Skip to main content

tv   Paul Nakasone Confirmation Hearing for NSA Director U.S. Cyber Command...  CSPAN  April 25, 2018 10:24am-11:36am EDT

10:24 am
journalist and founder of media, politics and public policy. david hume kennerly who covered robert kennedy's presidential campaign, the vietnam war and the white house. watch 1968, america in turmoil, live, sunday at 8:30 a.m. eastern on c-span's washington journal and on american history tv on c-span 3. the senate intelligence committee held a confirmation hearing for president trump's pick to head the national security agency and u.s. cyber command. committee members asked about cyber issues and encryption technologies and recruiting and retaining talent at the nsa. this is about an hour.
10:25 am
10:26 am
id like to welcome our witness today. 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 would like to start by recognizing your wife, susan. she is here with us today and your four children, david and joseph who are high school jr.s, sarah who studied at the university of chicago and daniel, who is at the university of virginia. you have them geographically spread around. i know from experience how important a supportive family is. i hope you pass it to the kids. >> thank you. >> our goal is to enable the
10:27 am
committee to secure the nominations and thoughtful deliberation by members. li lieutenant general nakasone has 45 questions from the committee. today, committee members will 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 doctoriegree. he served honorably in the united states army for over 30 years, including deployments the 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
10:28 am
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, this committee will faithfully follow their charter and conduct a vigorous and realtime oversight of the intelligence community, operations and activities. we will ask difficult and probing questions of you and your staff and we expect honest, complete and timely responses. you have been reported favorably out of the senate arms services on 6 march of this year. i look forward to supporting your nomination and ensuring its consideration without delay. i want to thank you for being here. i look forward to your testimony. finally, yesterday the committee
10:29 am
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 statement be entered into today's open record. hearing no objections, go forward. >> thank you, mr. chairman. since no one is here, they will hang on my every word. general nakasone, we thank you and welcome. i believe, actually, this is the -- since you are the first director -- as director of nsa, this is the first time you have appeared before the committee. a bit of an historic hearing and consequently slightly extended remarks. obviously, general, if you are confirmed, you will take charge
10:30 am
of one of the most important assignments in government and intelligence committee. you are trusted to lead thousands of dedicated men and women of the nsa. it will be your job to ensure accurate and timely signals intelligence provided to leaders and war fighters. you will be responsible for protecting the military networks, assets of the united states and outsmarting adversaries. as commander of cyber com, you are responsible for responding to threats and operations when ordered to do so. at the same time, as we 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 activities operate within the parameters of that law, particularly the fisa law with foolproof mechanisms to ensure no americans are targeted without warrant and will continue to be subject to robust
10:31 am
oversight by the committee. your nomination comes at a critical time. i see threats and challenges to our country and systems of international institutions and alliances that have maintained peace and prosperity central. we have seen domestic threats to the nsa's ability to execute on its mission with a series of leaks that challenge the agency and, at times, undermine the moral of your work force. the nsa must provide the best intelligence on terrorist and extremist groups, rogue regimes and regional instability. i'm concerned about the rise of the nation state adversaries and their policies, which aim to disrupt the international orb. in particular, we should all be alarmed by the role played by vladimir putin's russia, which threatens the united states and our allies. as we have seen by recent activities in the uk, there are few restrictions that mr. putin
10:32 am
put on his agents' actions. the heads of our intelligence asians were here a month ago and 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 can discuss this that we need a clearly articulated cyber that deter nations like russia from going after our crucial institutions, civilian, military or private sector. we have to make sure they know, whether it's russia or other adversaries, there will be consequences to their actions. i believe our lack of action, to date, encouraged nations not only like russia, but china and others, frankly to act with impunity. i worry we are on the cusp of a paradigm shift in technological
10:33 am
development, not one we are poised to prevail against competitors who are willing to engage not only on the whole of government, but the whole of society. 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 in western markets and stark contrast to our country. these firms maintain relationships with and provide access to the chinese government that is unlike anything we have seen with other developed nations. we want to encourage an open economy, what are the potential risks to society and these developments? china is behind the united states in r & d expenditures. with the current spend lines, not for long. china's r & d spending is increasing by 20% a year, by comparison, our r & d is 4% a
10:34 am
year. the lines will shortly cross. china's positioning itself to be a global leader in artificial intelligence and bioengineering. that brings serious implications for privacy, economic and national security. i believe the nsa will play a critical role in keeping our country ahead in this ever changing world of emerging technologies. finally, i would like to hear your thoughts about the dedicated men and women of the nsa, your work force of dedicated intelligence professionals. they are men and woman who work in silence to keep america safe. they have taken a beaten, sometimes recently from those who falsely call into question motivation, dedication and honesty. i know these attacks obscure the truth. my colleagues on this committee know that the nsa headquarters lists the names of 176 nsa cryptologists, military and civilian who made the ultimate
10:35 am
sacrifice for their country serving in silence. i would like to hear your plans on how to maintain that going forward. thank you mr. chairman for holding this hearing. i look forward to the gentleman's comments. >> general, if you would stand and raise your right hand. do you sol emgly 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 dez ig nate staff when invited? >> yes, mr. chairman. >> do you agree to provide documents or tells requested by
10:36 am
the committee to carry out oversight. >> yes, mr. chairman. >> would you ensure your office and staff provide such materials to the committee when requested? >> yes, mr. chairman. >> do you agree to inform and brief to the fullest extent possible, all members of this committee on all intelligence activities rather than only the chair and vice chair? >> yes, mr. chairman. >> thank you for your answers. we will now proceed to your opening statement after which i'll recognize members by seniority up to five minutes. general, the floor is yours. >> chairman, vice chairman and distinguished members of the committee, i am honored to testify here today. my nomination as director of the national security agency and chief central service. i want to thank president trump, secretary mattis, director cotes and general dunford for their
10:37 am
confidence in nominating me for these positions. i would like to thank my wife susan for being here. i owe my success to her love and support throughout 25 years of marriage. today, our children, sarah, daniel, david and joseph are all in school and unable to be with us. we are tremendously proud of them and thankful for their selllessness and support. i would like to thank admiral mike rogers for his service for the nation and 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 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
10:38 am
the agency, i have 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 military and senior policymakers safeguarding our freedoms. i know the national security agency is a special member of our intelligence community and of unique importance in the defense of our nation. throughout the agencies 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 work force will be the foundation of nsa's future and continued success. my focus will begin and end with them. throughout my career, i have been both a generator and consumer of nsa intelligence products and know firsthand the
10:39 am
critical role the agency plays both as a combat, support and intelligence agency. the importance of delivering accurate, reliable and timely intelligence cannot be overstated. if confirmed, i commit to upholding the agency as a provider of objective, mission krit tall intelligence in support of our military and 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 is 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 technologies from machine learning, artificial intelligence and computing as well as the growing
10:40 am
technological industry. if confirmed, i know a strong private/public relationship is needed to ensure the public benefits from the technology implemented today and into the future. finally, i recognize that this nomination is to lead u.s. cyber command and the nsa. the cooperation of the two power orgizations is powerful fo growth. they have their own identity, authorities and mechanisms. i'm committed to assessing optimizing their individual success in the best defense of our nation. if confirmed, i will ensure the customers will rely on timely and accurate products, delivered with integrity over increasingly adaptive adversaries. i will always ensure the national security agency upholds compliance with the laws and protection of our constitutional rights.
10:41 am
i am deeply honored to be considered for these leadership positions. i look forward to working closely with the committee and congress to leverage opportunities and address challenges. chairman, 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 have accomplished with a great career, but i think greater things are ahead of us for you and this country and we are grateful for your willingness and your family's willingness to take this next chapter. before we begin, senate resolution 400. the committee received this nomination on referral from the armed services on 6 march 2018. we have 30 calendar days 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
10:42 am
planning purposes, if any members wish to submit questions for 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. i will 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 damage to our national security. our committee has taken action in the intelligence authorization act for fiscal year '18 by imposing enhanced penalties of those convicted of unauthorized disclosures. how do you plan to address security of classified information at the agency? >> mr. chairman, the safeguard
10:43 am
of our national secrets, the safeguard is one of the most important things the next director will address. my intent is to look at the secure enterprise and network initiatives that nsa has taken to date are timely, accurate and on target to ensure that we continue to have the safeguard and security of our national treasures. with that said, i would add, mr. chairman, there are two elements i see as we look long term to this issue. first of all, continuing to hire great people that work at the nsa. not only hiring them, but training them, developing them and ensuring their long-term careers with the nsa are well tended to. second thing, though, we need to also understand that there are control mechanisms we, as an agency, need to continue to look at to ensure we have the ability to not only safeguard our network, but also secure our
10:44 am
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 continuely notify the committee on progress that the nsa makes towards preventing and deterring unauthorized leaks? >> certainly, mr. chairman. >> thank you. general, the committee and the authorization act of '18 and fiscal year '17, included enhancing the about to recruit and retain science, technology, engineering, mathematics s.t.e.m. employees. they will still be compensated less than their private sector counter parts. how do you plan to recruit and retain those top s.t.e.m. candidates, given there is that compensation gap between government and the private
10:45 am
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 work force and my previous experience, the one thing that sets nsa apart is their mission. i believe the most critical thing we have to continue to do at the national security agency is 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 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. it is critical to attract our
10:46 am
best and brightest people. >> general, were you familiar with nsa 21? >> yes, mr. chairman, i am. >> would you comment on your views of that initiative, which is to prepare for the 21st century a more efficient, effective nsa. >> mr. chairman, nsa 21, as i understand it is the largest reorganization of the agency since 2000. that's significant if you consider the fact 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 network, changes to competition for the work force, changes to the budget. i would say, to date, it has been at the end of 2017, so, if confirmed, i would ask if i could have a bit of time to take a look, evaluate what has been
10:47 am
done, look at what has been successful, what may need assessment and continue that dialogue with the committee. >> you have a commitment to do that. with that, my time is expired. the vice chairman. >> thank you. 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. as you are aware, we have had an ongoing investigation into rigs activities stemming from the 2016 election. for the record, will you commit to ensuring this committee will be provided with all the information requested pursuant to the ongoing russian investigation? >> i will, mr. vice chairman. >> thank you. at the last open hearing, we had all the heads of the intelligence community agencies. every one of them, including your predecessor, admiral rogers
10:48 am
confirmed their support that russia interfered in our last elections. for the record, do you agree with that january, 2017 icss that russia interfered in the 2016 elections and the second part, editorial comment, in light of their success, do you expect further interference by russia in our elections and for that matter, the elections of our allies? >> mr. vice chairman, i agree with the assessment. i think the director of naxal intelligence said it best with regard to future actions of the russians. unless the calculus changes, we should expect continued issues. >> we look forward to working with you on making sure this committee is going to have a public hearing next week on this issue of election security. i'm very proud of members on both sides of the isle and how hard they are worked on that. if confirmed, we look forward to working with you on this issue
10:49 am
of election security. one of the things that i found and believe is that we don't have, i think, a clearly articulated cyber doc at this point, that not only defends our government and deters adversaries. i think i could better articulate our strategy vis-a-vis second level like iran and terrorist threats like isis. i'm concerned with pure adversaries, we don't have that clear cyber document. knowing you are just coming into the position, but who do you think is in charge of developing a cyber doctrine policy that would deter whether it's chinese theft of intel lek which will property or russia with campaigns. who is in charge of developing that doctrine and where do you think it stands at this point? >> senator, ultimately, i would anticipate a strategy such as
10:50 am
this would come from the executive branch. however, i anticipate all elements contribute to the strategy. in terms of if confirmed my role, i anticipate that i would provide 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 and, again, this is not a criticism in this case of the current administration, this has been a problem i think has plagued our nation for more than a decade. one of the areas that i constantly come back to and i think is an example of where we need a doctrine is with how we deal with the dramatic increase of devices that are connected to the internet, the so-called internet of things, we are roughly at 10 billion devices connected now, that number is estimated to go to 20 to 25 billion. the director of the dia general
10:51 am
ashley emphasized that our weakest technology components, devices and internet of things was an area of exploitation for potential adversaries. how do you think we would go about securing devices connected to the internet and do you think there ought to be 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 or don't have embedded pass codes so we don't frankly embed within our federal government enormous any vulnerabilities? >> so, senator, certainly awareness as you talk about the internet of things is very important for all of us to understand, both the opportunities and certainly the challenges here. i think that there will likely be obviously movement that will have to come from the private sector on this. in terms of policy decisions, i would -- i would defer that to the department of defense as
10:52 am
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 just would hate for us five years from now to realize we have bought literally billions of devices just within the federal government and they have actually increased our vulnerability. thank you for your responses. >> thank you, vice-chairman. senator blunt. >> general, let's start where sta start where senator warner did. admiral rogers who we have great respect forgot a lot of attention recently on the house side said he had been given no new directions as to how to deal with things like russian interference in the election 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
10:53 am
kinds of attacks? do you have all the defensive authorization you need not whether you have all the equipment and staff you need, but do you have all the authorization you need 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 non-department? you know, nsa, what if somebody is attacking the state department or some other -- >> so certainly if confirmed as the director of 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,
10:54 am
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. >> 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 dod networks certainly understood. >> i think we all -- and i believe this was senator warner's question worded maybe a little bit differently. how do we develop a more well stood response, an offensive guideline, if you would? how do we -- what would we need to do to be sure that our add varies 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
10:55 am
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 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. 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. >> 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. i think there's a strong sense
10:56 am
that there's 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 of equipment, signal intelligence equipment, by other agencies. i think you have a role to play there and in one of the many lots you will be wearing in this job. do you have concerns that other federal agencies may be buying equipment that could in the future be troublesome for us? >> senator, i certainly have concerns. i think the recent statements by the department of homeland security and the directives with regards to select anti-virus companies throughout the world and the ensuing national defense
10:57 am
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 and. and 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 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 our army is building 21 cyber protection teams. what you indicate is critical for us as we look to increase
10:58 am
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 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, colleagues, just a quick comment before we go to our nominee. the nomination of gina hasbolt comes as an especially important time. senator line bolt and i have asked that certain aspects of her background be declassified so that the person people can see what sort of person might head the agency at a particularly important time. i will just wrap up this point by saying i hope members will
10:59 am
support with what senator heinrich and i can calling for as far as dee classification. mr. nakasone, 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, and we have already noted the history of your being here. if there was a form of
11:00 am
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 described, 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
11:01 am
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
11:02 am
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 are 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.
11:03 am
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 and -- >> 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
11:04 am
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 -- >> 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 appreciate you stepping up into this role. the nomination process is not a fun process, it's not something anyone wakes up and says, gosh, i'd like to go through senate confirmation because of the length of investigation, the information you've already put out and the questioning time. so i just want to tell you i appreciate you doing it. stepping up to the work through a long difficult process. how do you understand the role of collaboration between nsa and commercial entities and their networks, critical infrastructure and their networks, just the communication in trying to be able to determine real threats that are
11:05 am
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 advances 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 and a sharing or integration that's important for the defense of our nation. >> how do we get that faster? what does it take to get faster collaboration? >> i think faster collaboration is driven by several things, one is the demand signal. demand signal that's coming from not only elements of our government, the private sector, i would also say it's part of a
11:06 am
supply being able to grow a number of analysts and opportunity to be able to report. >> let's talk about this wonderful term that's 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 would see those as unique entities. help me understand a lilt bit, are there walls between those two entities or are they just distinct roles or how do you see them as unique entities? >> senator, if i may begin with the dual hat discussion, in terms of the dual hat arrangement i'm not predisposed in terms of whether that arrangement stays or ends. 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
11:07 am
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 90 days looking at that, providing an assessment to both the secretary and the chairman and then moving forward from there. >> would you allow us to be in that conversation as well? as far as your assessment? >> certainly. after talking with the secretary and chairman, yes, senator. >> that's fine. talk to me a little bit about this issue about cyber doctrine that is something this committee has talked about often, it has been something that has been a frustration, addressing who is giving recommendations to the president on how we respond, the speed of our response, attribution for where attacks came from are difficult to do as you know extremely well, but if we don't get a quick response to
11:08 am
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, where do you expect that comes from? >> senator, if i might begin with the strategy or the doctrine piece and then with regards 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. one of 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's cross talk, there's 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
11:09 am
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 strengths diplomatically, information alley, economically and those might also be options presented. >> but who is the clearinghouse 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. >> that's what we need 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.
11:10 am
the best attack is the one that doesn't occur. that gets to the question of deterrents. i hope as we discussed in the armed services committee one of the tasks you will take on is doing just what you said, of developing options that would be available to us that we could talk about as deterrents. 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 it may be less effective than other options that might be considered. so i think that's an important piece that as we consider the future what are the range of options that might include the entire government is critical for us. >> and i agree, i'm not
11:11 am
suggesting that it has to be cyber for cyber or military for military. the point is adversaries have to know they will pay a price for attacking us, whether it's cyber or kinetic. >> i agree, senator. >> 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 vulnerability but from public reports that there are already efforts to plant malware or to seed malware in scata systems, et cetera. is this something that you are familiar with and are concerned about? >> senator, certainly the entire defense of our electrical system
11:12 am
within our critical infrastructure is of great concern to me. i am aware there has been reporting with regards to elements within our ics and scata 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's an attack on an air base, there might be an attack on the financial system or on the electrical system in the midwest. it seems to me this is an area it sort of is 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. currently right now, you know, the work that dhs does in terms of informing the private sector in the critical infrastructure is critical for us. in terms of the future, you know, i would see that in
11:13 am
looking at -- you know, if we are understanding what's going on in the sector, obviously 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 the partnership, i think those are all 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,
11:14 am
stemmerhage, that's a hemorrhage of stem people, that's something that's occurring at the nsa. 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, you know, future pay increases for stem -- 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's 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
11:15 am
based upon the idea of being able to secure our nation and being able to defend it. i think that's still an advantage that the agencies has, i think that appeals to people, and i would also offer that nsa is a place where technological advances and innovation occur all the time and i think that that is of great interest to our young people. >> i hope and understand that this will be a priority because ultimately talent is the ultimate competitive advantage and i 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 appearance. congratulations on your nomination. i'd like to discuss with you the threat posed to u.s. national security by chinese telecom companies like waway, cte, china uni com china telecom. i believe this threat is grave. i've introduced legislation that would prevent the u.s. from
11:16 am
using waway or companies that use them. i think there is a good chance we will pass that into law. last month i asked all of the intelligence agency directors that appeared before us, director ray, general ashley, admiral rogers, director pompeo, secretary designate pomp pay if they would use waway, china uni com and telecom products. they said they would not. would you use any products from those companies, general? >> i would not, senator. >> you are a special case because you are about to be the director of the signals intelligence agency of our government. 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
11:17 am
recommendations stopped the attempted takeover of qualcomm by broad kcobroadcom. it's no secret that's done because qualcomm and waway are in a competition to establish the protocols for the 5g network. the intelligence committee is an ex-owe fish joe member and it would be assigned to most likely the nsa to give device. do you think the president made the right decision to stop the attempted takeover of qualcomm by broadcom? >> 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 micro electronics industry is critical for us for the future. if you consider what 5d will bring to this nation, 100 times speeds of what we are experiencing today. it's hard not to imagine the importance of ensuring that we have confidence in our micro electronics industry for the
11:18 am
future. >> thank you. i am somewhat concerned that some of our allies don't share our concerns about waway and cte. can i ask you if confirmed that you will consult with the five vice partners, nato partners, south korea and japan to try to convey our government's concerns about waway and zte. >> i certainly will, senator. >> and maybe if we could auk about that if confirmed at one of why you are early hearings. i know you just committed 90 days in to look at the dual hat issue, if maybe 90 days in we could talk about that in a classified setting it would be fine. a somewhat similar topic is the counterintelligence and security threats that could be posed by certain gps-reliant devices, things like fit bits and smart phones. there was a recent story in the "washington post," i suspect you saw, about soldiers using fit
11:19 am
bits around the world. secretary mattis i thought wisely ordered a review of procedures regarding these devices, senator blumenthal and i also sent secretary mattis a letter asking that he include other devices, google and android devices adds part of that view view because it appears that they send quite a bit of information from their devices back home to the mothership that means they track detailed user information and precise location in order to push people advertisements, so, for instance, you drive past the same grocery or department store every day, pretty soon you're getting advertisements from those locations. how would you view the privacy and counterintelligence threats posed by devices like these, fit bits and smart phones that are tracking locations and revealing patterns of life and sending them back to corporate headquarters. privacy for our private citizens but counterintelligence for government employees and
11:20 am
especially intelligence officers and military personnel. >> senator, i think you accurately described the environment upon which we live today. this is commanders business with regards to in the army our operational security. 10, 15, 20 years ago we were concerned about what we said on phones. today we are concerned about what our soldiers wear, where they are talking, where they are able to be monitored and i think that this is indicative of how we have to approach the future, which is we are technologically informed. we also have to be informed for operational security as well. >> any thoughts on how we can balance the legitimate uses of those technologies. most soldiers are living on limited budget so it's valuable for them to have advertisements pushed to them saying when a restaurant is offering a special on the way home or if the grocery store has some coupons and things like that, but obviously these do pose security risks. any thoughts on how to balance those? >> senator, i believe you have
11:21 am
to begin with just understanding what perhaps the threats are out there. and understanding, you know, 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, are wearing fit bits. there places where they shouldn't have those things on? i think that that's perhaps the most important piece that we have to have is realization and then an understanding of those operational security risks. >> thank you, general. >> senator harris. >> thank you. a 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. >> okay. thank you. i'd like to talk with you about insider threats. according to the office of the
11:22 am
director of national intelligence as of october of 2015, 4.3 million americans held security clearances. some of the most damaging national security breaches in recent years, however, have not come from traditional spies but insiders at our own agencies, unfortunately several of these incidents happened at nsa, i'm thinking of three in particular that received a lot of 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 considered most of our threats from external actors. we thought that a foreign nation was our greatest threat. we have to reconsider that, particularly as we look at our networks, our data, at weapons systems. we have to have a whole spectrum of insider and certainly external threats as well. >> will you commit to doing an
11:23 am
assessment and reporting back to us on what additional steps might be taken to prevent that insider threat? >> senator, i do know that the nsa has undertaken a number of different initiatives and secure the network and secure the environment. if confirmed i will certainly commit to digging deep into that, understanding what has opinion done, what has been successful, what needs to be perhaps funded for the future and then continuing that dialogue with this committee if that's 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, again, to our network, our data and our weapons 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. >> i want to talk -- there has been discussion with you
11:24 am
already, but i would like to get a little deeper into the issue of the talent drain issue and recruiting. there's a report that suggests that since 2015 the nsa has lost several hundred employees, including engineers and data scientists. we know that we are going to be outpaced by the private sector in terms of salaries, 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 to how we might engage the private sector work for us, i'm thinking of the folks in silicon valley, in creative ways that might include, for example, bringing people on who cannot join the ic full time. have you thought about that and what would that look like? i think it would be challenging, but there must be some creative thoughts out there about how we could engage folks even if they don't come full time. >> senator, i have thought about that. you know, i take example of what nsa has done to date with their
11:25 am
own point of presence which is an initiative to be in silicon valley. one of the early initiatives even before diux. i think it's a very good example of how we need to think about the future. you indicate one way that we might look at it in bringing a larger population to our mission. i would offer one of the things that 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 -- you know, that need to be able to work and have the infrastructure that will support inthat. i think that's tremendously important for us as we look a broader supply, broader talent base that we need to be able to prosecute our mission. >> i really appreciate that you mentioned the disabled community as part of the focus in what should be the focus about how we are thinking about the need to be more diverse in terms of our recruitment and retention policy so thank you for that. and then election security.
11:26 am
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 that 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 background of what admiral rogers is speaking to, that's not part of my current responsibilities, but certainly if confirmed one of the most important things that i would face in the new term to learn more about this and make that assessment. >> i ask that you would make that a priority as soon as you are confirmed, expecting that you will be, because obviously folks are starting to vote now in the 2018 election is upon us. so thank you for that. >> thank you, senator.
11:27 am
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 business today and i would once again, say to designees please try to meet that deadline. 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 are working with the senate defense committee. it strikes me, you've been nominated at a very pivotal time where technology as the vice-chairman pointed out is changing annually the same way technology used to change
11:28 am
literally decade by decade. i think this is a tremendous opportunity and it is a tremendous challenge. i think you are the right person at the right time and i think your ability to understand whether that technological change is an asset to you or a liability and i think that was in the crux of senator wyden's question about encryption and it sort of depends on which window you are looking at in the same room. it's tough for me to admit that you are the right person at the right time because i never thought that i would say that about a soldier that had never rotated through a north carolina facility. >> sorry, mr. chairman. >> but i do want to say to you that we're grateful for your service to the country.
11:29 am
we look forward to your leadership at nsa. the relationship between this committee and that agency has never been better than it is right now and i think that that's because it's 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 traditional oversight role of the committee. i would ask you as long as that investigation continues that it's important on your end that you distinguish the request for the investigative portion from the oversight -- ongoing oversight and realtime oversight of the committee because it will require us to see products that we wouldn't historically ask for
11:30 am
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 phishing operations. 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 says frequently 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 our ability to get
11:31 am
this right and in large measure that's because of the access that the nsa has provided us and i'm sure that 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's not the prettiest campus as you know, it's 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
11:32 am
for your successful leadership at the nsa that we know will happen and i hope you will call on us anytime we can enhance that role as director of the national security agency. with that this hearing is adjourned.
11:33 am
u.s. attorney general jeff sessions will testify this afternoon before a senate appropriations subcommittee on his department's fiscal year
11:34 am
2019 budget request. we will have live coverage on c-span 3 beginning at 2:30 eastern. tomorrow the senate judiciary committee will debate legislation aiming to provide protections for special counsels by setting requirements for firing a special counsel. watch live thursday at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span 3. tomorrow attorney general sessions returns to capitol hill to take questions from house lawmakers on his department's fiscal year 2019 budgets request. we will have live coverage beginning at 2:00 p.m. eastern thursda thursday. >> friday morning we are in salt lake city, utah, for the next stop on the c-span bus 50 capitals tour. utah governor gary her better will be our guest on the bus during washington journal starting at 9:45 a.m. eastern. afghanistan's national security adviser recently spoke at the u.s. institute of peace here in washington. he talked about the current
11:35 am
security environment, counterterrorism efforts, relations with pakistan and afghanistan taliban peace talks. stephen hadley former national security adviser during the george w. bush administration mod rates this hour-long event. >> good morning, everyone. good morning. my name is nancy lindborg, i am the president of the u.s. institute of peace and i'm pleased to be able to welcome everybody this morning for a very special program. i'm glad the weather cooperated to let us continue with this morning. welcome to everyone who braved the sort of pseudo weather event to joining us this morning. we are pleased to see the members of our international advisory council and welcome to those who are joining us by webcast. as many of you know,


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on