many of us know mr. joyce and respect him deeply for his significant experience and expertise on cyber and his many years of service that national security agency. the white house declined to have its cyber kourt nard testify. before congress. while this is consistent with past practice on a bipartisan basis, i believe the issue of cyber requires us to completely rethink our old ways of doing business. to me the empty chair before us represents a fundamental misalignment between authority and accountability in our government when it comes to cyber. all of our witnesses answer to the congress for their part of the cyber mission but none of them is accountable for addressing cyber in its entirety. in theory that is the white house cyber coordinator's job but that nonconfirmable position lacks the full authority to lack cyber policy and strategy and direct our government's efforts and that official is literally prohibited by legal precedent from appearing before the congress. so when we, the elective representati

of course, mr. joyce absence here, whose job it is to do all this is an example, frankly, of the disarray in which this whole issue rests. and mr. rapuano, to start with, you said that is not department of defense responsibility. suppose at the russians had been able to affect the outcome of the last election. wouldn't that fall under their responsibility and authority to some degree of the department of defense if they're able to destroy the fundamental of democracy which would be to change the outcome of an election? >> mr. chairman, specifically, the issues associated with protecting elections from cyber incursion -- >> so you're saying cyber incursion is not something that requires the department of defense to be engaged in, is that correct. >> was no. i'm simply saying based on the state authorities and the state control of the election process in each state, there are issues associated with federal authority to engage -- >> so those issues could be corrected by legislation. they are not engraved in

many of us know mr. joyce and respect him for his experience and expertise on cyber and many years of government service. unfortunately. >> the white house decided to viet live gej after it having before congress. i believe the issue of cyber requires us to completely rethink our old ways of doing business. to me the empty chair before us represents a fundamental misalliance limi misalignment. all of our kwe answered for the their part of the cyber mission. none of them accountable for d add -- addressing in in its entirety. it is to make it and director government's efforts. that official is literally prohibited by legal precedent from appearing before the congress. so when we ask who has sufficient authority to protect and defend our nation from cyber threats and who is accountable the answer is quite literally no one. previous administration struggled between the fbi given that no single agency has all of the authority is required to protect and respond. the model created cig thif cant coop nugs of cyber at

of course, mr. joyce absence here, whose job it is to do all this is an example, frankly, of the disarray in which this whole issue rests. and mr. rapuano, to start with, you said that is not department of defense responsibility. suppose at the russians had been able to affect the outcome of the last election. wouldn't that fall under their responsibility and authority to some degree of the department of defense if they're able to destroy the fundamental of democracy which would be to change the outcome of an election? >> mr. chairman, specifically, the issues associated with protecting elections from cyber incursion -- >> so you're saying cyber incursion is not something that requires the department of defense to be engaged in, is that correct. >> was no. i'm simply saying based on the state authorities and the state control of the election process in each state, there are issues associated with federal authority to engage -- >> so those issues could be corrected by legislation. they are not engraved in

depending on what happens with mr joyce, how long a by—election takes.ds on a small crowd of crossbenchers and then the possibility of a general election. it is an interesting proposition but we are still a few jumps away from that, starting with what the high court says and if their interpretation is small lenient than it has been in the past, it all goes away.. we will wait and watch what the high court decides. for the time being, thank you for your time. you are watching newsday on the bbc. still to come on the programme: the highs and the lows. we hear one american family's experience of sending their young son to a public school in china. also on the programme: dogs are meant to be a man's best friend, but would you share a pool with one? this was a celebration by people who were relishing their freedom. they believe everything's going to be different from now on. they think their country will be respected in the world once more, as it used to be before slobodan milosevic took power. the dalai lama, the exiled spiritual leader of tibet, has won thi

court ruled the barnaby joyce was a jewel citizen and could not under the rules of the constitution mr joyce has renounced his new zealand citizenship and as a favor to retain his seat. a left leaning four party coalition in iceland has emerged as the biggest group in the second parliamentary election of the year where the alliance won a narrow majority the independence party led by the incumbent prime minister remains the biggest party though the president still hasn't asked him to form the next government criminal organizations in mexico are recruiting minus to smuggle undocumented migrants into the u.s. al-jazeera has obtained rare access to some of the children acting as guides in what is just across the border from texas to home and the story. beyond that train is the united states so close to see that what is mexico you can almost reach out and touch it. the dream of many is to get to the other side and that's where mexican cartels have scented an opportunity smuggling across those without visas for a price. what's little known is to do that they're increasingly relying on minors as pe

of course, mr. joyce absence here, whose job it is to do all this is an example, frankly, of the disarray in which this whole issue rests. and mr. rapuano, to start with, you said that is not department of defense responsibility. suppose at the russians had been able to affect the outcome of the last election. wouldn't that fall under their responsibility and authority to some degree of the department of defense if they're able to destroy the fundamental of democracy which would be to change the outcome of an election? >> mr. chairman, specifically, the issues associated with protecting elections from cyber incursion -- >> so you're saying cyber incursion is not something that requires the department of defense to be engaged in, is that correct. >> was no. i'm simply saying based on the state authorities and the state control of the election process in each state, there are issues associated with federal authority to engage -- >> so those issues could be corrected by legislation. they are not engraved in

mr. bossert and job joyce abob joyc leaning heavily on that work that was done prior to coordinate through some of the malicious activities that have happened over the course of the last nine, ten months or so. so, yes, i do feel comfortable in terms of our plans and ability to coordinate on a rapid fashion. you know, your other part of your question related to if ukraine happened here, you know -- >> specifically the grid. there have been 1,000 incidents in ukraine. if there were an attack on our grid. >> you know, the cynical side of me says we would have been a bit paralyzed. we would have been caught up in the attribution conversation. we would have wanted to have with a very high degree of certainty before we responded to make sure it wasn't some sort of technical failure. so i do believe that we would have been paralyzed, if we're going back to 2015 and ukraine happened. now it's 2017 and maybe we've seen what happened through the election last year, we've seen what has happened elsewhere, possibly we would have, you know, if it happened in 2017, we might lean a little bit forward, b

joyce. welcome. our goal in conduct thing hearing is to enable the committee to consider mr. sharply's qualifications and to allow for thoughtful deliberation by our members. chris already has provided substantive, written responses to 85 questions presented by the committee and its members. today, of course, members will be able to ask additional questions and to hear from mr. sharply in this open session. mr. sharply earned his b.a. from american university and received his masters degree from the naval post graduate school. in 1981, he received a commission from the u.s. air force where he trained as a special agent, and a counterintelligence officer in the air force office of special investigations. chris continued to serve in the air force in a variety of posts, including as director of security, until he retired from the air force in 2002. immediately following his retirement, chris joined the office of the inspector general of the department of energy, as a civilian federal special agent. since then, chris has worked as the deputy ig for investigations and inspections

mr. manafort did not collude with the russian government and they are very clear about that word government and you are smiling joyce, what do you make of that? >> it sounds like something that i've heard in virtually every case i ever worked on in 25 years as a prosecutor. they find some small way to slice the difference. so they are not guilty of what you are talking with them about. this is familiar to prosecutors. and so he might be saying, well i didn't collude with the russian government, of course that was in bed with a russian oligarch and i don't think this is particularly helpful or as prosecutors would say exculpatory, at best it indicates that he and his spokesperson are struggling to stay alive here. to delete information from statements that they make and trying as far as possible to give the appearance of not having colluded with the russians, when that $60 million figure is now on the table for everyone to see. >> nick, the famous line, from all of the president's men is follow the money. and you were on the that watergate team. i am just astounded that we've just learned of $30 million in loans thro