c-span's washington journal live at 7:00 eastern this morning. join the discussion. >> this morning, the house budget committee hears from white house director mick mulvaney on president trump's proposed budget for fiscal year 2018. and coverage at 930 eastern you can follow live on c-span oregon and our free c-span radio app. today, homeland security john kelly testifies on his department's budget or fiscal year 2018. he appears before house appropriations subcommittee. live coverage at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. nationaldirector of intelligence dan coats and defense agency director lieutenant general vincent stewart on global threats and national security. to commentts refused

publicly on a news report that president trump asked him to collusion between the trump campaign and russia and also make remarks about the manchester bombing. this is just over two hours. [indiscernible conversation] >> that morning. armed services committee meets this morning to receive testimony on worldwide threats. we are pleased to welcome our distinguished witnesses. dan coats and lieutenant general been stewart. -- vin stuart. we will conclude this hearing at

11:30 in the interest at time and to ensure the members of the committee can ask their questions. i will be brief. i know that comes as a disappointment, especially to the senator from south carolina. i ask witnesses to please submit their written statements for the record if they can. it is not required but -- anyway. last night the horrific attack in manchester was a gruesome reminder that the world is on fire. everywhere we turn, we can see threats to the rules-based order securityrpins global and prosperity. when it comes to the great national security challenges we face, u.s. policy and strategy are consistently lacking. whether it is china, russia, iran, or radical islamist terrorism, i have heard few compelling answers about how the united states intends to use its alliances, traits, diplomacy, values that most of all its

military to protect and defend our national interest and the roles-based order that protects him. sequestration, still the law of the land. this is still a young administration. toent strategy takes time build up at our adversaries are not waiting for us to get our act together. time is of the essence. senator reid. >> in keeping with this spirit, i will abbreviate my statement but i ask that the whole statement be made record. thank you for holding me hearing. and thank those who are here today. like to welcome back our former colleague, director coats. and general stewart, thank you for your continued strong leadership of the intelligence agency. agencyional intelligence

is organized around the so-called four plus one. today, facing our nation russia, china, north korea, iran. extremism, like what we witness last night in manchester, england. our thoughts and prayers go out to them. andre pursuing these issues i know you gentlemen are at the forefront in terms of our --elligent efforts intelligence efforts and i appreciate what you do. the four plus one i touched on develop, thewe force we build, and what we plan against. however, we have a near-perfect record of predicting the nature of the threat we face. we always get it wrong. we rely heavily on our intelligence company to highlight emerging threats we have not yet identified. what hope you will share else we should pay attention to

in the future in addition to the four plus one i outline. committee -- the committee to consider nominations. for undersecretary of defense. -- principal deputy, curie bring them be principal deputy under defense -- undersecretary of defense. robert karen, undersecretary national security affairs. -- for homeland security. motion favorably report the six nominations. >> settlement. >> second. >> all in favor say aye. >> the eyes have it. ayes have it. whoome to general coats

continues to serve with great honor. i thank you, director coats, given your advanced age we begin with you. [laughter] >> thank you mr. chairman. you and i have an ongoing race over who is the more aged and experience. you win every time. [laughter] dir. coats: which is quite an accomplishment. i am pleased to be for you, chairman mccain and ranking member read and members of the committee. i'm estimate when i walked through the door instinctively i made a right turn trying to find my seat up on the channel and said, oh yeah. that is right. i have to come down here. senator mccain: you're welcome any to take a trip down memory lane. coats: in manchester last evening, i had just returned days ago.n a couple

i met with all of my intelligence community colleagues there. we spent a significant amount of time discussing threats to our theective homeland and tragic situations we see all too much of. aroundng in countries the world, in particular our allies. and once again reminds us this threat is real. it is not going away. it needs significant attention to do everything we can to protect our people from these kinds of attacks. with lieutenant general stewart to assess the country.acing our he will give some opening comments as well. i will try to condense my remarks knowing this is an unclassified session so we will have plenty of time for your

questions. we are here to describe in an unclassified way the complexity of the threat environment which is ever have an expanding and has challenged the icy to stay appreciate the support from this committee to address these threats in a way that will give the president, congress, and policymakers the best intelligence we can assemble. i will discuss some of the many challenges we face. the ic's written statement discusses these and many others threats in greater detail. north korea is an threatingly grave because of its nuclear capabilities and kyim

jong-un. testsess that all flight capability short of an icbm at this time. north korea updated its constitution to declare itself a nuclear power and its officials power as a basis kim survival, suggesting does not intend to negotiate them away. provided that it maintain support from iran and russia. continuation of the syrian conflict will worsen dangerous conditions for syrian in regional states. on april 4 the syrian regime used a nerve agent against the probablyn and what was the largest chemical attack by the regime since august 2013. attack we haven

observed five allegations of chlorine use. we assess syria is probably both willing and able to use chemical -- ins and future attacks future attacks. we are acquiring and analyzing all intelligence related to the question if russian officials had foreknowledge of the attack april. cyber threats represent a critical national security issue for the united states for 2 reasons. first, our adversaries are becoming more bold, capable, and topt at using cyber threats shape real-world outcomes. the number of adversaries grows as nationstates, terror groups, and criminal organizations

develop cyber capabilities. second, the potential impact is technologyby integration into our infrastructure and daily lives. we see this in the form of the ransomware attack. as this activity continues, the u.s. government investigation is ongoing. of worldwide threat terrorism is geographically diverse and multifaceted and poses a threat for the united states for our allies and partners who seek to counter it. is experiencing territorial losses in iraq and syria, however we assess they will be an active terror threat to the united states given his proven ability to direct and inspire around against attacks

the world. isis has claimed responsibility attack in manchester, though they claim responsibility for every attack we have not yet verified a connection. they seek to foster interconnectedness between global bridges and networks, align their efforts to a strategy, and withstand efforts. we maintain isis has the intent and capability to direct, inspireinsist, and attacks. they remain primarily focused on local conflicts. homegrown violent extremists remain the most frequent and unpredictable terror threat to the united states homeland. this will persist with many attacks happening with little or no warning. i would like to run through key

areas of the middle east and iraq. through 2017cus will be recapturing and and territorysul controlled by isis. iraq will face serious challenges to its stability, political viability, political integrity, even as the threat from isis is reduced. reconstruction will cost billions of dollars. reconciliation will be an enduring challenge. suggests is wants to preserve the joint comprehensive plan of action because it views the deal as a means to remove sanctions while preserving some nuclear capability. agreementhe jpl has extended the time around would need to produce material for nuclear weapons from a few

months to a year. in the meantime, tehran activities continue. iran provides arms, financing, shia fightersor in syria to support the assad regime. iran has sent hundreds of its ,wn forces, including the irgc to syria as advisors. the reelection on 19 may of president rouhani suggest the iranian populace also supports the jcoa. president rouhani criticized the ircg for attempting to sabotage the deal and for iran to not be under the "evil shadow of war."

yemen fighting will continue. achieveside is able to decisive results through military force. al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, and isis branch in emen have excluded the conflict to expand their influence. accesses the security situation in afghanistan will almost certainly deteriorate with a modesteven increase in military assistance by the united states and its partners. this is underpinned by financialn's situation. theirill struggle to curb

dependence on outside support until a peace agreement with the taliban. we assess the taliban will make areas.n rural the security performance will worsen due to taliban operations, combat casualties, desertions, poor logistics .upport, and weak leadership pakistan is concerned about international isolation and sees its position through india's expanding outreach and deepening ties to the u.s.. turn to will likely china to offset its isolation, empowering a relationship that will allow beijing to project influence into the indian ocean. bad will continue to plan and conduct attacks and

india and afghanistan. russia is likely to become more in global affairs, more unpredictable in its approach the united states, and more authoritarian and its approach to domestic politics. we assess that russia will look to leverage its military support to be a soft regime to drive a political settlement process in syria on rusher's terms. moscow is likely to use military intervention in syria to capitalize on fears of a growing isis and extremist threat and expand its role in the middle east. we have noticed and discussed insignificant detail, and may do so during this session, russia's influence campaign and strategies to undermine democratic institutions and interfere with elections. i just returned from europe, in

its election, germany with its pending election, england with its pending election, we are seeing duplications of what happened in our election. the russian strategy continues. a little bit about ukraine and russia. we assess moscow's strategic objectives maintaining long-term influence over a key of and frustrating attempts to integrate into western institutions will remain unchanged in 2017. andia exerts diplomatic military pressure to coerce ukraine into implementing interpretation of the mints to agreement, including constitutional agreements that would give moscow a veto over kiev's decisions. i will finish with china. activeill pursue an

foreign policy, especially in the asia-pacific region, highlighted by territorial claims in the east china sea and .outh china sea relations with taiwan and the pursuit of economic engagement over east asia. china would use a strong military has a critical element in advancing its interest and pursue efforts aimed at tofilling its ambition expand china's influence of economic role across asia through infrastructure projects. interest of time and to get to questions, i will defer and assessments on western hemisphere issues, which i trust will discuss during the question period. forward, point going isyou are aware section 702

due to expire at the end of the year. i cannot stress enough the importance of this authority and ic does-- in how the its work. section seven of two is important to protect our nation from terrorists and other threats. as i described, 702 is instrumental to so much of the ic's work in protecting the american people from threats abroad. we are committed to working with you to make sure you understand how we use this authority and how we protect privacy and civil liberties in the process. conclusion, the intelligence committee will continue its tireless work against these and other threats, but we will never be unmissioned. we have extensive information and places in the world and we

have gaps in others. byappreciate the support your committee and will work with you to make sure the intelligence community has the capabilities it needs for its mission needs. needs to meet its many ignition needs. i will counter to general stewart for a brief remarks. >> chairman mccain, ranking member reed, subcommittee members, thank you for this opportunity to appear with dni coats to provide an assessment of the threat to national security. i concur with the director statement in its entirety. however, i like to reinforce for this committee and by extension the american people, your agency's view on five military threat facing the nation. we call these are no fill missions because risk is too high for us to fail in pursuing these missions. they include nuclear capable provocative north korea, a

resurgent russia, modernizing china, ambitious regional power in iran and violent extremist organizations. the last category encompasses an ongoing operation in afghanistan, iraq, syria and elsewhere. the world is focused on events and for good reason. since assuming power kim jong-il and has done three nuclear tests and the regime has untested a number of ballistic missiles, of varying ranges over the past year. although shortfalls are made, key milestones have been made and key systems and they continue to obtain valuable data from each test. let me be very clear on this point. if left on its current trajectory, the regime will ultimately succeed in fielding a nuclear missile capable of putting the united states home. while impossible to predict when this capability will be operational, north korea regime is committed and is on a pathway where this capability is

inevitable. russia views terry power is critical to achieving its objectives. it devotes significant resources to modernization military program. it seeks to be the center of influence and what is described as a multipolar, post- west world order. to support this worldview, moscow to use foreign policies by employing a full spectrum of coercion aimed at challenging us interests around the globe. china is in the third decade of the unprecedented military modernization program involving weapon systems, tactics and space cyber operations. and now stands firmly in the category as a competitor new bases are being built in the

south china sea and evidence suggests that these outposts will be used for military purposes. a key component of china strategy for regional contingency is planning for potential us intervention in a conflict in the region. it remains on a course for 350 shifts by the year 2020 and anti- access denial capabilities continue to improve. turn to the run, despite sanctions, iran is putting considerable resources into conventional military priorities such as ballistics and cruise missiles, enable systems, unmanned aerial, air defense systems that confront the us in our interest in the region. iran military doctrine is designed to protect the run from the consequences of its assertive regional policy. this is spearheaded by the rainy and revolutionary guards could

force in its regional park is the hezbollah and in. we should expect iran to continue to undermine the current regional security architecture using terrorist organizations and proxies to complicate us efforts region. finally, we are making steady progress against trans regional terrorism but still have a long way to go. isis has been greatly diminished in libya and will soon lose control of mosul. we've killed many isis and al qaeda leaders and numerous terrorist attacks have been averted. the lines are moving in the right direction for this fight will not end soon. the enemy remains highly adaptable and capable and instability and uncovered territory may give them opportunities to research. i am perfectly concerned about the long-term impact of returning foreign fighters and

the potential for these groups to capitalize on the proliferation of armed, unmanned aerial vehicles to do harm to us in our allied interests. mr. chairman, the men and women of our providing unique intelligence around the world and around the clock to war fighters, policymakers and defense acquisition community. they are doing so on the battlefield in combatant commands headquarters, here on the banks of the potomac and in the capitals of the world to our defense services. it's been a privilege to serve for the last two and a half years and see the contribution to our country. i look forward to the committee's questions. >> thank you very much, director coats. according to the washington post's morning resident how best to of the nation's top intelligence officials to help push back against the fbi investigation into possible correlation between his campaign in the russian government according to current and former

officials. trumpet made a separate appeals to the director of the national intelligence, daniel coats into admiral rogers the director of the nsa urging them to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 elections. coats and rogers refused to comply with the request which they both deemed to be inappropriate. is that an accurate reporting, director coats? >> mr. chairman, as the president principal intelligence advisor i am fortunate to be able and need to spend significant time with the president discussing national security interests and intelligence as it relates to those interests. we discussed a number of topics on a regular basis and i have always believed that given the nature of my position into the

information of which we share it's not appropriate for me to comment publicly on any of that and so on this topic as well as other topics i don't feel it's appropriate to characterize discussions and conversations with the president. >> isn't it true that some of these leaks can be damaging to national security? >> leaks have become a very significant, played a very significant, negative role relative to our national security. the release of information not only undermines confidence in our allies but our ability to maintain secure information that we share with them. it jeopardizes sources and

methods that are invaluable to our ability to find out what is going on in what the threats are. >> lives are at stake in many instances that jeopardize those lives. >> thank you. in light of the tragedy in manchester, last night, doesn't it lend significant urgency to retaking rocco where all this originates. >> that won't solve the problem because homegrown and inspired attacks going to the heart of isis in driving a stake through that hard to reassess will significantly improve the situation. the plotting and planning that comes from a centralized caliphate or safe haven for isis district we seen the damage that occurred could we do assess, however, that its ideology and methods have spread like

tentacles into many places and most of them ungoverned countries and some foreign fighters sent back home that carry on their mission. clearly, the strategy, i believe, is the right strategy and that is to go to the heart. to disperse their planning in their leadership. >> and defense science board to this committee that in the next decade offensive cyber capabilities of our most capable adversaries are likely to far exceed the united states ability to defend key critical infrastructure. do you agree? >> i do. cyber has risen to close to the top of the most serious challenges that we face. as i mentioned, in my opening statement we need to see this as a very significant challenge to our public safety, as well as the public health back two years

in a row we have authorized the provision of a defensive lethal weapons and the defense authorization bill to ukraine. do you believe we should seriously consider that in light of continued russian aggression in the country? >> well, mr. chairman, that's a little bit outside my portfolio. it's a policy decision that perhaps general stuart may want to discuss. we want to try to continue to provide the intelligence that would shape and fashion that decision among our policymakers. general mattis and others. >> finally on the issue of cyber, right now we have no policy, nor did we for the previous eight years of the last administration. therefore, without a policy, we don't have a strategy. therefore we don't have a strategy we don't know how to act.

is that a true depiction of the scenario as we see it, as far as sieber is concerned? >> i think we are learning that we do need to take this seriously. we do need to fashion that means which we address the cyber attacks that are growing by the day. our critical infrastructure is at risk. our personal rights are at risk, financial community, commercial communities, military and other entities are at risk in the shaping a policy and plan to address this. it rises to a top priority. >> i want to thank you and general stuart for your outstanding work for our country. senator reid. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you both gentlemen. director coats, apparently the

alleged call was prompted by the testimony of mr. comey that the fbi was conducting an investigation into the nature of any links between individuals associated with the trump campaign and russian government. whether there was a nation and in your capacity, including many aspects of the fbi, are you aware of such an investigation? >> i'm aware of the investigations that are underway both by the house, senate, now special counsel. >> and the fbi and the fbi, yes. spirit you have any reason to question the appropriateness of the investigation? >> no. these investigations are in place to get us to the right conclusions so that we can move on with a known result. >> there are other allegations

in the article which suggests that either the president or white house personal contact and other people in the intelligence community with request to drop the investigation into general flynn. are you aware of any other context, not just yourself personally but others in the intelligence community to conduct? >> i am not aware of that. >> you have, in general stuart, have painted a challenging picture of the threats that face us. let me raise to specific issues. one, with respect to iraq, there's been discussion in the kurdish community of a referendum to declare, essentially, their independence or desire for independence. in your estimation what would that do to the ability of the iraqi government to come

together after the defeat of isis? >> well, certainly, it's an issue worked through. it's complicated situation and it would add one more complication. i would turn to general stuart, relative to the military aspects of that. >> once isis is defeated in 39. the greatest challenge to the iraqi government is to reconcile the differences between the shiite dominated government and the sunnis out west and the kurds to the north. by resolving the revenues with the oil fields in the ownership of the cities will be significant political challenges for the iraqi government. failure to address those challenges, will ultimately result in conflict among all the

parties to resolve this and go back to what could devolve into civil strife in iraq. those are significant challenges. curtis independence is on the trajectory where it is probably not if but when and it will complicate the situation unless there is an agreement in baghdad and an agreement that all the parties can live with. this is a significant referendum that comes up in october this year. >> director coats, just for a moment going back. i understand that you can't comment on any communications between you and the president but just hypothetically, if a president reached out to the director of national and made such requests, with their people. >> mr. vice chairman, i made it declare in my confirmation hearing before the senate select

committee that my role into the role of the director of national intelligence is to provide information of intelligence information relevant to policymakers so that they can base their judgment on that. any political shaping of that presentation or intelligence would not be appropriate. i have made my position clear on that to this administration and i intend to maintain a position. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. director coats, in your opening statement you made a couple of brief comments about what happened in manchester. is there anything that you'd like to elaborate on that

incident last night and particularly when we have witness after witness coming in here talking about the threat which you have talked about to this country and it's only a matter of time. anything else you'd like to add in terms of this attack was. >> in my discussions with my counterparts in london, mi five and mi six, and my counterpart to my position, their greatest concern was the inspired or homegrown violent extremist attacks which are very hard to assess and detect. initial reports that we had received our that it was indeed a suicide attack, whether there was others implicated is under assessment but my counterpart actually will be boarding a plane to come to the united states to testify and i'm sure which committee and i have a

call into him to see what the latest information is. >> you've had conversation after this conference happened this morning. >> parted. >> you've had conversation with these counterparts as recent as this morning? >> my colleagues in the icy have been talking. my direct discussion with my counterpart was he was briefing the prime minister at the time. we had a call teed up as soon as this hearing is finished. >> on north korea, we all know the significance of may 14, the capabilities, the anticipation that they will have the capability to do something with the payload that they can survive the exit and reentry strategy. this is a great concern that

already was a concern to us. i understand, and i've heard from different witnesses, that intelligence gathering in north korea is more difficult than it is in other parts of the world. you can use whistleblowers and some other things. can you talk about the difficulty that is unique to north korea in gathering information? >> it's one of the hardest, under collection nation that we have two books again. if you look at the satellite picture of the lights at night from the satellite, there is one dark area with no lights on in the north korea. the broadband is extremely limited. using that as an access to flexion, we get very limited results. we do not have constant consistence isr capabilities and so there are gaps. north koreans know about these.

it becomes a difficult challenge, relative to a society is closed and isolated as north korea. >> i know it's a problem in that has to make the biggest question, accuracy make it more than the other countries involvement. >> clearly. >> the last hearing we had we talked quite a bit about some detail about the fact that we know north korea, the big problem is, it's unpredictable, it's managed by someone who is mentally deranged and we have things that are there that are not elsewhere. were talking about the danger that is there. they did also say in the last hearing we had last week they talked about maybe one of the opportunities we had is a new awakening in china that china

may no longer be as close to them as they were in the past. do you see an opportunity when you went over there, the last one was china but you didn't say anything about maybe a change that will enable us to make more progress in north korea. >> the president had a very positive meeting with prime minister and we have been working, secretary of state and others have been working closely with the chinese. we see them as playing an integral role in dealing with the situation in north korea and, in fact, there is a strategy in place relative to sort of a ratcheting up of efforts with china to influence north korea to desist on. dc's nuclear weapons.

that along with the election in south korea with its new president it's part of our strategy to leverage efforts against north korea to get them to reassess their current strategy. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you both for being here this morning. director coats, you talked about russia's influence campaign and its effort to undermine western elections, as we saw here in 2016 and were seen in france and in germany. so far, we had failed to hold russia accountable for that interference. would you agree? it sends a message to others that would threaten our cyber security here at home, that we

have failed to hold russia accountable? >> were looking at every opportunity to hold russia accountable and determine it's still a process in determining what kind of actions we should take but there are clearly a consensus that russia has meddled in our election process and as it has in germany. i was in france just after the election of mark cohen and that clearly had russian influence attempting to address that election. i was in berlin, germany is facing the same thing. the uk is experiencing the same thing with an election coming

up. we see this happening all across europe. russia has been always doing these things to influence campaign but they're doing it much more sophisticated and to the use of cyber and other techniques. >> they haven't actually tried to influence the outcome of our election in the past in the same way that they did in 16 as we heard from our intelligence community. do you think it would be helpful for congress to pass increased sanctions on russia that would be a response to what they did in our elections that there's a bipartisan bill in congress have been introduced that would have a significant impact on russia? >> i would leave that to my former colleagues. i've had to remove my policy hat which is not been easy after a career in politics and on my intelligence had. my goal, job now is to provide you with the intelligence provided those decisions and i keep having to correct myself and say, whoops, i'm not to go there. that's up to our executive and congressional branch to make the policy that they feel necessary

to address the problem. i hope administration will come out with a proposal that will hold russia accountable at some point in the near term. let me ask you, though, pointing to the events of last night in manchester, that horrible tragedy and the threat posed by two international terrorism, both of you have talked about that i think that points to the need of robust intelligence sharing so what kind of message does it send to our allies that we have revelations that classify information was disclosed in a meeting with secretary from russia. let me point out this is an issue that has been raised with me recently by a high-ranking official of one of our closest allies about whether their country could count on information that was shared with

us was being kept secret? >> one of my purposes of the trip was to maintain that kind of relationship that you were talking about. it's essential, giving the fact that we face today that we are all in dealing with this issue. there is no safe haven anymore among our allies in terms of being a target for an attack and better that we can share information and the better that we can maintain our relationships and trust those relationships the better we are able to prevent these attacks. i would say two things, one, we've had some significant successes in providing information back and forth relative to preventing attacks but secondly to a country that

consensus is the most difficult attack to prevent is that which is inspired by an individual. >> sure, i think members. >> sees by someone at the hatred and wants to damage. >> i don't want to interrupt director coats but i want, all of us on this committee understand that and i'm about out of time. i do want to ask you have you reassured our own men and women in the intelligence community that they work to protect this country and the relationships will be safeguarded? >> absolutely. my initial response, my initial message to all the intelligence community is to your job. provide us the best intelligence of any entity in the world, keep your focus on what we are here to do and i'm confident that

that's what's happening. i know general stuart would like to make a comment. >> we remain focus on our missions. nothing's changed. our relationship has grown and partners have grown over the last year. our partners are not walking away from us and collaborating and sharing insights on the threats we share on the world, i'm not seeing it. none. >> thank you. >> they are very worried. >> i want to thank both of you for being here today and your service to this country. general in general nicholson have both testified about russia's assistance to the teller man in recent news reports have suggested that if increasing to increase in weapons, logistical and financial support and even medical support to taliban fighters. what do each of you assess russia's goal to be in afghanistan and, in general if you could discuss the impact that this assistance has had on the battlefield back russia

continues to view itself, as i mentioned earlier, a global power. it's influencing actions around the world. his narrative is that primarily isis in the province is a threat to the central asian states. that's their argument. that is a threat to russia. it's a weak argument. they use that as an avenue to get the taliban forces to fight isis at the province. they are in conversation with the teller man, we've seen indications that they've offered some level of support that i've not seen, real physical evidence, weapons or money being transferred. they have had conversations because they want to be part of the solution both on quote solution in the afghan theater. they're going to continue to

metal and continue to bet on all of the horses including teller man so that they have a say at the seeds when there's the political solution. >> director i'm privileged to serve with the general and one of the great things about this job that i inherited is that i inherited a group of people that are experienced in the areas that they interact in the bed enormously supportive and helpful. so, i thank you point out the fact that the act that was passed in 2005, and enacted in 2006 has really benefited in terms of our ability to reach out to all 16 agencies to collect the information necessary to integrate that coherent and effective

intelligence assessment. >> would you agree with the general's assessment of russia's involvement? >> i agree with that. i do. >> thank you for both of your opening statement said increasing investments would be made by other nations regard to nuclear forces, especially russia and china. director, how does that discussion escalate to be escalate approach to nuclear weapons affect a change in the russian thinking or planning with respect to the use of nuclear weapons back pressure builds nuclear capabilities with the intent to use it on the high-end of conflict for termination or de-escalate if the crisis is going in a decidedly negative way for russia that the tactical use of nuclear weapons will discourage

further actions by nato or us forces. tactical use of nuclear causes us to pause, cause us to think about whether we want to continue the fight and create the opportunity where it can settle the contest in more favorable terms. they are the only country that i know of that has this concept of escalate to terminate or escalate to de-escalate but they do have that built into their operational concept. we've seen them exercise that idea and it's a dangerous idea because it then escalates, could escalate to further escalate that can be seen any indication that they are changing their path mark. >> none. no, senator. >> with regard to china and their modernization efforts. you see any views with nuclear weapons to see any of their views changing? >> certainly, nuclear weapons and modernization is an integral

part. all of these countries view nuclear weapons as the guarantor of their regime. much like north korea. so, china continues to modernize all levels including nuclear forces, including capability to deter us forces from entering the west pacific and they don't talk about the first use but they talk about the use of their work as part of war fighting. >> i might add to that, despite the heroic and really incredible efforts by former senators toward minimizing and reducing the use of nuclear the success we've had in libya and the success we had in ukraine unfortunately the lessons learned have been if you have been nuclear weapons, never give them up because of that deterrent from things, other

actors who may want to interfere in your country. if you don't have them, get them. so, we see what's happened in ukraine we would not have happened if they had maintained nuclear weapon capabilities but we see what's happening in north korea believes that regime survival is dependent, solely on becoming a nuclear power. so, unfortunately, tend to be moving in the wrong direction as countries around the world think that gaining nuclear capabilities is a protection or a deterrent or for survival of their countries or potentially used for offenses capabilities. >> if i could follow up later with mr. director, i would appreciate it.

thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director codes if a memo exists documenting you are admiral rogers conversation with president regarding the russian investigation, will you make those documents available to special counsel and the congressional intelligence committee? >> i have no documents to make relevant. >> in an opinion piece of the new york times last week calls israel the eyes and ears of the united states in the middle east when it comes to intelligence. would you agree with that assessment? >> israel is a very valued partner in terms of supporting us in any number of ways including intelligence sharing peace. peace highly could you the without speaking to what president may have shared to the

ambassador and prime minister of russia could the sharing of high classified information with whom you have intelligence partners harm the relationship and therefore our ability to gather and protect americans like i'm not seen any evidence of that. or any reporting relative to anything that would lead to the conclusion. >> with regard to the document whether they exist or not, if you get called in front of the intelligence committee will you share your conversations with president trump in that hearing and in that setting. >> as i mentioned to senator mccain in answer to this question, i do believe the information and discussions i've had with the president are something that should not be disclosed. on the other hand if i'm called before an investigative

committee i will certainly provide them with what i know and don't know. reports indicate that moscow is a lifeline and its might undermine inter- national pressure to convince north korea to give up their nuclear program. please describe what you can tell us in an open setting about the extent of russian attacks to north korea. can you repeat spec can you describe in this open setting the extent of russian ties to north korea. >> that is something i would rather reserve for a classified session. >> researchers at the labs reportedly found evidence linking the recent global trade to two cyber operatives in north korea and it's clear and present. as is the cyber threat as opposed to other allies. how do you think about the most

recent attack, if it was by the north korean fits into your plans? >> i'm sorry, would you state that question again. >> how do you think this most recent attack, if it was by the north koreans, fits into their plans? >> we don't have evidence yet to confirm that there has been linked. we do know that north korea possesses the capability of doing this kind of thing but were still assessing and what the sources. >> do you feel we are prepared to meet further cyber challenges from north korea and other actors? >> i think we need a constant evaluation and engagement in terms of how we deal with cyber and the threat that it poses to us. the question was asked earlier

and i agree, this has risen to a significant, if not the significant threat the united states at this current time. we ought to, our policymakers need to be fully engaged, i believe, and how we deal with both of fences and offenses way of addressing this particular issue. i've been hourly outspoken, relative to the need to do this and we will continue to provide as much intelligence as we can to support that view. >> do you believe that our voting infrastructure is critical infrastructure and you believe we should have national security plans so that each of the states have to be certified for cyber compliance and cyber resiliency? closer to relevant issues that ought to be thought through and pussy ought to be devised and

defined in terms of how we best address that. on the we are so interconnected that it poses a threat to the united states and our individual states also. thank you, mr. chairman. take you for your service to our country. director codes, you begin a conversation in response to senator fisher's question on nuclear weapons and you made an interesting statement that what were learning is that if you have nuclear weapons, you keep them and if you do not have nuclear weapons, you get them. for a lot of years, many of our allies have depended upon arrangements or agreements with the united states in which we are carrying nuclear weapons and

that we in many cases are responsible for caring that nuclear deterrent so they don't have to. this keeps nuclear weapons out of other countries hands but also requires the ability for us. you suggested something which is critical and that is those countries out there are learning a different understanding of the world that perhaps is not consistent with our message to them. could you elaborate on this in terms of your analysis and why is it that you believe, right now, that is their belief that if they have them, keep them and if they don't have them, they need to get them. >> it's just an assessment of mind. i wasn't putting in intelligence committee report. i was simply saying it appears that based on what has happened in the past years relative to the nuclear capability question that jack is in a policy that was not followed upon? is it something we fail to

follow up on. >> that's a relevant question that you asked. i don't know that i have the answer. i do know that i don't know but i believe and have heard that some of the narrative out there relative to the situation in ukraine has led some thinking and watching what's happening in north korea and how they have basically linked nuclear weapons even session and capability, even by amending the constitution to declare themselves a nuclear state that would be fair to say that for those who are our allies that it would be appropriate for us to reinforce our policy provisions and defense of their own security where we have made that commitment.

would that be appropriate? >> we want to reassure policy allies that we have the capability to provide that. it would be appropriate. at the same time we are saying we have to up our game, whether conventional or whatever. because these threats are real and having the capability to address these -- i would like to turn to general stewart back if i can offer this. our allies are very comfortable with the arrangements. the protection that comes from our nuclear umbrella. it's the rogue states and it's not just the capability. rogue states are looking for anything that will guarantee their survival, their hold on power and one of those things that they believe guarantees their hold on power is to have a nuclear device that can threaten neighbors or the united states. >> you are not can consider

ukraine a rogue state would you. >> they must have that thought process they are and i would consider them to be an ally of ours. >> i don't know if they fall in there like category, to be honest. i know they are a strong partner but i don't know that we have an alliance with ukraine but i suspect ukrainian government probably views that the fact that they gave up much of their capability as part of the disarmament them a greater risk and greater pressure from the russian government. they probably wish they had some leave hold capability that could hold that risk russian interference in their government and in their way of life. >> but among our allies, you're suggesting that they have a strong belief that we would respond if necessary and you do not see our allies do not have a currently have nuclear weapons as feeling that our policies are

clear and that our resolve is clear as well. >> is a fair statement senator. >> i agree with that assessment. i was not trying to suggest otherwise but rogue states are marginal states. taking on a different level, not our allies. >> thank you, mr. chairman director codes, you've refused today to confirm or deny whether the president asked you to intervene with doctor comey. if you are asked for those details by special counsel will you be forthcoming to start. yes, i will. you said earlier lives are at stake and leaks jeopardize those lives.

the president held any other position in our government what he told the russians could be considered the mother of all leaks. was it dangerous for the president to share that classified information with the russian government? i wasn't in the room and i don't know what the president shared. all i read is public you haven't discussed this for all you write is the public reports? first of all, i've been in travel and second i've been on travel? >> i did not discuss this with the president. >> i find that troubling. can you describe the interagency under telogen pretty what can be shared with the foreign government. >> well, we worked for a process that i can't specifically describe the process here today.

i'm new to the job, weak in. there are procedures and processes that i'd be happy to get those back to you perfected the trump administration undergo that interagency clearance process prior to may 10th meeting with the russian government? >> i have no awareness of that. >> so if they did, you are not aware back i am not aware. >> that's disappointing but shifting gears. i have another question i want to get to the bottom of. it happens to do with whether or not the office of the director of national intelligence has received any guidance from the trump administration, either written or verbally that the od and i or any other agency for that matter is not to respond to oversight increase on members of congress. >> i am not aware of any information to that extent back

no information, only that they'll respond to chairs and ranking members? >> to my knowledge, no. >> thank you. >> mr. chair, i will yield back to back thank you for being here today. director codes, we expect an announcement on the president's new strategy in afghanistan shortly and what i hope we don't hear is an accelerated of what we've already been doing in afghanistan and i hope we see some new ideas. hopefully the plan that we see is one that will take into account of a broader strategic problem and something that we all understand and know is that we cannot address terrorist groups in afghanistan on the grounds without addressing their safe haven in pakistan.

so, my question to you is what steps do we need to see afghanistan's neighbors take to help stabilize that region and how do we make sure that they are following through? >> once again, we provide the intelligence relative to the policymaking but to directly answer your question, i think, certainly an evaluation of how we work with pakistan to address the situation of the harboring of terrorist groups. it would be essential to a strategy that affects afghanistan going forward in afghanistan. that is the potential of disrupting situation, putting our own troops at risk in undermining the strategy of dealing with the taliban and and local groups that are trying to undermine the government. is a very clear link that i

think would have to be addressed in junction with whatever is done in afghanistan. >> thank you. general stewart, i had the pleasure of flying into afghanistan with you at thanksgiving and it was good to catch up with you. besides more troops, which i think might be part of the plan that we see, do we need to implement a different strategy on the ground in afghanistan. >> thank you, senator. i hate to talk about policy or a strategy, not just intel so let me refrain the responses. pakistan use afghanistan, desires afghanistan some of the same things we want. safe, secure, stable afghanistan. but one addition. one that does not have heavy indian influence in afghanistan. they view all of those challenges to the length of an

indian threat to that the state of pakistan. they hold in reserve terrorist organization, we defined terrorist organization, the hold them in reserve so that if afghanistan leans toward india, they will no longer be supportive of an idea of a stable and secure afghanistan that could undermine pakistan interests. we have to get a couple of things. one, very clear that afghanistan security and stability is in the interest of all the parties in the region and does not pose a threat to pakistan. we got to convince pakistan that if there harboring any network members that it is not in their interest to continue to host the network and that we ought to be working together to go after those 20 terrorist organizations that undermine, the whole

region. we have to make sure to push them to do more against the network. they separate the taliban and. [inaudible] we have to get the conversation going about pakistan's role in not harboring these terrorists and helping to stabilize afghanistan and, i think, will have some progress. they also had influence in bringing parties to the table. we have to get them to think about reconciliation and the status quo is not in their best interest. >> do you think we can frame and the intelligence in a way that would state that we need pakistan to be a good friend to not only afghanistan in the united states in order for the united states to be a good friend to pakistan? >> i am hoping to do just that in the weeks ahead. >> thank you.

i yield back my time back i want to thank both of the witnesses for being here. we are greatly appreciative of your hard work and director, everyone back home in indiana is very proud of you. we feel more safe in our country having you in that position. in summary, north korea tested a missile which caught the us by surprise. my understanding is that the fuel, launch, location of the test was not interest faded. over a week ago they tested a missile is capable of caring a nuclear warhead. are either of you able to confirm that the missile test is in fact capable of carrying a nuclear warhead? >> i would prefer not to talk about that in this setting. >> i was just about to say that. >> same thing. >> can you speak to what technological hurdles they would

need to overcome in order to successfully make a nuclear warhead that would survive your entry and make it to the us? >> of the technical hurdle remains in the survival of the reentry platform. dave certainly demonstrated a range of missiles, range of fuel types, range of boosters and they have they have the large space vehicles so, if that is modify, that could have intercontinental range. the single hurdle that we've not seen all the together is the reentry vehicle surviving the atmosphere but that's a matter of enough trial and error to make that work. they understand the physics but it's a matter of design. >> i would talk with about you about the trial and error. you hear folks almost smiled that they've had a failure or something in their testing but, to me, and i want to check with

you, to me the way you learn is by trying. and by doing. the fact that it's a failure is not so much a failure for north korea because they're learning all the time and it's becoming increasing concern. would you agree with that? back they are not only learning with every test but they're not encumbered by some of the challenges we have in our safety and acquisition programs. they will take greater risk and so the timeline where we would see things and say based on our model it will take seven years, there accelerating that timeline because they're not encumbered by some of the bureaucratic burden that we have in our weapons acquisition program. >> understanding the north korea may not currently be able to deliver a nuclear weapon to the continental united states, can

you speak to their capability to use nuclear weapon against south korea where the we have a 30000 troops stationed or japan where we have 2000 troops stationed? >> i would not want to answer that in this hearing. >> let me ask you about something else and that would be the trainees in their effort to try to affect the decision-making by kim jung-un. have you seen any indication that they have become more serious in their effort and that they're taking steps necessary to alter his decision-making process? have you seen or are aware of this position great situation that we have here and then as a follow-up, what do you think are the kind of steps that china could take that might get king duncan's attention. >> we certainly have gotten attention and they have taken steps at this point.

it's not produce the results that we had hoped, secretary tillerson has said defined this as a series of steps relative to putting increasing pressure on north korea and that we are just at the early stages of that. clearly, china's engagement in helping us address this issue is critical, it seemed that way we continue to work with the chinese in that regard. beyond that, you would have to address that secretary tillers tillerson. >> to get a better detail of what we are trying to do, clearly, china needs to play a role. it's been suggested, picking up senator telus, he walked in.

they created you with the secretary of state. not sure you want that job but anyway. it has been publicly stated that china has rejected some coal imports from north korea to somewhat significant efforts. there's a question about oil that has provided other economic issues but it follows outside of my category and more into the secretary of state category. >> understood. they keep able to. >> thank you for your complaint history. when it comes to rest, former director said that russia brazenly interfered with our 201611 and to both of you agree

that? >> i agree. we have high confidence that there was a significant involvement. >> you agree that general? >> i do. >> a run will not be allowed to get a nuclear weapon. director coats, do you believe the current agreement with iran will accomplish this goal? >> no, it was made clear that they would not accomplish this goal and it would only accomplish and determine relative to them having a nuclear capability. >> you agree that, general? >> it defers the effort in i don't see any indication that iran is pursuing breaking out of that deal at this point back the question is does it accomplish the goal of denying them the capability? >> ultimately it does not deny forever.

it differs for ten years if i understand the agreement back around, do you agree, has been more aggressive in terms of the agreement? >> we've seen a lot of aligned efforts on the part of iran, that are very provocative. secretary, on the confirmation of the last 90 day certification that has signed to the iranian compliance while the intelligence does not suggest a breach that would deny confirming. >> have they been more aggressive in the region. >> absolutely. >> to agree with that, general?

>> i don't know that i would agree that there are more aggressive. their asset actions in syria are the same. >> yemen? that picked up. >> are they a destabilizing force in the region? absolutely. >> have they any money into row schools and hospitals? >> that would be impossible to detect back is it fair to say they've increased their military capabilities of the agreement? make some of it has gone to military but the preponderance has gone to economic development. >> is iran a greater threat to the remit? or the same. >> it certainly a threat to the region, whether it's greater or lesser, based on the i'm not sure i can that neck how do you get on the ballot on iran to run for president? >> the question is. >> it looks like you can get on the ballot but you get kicked off. >> the final say?

>> the supreme leader. >> nobody's on the ballot that he doesn't want to start. >> is the posse to stop north korea from stopping a missile with the north korean weapon that could hit america or that the policy of the united states contain that threat by shooting it down if they wanted? >> is a policy to prevent it. next you agree that general stewart? >> yes, senator. >> so that would mean all options on the table to prevent it? is that correct? >> i'm certainly not in a position to remove any of the options. >> our strategy to take rocco back has a heavy reliance on kurds. are you both familiar with that? yes. >> that creating friction with turkey. >> yes.

>> would it be better if we had more arabs than kurds from a regional point of view? >> general mattis is the best person to answer that question and i think he's very comfortable with what the balances. >> from an intelligence point of view to see growing friction between turkey and curtis elements in the region push work. >> it appears likely. >> is that driven by our policy? >> it contributes to it. >> do either one of you know about that point? >> i tried to figure out what it was but i never got a good answer or at least one that i could comprehend. i'm still using dollars in coins. >> me too, to look at that issue and report back to the weather bit coin will become the currency of terrorist and criminal's down the road. >> we be happy to look into that. there's some indication that it's been used for that purpose but we can give you an

assessment. >> it would continue to cut into real capability. >> for you. >> it's a little difficult for me to answer that question, relative to the community as a whole. it would depend on what other supplemental measures of resources might be available. >> thank you both. >> senator warren. thank you, i don't want to duplicate other questions what i like to do is take up another area about a serious threat to security and economic issues around the world. that's climate change. the science is unmistakable,

human activities are releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and concerning to climate change. a defense department report from two years ago says global climate change will have wide ranging implications for us national security interests over the foreseeable future because it will aggravate existing problems such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation ineffectual leadership, and weak political institutions. in short, this dod report describes climate change as a threat multiplier. tractor code, do you agree? >> i don't know that i would see it as a threat and multiplier. our job is simply to is to assess the consequences of potential changes in climate relative to migration, relative to humanitarian issues. the science falls to other federal agents. >> that is the question.

>> there's certainly, always in the history of the world then reactions to different climate changes and it is an issue that continues. >> the department of defense report has identified that climate change exacerbates, existing problems, poverty and social tension, environmental degradation ineffectual weak political institutions, do you disagree? >> no, i don't three. i'm simply saying that has been an ongoing issue throughout the agency. >> let me ask the question this way. how is we be integrating climate change risks into our national security strategy? >> we should be assessing what the consequences of changes that are relevant to security issues

that should be part of the assessment. and it is. >> climate change is clearly a threat to international peace and security and i just think it's critically important that we take this seriously and we adapt accordingly. let me ask you another question and this is the question others have asked about the interference of the russians in our election and now in other elections. you talked about this in your opening statement. the question i want to ask about is we all agreed that interference by foreign actors in our democratic process is unacceptable but it doesn't seem like were doing enough about it. my question, tractor coats, what do we need to do to make sure the us is sufficiently prepared to defend against russian cyber attacks on our elections in particularly those that could escalate to attempted

manipulation directly, voting machines, alteration of registration rolls, in our 2018 and 2020 elections. that's a matter for you those of you sitting on the dais here, policy decisions that the country needs to make. we provide the intelligence on the basis of the accuracy of this to the best that we can and what has happened, the response to what has happened is something that the executive. >> you don't have any advice. >> my job is to provide the intelligence. it's not to make policy. could i ask it differently? do you think we should treat our elections is critical in the structure and provide cyber security to state and local officials? >> that some certainly something we should do. anytime they're trying to undermine the democratic institution of the united states it ought to be addressed second

thank you. your predecessor james clapper said our election apparatus should be considered critical infrastructure in should have the protection that are tended to that. i think he's right on protecting our election systems from vulnerability should be part of our cyber strategy. >> i agree that. >> good, i'm glad to do that. thank you, mr. chairman i might add that we don't have an assessment that any of our bodhi seemed were tampered with. >> i understand your point. thank you. >> on behalf of general mccain back tractor coats, it's great to see you. we miss you here but were glad you are where you are. >> there are days where we miss you.

>> general seward thank you for being here. follow question. to what extent do you think of the aggressive actions of russia, iran, isis, north korea and china, their current strategies, the threat they represent that inspired by client change password based on your intelligence assessment. >> i have not seen anything in intelligence circles and say their policies are relative and determined by climate change. >> thank you. i would like to spend most my time but i'll be brief and i need to defer to my college receivable coming up, you are talking about section 702 and the need for reauthorization. can you give us some sense of the public consumption of how that will has been used to identify real threats and potentially intervene before a action takes place. >> a lot of threats come from foreign sources and when we have information that leads us to

potential foreign source the examination of that in terms of what they might be planning to do, they may be talking to in terms of accomplishment and it attack on the united states has been an invaluable piece of information that has prevented many many attacks. as i mentioned earlier, it is also to the great gratitude of our allies in europe and elsewhere that prevented numerous threats. they could have turned into disastrous attacks. it's been a very essential element of our collection process. obviously, we all know, were talking about foreign non-us persons that have bad intentions toward the united states and it may be that those persons were connecting here with united states and we want to make sure what is being transferred in that regard. during that process as possible

that us citizens names are mentioned in an e-mail, mentioned in the verbal way and that then is given immediate attention to recall minimizati minimization. the program has adapted to ensure that we provide privacy protections for us persons and there is a process that we go through minimization being one of those. we also have oversight -- it's the most overseen effort in the united states has over any policy matter or agency in government. all three branches have oversight capability in the program to ensure the privacy of

individuals. so, i think, there is a lot of misunderstanding about what 702 is and what it isn't. we have scheduled and will continue to schedule specific meetings with relevant committees in the congress to describe exactly what is dubbed and what is not done. we need to make sure the public itself is fully aware of the importance of the program but the privacy protections that have been put upon it in the oversight. >> would it be fair to say that if we fail to reauthorize and address the concerns they came up with the unmasking of us citizens, would it be fair to say that if we fail to reauthorize 702 that it probably will lead to disastrous conquests? >> i believe it would and a lot of americans will die unnecessarily. >> thank you thank you very much. on behalf of the general mccain

back we know that china is currently executing a multi- decade strategic plan to acquire the united states technologies that we believe will be foundational both to their future economic growth as well as to their military strength. the primary tool that we use is to block or mitigate foreign investments to oppose national security risk as the committee on foreign investment in the united states and both of you are very smelly with this. because the intelligence committee plays a key role in the process of developing the national security threat assessment use to inform many decisions based on his current mandate, the reviews a case by case basis rather than a strategic assessment of acquisitions or acquires. only those transactions that involve a controlling interest by foreign investors, however,

recently we've seen and continue to see on a regular basis other transaction types which is joint ventures and minority investments that results in a transfer of key technologies. at the same time, the intelligence community is increasing rapidly. the workload marked by increased chinese investment in the very technologies that are the key to us innovation and military advantage including timeless vehicles, artificial intelligence, robotics, virtual reality as well as gene editing. mr. coates, my question is lascivious remains a voluntary process which underscores the importance under reported in not notified transactions that may pose a national security risk. what are some of the challenges in finding the technical expertise necessary to understand and resolve potential national security implications

across the very diverse spectrum back i'd like him to address his office. this issue has been raised and it is under consideration and i think your questions are valid. relative to the current status and whether or not justice needs to be made. relative to finding the technical capabilities to assess this, we are in contest with the private sector. the private sector that offers significantly higher compensation for the people they hire and the better work schedule. nevertheless, we are blessed with people who want to give service to their government and to work longer hours with lesser pay but bring technical capabilities. we are out trying to recruit

these people constantly, whether admiral rogers and the national security agency or other of our agencies, we need to understand that at a certain point to gain the type of technical capabilities that we need we may have to look at our salary structure because just about every major corporation in america whether cyber or other issues is looking to find people with these capabilities. nothing is more important than protecting the safety of the americans and that the first responsibility of government. i do think on two areas, the basis of what you have said we ought to do is a significant review of the current situation to bring it up to speed. and then look at how we can get the best and brightest to be able to help us with that. >> before, i can take from your answer that we need to fully examine the authorization and

how a top to bottom review of that. would you agree with mark goss respond to the fact that you have considerable workload before you now that continues to expand and how that reauthorization might be necessary. >> i wasn't trying to give it tens more work. >> i'll take it. >> yes, china has an approach, libra had technology whether legal or legal transferring intellectual property and knowledge in acquiring corporate sector private sector industry to get that technology insertion into the students into the upstream development of technology in the capabilities, yes, all of that needs to be reviewed, especially in light of voluntary in the workload continues to grow. we did a hundred 74 cases last year and were on pace for 250 this year and no growth and this

will get harder, more demanding and we will lose opportunities if we don't use. thank you tom and. >> thank you both for being here. general stewart is set in your opening remarks that we've gone from a one plus one strategy to a four plus one. north korea, china, extremists, he iran, on top of that we have a cyber in space. the question i have and i'm about my guy, i want to talk about china and russia is to symmetric conferring threats, i believe. china has this year protected in real. [inaudible] the spent $826 million on their military will spend 600 million i would argue that today when you have a small army since world war ii, small navy since world war i in the smallest air force ever, sir, in your mind,

what is china's purpose in this massive buildup that they are in the midst of, right now. >> purpose number one, to able to fight and win in the pacific. >> are they on with us today the prophetic smart. >> in some aspects. in some areas we are still far superior. we look at them in all domains, space, fibrous, air, serve and see. were competing in all those domains. primary objective, fight and win the pacific. be prepared to enter the conflict in the pacific and increase the cost of any of our actions in the pacific. >> are you concerned about the reorganization and what that will have on our ability to stand up to them? >> they not only continue to reorganize but they continue to find tactics and we have not seen them do the major end to end full-scale rehearsal that

says all of those pieces are sticks together and real war fighting capability. it's not fully integrated at this time. >> i'm glad i can. today, africa is a major involvement for china, economically, militarily, they are building a base in djibouti miles away from our base. what is the purpose of that base price for what is their objective in africa? >> in the chinese is expanding their influence, globally and they are looking at areas of the world that he wouldn't necessarily think a regional power like china would want to be engaged and but whether it's africa, whether it's latin america, whether it's any number of places in the chinese they are making substantial investments and sometimes

thinking that as you mentioned to djibouti and making a base there. i think they view that as their long-term strategy to become a global power and not just a regional power. they are spinning and exporting amount of effort. that one belt road situation, it gives them access, expedited access to europe but access also to the indian ocean region and the middle east.

>> when we forwarded his effort, and he is in our prison system now for 40 years. division between the investigatory and potential the fbi activities that has control over relative to the

intelligence aspect. if that is passed on to the fbi to determine whether or not there is an investigation or criminal element and who is to blame. >> ok. let me reflate explain. i am worried about chemical weapons in north korea. reporting has indicated that kim jong-un's half-brother may have -- gas.cuted with they indicate they have 5000 metric tons of nuclear weapons in korea. can you confirm what was used to kill kim jong-un's half-brother? >> that is something i would have to get back to back. know this obviously, with of so many people in south korea, the delivery

anecially of vx could be such a way that it would be devastating. i am wondering if we have assets on the ground as well as chemical weapons? assessedal weapons is to be part of the north korean arsenal. >> ok. if there is any information you can provide me in terms of our capabilities i would be very appreciative. thank you very much for your service to our country. lieutenantecognize sullivan and ask him to further ofognize those in terms appearance. >> thank you. i am going to go vote after this. >> ok. let me recognize senator

senator cain. senator blumenthal. i will try to get back here as soon as i can. senator sullivan: thank you mr. chairman. gentlemen, thank you. general coats, good to see you. i appreciate your statement on north korean and icbm threats weapons.rds to nuclear that is obviously a new direct threat to the united states. there has been testimony across the board in terms of military no intelligence that it is longer a matter of if but when kim jong-un is going to have the capability to hit not just a state like mine, alaska or hawaii which are in much closer range but the lower 48

continental united states with a nuclear ballistic missile at some point. so myself and the number of members of this committee in a bipartisan committee yesterday are looking at significantly enhancing and advancing our homeland missile defense. but i would like to get your sense in terms of the estimates. what do think the estimates are with regard to went kim jong-un have thisle to capability? i think it is a very important question. i know you do not have a precise date that i think the american people need to know it is probably sooner than most people anticipate. can you give us a range or winter of when you think that capability is going to exist for this very unstable leader who has threatened to shoot nuclear missiles at our homeland?

>> i think we would both like to be able to talk to that in a classified session. i would say this, we certainly assess that this is the intent kim jong-un.a and it has been publicly stated that they would like to have intercontinental missile capability. nuclear of ability. that could reach that united states. that is their goal. relative to exactly where we are in and when -- of course it is dependent on their testing and ability. as i testified in my opening statement here, they have not reached that capability yet. >> right. but there has been public testimony from leaders that they are going to get it. not if, but when. so i know that we of estimates. i know that some of the mark

classified. i think it is very useful to let the american people know. this is not the teen years off. this is not -- this is not 15 or 10 years off. can you give us an estimate within a couple years. this is important. people are going to wake up to it someday relatively soon and this is in enormous threat and i think the more we're able to be public about it, the better. so let me repeat. it has been stated an open testimony and number of times before this committee it is going to happen. it is going to happen. it is going to have that capability. can you give us a window as to the best estimates on that intel. earlier, if i gave you a window it would be potential to reveal the insights we have on the case so we won't do that here.

.ut it is inevitable --let me turn to a random let me turn to iran. the iran nuclear agreement, they are restricted to 100 mentioned tons of heavy water. however in 2016 it was reported they had surpassed that threshold twice. do you believe iran is an violation of the agreement right now? assessmentlligence relative to the certification that was assigned perhaps three or four weeks ago was the -- ification >> that is a certification with to provide to congress every 90 days. ieee eight on

assessments as well as our own assessments. >> how much confidence do we have a net when in 2016 a said they violated the heavy water stipulation twice. i think it is a real disconnect between the facts and what secretary tillerson stated and our military commission. drugs i apologize to the senator beginningeed at the that director coats and general inart's would be out of fear five minutes. >> can i get an answer to that? >> no. we have three people for five minutes, i apologize. senator blumenthal can you do me a favor by asking one question. would that be agreeable to you? question each. >> i appreciate that, mr. chairman. i apologize. i have an event at the supreme

court with the chief justice and we don't want to be late on that. >> would that be agreeable to the members, one question each? senator blumenthal. senator blumenthal: director coats, thank you very much for being here. i know that given the oath you have taken and your record of public service, you would never allow anyone including the president of the united states to discourage or deter you from yourful investigation and nondenial of the washington post reported think should lead to even more intensive allegedation of the effort by the president to enlist you in shutting down the investigation. this evidence, if true, goes to

and is mounting evidence of obstruction of justice. and, you are aware that his affection a crime and i am sure .ou will cooperate i presume you would not agree with the resident of the united states that this investigation of rental -- russian meddling interference or a witch hunt. therefore, want to ask you anther you have discussed inference from the president to stifle the investigation or enlist you or admiral rogers and ofying such an investigation collusion focused on him. whether you have ever discussed anyone,ports with

including admiral rogers. >> well, senator, i am not going to characterize the conversations i've had with the president. >> i'm not asking about your conversation with the president. i don't mean to be misunderstood. have you talked about this with admiral rogers? dir. coats: that is something withholduld like to that question at this particular point in time. >> i'm going to assume that in withholding the question, the implicit answer is yes you have. know inuld like to another setting if necessary what the substance of that conversation was. director coats: --

say for thest record director coats, that it no way meant yes or no but that your conversation with the 's private. my interpretation to your answer to my question was that it is a privileged conversation between the president and members of his team. so i in no way and interpret your response to my question as inferring anything except that you are keeping with the of privacy of conversations between members of the president's national .ecurity team >> mr. chairman, i respect that. >> thank you senator kaine. communityintelligence doing an assessment of the nature and impact of the information revealed to the russian ambassador and russian foreign minister by the president?

orthere an assessment in gun that has been done of the thatficant and impact of release of information? initiated ant assessment of that. there are procedures we go through to determine when assessments have been made or need to be made. there is a process we go through. -- s my understanding >> has there been any reaction from other countries to the intelligence community about the revealing of this information to the russians? a reaction from other countries? to the intelligence community? not raisede was during my time there on this specific question.

>> they did not raise this issue with you at all on your trip? -- they did not raise that specific question. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> senator kaine. membersink the indulgence. >> thank you mr. chair. in the aftermath of the recent budget deal, the president something about closing down. with respect to the missions of dia of your agencies, the and director of national intelligence, in terms of dealing with national threat, is there anything good about the shutdown of a government in the united states? >> there might be some good and some bad. if the shutdown involves functions that were not but if youssential

are talking about an across-the-board shutdown i never believed that was the way we ought to handle our business here. and that definitely it could potentially have an impact on .ur ability >> not only would it impact our operations but it would have a debilitating effect on the workforce. every time we talk about shutting down and they are uncertain about how they are going to get paid. >> thank you mr. chair. >> thank you director coats into general stewart. i know this is a very difficult time and i appreciate your candor and i also know that the committee understands there are areas that simply are protected by the relationship that the president has with his team and the people he relies upon. so i would like to repeat again that there is a lot more to be

found out, but also these leaks this.t good for your is is that correct? crime said is absolutely correct. thatare devastating -- >> is absolutely correct. they are devastating. fact, they put patriotic people who are doing great service for this country, it put their lives at risk. it puts the lives of americans at risk because it details the way we have collected information that puts america at risk. >> so do you believe there are additional risks because of these leaks? potentially, yes. >> i thank you. you want to say anything else question mark >> i want to ask what you consider worse. a leaked to the american people or a leak to the russian foreign minister. >> this meeting is adjourned. >> one quick question.

>> ok. be seeing him again, unfortunately for him. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

announcer: this morning the house budget committee hears from mick mulvaney about president trump's proposed budget for 2018. c-spanm. eastern on three. you can also follow it on c-span.org or listen on our c-span radio app.

appears beforely the house appropriations subcommittee. he appears that 3:00 p.m. before the house appropriations subcommittee. historyr: c-span, where unfolds daily. in 1970 nine, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and is brought to today by your cable or satellite provider. >> live today on c-span, "washington journal" is next. the house returns for general speeches that 10:00. at noon, the u.s. house talks about reducing regulations and social security fraud. minutes, in 30 discussing the house and senate probes of interference.

and at 8:00 a.m., the cofounder of the tea party patriots on the president's 2018 budget request. and at 8:30 a.m. more on the budget with congressman ted loop. ♪ is wednesday, june 24, 2017. we will discuss the president's trip overseas as well as a busy day yesterday for the congressional investigation into russia interference into the 2016 election. we begin with the budget proposal for the 2018 fiscal plan that report -- relies on sharp cuts. this morning we want to hear your reaction to that spending plan release t