Contact: Josh Holly; 202.226.3988
Hunter Opening Statement for Global Security Assessment Hearing
Washington D.C. – House Armed Services Committee Ranking Republican Duncan Hunter (R-CA) today released the following opening statement for the committee’s hearing on the global security situation:
“Thank you, Chairman Skelton, for holding this hearing as a follow-up to a similar global security assessment that this committee received last summer. I would like to welcome our witnesses, who also participated in that July hearing—Dr. Thomas Fingar of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; Mr. Robert Cardillo of the Defense Intelligence Agency; and Mr. John A. Kringen of the Central Intelligence Agency.
“As members of a congressional committee whose mandate covers a variety of national security policies and programs, it remains imperative that we have access to the most accurate, reliable information available and develop a nuanced understanding of the international security environment. It is this environment in which U.S. defense personnel must operate to advance our nation’s security interests. It is this environment that serves as a backdrop against which we, as legislators, must review existing authorities, resources, and capabilities at the Department of Defense’s disposal.
“Gentlemen, I would like to build upon the testimony you offered last July and Dr. Fingar’s written testimony for today’s hearing. In particular, I would like to focus on the evolving situations in several important national security domains—both country-specific and functional—and look forward to your comments on each:
“The Pentagon’s 2007 report on Chinese military developments highlights that nation’s growing power projection and strategic forces capabilities, in particular blue water navy, ballistic missile, counterspace, and cyber capabilities. It is clear these capabilities would extend Chinese power well beyond a Taiwan Straits scenario, and my own knowledge of these developments tell me that the President’s fiscal year 2009 budget request is insufficient to counter them. What is your assessment of the Chinese rationale for developing these particular capabilities and where they are in fielding robust capabilities such as those mentioned?
“As I mentioned last summer, Iran has taken innumerable steps to counter U.S. influences in the Middle East by supporting international terrorism, expanding its ballistic and anti-ship cruise missile arsenal, and testing U.S. military rules of engagement in the Strait of Hormuz. I also remain concerned about Iran’s engagement in Afghanistan and Iraq, and I would appreciate your assessment of the extent of Iranian influence in those countries.
“Over the last several months, many witnesses before this committee have remarked on the tenuous security situation in Pakistan, which is a critical partner in U.S. counterterrorism efforts. What is your assessment of the impact that Pakistani elections, to be held next week, will have on stability there? How would you characterize the presence of Taliban elements in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, and what effect are those elements having on U.S. and coalition operations in Afghanistan?
“In terms of functional areas of concern, I note that it appears that state and non-state actors may be posing additional non-traditional or asymmetric threats—in some cases, increasing their cooperation with each other to the detriment of U.S. national security interests.
“For example, more than 20 countries have a ballistic missile capability and that proliferation is occurring among both state and non-state actors. For example, last week Iran tested a space launch vehicle and wants to launch a satellite by next year. Wouldn’t this technology transfer directly into a long-range missile program? What is your assessment of the relationship between state and non-state actors in this area?
“We also face the on-going challenge of technology transfer. Some foreign entities come in with massive amounts of money to acquire American defense companies with critical capabilities that can give the U.S. military a qualitative advantage over potential adversaries. Other entities engage in industrial espionage. I would like our witnesses to comment on this threat. I am curious which countries or non-state organizations work to illicitly acquire U.S. technology with military application through foreign ownership control or influence. What kind of capabilities do these entities possess?
“A final example is in the cyber-security arena. Last year, a cyber attack on Estonia raised the specter of states enlisting non-state actors to act as a proxy. The attacks against Estonia impacted communications, economic systems, and other infrastructure which raises new concerns about the scope of potential hostile actions we might face. And the Estonia event is not an anomaly. Last year, the UK and Germany publicly raised concerns with Chinese activity in their national systems, and the United States itself has experienced impacts from cyber activity.
“As we continue our discussion of threats to U.S. national security interests, we must keep in mind that these challenges are increasing in complexity, diversity, and range. They require this committee’s understanding of the global security equation and a continued effort to ensure that our brave military forces have the necessary tools to protect and defense our security interests at home and abroad.”
###