comment before we go to our nominee. the nomination of gina haspel to head the cia comes at an especially momentous time. senator heinrich and i have asked that certain aspects of her background be declassified so that the american people can see what sort of person might head the agency at a
particularly important time. i'll just wrap up this point by saying i hope members will support what senator heinrich and i are calling for with respect to declassification. mr. nakasone, an historic day, because as i understand it, you are the first nominee from the nsa to be considered at this committee, and we welcome you. let me begin with some questions. in 2001, then president bush directed the nsa to conduct an illegal warrantless wiretapping program. neither the public nor the full intelligence committee learned about this program until it was revealed in the press. speaking personally, i learned about it from the newspapers. so, there is a lot riding on how you might address a similar situation.
we've already noted the history of your being here. if there was a form of surveillance that currently requires approval by the fisa court and you were asked to avoid the court based on some kind of secret legal analysis, what would you do? >> senator, thank you for that question. first, i would offer with regards to the situation that you describe, i would obviously have a tremendous amount of legal advice that would be provided to me, if confirmed. by those in the agency, by those in the department, by those obviously that are in the director of national intelligence. at the end of the day, i think that one of the most important things is that we have the
conversation between the national security agency and this oversight committee to understand -- >> let me just stop it right there so i can learn something that didn't take place before. you would, if asked, tell the entire committee that you had been asked to do that? >> so, senator, i would say that i would consult with the committee. i would obviously -- >> when you say consult, you would inform us that you had been asked to do this? >> so, again, senator, i would consult with the committee and have that discussion. i think that one of the important things that i have seen is the relationship between the national security agency and this committee. my intent would be to continue that discussion, but at the end of the day, senator, i would say that there are two things that i would do. i would follow the law and i would ensure, if confirmed, that the agency follows the law.
>> first of all, that's encouraging because that was not the case back in 2001. in 2001, the president said we're going to operate a program that clearly was illegal. illegal. you've told us now you're not going to do anything illegal. that's a plus. and you've told us that you would consult with us if you were ever asked to do something like that. so i appreciate your answer. now, let me move next to encryption. the widespread consensus from encryption experts is that tech companies can't modify their encryption to permit law enforcement access to americans' private communications and data without also helping sophisticated foreign government hackers get in. you are as familiar with the
capabilities of our adversaries as anybody. do you agree or disagree with those experts? >> so, senator, in terms of encryption, i would begin with saying this is something that for 65 years, nsa has been at the forefront of doing. encrypting our national security systems. our data, our information, our networks. what has changed these days is the fact that the power of encryption, particularly in the private sector, has put law enforcement at times, even with a court order, at risk of being able to be able to investigate or perhaps even prosecute a crime. i would offer that for the future. this is one of those areas that, if confirmed, i have much to learn -- >> my time -- my time is up, general. just a yes or no answer to the question with respect to what experts are saying. experts are saying that the tech
companies can't modify their encryption to permit law enforcement access to america's private communications without the bad guys getting in, too. do you disagree with the experts? that's just a yes or no. >> so i would offer, senator, that it's a conditional yes. that there are times when -- >> right. that is encouraging as well. i look forward to working with you in the days ahead. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator lankford. >> general, thank you. thank you for your service in the past and i appreciate you stepping up into this role. the nomination process is not a fun process. it's not something someone wakes up and goes, gosh, i'd like to go through senate confirmation. because of the length of the investigation and the information you've already put out and the questioning time. i appreciate you doing it and stepping up to work through the long and difficult process. help me understand the role of collaboration between nsa and commercial entities and their networks, critical infrastructure and their
networks. just the communication and trying to be able to determine real threats that there there that we may face domestically or internationally. >> senator, in terms of collaboration, so nsa for many, many years has been at the forefront, obviously, of understanding advanced of our adversaries. that reporting, that communication with other elements of our government, whether or not it's the federal bureau of investigation or it's the department of homeland security, has been critical to inform other members of our critical infrastructure and key resources. i see this as an element that must continue into the future. in a sharing or integration that is important for the defense of our nation. >> how do we get that faster? what does it take to have faster collaboration? >> so i think faster collaboration is driven by, you know, several things. one is a demand signal. a demand signal that is coming from not open other elements of
our government, the private sector. i would also say that it's part of a supply, being able to grow a number of analysts and an ability to continue to report. i think those are two of the key elements, senator. >> let's talk about this wonderful term thrown around nsa all the time, the dual hat. working with u.s. cyber command and then also directing the nsa. you made a comment in your opening statement about that, that that has been and will continue, but you also made a comment that you see those as unique entities. help me understand a little bit. are there walls between those two entities or are they just distinct roles? how do you see them as unique entities? >> senator, if i might begin with the dual hat discussion. in terms of the dowual hat arrangement, i'm not predisposed in whether that arrangement stays or ends. >> right. >> i know that the president and congress both have spoken on it. the president in august of '17 and congress in the ndaa that listed a series of six
conditions that both the secretary and the chairman must attest to before the dual hat is terminated. it's my assessment that what we should do at the end of the day is make a determination that is in the best interest of the nation. that's the key critical piece of it. if confirmed, my intent would be to spend the first 930 days looking at that, providing an assessment to both the secretary and the chairman and then moving forward from there. >> okay. would you allow us to be in that conversation as well, as far as your assessment? >> certainly, after talking with the secretary and the chairman, yes, sir. >> that's fine. talk to me a little bit about this issue of cyber doctrine, something this committee has talked about often. it's been something that has been a frustration. trying to see who is giving recommendations to the president on how we respond, the speed of our response, attribution, from where attacks came from are difficult to do, as you know
extremely well, but if we don't get a quick response to that and individuals aren't able to make decisions with accurate, timely information, it makes it much tougher. so the question that we always have is, who makes the call, who is it that presents the set of ideas to the president to say here are the options that you have conside have? where do you expect that comes from? >> senator, if i might begin with the strategy or the doctrine piece and with regard to the options address that as well. i do believe that an overall strategy for how the nation is going to defend itself in cyberspace is very important. what are the roles of the department of defense? the department of justice and federal bureau of investigation and of course the department of homeland security. how do we ensure there is cross-talk. there are obviously roles and responsibilities that are fully delineated. i think that's an important piece. with regards to options in the future, if confirmed i would see that as my role as commander of u.s. cyber command to provide a
series of options within cyberspace that the secretary of defense and the president can consider. i would offer, however, that that may not be the only set of options that are necessary. when we look at the strength of this nation, the nation has tremendous strength diplomatically, informationally, economically and those might be other options presented. >> but who is the clearing house to be able to gather those and be the final presentation to the president? >> so in terms of military options, senator, i think that would be myself to the secretary of defense and then the president. >> okay. that's what i needed to hear. thank you very much. >> senator king. >> thank you, mr. chairman. following up on that question, i think this is one of the most important areas of policy. just moments ago, we received information that the united states government has imposed additional sanctions on russia in response to the activities in 2016. the question is, are sanctions enough? sanctions are important.
but the question is, sanctions always, by definition, occur after the attack. the best attack is the one that doesn't occur. that gets to the question of deterrence. and i hope as we discussed in the armed services committee one of the taverns you will take on doing just what you said, developing options that would be available to us that we could talk about as deterrence. your thoughts on the importance of having some deterrent capability as well as after the fact punishment capability. >> senator, i agree in terms of having a range of options. and i would certainly see, if confirmed, my role to provide a series of cyber options that might be used in a deterrent role, but i think it's important to state that it's not only cyber or military options that may be the most effective, and, in fact, it may be less effective than other options that might be considered, and so i think that that's an important piece, you know, as we consider the future, what are the range
of options that might include the entire government is critical for us. >> but -- and i agree. i'm not suggesting that it has to be cyber for cyber or military for military, but the point is adversaries have to know they will pay a price for attacking us, whether it's cyber or kinetic. >> i agree, senator. >> to move -- and also was mentioned in this morning's press conference, apparently, and i just have one sentence on this. the administration has warned the country about potential attacks on critical infrastructure, particularly the electric grid. my concern is that the electric grid is not only vulnerable but from public reports that there are already efforts to plant malware or to cede malware in systems, et cetera. is this something that you're familiar with and are concerned about?
>> senator, certainly the entire defense of, you know, electric system and our critical infrastructure is of great concern to me. i'm aware there has been reporting with regards to elements within -- within our ics and systems, that's something that should concern all of us. >> do you see part of your job at nsa as working with the private sector? because this is not -- it's not like there is an attack on an air base. there might be an attack on the financial system or on the electrici electrical system in the midwest. it seems to be an area, that is sort of new territory, if you will, where there has to be a closer relationship between the private sector and government. >> senator, i certainly agree with you in terms of the new relationship. if we consider cyberspace, 90% of, you know, our critical infrastructure is held within the private sector. >> right. >> currently right now, you know, the work that dhs does in terms of informing the private
sector and the critical infrastructure is critical for us. in terms of the future, you know, i would see that in looking at, you know, if we're understanding what's going on in the sector, obviously our -- a rich dialogue has to occur between, you know, the national security agency and those that have this type of technology. >> does that dialogue exist today? >> senator, i would have to defer on that. that's something that given my current position in army cyber, i'm not sure. >> but i take it if confirmed for this position that dialogue is something you would seek to establish. >> senator, certainly a dialogue with industry, but i would also say a dialogue with, you know, our universities and academia. our dialogue with a partnership. i think those are all kind of components that you have to have if you are going to lead a place like the national security agency. >> changing the subject entirely
in the few seconds i have left. i just heard a new term, stemorage. that's a at the nsa. is this something -- how can we compete to retain and attract the strongest stem talent which is what we need in competition with silicon valley or the private sector and is this a priority that you see as important in your mission? >> senator, in terms of priorities, if confirmed, i can't imagine a more important priority than talent. in terms of stem, again, i thank the committee for their support for future pay increases for stem candidates within the national security agency. the way that i would assess that we have to look at it is we have to begin with what is the mission of the agency? because for many, many years the agency has been able to recruit
and train and retain the best in our nation based upon the idea of being able to secure our nation and being able to defend it. i think that is still an advantage that agency has. i think that appeals to be and i would offer that nsa is a place where technology advances and innovation occur all of the time and i think that is of great interest to our young people. >> and i hope and understand this is a priority because ultimately talent is the ultimate competitive advantage and i commend -- commend you for your willingness to take on what is a very important challenge in our country. thank you, general. >> senator cotton. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you general for your attention, congratulations on your nomination. i would like to discuss the threat posed to u.s. national security by chinese telecom companies like wau way and china telecom and i believe this
threat is grave. i've introduced legislation that would prohibit the government from using those companies that use them. i think there is a good chance we'll pass that into law this year. last month at our worldwide threats hearing i asked the directors before us, coats and director ray and ashley and admiral rogers, director pompeo, secretary designate pompeo if they would use wauway and china telecom products. they all said they would not. would you use any products from those companies, general? >> i would not senator. >> you're a special case because you're about to be the director of the signals intelligence agency of our government. so would you recommend to any of your family or friends that are just normal private citizens that they use products from those companies? >> i would not, senator. >> thank you for that. president trump two days ago using the powers that he has
under current law and from the recommendation, stop the attempts takeover of qualcomm by broad-com. it is no secret that is done in part because qualcomm and way wau will establish the 5-g -- network and on something like that it would be a sign to test it out to most likely the nsa to give advice. do you think sievy us and the president made the right decision to stop the attempted takeover of qualcomm by broad com. >> so senator, i'm aware of the situation based upon what i've read in the public reports. i don't have any other background on this. but what i would say is our microelectronics industry is critical for the future. if you consider what 5-g will bring to this nation, a hundred times speed of what we're experiencing today, it is hard not to imagine the importance of
ensuring that we have confidence in our microelectronics industry for the future. >> thank you. i am somewhat concerned that some of our allies don't share our concerns about waway and zte. can i ask you, if confirmed that you'll consult with the five partners -- south korea and japan to try to convey our government concerns about wau way and zte. >> i certainly will, senator. >> and maybe if we could talk about that if confirmed, at one of your early hearings. i know you just committed 90 days in to look at the dollhat issue, if 90 days we could talk about that. classified setting would be fine. a similar topic is the counter intelligence and security threats posed by certain gdp reliant devices like fitbits and smartphones.
there was a recent story in the washington post, i suspect you saw about soldiers using fitbit around the world. secretary mattis wisely ordered a review of the policy and procedures regarding these devices. senator blumenthal and i sent secretary mattis a letter asking that he include other devices, particularly google and android devices as part of the review because it appears that google and android send quite a bit of information from devices back home to the mothership. that means they attract precise locations so for instance, you drive past the same grocery store or department store you are getting advertisements from those locations. how would you view the privacy and counter intelligence threats posed by devices like these fitbit and smartphones that are tracking locations and revealing patterns of life and sending them back to corporate
headquarters. privacy for our private citizens and counter intelligence for government employees and intelligence officers an military personnel. >> senator, i think you accurately described the environment upon which we live today. 10 or 15, or 20 years ago we were concerned about what we said on phones and now we're concerned about where they are talk and able to be monitored and this is indicative of how we have to approach the future which means we are technology informed and be informed for operational security as well. >> any thoughts on how to balance the legitimate use of those technologies, most soldiers will living on a limited budget and it is valuable to have advertisements when a restaurant is offering a special on the way home or a grocery store had a some coupons and things like that. but obviously these do post
security risk. any thoughts on how to balance those? >>. >> i believe you have to begin with understanding what perhaps the threats are out there. and understanding when is it appropriate that civilians that are working in a place like the national security agency or military members within their own formations have their phones or wearing fitbit. is there a place where they shouldn't have those things on and i think that is perhaps the most important piece that we have to have as realize is and then an understanding of those operational security risks. >> thank you, general. >> senator harris. >> thank you. to follow up on senator cotton's questions. will you commit to coming back to our committee after doing an assessment of the vulnerabilities that are created by the use of these smart devices by our troops and give us some suggestion about what might be more appropriate policy? >> certainly -- i'm sorry, senator. i would welcome the opportunity
to continue this dialogue on that. >> thank you. would you like to talk about insider threats. according to the office of the director of national intelligence, as of october of 2015, 4.3 million americans held security clearance and some of the most damaging national security breaches have not come from traditional spies but insiders at our own agencies. unfortunately some happened at nsa and i'm thinking of three in particular that received attention and did a lot of damage. have you studied what happened in those cases? >> senator, to date in my current role i have not studied. i would offer that i think what you point out here is very important that we consider most of our threats from external actors. we thought a foreign nation was our greatest threat. we have to reconsider that, particularly as we look at our networks, our data, our weapon systems, we have to have a whole
spectrum of in sider and certainly external threats as well. >> and will you commit to doing an assessment and report back on what steps might be taken to prevent that insider threat. >> senator, i do know that the nsa has -- undertaken a number of different initiatives and secured the network and secure the environment. if confirmed, i will certainly commit to digging deep into that, understanding what has been done and what has been successful and what needs to be perhaps funded for the future. and then continuing that dialogue with this committee if that is okay. >> yes. and have you had an experience dealing with this at army cyber command? >> so senator, in terms of experience, i would say that one of the things that we have been very, very vigilant about is just understanding the threats to our network and our data and weapon systems. i can't think of a specific example but i will tell you that it is something that we are obviously trained on and think
about very, very often. >> in -- i want to talk -- there is discussion with you already but i would like to get a little deeper into the issue of the talent drain issue and recruiting. there is a report that suggests that since 2015 the nsa has lost several hundred employees, including engineers and data scientists. we know we're going to be outpaced by the private sector in terms of salary, so to your point, people who come to us to serve the public will do it because they actually care about public service and working on behalf of our government. but have you given any thought how we might engage the private sector workforce and i'm thinking of the folks in silicon valley in creative ways that might include people that cannot join the ic full time. have you thought about that and what would that look like. i think it might be challenging but there must be creative thoughts to engage folks even if they don't come full time.
>> senator, i have thought about that. and i take example of what nsa has done to date with their own point of presence which is initiative to be in silicon valley and in one of the early initiatives even before diux. i think it is a very good example of how we need to think about the future. you indicate one way that we might look at it -- bringing a larger population to our mission. i would offer one of the things i most admired about the agency is that they are looking at a very, very broad range of capabilities. people that have even disabilities that need to be able to work and have the infrastructure that will support them. i think that is tremendously important as we look at a broader supply, a broader talent base that we need to be able to prosecute our mission. >> and i really appreciate that you mentioned the dis -- disabled communities on what should be the focus on thinking the need to be more diverse in
our recruitment and attention policy. so thank you for that. and then election security, admiral rogers recently testified and i'm going to quote, while i see on the cyber command -- what i see on the cyber command side leads me to believe if we don't change the dynamic here, that this is going to continue. and 2016 won't be viewed as isolated and then he went on to add, we're taking steps but we're probably not doing enough on the issue of election security. do you agree with that statement? >> senator, in my current role, i do not have obviously the -- the background of what admiral rothe -- rogers is speaking to but if confirmed one of the most important things i would face to learn more about this and make that assessment. >> and i ask that you make that a priority as soon as you are confirmed, expecting that you will be because folks are starting to vote now in the 2018 election is upon us. so thank you for that.
>> thank you, senator. general, we have exhausted the members that have questions here today. i have asked members to submit questions for the record by the end of the business today. and i would once again say to designees try to meet that deadline. and i would also say to you, if you would respond to those questions for the record as timely manner as you can. it would benefit us greatly to set the schedule for moving your nomination out of the committee and falling within the time frame that we're working with, with the senate defense committee. it strikes me, you've been nominated at a very pivotal time. where technology -- as the vice
chairman points out, the way technology has changed decade by decade. and i think this is a -- a tremendous opportunity and it is a tremendous challenge. i think you're the right person at the right time. and i think you're ability to understand whether that technology change is an asset to you. or a liability. i think that was in the crux of senator wyden's question about encryption and it sort of depends which window your looking at in the same room. it is tough for me to admit you're the right person at the right time because i never thought i would say that about somebody that -- a soldier that never rotated through a north carolina facility. >> sorry, mr. chairman. [ laughter ] >> but i do want to say to you
that we're grateful for your service to the country, we look forward to your leadership at nsa, the relationship between this committee and that agency is -- has never been better than it is right now. and i think that that is because it has been earned on both sides. the agency and the committee. the agency has provided us an unprecedented access to its products as we've worked for the last 14 months through a very difficult investigation which is distinctly different from the oversight role -- traditional over sight role of the committee and i would ask you, as long as that investigation continues that it is important on your end that you distinguish the requests for the investigative portion from the oversight -- ongoing oversight of the
committee because it will require us to see products that we wouldn't historically ask for and if we did, we would probably be refused. but it is essential for this committee to do a thorough and complete review of what has happened to our election system, what has happened from a standpoint of fishing operations, and i'm not telling you anything that you don't know given your current role that has been exploited that will only get worse in the future. our ability to understand that and to not only enhance our defensive capabilities, but to begin, as the vice chairman said, to form a strategic outline of options that we have both defensive and offensive is
absolutely important. so we put a tremendous amount of emphasis on getting this right because in large measure that is because of the access the nsa has provided us and i'm sure under your leadership that will continue. general, we're proud of you. but more importantly, we're proud of the men and women that every day go to the national security agency. many of them without any public acknowledgment that they work there. it is not the prettiest campus as you know. it is not in the easiest place to get to in northern virginia and southern maryland. but they go there and they sacrifice salary for a commitment to their country. and they provide the foundation for the protection and security of the american people. we can't say enough times to
them thank you for what you do. we are here as a tool for you for your successful leadership at the nsa that we know will happen. and i h and i hope you will call on us any time we can enhance that role as director of the national security agency. with that, this hearing is adjourned. [ hearing concluded ]
network, saturday at 9:00 a.m. eastern, american history tv with day long live coverage from ford theater in washington, d.c. for the annual abraham lincoln symposium with anna holaway the greatest invention of the civil war and william harris, author of lincoln and congress. michael burlingame, abraham lincoln, a life. stanley harold, lincoln and the abolitionists and walter star, author of stanton, lincoln's war secretary. sunday at 1:00 p.m. eastern, book tv on c-span 2 is live from the museum of the bible in washington, d.c. discussing the bible's influence on literature and the impact on government, education and human rights with the director seth pollinger and also taking your calls during the program. watch this weekend on the c-span networks.
this weekend c-span cities tour takes you to winston-salem, north carolina. with the help of our cable partners, we're explore the hitterary scene and history on saturday at noon on book tv, author and dean michelle gillespie with the book katherine and r.j. reynolds. >> were an extraordinary couple in the 20th century. reynolds was the founder of the r.j. reynolds tobacco company and he turned that tobacco factory into one of the top 100 or so corporations in america by the early 20th century. his wife katherine, 30 years his junior, had a lot of vision and was committed to a pretty progressive way of shaping society for the early 20th century american south. >> then see an extensive collection of memorabilia from lewis carol, author of alice in
wonderland. >> so i began to do research and looked in his diaries and letters and found out he bought a typewriter in 1888 and i learned what kind of typewriter. he didn't type books, he typed letters and documents but he mostly used it to entertain his young friends. they would come to visit and let them type what you called volumes of poetry and this was a novel to reproduce something that was like a document there on your desktop. >> and on sunday, a visit to aeld salem. settled in 1766 by a german products and hear about the hidden town project which explores the history of afro more abans living in salem. watch the cities tour of winston-salem, north carolina, saturday at noon eastern on c-span and sunday at 2:00 p.m. on american history tv on c-span 3. working with our cable affiliates as we explore
america. monday on c-span land mark cases. we'll explore the 1896 case of plessy versus ferguson where homer plessy, an african-american was arrested in new orleans for taking a seat on a train reserved for whites. the supreme court seven to one decision established the separate by equal doctrine for the 20th century. the narrow interpretation of the 14th amendment wasn't over turned until brown desegregated the rule. and from director of the civil rights ted shaw at north carolina and president of the naacp legal defense and educational fund and michael collarman, historian and constitutional law professor at harvard law school and author of the 2004 book from jim crow to civil rights. watch landmark cases live on monday at 9:00 eastern on
c-span, c-span.org or listen with the free c-span radio app and for background on each case, order your copy of the landmark cases companion book for $8.95 shipping and handling at c-span.org/landmark cases and explore the interactive constitution created by the national constitution center, there is a link on our website. and now the house budget committee holds its fifth and final hearing in a series examining the role of the congressional budget office in the legislative process. members heard from former cbo director alice rivlin and douglas holtz-eakin who discussed the office mission and purpose. this is three hours and ten