former massachusetts governor and republican presidential nominee mitt romney was interviewed at the washington ideas for him to be good for

him. he spoke about campaign-finance reform and donald trump. this is 30 minutes. ♪ governor romney thank you for joining us. i'm hoping we can do a little politics and policy over the course of the time that we have with you and i would like to start out with the state of the race on the republican side if you don't find. ronald reagan had his 11th commandment thou shalt not speak ill of another. and i'm asking you now in your capacity if i may, what do you make of the tone of the campaign and the amount of name-calling much of it emanating originally

from donald trump? >> i think that the entry to the race, and he is -- if you will some of the things he said have been childish and if it is a characterization coming from him and they said we are going to ignore it and not respond and they found that did not help them and so they are coming back strong and standing up for themselves. carley did very well in the last debate and that has helped them. so i think that it's unfortunate to have the kind of personal attack that we have seen in the process. but i think that at the 11th commandment was quickly lost in this race and that i think makes it harder for us in the general. >> one of the really unusual things we are seeing right now in the top three candidates have zero government experience whatsoever and you talked in the past a great deal about how

valuable it would be to have a governor as president of the united states into the next president we have seen two governors trot out so far. is that concerning to you? >> it's been a while. we have some people that didn't have extensive government or political experience as the president before. like eisenhower comes to mind coming in as a guide came from the business world myself i can't denigrate business experience as preparation for a government service. but shortly having had some experience in the legislature and executive branch and so forth would be a value that i wouldn't disqualify someone just because they hadn't served in washington or the statehouse really do have, however, i think sort of two brackets some people say into the insurgent bracket and the mainstream conservative. right now there is a lot of attention given to the insurgent bracket but i think you are

going to see one or two people emerge on the other side and ultimately it will come down to the race between one from each. are you comparing donald trump to dwight eisenhower? [laughter] >> the parallel does not immediately jump to mind. but that said you don't necessarily have to have the government experience to serve as a president. >> one of the areas donald trump has been getting a lot of attraction with his criticisms and assertions about the corrupt nature of money and politics i would like to hear your take on it. how serious a problem to you think it is and if you see the candidates seeing things are not saying things as a consequence of big donations or the actions of the other players in the process? >> i think we have already got a mess in the financial system

with regards to campaigns right now. prior to president obama people were living by the federal spending limits and accepting federal matching dollars and the system was pretty well-balanced between the two parties. the president brushed aside the federal spending limits and no i think john mccain raised 300 or 400 million in the campaign under the federal spending limits and we had to raise a billion billion in mine and my guess is the numbers need to be a good deal larger this time around. i think that is a problem and also it is a problem to have campaigns very strictly limited what money they can receive and then a super pack that works if you will on behalf of the campaign taking unlimited amounts of money. i mean this is a mess and so you have the super pack each cannot coordinate with the candidate that's going to run ads potentially a candidate would never run him or herself and get the candidate is going to get blamed for the ads.

it's just a mess so we have to go back and say we have to rethink how we are going to do this but the phenomena and the unlimited contributions have changed that dynamic in such a way that we have to think the campaign finance. >> do you think there is active leadership in the republican and democratic party that would be interested in reaching some sort of a new -- >> i don't think they recognize that. the impact i think is going to be felt this year far more than in 2012. and i think after 2016, there may well be interest on both parties to say how do we adjust this? >> to ask the open-ended question not starting with money you experienced politics from the inside and it's sort of a trope that you hear all the time the politics is broken somehow. there's something that's gone fundamentally wrong with the way that we run our campaigns and choose our leaders. is there anything else that you would point to or do to order you would disagree with that

diagnosis? spinnaker going back to the early days of the country and the kind of attacks and counterattacks and the half truths and the untruths that were leveled back and forth have been part of the process. i thought it was interesting was it yesterday or the day before that the former president bill clinton said that the e-mail troubles were the fault of the media and the opposition party and i thought who else would they be the fault of clacks this is how it works. the opposition party is going to draw those things out on the media report. so i don't know truth be told the media didn't put up a service in the house. >> he's blaming the fact that the attention is drawn to this on the opposition party and the media. so i don't know that i have a lot of concern about the fact that we have primaries and debates.

by not getting more does visibility to the candidates. nothing is happening in washington. and that goes back in part to some of the rules we have the filibuster and cloture rule that says if you have 60 votes you can't get anything in the senate anymore and i think that it makes sense for the modified filibuster rule. the wife and the senate are in different hands, democrat, republican, then perhaps you don't have a filibuster rule. you allow things to go to the white house with a simple majority. that's only if they are in separate hands into their would

there would be other circumstances, other types of legislation that would be the case. but i think there is a sense that there's nothing happening and that relates to the fact bills don't get to the president's desk and i would like to see more bills get to the president's desk and let him veto them if he feels they are not appropriate for them both parties are if you will able to be seen by the public taking action. >> i would like to return the question to what this president and the next president should do. still stuck on the line of inquiry into the next of who the next president is going to be. and you said you do have a candidates in your party already come and it's been in this race. you've been careful to say you won't endorse yet. but will you support donald trump if he is the nominee in the end of clacks >> i will support the republican nominee. i don't think that it's good to be donald trump. [laughter] >> why not? my party has historically

nominated somebody that is a main street conservative and somebody that has the foreign policy that gives people the confidence that they can guide the ship of state in troubled waters. mr. trump said he thought that it would be a good idea to let isys takeover and then we could pick up the pieces and i thought that was absurd and dangerous. and i just don't think that that kind of proposal is likely to lead him to become the nominee. >> user use of the process results in the mainstream conservative. are you concerned if the conventional assessment is that the process actually may produce a mainstream conservative but that person doesn't look like a mainstream conservative anymore by the time they succeeded in the primaries because they have been simple so far to the right. do you agree that is the dynamic that any candidate in the race is facing clacks

>> that has been described the candidates of both parties, both political processes. i look at some of the mainstream conservatives running. chris christie, marco rubio, lindsey graham. carly may fit in that category. she is that it's illustrates more in her policy positions and i think each of them have staked out territory which is not extreme. so i don't think that it is impossible to win. as a matter of fact we will win the general election in part because we have such strong and capable people as i mentioned. >> is there any chance that you may still get in clacks >> know i made that decision -- >> let me shift this to the foreign policy if i may. we have been talking a lot about

isis this morning. colin powell said one of the lessons of the american experience is the multiple war of the last 15 years is that we often will go into libya and iraq and act without any understanding of what is going to come next and he said that we need to focus on isis and the notion of removing all aside as secondary to that. it shouldn't be the focus of the policy now. and i wonder what you think. what is the way forward? >> let me step back and i will answer the question that i'm going to step back because what i found with the president is that he has consistently painted himself into a corner and then said okay now what would you do and when you have painted yourself in that kind of corner many times the actions are

limited. so the ambassador said we have no good options now and they are not the kind of options now that there were three and a half years ago and even secretary clinton said we should call list leadership among the insurgent rebel forces. we should arm them and train them and support them and help them to defeat. we did not do that and we also should have had in had them placed the status of forces agreement. we didn't do that and the result results of those decisions we now have isis & co. the president said he must go to the combination of these events have made it difficult for him to accomplish his mutual objectives of getting rid of asad and isis so we are in a difficult position right now. i think the president has been in the foreign policy disaster. you may love the president for a

lot of reasons. his rhetoric is soaring but the results have been carefully disappointing and about policy disasters -- he laid out what it was and basically it was a policy of the america pulling back from the world leadership and that have been happened by the recent relations with russia we are going to give more flexibility, criticizing israel, walking back from the red lion syria. one thing after another the president has spoken. first to stand by our word when we say we are going to do something we do it. second, to rebuild the military industry we and say we are not going to shrink the military. once once they read out of the strength and third exert leadership not just military but economic. we will be a leader on the world

stage again and whether you agree or disagree with george w. bush and some of the mistakes he made that are well-known he at least believed that america should be a leader. we have to be a leader there and around the world. we have to concentrate on eliminating isis and that means using resources. the russians tell us that we can't fly over syria we are going to eliminate and that is the first priority. at the same time -- >> boots on the ground -- >> we all hope it doesn't mean boots on the ground but we don't eliminate that as an option and announce we are going to get rid of isis that we are not going to do certain things. we will do whatever it takes and if we can't get the support from turkey, saudi arabia and others

to put boots on the ground to get rid of isis then we will put additional support for terror. but we have to eliminate isis and ultimately we want to see them go. the president said that correctly. russia complicates things right now and russia has outgained us once again. they are diverting attention from their actions in ukraine. but we cannot allow ourselves to be diverted from the tasks at hand which is to defeat isys and ultimately to replace all as odd. >> a number of candidates have said the right thing for the next president to do is to simply tear up that agreement on the first day in office. do you agree? like it is a lousy agreement. i wouldn't want to see it put in place and we will see how over the coming year and a half or so iran responds. but given the greenlight to

develop in ten years which is not something which -- i'm not going to be around but if the nuclear iran is not acceptable to us this agreement i think is inappropriate and allows them to maintain its nuclear capacity to keep the technology in place and to have an inspection regime that frankly isn't sufficient so we will see how the inspections go and the visibility that we have and presuming as i do that we will be frustrated by the inspection process i would walk away from the agreement and instead, put in place much tougher sanctions. >> why would they be even more constrained including the option to use military force when they be more restrained ten or 15 years ago then when the agreement runs its course then it would be today? >> it gives enormous funding to be able to support terrorist activities throughout the middle east which it will be able to

use over the ensuing ten years and second it allows them to pursue nuclear technology elsewhere so it does advance their nuclear capabilities. and it's something i wouldn't want to have continued. >> a moment ago you provided an assessment of the presidency and foreign affairs. it's in the seventh year it's in the quadrennial schedule in washington we are kind of entering the latest evaluation to period and i wonder what the legacy will be in the domestic policy. >> disappointing also. you go back to denver in the convention speech and the elevated nature we are going to unite and come together. he's been extraordinarily divisive. there's not than the progress of the race relations that i think a lot of us have hoped for and expected. poverty is at an all-time high, generational poverty which could have been dealt with. our education system continues

to fail. we are not competitive globally. our ability to compete with the competitive capacity hasn't been enhanced to its relative to the other nations. our military has been devastated in many respects. the debt is double. so we say what are the bright spots? are the good things? >> once the recession is over but then again all recessions and. we don't expect it to go on forever. [laughter] and it took longer to get out of family had hoped for. the federal reserve has continued to keep the pedal to the metal for a long, long time reader we don't let a consequence will be that i don't know that you get a lot of credit for that but he could've could have made things worse i presume then they were.

and another bright spot the energy sector, america is now virtually on the road to energy independence. i don't think the president had anything to do with that. [laughter] but positive piece would be healthcare for, the rate of health care inflation has slowed down. that's good news. more to go. i think obamacare -- the pros and cons to both have pre-existing conditions can get insurance. more people are insured. the columns are a lot of people that are uninsured just went onto medicaid each is expensive. people were promised they could keep their insurance if they liked it. that promise was broken. and premiums have gone to the roof for a lot of people. domestically, not much of a record. and internationally, i think just a devastating series of

foreign policy. ukraine, china and the south china sea, north korea and bold in the air on -- iran to support terror was on the ten-year path for the nuclear weapon. jerusalem in israel, what happened there, no progress. they are attacking israel, attacking our friends. it hasn't led to the break the president looks for. look what is happening. around the world, northern africa database then in a devastating series of events. >> your answer on obamacare you said we are better off with it than we would have been without it? spinet i would rather see it eliminated and placed with something that does a better job making sure pre-existing conditions can be covered and everybody gets insurance but the price of insurance doesn't go through the roof. i would like to see far more

emphasis on personal savings accounts and health savings accounts and i would like to see the mandated coverage meaning meaning the specific treatments that are mandated in the concrete plans. i would like to see a lot of those taken out so people can get a catastrophic policy. >> is there anything you can point to in the presidency is a good thing for america? [laughter] give me some kind of answer is yes. the president has tried. i'm at a bit of a loss. i mentioned that the recovery. we have gotten out of a -- [inaudible] [laughter] >> he could've made it worse. poverty, education, race relations. these major issues.

i did mention that the health inflation rate has slowed down. that is a positive. >> last question for you. i wonder -- there has been so much analysis of what happened in 2012. and presumably you have given some thought. >> i'm reminded of that wonderful quote in which multiweek a walter mondale who had the unfortunate when it was over here so i wanted to run for president in the worst way and that's what i did. [laughter] >> i go back and i wish i could do it again. you learn from your experience. >> there are somethings i would do differently. but one of the things we have to do differently as a party and i

think on the part of some of in the campaign has been unfortunate at this front would we have to do as a party is to today better job connecting with minority voters to convince them the reason we are conservative and believe in the principles we do is that we believe those principles will help middle income and minority families and poor families get out of poverty and get a better wages and have a better future. let me make that clear. the reason i'm a republican, republican, the reason that i'm conservative is i'm conservative is that i am absolutely convinced that without any question in my mind the policies of my parties are both designed and effective in helping people get out of poverty and helping middle-income families have a better future. higher wages and more take-home pay and a brighter future. i'm happy to sit down and argue that with anybody. i have to go to college this

afternoon and make that pitch. the democratic policies sound good and are associated with a big heart but they haven't helped and one of the challenges that i had as a candidate was unable to talk about growth and gdp and small business without making the connection, which i understood and many people in my party immediately think of but which the people at large may not think of in the small business formation and gdp growth in all those kind of things is because those things if they are working properly create more jobs when there is competition for more employees wages go up and middle income families and poor families do better. it's the only way i know to help middle income families have income rise. you can make the inflated incomes rise just raise everybody's wages but they don't have a real income increase unless there are more jobs and

more on petition backing i'm petitioned bidding up the price of labor. it's something we have to do in particular to the minority community and say to the hispanic americans and african-americans and asian-americans and so forth, our policies are designed to get your kids a better education to get families of kirkman and poverty -- out of permanent poverty and for those working. i think we can do that. we can get a minority populations to support the party. i didn't do it as well as i should have. i wish i could do that properly. and i'm going to try to help others in the race. i believe the nominee will have the capacity and will be able to make the case. i think that it's unfortunate some of the rhetoric has clouded the picture that people think we are anti-immigrant. nothing could be further from the truth.

[laughter] my party is pro- legal immigration. do you realize of the top 25 of these in america, top 2560% of them were founded or cofounded by the first-generation or second-generation immigrant. we have a system that attracts the best and brightest entrepreneurs around the world. we need to do and want that and that's part of creating the enterprises that create more good jobs. we want immigration to work so we bring the best and brightest. we don't want illegal immigration to swap illegal immigration system. but the rhetoric has been unfortunate in many respects and i want to stop illegal immigration at the same time i want illegal immigration to be

an ongoing source of vitality and entrepreneurship and innovation and culture for the country it's a big plus. >> thank you governor. process back' went back the house approved it under a spending bill before the midnight deadline. on the next washington journal he will get your comments on the funding measure. the colorado congressman will join to talk about the republican agenda to the speaker's resignation and the upcoming gop leadership contest. then next on c-span to the president

of the palestinian authority speaks before the united nations general assembly. that's followed by the house armed services committee looking at the defense department cyber strategy. and later, donald trump campaigns in new hampshire. reporting on the israeli prime minister benjamin and yahoo! general assembly tomorrow the prime minister minister said that he intends to highlight the desire for peace with the palestinians during the first days speech that his meeting with the u.s. secretary of state. that and yahoo! said in a speech he will discuss the policy in light of the situation in syria. he added that he intends to explain what the citizens feel after the nuclear agreement with iran. meanwhile today at the un, the palestinian authority president accused israel of breaching all signed agreements in the cord and said that as long as they

adhere the agreements they couldn't continue to be permitted to the same agreement. we'll show you the remarks. due to technical difficulties we start those remarks already in progress. >> translator: how many laws have been issued by the successive governments, the latest of which have the instructions given to fire live ammunition at the peaceful demonstrators took. why is this happening? mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, we do not respond to

this occupation. we are working to spread existence between the two people and in the region. we are anxious to witness when people enjoyed peace and security. this cannot be achieved in the occupation settlement and i say again the burning of people, the killing of youth, children, the burning of crops. how can a state claiming to be in the democracy and claiming that its security imperatives functioned according to the law

how can such a state accept the so-called price tag and other known terrorist organizations? that took trigger rice and intimate or people the property and sites all under the site of the israeli army which do not detour or punish but rather provide them with protection. mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, is it not time to end this injustice and is it not time to stop the suffering is it not time for the annexation to be dismantled and is it not time

for the degrading checkpoints and barriers set up by the occupier forces to be removed? is it not time for the block to be lifted as soon as our people can move and free them for the races and the settlement of the land which is the strain the two state solution and is it not time for the 6,000 prisoners in the jails to see the light of freedom and move among the families is it not time for the longest occupation in history suffocating people to come to an

end. we asked you this question. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, despite what is imposed by the occupation, we and the authority and at this moment have worked to build the foundations of the state, its infrastructure and the national situations. we have made progress on the ground as affirmed by the international bodies especially the united nations, the world bank, and international monetary fund. we would continue the work with the support to strengthen the state committed to international standards, the rule of law as a

democratic and modern state of law. behind me are the efforts of the group under the chairmanship to urge other countries to continue to support the life for the people and to develop the state institutions. >> the membership of the international organization treaties and positions is not directed against anyone. it is not directed against anyone. rather safeguarding and protecting people in the country with international standards and

is strengthening its international status and identity. is this a mistake? in regards to the palestinian situation, we are determined to possess the land and people. we will not accept these solutions were -- we will not allow this and those that are seeking to do this to do it. rather a government that functions according to the organization after pursuit of and talks in the legislation. mr. president, palestine is a country at peace and the first

trace of messenger and peace and the journey mohammad peace be upon him or this is still looking for peace and the stability with all encounters of the region. >> by the culture in the political ball a long from the start. just recently, on the 17th of may, 2015, two men from palestine were galvanized as

saints who prints his -- from around the globe. on that occasion they were raised and recognized the state of palestine is has documented some of the agreements signed between the state of palestine. it is our hope to do that as soon as possible among the organizations and it will contribute to the achievement of the economic, cultural and humanitarian progress with

positive effects on people. it is from palestine and with palestine peace -- [inaudible] >> those that would like to seek and promote peace -- [applause] those that would like to promote peace and fight terrorism should start by the question. that is the beginning and end of everything otherwise. >> for people to protest in favor of the resolution would raise the fact of palestine at the united nations headquarters. [applause]

today isn't whether we would raise [inaudible] for the capital of posting. also to pay tribute to the recent decisions by the european parliament in the settlement activities and at the right of the palestinian people to convince the state alongside israel and also established a committee of the relations with palestine. mr. president, ladies and

gentlemen, and number of european countries and provides affirmed the condition of the state of palestine reaffirming the natural right to independence and we would like to thank the kingdom of sweden for a scourge and recognition to the state of palestine. [applause] indeed, who says that they support the two state solution must supply to the states not just one if you recognize the two state solution why not recognize the state. the countries that have not yet recognized palestine to do so.

they would do so based on the conviction that justice deserved by the people and the cause. from the source at the united nations headquarters and against a backdrop, i extend the people of israel for peace, justice security and stability for all. i also call on the security council to uphold the responsibility before it is too late. i do sincerely hope that they would fulfill their response body before it is too late. you are all aware that israel -- made by barack obama in the policy undertaken by the secretary of state john kerry in

that agreement in the negotiations. >> the policies and practices of the israeli government and the positions of its prime minister and cabinet members to conclusions that is they are working with other efforts in order to the story two state solution that they are seeking for the basis of the solutions. there is no other explanation. the international force including the french initiative for the formation of the international supporter group for the achievement. the states present their support by the security council that reaffirms that the formula for the peaceful solution and a two

state solution based on the borders of the timeframe and occupation. since it is no longer useful to waste time in the negotiations just for the sake of negotiations what is required is to mobilize and establish a framework to the occupation in line with the resolution and the secretary-general of the united nations and the international position in accordance with international and sectarian law. we are asking for your position. we need international protection. we cannot maintain the status

quo they. hit from every corner. we submitted an application for this. please we need your international connection. ladies and gentlemen, we have tried to bring to the confronted with a two state solution with the israeli government through the united states, the european union and the united nations members and other parties however the israeli government insisted on the continuing destruction of the two state

solution and end trenching the two regimes underground and the regime that is currently in place in the state of palestine and against the people on the one hand and another regime of extensive protection to the cities on the other hand. the occupied territory has two systems, the all-time system and the other system that extends extensive privileges to. is this possible? is this admissible? as is the question that we pose to the united nations. >> also in the transition of the agreement we find that the

agreement should be implemented in the timeframe of five years ending in 1999 for the state of palestine into the israeli commission but they stopped the completion of the process from areas classified as a bmc which represent areas that represent more than 60% of the territory including. and instead, there is intensified in its activities everywhere with all agreements.

since, let me put here the speech made in which he calls for the cessation. it's at least 20% and its obligation is not -- unilaterally that would prejudge the solution and moreover. [inaudible] we have the institutions of the

palestinian state. let me repeat yes israel has always violated these areas. otherwise, israel will review the ability of the palestinian economy to develop and become independent, thus it is determined to impose the palestinian economy similar to it military and security. i repeat the economic, military and security governments. thus today protecting the right of the people to the development and the natural resources. thus they have destroyed the foundations upon which the political and security agreements are based which have also been undermined by that measure taken that have negated the transitional phase.

all this has made the situation on sustainable. and given all that background, they will declare that as long as they continue to commit to the agreement that will render us and a performer without [inaudible] and as long as you seize the activities. there's no choice to incest.

we therefore declare that we shall not continue to be bound by by the signed agreements with israel and we assume fully all of the power to the agreement into the support agreement we for our part are not connected to those agreements and israel must assume the response of the body for the development.

they have gone to its end and it seems that they are not listening to resume its role as an occupying power and their response ability. the many countries have the same status during the second world war. the states recognize the state.

[inaudible] there is universal [inaudible] it would be the government for or the state of palestine and other palestinian policies. why, given all that israel doesn't recognize --.

it would be a transitional power moving to the independence for the occupying power must fully there is response ability. for the international law that time will continue its efforts to the international conventions and organizations, all of them, all international organizations this is the right.

[inaudible] they are not seized from committing the crimes. [applause] we do not like to go to the

international board -- about to seize the support from all of the international organizations including the international development. it remains for the just peace. it is my hope that you should

consider. the achievement of peace would be possible. [inaudible] [applause]

you can see these remarks later in the day on the c-span networks as well as the speeches by other world leaders before the un on the website, c-span.org. the house armed services committee hearing looking at the defense department cyber strategy.

the house and senate approved it under a spending bill before the midnight deadline on our next washington journal we will get your comments on the funding measure. ..

on monday the spirit supreme court debuts its new series, landmark cases. on the series premier we take a look at the real stories behind the famous barberry versus madison case. talk about john adams the new president jefferson adams. >> general marshall established the court of the interpreter of the constitution. his famous decision he made in marbury versus madison. >> it is probably the most famous case.

>> yale law school professor and author and author of the great decision will join us. they will reveal the life and times of people, plaintiffs, lawyers, justices and 12 landmark cases. the premiers live next week. order your copy of landmark cases companion book available for $8.95 plus shipping on c-span.org. >> the house armed services committee held a hearing on wednesday on the defense department cyber security. national security agency director adm. michael rogers was among the witnesses at the heat hearing. this this is just over two hours.

>> come to order. let me welcome our witnesses and guess for our second hearing this week at the full committee level on cyber security. we are very pleased to have a distinguished panel of witnesses to help us with this challenging area. for those members who were able to participate in our hearing yesterday, we heard from the private sector and from academia about some of the challenges that we face in cyber. some questions like what is the role of the military on private infrastructure. should private industry be able to hack back against those who may try to steal their intellectual property? what does that deterrent mean when it comes to cyber?

a number of difficult questions that we talked about some and we will continue to pursue that line today. cyber is as many people say is a new domain of warfare. what that means means for the department of defense, what that means for our country's national security is very much at or the top of those of us who are involved in national security. before i turn to the distinguishes i will yield. >> thank you mr. chairman, i appreciate the hearing yesterday. our outside export basically said the strategy and implementation is key. obviously this is a very difficult area public policy. the threat changes every single day. we have to be prepared to meet that threat.

a lot of it is having the right personnel. having very smart people understand technology. we have to compete against private industry. that can be a challenge. coordination is also a challenge. there are so many different pieces of the department of defense. who is in charge of cyber strategy and how is it implemented. as we all know, the big problem with cyber is a single point of failure. you can have a disaster after one thing. how do we make sure that we are taken into account every single one of those points of failure. that is not easy to do. some of the questions the chairman raised about when is offensive cyber attacks at okay? that is a real challenge as we deal with china, russia, iran

and others. what are the redlines? how do we respond? i know the agreement that was reached with china on this is unsatisfactory. we need to have those type of conversations so that we better understand the rules of the road are. we can get to the point where we don't stumble into something greater than we had expected. cyber policy i look for to hearing from the deputy secretary and other witnesses on how we can get our arms around it. also of course with the legislative branch can do to make those policies. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. i want to think or distinguish witnesses witnesses from being here. we are pleased to have the

secretary of defense, the commander of cybercrime, the chief information officer for the department of defense. without objection your full written statements will be made part of the record. thank you for cementing those. we turn the floor over to to mr. secretary. >> thank you. thank you for inviting us here this morning to discuss the department's efforts in cyberspace is both the chairman and ranking #, this is an extremely important issue that we grapple with every day. we welcome these types of meetings to discuss these issues. cyber intrusions and attacks by both state and nonstate actors have increased dramatically in recent years. particularly troubling to us is the department of defense, and as a nation of the state-sponsored cyber actors reaching u.s. government

networks. these adversaries continue to eat adapt and evolve, they threaten our networks and systems of the department of defense our nation's critical infrastructure and interest globally. the recent cyber events that have been in the press, intrusions of the opm, the sony, the joint staff networks i3 separate state actors is not just espionage of convenience but a threat to our national security. as one of our responses to this threat the department released its 2015 dod cyber strategy. this. this will guide the development of our cyberspace forces and strengthen our cyber security and cyber deterrence. we have three core cyber missions. this is defined in our strategy. first and foremost, this is what secretary carter has made a clear number one priority first. it's to defend the dod network systems and systems. second help defend against cyber

events of significant consequence. third we we provide cyber support operational and contingency plans in support of our combat commanders. in this regard, u.s. cyber command may be directed to conduct cyber operations in court nation with other u.s. government agencies as appropriate to determines strategic threats in that domain. my submitted statement contains additional details on how we are achieving these goals but i would like to highlight particular focus which is cyber deterrence. this was a big issue yesterday. i want to acknowledge all of you, upfront, in terms of deterrence we are not where we need to be as a nation or as a department. we do believe there somethings the department is doing that is working. we need to improve in this area and that is why we have revised our cyber strategy. it turns as a function of-the

cost of conducting the attacked art outweighing potential benefits they making from it. the main pillars are denial, resilience, and cost in position. when you talk about the nile, that means of cyber adversary from achieving their objectives. resilience is ensuring our systems will continue to perform their essential military attack even in a cyber contested environment or while under attack. cost imposition is our ability to make sure cyber adversaries pay a much higher price for the malicious activities than they had hoped for. i like to dive down deep into these three pillars very quickly. deny an attacker to adversely impact our military missions. first inform us we have to defend our own networks. we have

made a lot of investments in this regard. we believe they are starting to bear fruit. technical technical upgrades, this is not just about technical upgrades. nearly all successful network up to this point can be traced to a single or multiple human errors raising the overall level of individual cyber security awareness and performance throughout the department. we are working to transfer our culture for the long term by improving the performance and accountability within our system. as part of this effort we have recently published a cyber security discipline implementation plan and scorecard, the first of its kind. the. the first time is implemented was august of this year. we believe these will be critical to our strategic and offending our data and restore mission. the new scorecard system is reported to the secretary and me on a monthly

basis. it will hold commanders available for hardening and protecting their endpoints and critical systems and direct appliance with their overall policy. deny also means defending the nation against cyber events of significant consequence. the president has directed dod working in partnership with other agencies to be prepared to stop the most dangerous cyber events against our nation and infrastructure. there may be times for the president secretary of defense direct the dod to conduct a defensive operation to prevent an attack. that means to us we have to build the capability to prevent or stop a potential cyber attack from achieving its effect. this is an extremely challenging mission. it requires high in teams and capabilities, we, we are building our cyber mission deep within our partners and partnerships with law enforcement and intelligence community. the second principle deterrence is improving our resiliency by

reducing our ability of our adversaries to attack us through cyberspace and protecting our ability to do missions while in a degraded cyber environment. our adversaries unquestionably viewed dod cyber different density is a vulnerability. therefore we have to have the ability to fight through the cyber attacks as a mission of crackle function. that means normalizing cyber security is part of our mission assurance effort, building redundancy and tour systems wherever they are vulnerable and training constantly to operate in a contested environment. our emissaries have to see overtime that cyber attacks will not provide them a significant advantage. that that will be one of the key aspects of deterrence the third is to have the ability to respond to cyber with nine cyber means to impose costs on a potential emissary. the administration has made

clear that the united states will respond in a time, manner, and, and place of our choosing. develop cyber options to hold aggressors at risk if required. successfully executing our missions in cyberspace requires a whole of government and the whole of nation approach. this is a much more difficult problem than the debate over nuclear weapons in the 1950s. for that reason, dod continues to work with our partners and other federal departments and agencies, private sectors and partners around the world to address the challenges we face. secretary carter i think you know has placed a particular emphasis with the private sector, we know we do not have all the right answers and are working with industry will be very critical to make sure we have both a cutting-edge technology and best practices and procedures. our relationship with congress is critical. we very much appreciate the support the dod cyber activities

both lasher and this year as we understand in the 2016 national defense authorization act. i encourage continued effort to pass legislation on cyber security information sharing. on data breach notification and law enforcement provisions related to cyber security which were included in the president's legislative proposal air earlier this year. the american people expect us to defend against cyber threats of significant consequence. the department looks were to working with this committee and congress to ensure we take every step possible to confront substantial cyber security risk we face. thank you for inviting us here today mr. chairman and the attention you're giving this urgent manner. i look for for to all of your questions. >> thank you sir. "rogers you are recognize. >> chairman to distinguish members of the committee, i am

honored to appear before you today in the american. people to explain how we are implementing the department of defense ever strategy. i thank you for convening this form and for your efforts in this important area. i'm i'm equally pleased to be sitting alongside deputy secretary of the dod. it gives great pride today to highlight the accomplishments of the uniform and civilian personnel of cyber command and its components. i was grateful for and humbled by the opportunity i've been given to leave the cyber case. u.s. cyber command and its elements have been given the responsibility direct operate and secure the operation system and networks. these are fundamental to the execution of all dod executions. they rely on us to develop ready cyber, ray to apply them when significant events require dod's support. we are expected to work closely with other commanders to integrate operations into the

broader military operations. policymakers policymakers and commanders alike look to us for cyber options at all phases of operations. our military is in constant contact with agile learning adversaries in cyberspace. they have shown the capacity and willingness to hit soft targets in the u.s. the demand for cyber forces continued through out as we have more ability online and the hard work of the men and women of the cyber command and are cyber for components. the secretary of defense and department of defense cyber strategy direct us to intensify our efforts to defend the united states and its interest in our digital age. it is my intent that we move for quickly with our partners to build our military capability. i provided this guidance in a recently released guidance command. with that we are building and

appoint cyber commissions. where where developing exercises with the private sector partners and form nation responses. we are supporting digiuseppe i went directed to defend the nation's critical them critical infrastructure from cyber instances. support operational commanders around the world every day. the bottom line is we are being challenged as never before to defend our nation's interests and values in cyberspace. in states, groups, individuals that are using increasingly sophisticated capabilities to have a cyber aggression, and cyber exploitation. exploitation. the targets of their efforts extend beyond government and into privately owned businesses and personally identifiable information. i welcome this effort virginity to elaborate the progress we have made today. where we should be focusing going forward to ensure we can stay ahead and to curb the threats to secure our digital networks in combat systems, to ensure our ability to execute

our mission. with that, i look for to your questions and thank you for taking the time today to spend on this important topic. >> thank you sir. mr. halverson i understand you do not have a prepared statement but are available to answer questions, is that correct. >> that is correct sir. >> thank you for being here sir. i'm a rogers yesterday one of our witnesses made the point that in any challenge in warfare what counts is the net assessment. in other words, we can talk about what we are doing but what really counts is what the results of that versus what the adversaries are doing. so just at the very highest level as you look at cyber as a domain of warfare, how would you describe the net assessment, where we are today and where those terms are taking us? are we in a good direction to reduce the vulnerabilities and have capabilities we need, are

the adversaries moving faster than we are, how would you describe that net in cyber today? >> this this is a missions that where we have to acknowledge where we have one pure competitor in form of the russians. i look at their level of activity. then we have a set of of other nations that we pay great attention to who we are watching increase their level of estimate, increase their capacity and capability. the chinese probably probably get the most attention if you will but they are not alone by any stretch of the imagination. the challenge for us in many ways, is we are attempting to overcome decades of investments of a very different attitude where redundancy whether it be our systems, networks, combat systems and platforms we count on for a missions, until recently they were never core

design characteristics. they tended to be something we thought of after we focused on efficiency, cost, speed. so we find ourselves trying to overcome decades of investment and some capital cost. i think we have a good strategy, good vision for where we need to go. the challenge is that we are never as fast as we want to be. as a commander the argument i made with my team is, this is all about privatization. we have to step back and assess where do we think the greatest vulnerability lie. when we think our opponents are most interested in attempting to generate affects against us, how do we stall their ability to do that? >> so to summarize, we are getting better but not better fast enough. >> i think that is fair. >> mr. chairman if i could add something to this on the net

assessment side. all the emissaries we face are generally in this regard authoritarian powers. we are the most open nation on the earth. it is a tremendous competitive advantage, but it we are much more open on an internet than our adversaries are in their own countries. that makes us inherently more vulnerable. the number. the number of tax services that we have to defend against are very much larger. in terms of net assessment that is one of the things that are challenging us and we're trying to sort through. >> thank you. i want to ask you mr. secretary on the three core missions you laid out, number two is defend the nation against significant cyber attacks. as you you know there been considerable conversation about what that means. so if i am a company under cyber attack, what is the government going to come help defend me? i realize you probably can't put a dollar threshold or something very specific on what that means. a significant cyber event, but

can you help clarify for us when the department of defense becomes involved in defending the country and what that means of a significant cyber event. >> i'm sorry mr. secretary is your microphone a? >> you're exactly right. we are obligated to defend the nation against cyber attacks and cyber activities of significant consequence. that is not a defined term. each attack would be looked at. so for example, the eggs tack result any death, any damage, wasn't an act act of cybercrime, was it an active espionage, so significant consequence would be

things which would go against art national critical infrastructure and this would be decided primarily with the department of homeland security which would have the lead on it tax within the united states on critical infrastructure. we would then work through with policies to make an appropriate response. i'm a rogers work this constantly so i think he would be in a good place to answer this question two. >> i would agree completely with the secretary. it explains why the response to sony for example is very definitive and the response to opm. we try to look at things that a case-by-case basis and given up specific set of facts. we are clearly still working our way through some of these broader definitions, i don't thing there's any doubt about that. >> i appreciate that. i think

other members may want to follow up. you look at opm, huge consequence is for our national security. i assume if you had seen it occurring there would have been action taken to prevent it. but is large consequences even for the theft of information that did not result in death. mr. smith, thank you. >> and i can't talk about this in an open setting as far what our response has been to some of the cyber attacks but can i ask, if you feel that response has been effective, has it deterred more attacks? at this point how comfortable are you that our responses to - and again as you had laid out there are levels in cyber attacks, when you pass a certain level you feel like their responses appropriate. have those responses been in your view in this point? >> at this point we don't

believe our deterrence policy has been effective up to this point or as effective as it should be. that is why we want to strengthen it. one of the problems is attribution. the first thing is where did the attack come from, a geographic location? who is the actor, the attack came from? and then did the state control the actor or did the actor operate independently. that will will tell you whether it's a law enforcement, economic sanctions, offenses or defensive cyber operations. i believe what we have to do is a very strong policy on cost and position which where working towards. then we have to prove that through our actions. i would say that we are not where we want to be in terms right now. >> i would follow up on that. how effective are you in figuring out where the attack came from? i understand there is a final

piece that is difficult even if you determine who is after what. was that person acting on their own, how effective are you at when an attacker to trace back and say that person didn't question. >> we continue to gain increased insight and knowledge in that area. we look for example using sony as a example. we are very quickly able to determine the nationstate in specific actor within the nationstate. that is one of the reasons why you saw policy response that was relatively quick. we are able to provide policymakers with who did it and how they did it. it varies though. we are watching actors around the world as they realize that we are gaining increased capability in our ability to attribute find out about

specific groups. it is interesting watching them now. create different relationships and different processes. as indicated in the opening the dynamics here just change so quickly, it is the nature of it. >> one of the problems is we have a very strong policy i will respond at a place in a time, and the manner of our own choosing. the problem with this is it's not like it can happen first we have to go through the attribution stage, then we have to determine if it was cybercrime, was it an independent actor, were they responding with the state and what are the appropriate responses. it might be law-enforcement, it might be sanctions, it could be military action depending on the damage or threat of the effect on our nation. this is much different than

nuclear determines. we have specific response already ready. this case is that much more governmental approach to take your time. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman thank you very much. this is the new world we live in, we all know that. it is kind of interesting, i'm getting to a question just a moment. i think with it credit in washington. last saturday i called 24 hour banking to find out what i had in in my account. as of today, and i don't lie, but i'm not certainly staring that is a cyber's base invasion of anything but is just

something of the world we live in right now. so when i hear your testimony i want to first say, thank you for who you are and what you're doing. my question would be, at this point knowing that we are constantly here in washington worried about a shut down, worried about the debt growing, i will never forget i had reason to call the admiral recently, the former chairman i have great respect for him on a totally different subject. i have used many times back in my district what he said when he was chairman, the biggest threat by military is that death by nation. what i would like to know as you move forward, give us the very best protection that you can, what type of financial commitment should the taxpayers and the congress understand that we need to make to ensure?

>> i believe we have been clear sir that the presence request maybe 16 requests is the absolute minimum needed to provide the security necessary for the united states. i just like to say, i was talking with chairman and we are very thankful and we hope that we'll avoid a shut down. it would be extremely distracted. the last time we went to a shut down and set us back six months in terms of preparing our cyber mission. so we believe the pb 16 level is the absolute minimum. i'd also like to say that in the last six years we have been under the cr. in each of the first quarters of the fiscal year we have been

under a cr for about 93% of the time. in essence we are operating on a nine months fiscal year. there is no coo no coo in the united states that could operate under this type of uncertainty. we hope that the cr will be handled and resolved as quickly as possible. i very much think the question sir. this is an important thing and i hope will will be able to resolve our differences on the budget level and provide for the national security. >> if i could. the only other comment i would make is, and i think it goes to the point you're trying to make. there should be any doubt in anyone's mind that there is a cost component all of this. as a department we try to prioritize that because we clearly realize there many competing requirements and resources for the nation are tight. but they should be any doubt that there is a cost component to that. that cost may change over time. it's not going to get cheaper

for us at least not in the near future with the level activity that you see out there every day. >> and regardless of the level of our budget, sec. secretary carter has made it clear that cyber defense and cyber security is going to be at the very top of our priority list. whatever budget we receive, cyber will receive the attention we believe it deserves. >> i believe the shutdown will probably only be avoided which i'm not getting into politics with that, i think you all have done a great job. i think the american people like me, not not talking about my colleagues have really understood that this threat of cyberspace warfare in any form is probably at the foremost. as you said admiral, it will grow and the threat will become more and more. i think you gentlemen for being here today and your testimony. and i bounce back might time.

>> thank you mr. chairman. thank you all for being here. as you know we heard from outside groups, private sector yesterday and i think you spoke to the importance of that partnership. one of the questions i had basically ask them is what hampers that relationship? what happened happened moving forward. they spoke of of the regulatory burden that is placed on companies working with the dod. particularly for newer companies who don't have a history of working with the government. i'm wondering, how can we make that process easier? do you think that is appropriate analysis or response, you may feel that you have done everything you can to assist in that way but obviously there is a different response. the other issue is really whether or not we are losing out on working with some of the best

minds in the business because we make it so difficult for them to work with the department of defense. >> i would like to ask terry r cio who works extensively with the private sector to answer your question. i think think he is the best to do that. >> thank you sir, i think that is some truth. we have to get better at bringing a particularly newer companies. we have to understand that if dod was a fortune 500 company, we are fortune one. we are very big. that in itself that in itself causes us difficulty with companies that do not have expense with us. in the last year, some some of the things we have done to make that better, we have reached out and as many of you have seen to silicon valley and we are holding different event to make industry clear. one of the things we did last year which was one of the bigger breakthroughs, you can probably ask me a little bit later about cloud. one of the things we did to make

cloud easier we wrote our new cloud policy completely with industry. first time we have done that. we convened with them, we brought them in from the beginning, we have leading industry providers on the panel to write that. we got very good reviews from that. we have to continue to do that. this year we we are going to bring some industry players into the dod, cio staff. will actually exchange within industry. some of that that will be focused on new industry. we need to learn how they need to respond and how we need to respond. we have to do better, i think we are doing better in that area and i think you will see more results in the next six or seven months coming down that we can prove to you what we have done to improve that relationship. >> that is good to hear. we need to continue to push and see how that is working. we would also agree that in some

areas there are some better ways of doing it and everybody talks about it sometimes it feels nothing is getting done. i wanted to ask you as well in terms of the hiring. in personnel areas we know we are not as adaptive in hiring as the private sector is. what are we doing to make sure in the field of cyber security that we are able to push through nominations to positions so that they don't have to wait so long and they can take those jobs that are offered in the private sector. >> first of all let me think all of you. you pass good legislation that gave mike rogers and i some more authority to directly hire people without having some of the normal rules and regulations we have to follow so we can compete. i know there's work on additional. we would appreciate that. you have to understand we are not going to pay what industry

and cyber security area and some other areas. one of the things going for us is we have a pretty exciting mission. i spent a lot of time talking to people who want to come to work with dod, and we we have been able to pull some people in even within the last year to my staff. as long as we can get them in fast and offer them the right wage, which the new authority gives us will be able to continue in the right way. they want to work this mission and your legislation has helped us. >> this is one area where i suspect overtime we man time come back to you. you are there challenges that we need your help in overcoming. i remind people, while we spend a lot of time focusing on technology don't ever underestimate, this is an enterprise power by men and women and they are our advantage. today i would argue that the mission force level and the execution piece for us we have been able to exceed our expectations both in terms of bringing in quality people as

well as retaining them. >> perhaps some chart showing the differences as a result of some of these changes would be really helpful in understanding what the impact was. thank you. >> as i mentioned earlier we stand ready to work with you all on those authorities. >> thank you mr. chairman. if i reiterate what mr. john said and thanking each of you of what you do to our country and being here today. mr. secretary you probably think strategically and analytically as well as anybody in government today and we appreciate and expect respect your opinion. i like to follow-up on questions the chairman offered specifically related to net assessment. one of the things i want to ask, as you are where some of the best strategy we developed over the years are formed and

supported by the practice of net assessment. has dod done any net assessments of the cyber domain at this particular point in time? >> we just had a leadership change in the office of net assessment. it reflects secretary carter's very strong support of that office, providing independent assessments to him and i. jim baker who is the new director, he has just gotten in and is going to come back inches cyber security security and cyber is at the very top of our list but there are many other strategic challenges that you know. this one is going to be one that is going to help us on. i know of nothing at this point as far as an ongoing assessment. but we expect to be able to start asking.

>> this is not a criticism it's an encouragement as the chairman talks about net assessment. if we haven't done a net assessment of that it's difficult to know where we are. we would encourage perhaps the department if you can to do what it can to have that net assessment done. i do think it helps in us determining what her strategies are going to be. the second part of that, i know you work very hard and very well on a third offset strategy. do you expect cyber will be a part of that third offset strategy? >> absolutely. we assumed the future will be an extremely highly contested cyber and warfare environment. no matter matter what strategy we have that kind of we must be able to contend with. there are a lot of questions on whether or not many people say, well well if you go with the no more network you will be able to have the certainty that you will have the networks you need them. so it will be absolutely

critical for the third offset. >> and justin encouragement, that assessment really helps us inform what you're doing. having that done would be very helpful. adm. rogers, do you think we need to leverage a wider range of tools, like sanctions or diplomacy, to deter cyber attacks, and can you tell us more about what options you think would be most effective in imposing perpetrators. the chairman proposed legislators about targeted - what else do we have and what else do we need. >> that has been part of our strategy today. just because someone comes at us at the cyber domain does not mean the response has to be primarily or back in the same arena. you see that reflected in that response in the attack of sony. we publicly acknowledge the

advent, attributed the of and even. we also took additional action if that is required at the time and place of our choosing. we have used the legal framework within the last year where we have indicted individuals of foreign states, we have indicted them. we have done the economic piece. there's a broad range of options that are ongoing with law-enforcement and the fbi does every day. >> i hate to interrupt you but we have 50 seconds and i i want to ask you this. secretary said that we had not been effective up to date as we would like to be. again no criticism just an observation. what do you attribute that to? is that our lack of willingness to use what we've had our what would you say is your assessment of how we make that more

effective? >> i think there's a broad range of tools available to include cyber options. one might might responsibilities is to generate cyber options so that the secretary has options. where in the early stages of that journey but we have developed some levels are capabilities out already. i will not get into specifics. the biggest challenge in some ways is just time. we are in the very early stages of this. >> is speaking of time, my time is up. we could sit submit some questions on the record and you could respond to that. >> thank you and i yelled back. >> thank you a gentleman from rhode island is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to thank the other chairman's for the time and attention that you put into focusing on cyber. thank you for your testimony

here today. the discussion we have been having on the opposing cost and adversaries is critically important. i'm not hurt to ask question on this debate but i will say the committee and i will pay a lot of attention on this. we are looking for specifics on what those costs being imposed enemies and adversaries will be and the american people are looking for answers on this. up until this our enemies and adversaries have been eating our lunch for a long time. especially when it comes to cyber espionage and defense contractors over the years. i know we have gotten better and we have a program that has done a better job defending our contractors and the like. imposing costs on our enemies and adversaries has to be

important part of the equation. they have to know what it is. some of our responses may be classified but others we need to make public so that our enemies now and her adversaries note they cannot operate without impunity. this is what is happening now, as as the wild west out there. they are on the better side of the equation. we need to flip that so we have better outcomes on our side. let me just turn to another topic, do you believe and mr. secretary will start with you. you you believe there is an effective accountability mechanism in place for reported cyber security breaches at defense contractors and can you describe the process by which contractors are held, but? >> congressman i do believe we have an effective means. we are getting better, we we have established our own cyber scorecard. this has been one of the cio halverson's top jobs. i would ask him to answer the question with more specifics. >> thank you sir.

as he mentioned we have improved the due process which brings and gives the company's better ability to share data with us and protect them. he gives gives them some protection when they share that data with us. that has been very successful. we have also improved our ability in working with industry to look at the supply chain and risk management. basically what we have done is we are sharing it and putting systems in place with industry to be able to see that data better. we have now included working, very much with industry to include language that is in all ip and cyber contracts that require certain levels of security and reporting. all of those things are beginning to show results. one way that we impose costs on them is to raise our basic level of cyber defense. we need to make them pay much higher to pick play the game.

the things we're doing we are starting to see some effects in that area about who is a plane so much anymore and what they are having to pay to play. >> thank you. i'm examining the techniques and the private sector is using for cyber risks on contracts and vendors. on many ways they are ahead of what the government is doing. to what degree have you looked at civilian best practices. >> very much so. i would say that we share a lot. the financial sector in particular just published new standards about what they expect from their vendors. if you look at what they wrote and what we wrote, they are very similar. i was a fairly collaborative effort with the financial industry. we are also doing that with other segments of industry with

logistic companies and other things. we are taking a lot from industry, i spend a lot of time on our mobility policy. that will be completely written with industry playing right from the beginning to get those pieces right so we get the advantage of effectiveness and efficiency while we're using industry practices to raise the level of the industry. >> can you describe the impact on the type of training and missions on the unit level as well as its full spectrum of national, state, and local cop capability. >> that it is core enable us to create the capability we think we need. this is one that the deputy terry secretary and i are working on. i said i could use more help in 2015 and he 15 and he was kind enough to generate additional

funds. we created something in virginia and we've been using it with the guard and enter agency to look at how we can model different scenarios where dod would be applying capabilities to support critical infrastructure. in addition we generated capability at the fort meade area that we can pour out the framework for us. you see it on the 16 budget as well. we thank you for your support for that. >> in rpd 17 bill secretary carter had defense networks, is number one, improving training is right up there. it is going to have a very high level of attention from the top down. >> thank you. >> as i mentioned to our witnesses earlier, mr. smith and i have to testify ourselves in front of the role committees. i'm pleased to yield the chair and yelled two questions he may submit to the chairman of the emerging threats and capabilities subcommittee.

>> ladies and gentlemen, it is a unique situation where i have just been recognized and preside simultaneously. it gives me an opportunity to thank the chairman for their planning this week, cyber week. it is a recognition for three witnesses to show the appearance of what you're doing to protect american families. we are grateful, we had a hearing yesterday and cyber threats to american families, our national defense, we have this hearing later this afternoon. i want the american people to know that we have really good people like the ranking member of the subcommittee, this really is a bipartisan issue that we face and of great concern.

it is a concern of attacks on our government, private businesses, american citizens and what you're doing is so important. we also have extra nurse that people who are here working on these issues. again, each one of you in your capacity are making such a difference and we look for to working with you in the future. in particular, while redoing the cyber hearing yesterday the chairman mentioned in his opening statement about the concept and proposal of hack back. for example when a private company takes retaliation into their own hands and hacks back at someone who has hacked their networks or system. can you outline concerns that you have and his hat back inherently a government function

that only the government should do or is there private role? >> this is a very important issue for us because cyber attacks often have second, third, and fourth order consequences that we need to understand. it may. it may cause escalation that were unintended. this is an extremely important policy question for us as a nation to grapple with. , rogers deals with this and i would ask him to provide some specific. >> i not only acknowledge the policy complications but i also tried to point out at an operational level, we have so many actors in this domain already. adding more only complicates things. the the second and third or is the secretary outlined is a significant concern. from my perspective i have to be very careful about going down this road. i don't think it's when we truly understand it from my perspective the potential to further complicate an already complicated situation is very significant here. >> as complicated as it is, i am so hopeful that with the expertise that you have, to me it would be a deterrence with some level of hack back.

i hope this is pursued in the capable people that you have and that you have working with you, i can't wait to hear of their capabilities as a deterrence of stopping hacking on american families. mr. halverson, the department recently issued a new man of for the defense support of civil authorities which is addresses cyber related incidents. could you discuss how dod gets her request for support, especially if it is coming from a state or local agency question. >> 's or the manual is out. there is some formal processes will go through that. one of the things i would stress as the

informal process that we have in place. we we have scheduled team meetings with industry, with richard hale who you'll hear from later today in a closed hearing, we have have scheduled meetings with their security officers so we are hearing that data and moving forward to be able to give them some of our data quicker. mike's works has been sub perv and being able to lower the classification levels of data so we can share much quicker with industry and except there's in a similar fashion. all of those things plus what's in the manual is adding to all of us, industry and the government, collection of data and what i would call operational intelligence. >> i would also add that this is an issue where we collaborate very closely between the northern command, the department of homeland security, the fbi, and others about how we can make sure we are most effective and efficient about how we are going to apply dod capability within the broader picture. i'm trying

to make sure, can we use that maximum framework opposed to creating something new. >> adm. thank you for pitching in. i want you to know i am very grateful as a navy dad in the with three sons. i'm very grateful for your naval service. secretary in your testament you stated" the iranian actors have been implicated in a 2012, 2013 attack against u.s. financial institutions, and in february 2014 last year. cyber attack on the las vegas casino, what economic sanctions are legal actions resulted from this activity? are they be maintained question mark. >> sir i'll have to take that for the record. i don't know what sanctions of the attacks you refer to against the financial services was attributed to iran as well as the sands casino as you said.

i will have to get back to and say exactly what we did as a result of those. mike might know. >> no specific sanctions tied to each of those event, clearly a broader discussion about what's acceptable and unacceptable. we have seen a change in behavior the activity that we have seen at the national websites for example has decreased. in part because of the broader very public discussion we are having and which were acknowledging the activity. we are partnering between the government of financial sector to see what we would do to work the resiliency peace to preclude the iranians ability to penetrate. >> thank you we now proceed to mr. larson of washington state. >> anyone can answer this question. i'm curious, are we still

exploring with the outer limits of what constitutes equivalent of a attack against the u.s. what we're looking at cyber attacks? what would be the equivalent cyber attack that would warrant the kind of an size of response that we might do an attack against the u.s. >> we have defined nx event of significant consequence it has to include a loss of life, significant damage to property, serious adverse foreign policy implications or complications, or serious economic impact. that is a broad statement in each of them have to be addressed as an individual act.

that is why there's no establish established redline on what we say this constitutes the attack. the question we are often asked is when does the cyber attack trigger an act of war? each of those would be discussed depending on the type of attack and what its consequences were. as of this point we have not assessed that any attack on us has been assessed as an attack of war. >> can you address and be more specific about the title x versus title 32 responsibilities i'm and working with the national guard? even beyond that, working with national state or local law-enforcement, what specific criteria do you use to make that distinction question. >> for me, one of the things i look at are the scope of the

activity we are dealing with. that nature of the event we are dealing with. the capacity that exists in the title x arena versus the title 32. if there specific knowledge are unique insights that for example particular guard structure might have to deal with a specific issue. again it is a case-by-case basis. we have tried to maintain with our teammates in our states is we need one integrative workforce between the active and the reserve component, trying to the same standard using the same basic scheme of maneuver so we can use these capabilities interchangeably. that would maximize our department and give us a broad range of options. >> are you making that largely permanent, some point in the future you moved on to someone else and someone comes in behind

you. as the still evolving how you're trying to establish these relationships as they applied to cyber, are these going to be largely permanent? >> ..