tv Hearing on Global Threats CSPAN February 9, 2016 10:12pm-12:06am EST
these efforts have helped cut isis by up to 50%. what additionally do you believe we can do to further restrict their financial resources? >> sir, you have outlined pretty much the sources of revenue for isis. they have a very elaborate bureaucracy for managing their money. i think the important thing is to sustain that pressure on multiple dimensions. they will include going after the oil infrastructure. isil has displayed great ingenuity by setting up thousands of these mom and pop refineries. >> yes. >> we just have to stay at it. as well the recent binding of the financial institution in mosul had a big impact on them.
we are starting to see some success with the iraqi government in reducing payments to iraqi citizens who were living in isil -controlled area. there is a downside to that. when they do that, that alley and eights them further from the central government in baghdad. to me, the important aspect here and the important theme would be to sustain the pressure. >> one of the sources that has been surprisingly consequential is black-market antiquity sales from the looting that has occurred. it's my understanding that the u.s. has sanctions that it can impose on anyone who imports antiquities stolen by isis. it doesn't have separate abilities to sanction individuals who actually purchase looted syria and
antiquities. would it be helpful to authorize sanctions that are not just against the buyer or the seller, but against the middlemen who are involved? >> i would want to take that under advisement and consult with my colleagues at the department of treasury. i would tell you in the scheme of things, the sale of antiquities is not a big revenue generator. it's really kind of tapered off some. i would be for exploring whatever ways we can pressure isil financially, we should. >> thank you both. >> i want to thank you both for your service. i want to thank you director clapper for your many decades of service to our country. we appreciate it. i wanted to follow up on your written statement where in it, and i think you reiterated it today, ron probably use the j cpa 02 remove sanctions while preserving some of its nuclear capabilities. in the second part you said as well is the option to eventually
expand its nuclear infrastructure. can you expand on that? >> as the period of the agreement plays out, i think we should expect that the iraqis will want to push the margins on our andy. they have are ready done work on centrifuge design. they have sustained the position they've taken and this one man that makes a decision here is a supreme leader that they're not going to pursue nuclear weapons. there are many other things they could do in a nuclear context that serves to enhance their technology and their expertise. >> let me ask you, we saw iran actually have blissett ballistic missile tests post treaty and even after the sanctions cash
release that they received one billions of dollars. we also know that recently north korea had a space launch developing their icbm program. i wanted to ask you first of all, do you, we know we know that in your statement you have mentioned historically there has been cooperation between north korea and iran on their ballistic missile program, can you tell us what that cooperation has been and can we expect that north korea will sell or share technology with tehran that could expedite iran supply of icbm missiles? >> i have to be mindful of the setting here. there has not been a great deal of interchange between a rock and iran or between north korea and iran on the subject of
nuclear missile capabilities, but there has been in the past. we have been reasonably successful in detecting this. hopefully we will have appropriate vigilance and be able to sustain that. north koreans, they are interested in cash. this is -- >> we now know iran has more cash, correct. >> they do now but as general stewart indicated, indicated, a lot of the cash, at least the initial amount is encumbered, iranians have a lot of obligations to fulfill economically. >> let me follow up on the two, what what you make of the fact that the iranians did in fact violate the un resolution and make two launches of ballistic missiles? i think you were asked about the sanctions that were
put in place. let's be clear those were very tough. you think they will deter iran from continuing to develop its icbm program? >> the iranians have conducted over 140 some launches since the original resolution in 1929. about half of them were during during -- done during the negotiations. the missiles went part of the negotiation. as far as these two launches are concerned, i think this was a deliberate message of defiance and the iranians are going to continue with the program to develop their missile force. >> as you and i talked about in the past, just to be clear, we judge that tehran would choose nuclear missiles as their choice of nuclear weapon. that is obviously why you would
build a ballistic missile if you choose to build a nuclear weapon. they have hundreds of them. >> they threaten the mid- east and the two under development could potentially, given the technology, although the immediate one that is the most approximate that would be launched, is built by civilians and for space launch. >> i only have five seconds left but i wanna follow up on a question. i believe you said heroin is sentinel which is 30 to 50 times more powerful and it's coming over our southern border. that has doubled by the mexican cartels going back to 2010. do you believe that is something that, general kelly raised this when he was general, that delivery system and those cartels could actually deliver
almost anything with the sophisticated networks they've established. do believe we should be focused on more interdiction on the heroin problem? >> i do and the experience, or at least what i've observed and what general kelly has said consistently when he testified that it wasn't for lack of intelligence, it was lack of operational capacity to actually react and interdict. i'm a big fan of the coast guard. the coast guard has done some great things. we have new capability against drug in addition purposes. >> thank you. >> thank you to the witnesses peered i have many questions to ask. i think what i will do is focus on one, i'm struggling with this and i would love to hear your
thoughts about low oil prices. how do they affect our security posture? this is not a litany of gloom, it's a good thing that has some elements that are challenging. i was in israel in april 2010, meeting with their president and i asked what would be the most important thing the u.s. could do to enhance security in the region and he said when yourself off dependence of oil from the middle east. his basic logic was that we develop nine carbon alternatives or our own native energy sources in our demand from the middle east would drop and that would have an effect of reducing prices. a lot of the nations in the middle east, iran, ron, russia, venezuela, they have used heil high oil prices. we've seen a dramatic development and we've seen oil
prices go to dramatic lows and they're not going to stay there forever. many are predicting that they are going to stay significantly lower than historic lows. it's good for american consumers and businesses. it poses challenges for some of our principal adversaries, russia for example, it puts it puts a cap on to some degree what iran would get from being back in a global economy and selling their oil. it poses some risks as well. i've heard european counterparts say that they're worried about an aggressive russia but they're more worried about an economic basket case russia. from the intel side, when you look at intel and threats, talk a little bit about the prospects of low oil prices and any negatives associated with that, please. >> i think you have painted the picture pretty well.
it's working, one could say to our advantage and russia. the current price of crude is $28 per barrel. russia's planning for their national economies $50 barrel. they have been unable to invest in the arctic. it has had had profound impact and will for some time. just structurally in russia. venezuela is another case. it's a country that has been completely dependent for its revenue for a long time on oil revenue. of course with a drop in oil it had a huge impact on their economy which is managed and laced with all kinds of subsidies. now they are facing insolvency. so it has that affect and to the
extent that we have become independent and not dependent on anyone's oil, that's a good thing. countries caught in the middle, it's going to be a mixed bag as to how well they manage themselves and whether they are dependent on others for oils. if the price stays low, that's great. if it's hiked by virtue of the natural forces or artificially, that could have a very deleterious impact on the economy in europe. it's a very mixed picture. >> just a follow-up about russia in particular, it seems that they are more likely to engage in some adventurism outside their country when their internal politics and economy is in trouble. it seems like the guy when things are going bad at home he wants to divert attention.
whether it's throwing and olympics are a world cup or invading another country, that's a move he will make when he has the satisfaction at home driven by economic challenges. is there some degree to which these lower oil prices, they negatively affect the adversary but make them a little more unpredictable and dangerous. >> that's true and of course all decision-making in russia is made by one person. the russians have a great capacity for enduring pain and suffering. the polls that are taken in russia still indicate very high levels of popularity, in the 80% range for vladimir putin. it is interesting that the speeches of late and domestically have taken a different turn or tone. they are much more exhorting, patriotic spirit in the great history of russia and i think
that's a way of diverting attention from the poor economic performance of the russian economy. by any measure, you look at unemployment, inflation, the worth of the rule, it's all at the all-time low. investment, etc., whatever measurement you want to use, it's all not good for a russian perspective. >> now the issue would be, how does that affect the street? at what point does the people start turning out and demonstrating? that's what makes them very nervous if people get organized on a large scale throughout russia. russians are very concerned about that. >> thank you very much. thank you mr. chair. >>aç]&jr+áu mr. chairman, dir.
clapper, in your statement you assess that foreign support will allow damascus to make gains in key areas this year. general store, you state that the asad regime is very unlikely to be defeated or collapsed in the near term and is poised to enter 2016 and a stronger military position against the opposition because of the increased support that they are receiving from around and hezbollah and russia. given asad's apparently improving fortunes that we are seeing, do you assess he will negotiate any kind of transition from power? >> he is certainly in a much stronger negotiating situation than he was six months ago. his forces, supported by russian air forces, supported by iranian and hezbollah forces are having some affect, but not decisive
affect across the battlefield. he's in a much stronger negotiating position and i'm more inclined to believe that he is a player on the stage longer term than he was six months to a year ago. he's in a much better position. >> in general, how how would you define longer term? >> yeah, that's, i think this one is interesting. i think the russians are very comfortable with the idea that if they have a regime that supports their interest, the shar asad might not be as important to them as it is to the iranians to maintain their relationship with syria and around lebanon. i think getting all the parties to agree on whether he should
go, the timeline in which he should go, who might be a better alternative, because that's important to all of the parties, this is such a dynamic space. then you see the turks -- i think long-term i'm not seeing any change in status for the next year or so. beyond that, we will see how the fight on the battlefield unfolds. >> before i turn to you, director clapper, general, when you mention about iran in moscow being able to work together on this and maybe, what i heard is maybe they are diversion in their support for asad in keeping him in power or giving him more leverage in a transition, do you believe that is going to come to had in the short-term, long-term, and what
are the consequences of that? i can remember it wasn't that long ago when we would all sit appearance a it's not a? if asad is leaving, it's when he is leaving, that obviously has changed. >> the russian reinforcement has change the calculus completely. the tactical relationship that iran and russia has today, i suspect at some point and it's pretty hard to predict, will diverge because they won't share the stage. iran wants to be the regional hegemon. if it has to compete with russia in the longer term and i can't put months or years on that, a suspect there interest will diverge because of competition as a regional power. in the near term though, their interest is simply to prop up the regime.
that is not necessarily a sod, it's the regime first of all that allows russia to maintain its interest and allows iran to control syria, greater syria and parts of lebanon. those two things, when they become tension points where their interests or russia pushes for its removal, i suspect that it will have at least a tactical breakdown. however it still in a ron's interest to maintain a relationship with russia because of what we talked about earlier and building secure weapons they would like to modernize all of their military forces and russia is an option for doing that. the relationship might be tense and it might break down at some point because of the desires for control, but they will still have the have the enduring relationship, weapons standpoint.
>> dir. clapper, i'm out of time but if you had a little comment you'd like to add, i apologize for apologize for giving you less time. >> that's fine. the thing i find interesting is that both the russians in the iranians are becoming increasingly interested in using proxies, other than their own forces, to frighten syria. the russians and iranians are incurring casualties. to the extent that they can bring in others and of course in iran's case, hezbollah, has below, i think russians are not wedded to asad personally, but they have the same challenges everyone else. if not asad, who? i don't know that they have come up with an alternative either. >> thank thank you. thank you mr. chairman. >> gentlemen, thank thank you for being with us this morning. i was discussing yesterday with one of our partners and overall long-term intelligence and
worldwide threats, i'm afraid, and you touched on this mr. clapper in your report, i'm afraid the syrian refugee crisis is a precursor of a larger refugee crisis that we could be facing over the next ten to 20 years. based on the prediction of climate change, the band of the worlds that will be subject to drought, famine, crop loss, flooding in some areas, incredible heat in the band around north africa, central africa and southeast asia, we could see mass migrations that could really strain the western countries. would you concur on that? >> i think you're quite right. i alluded to that briefly in my oral statement about the fact that we have some 60 million people around the globe displaced in one way or another.
>> if that increases it's going to create, all of those people are going to want to go where things are better. >> exactly. >> that would be the northern hemisphere. >> that is why that will place ever greater stresses on the remainder of the countries, whether here in the americas, africa, asia, wherever. the effects of climate change, of whether aberrations or how7cg
i think the partnership that we can have with them is crucial to this. do they want to stop this or they conflicted? do they see this as a cash crop? i think it depends on who they is in mexico. i think the national leadership would like to stop the flow. there are very powerful economic forces in mexico that are against that. we have a lot of money there. they also have a corruption problem to deal with. we need to be as aggressive as we can be in doing what we can, i mentioned earlier, earlier, for example, the tremendous capabilities when they are brought to bear.
as we discussed early, general kelly has spoken about this many times about not so much a lack of intelligence, but the lack of operational capability to respond to interdict. we have the capability and that capacity, but it needs to be matched by resource commitment. >> we need a greater commitment. >> exactly. >> with just a few minutes left and perhaps you can take this for the record, we always talk about cyber threat. we have done some actions here. we finally got through a bill about information sharing but i'm still concerned about infrastructure. can you give us some thoughts about what further we should be doing here in congress are in the country in terms of critical infrastructure.
that is one of our areas of greatest phone or ability. >> i share your concern and we will provide something for the record. >> thank you. inky mr. chairman. >> thank you both for many members of the committee who voted to give a ran tens of millions of dollars. i wish we would've heard more of those concerns during the debate and before the vote on it. mr. clapper, you testified last year in your 45 years of service this is the worst global threat environment you have seen. is that correct? >> yes sir and i had occasion to say it again in response to your question earlier. >> so that is the worst environment and 46 years? >> it's the worst array of challenges and threats that i can recall? >> why is that? >> frankly it's somewhat of
function of change in the bipolar system that did provide a certain stability in the world, the soviet union and its community, its alliance, and the west led by the united states. virtually all other threats were subsumed in that basic bipolar context that went on for decades and was characterized by stability. when that ended, that set off a whole range, a group of forces or dynamics around the world that had changed. >> you both have long and deep experience in the middle east. in your experience, is the middle east a place for prizes and negotiation or strength and
toughness? >> i would argue that in almost all these cases, it's preferred over signs of weakness. >> do you believe the reputation for power is an important part in international affairs? >> yes, senator. >> what you believe is art current reputation for power in the middle east after ten american sailors were videotaped kneeling at gunpoint by iranian guard forces? >> i don't know that that incident alone reflects the perception of our strength and power. i think over the last several years there has been some concerns among our partners to the commitment of the region. our willingness to employ the
force, where our national interests lie, and i think that has caused a little bit of concern among our partners in regard to the commitment to the region. >> mr. heinrich raised the news that the saudi defense ministry suggested they would be willing to deploy their troops to the ground in syria and asked you to assess the capability of those militaries, the threats, for good or for ill, and both of the statements from saudi arabia and the you a e both said they would need to see leadership from the united states. director clapper, do you know what leadership they are talking about? what more would they expect to see from the united states that they are not seeing at the moment? >> i it to mean specifically
with respect to if they deploy ace significant military offense in syria. i took it to mean the command control capability that the u.s. is pretty good at. that's what i took it to mean. >> i think the arab countries led by saudi arabia would like to see more ground forces to match their commitment. having said that, i do not assess that the saudi ground forces would have either the capacity to take the fight on, as i said earlier, the mri these are very capable. >> i think the idea is how do we
get the u.s. to get into the game. >> director clapper, in early october after russia began, obama called it a big mistake in doomed to fail. do you believe, four and a half months later it is a big mistake from their standpoint and doomed to fail? >> it could be a big mistake. one of the concerns the russians have, of of course those with long memories, is there repeat of afghanistan. that is why the russians, to this point have avoided significant ground force presence. they have about 5000 personnel tied up in supporting the interoperation of advisers and intelligence, et cetera. long term it be a mistake for them. they haven't enjoyed the success that vladimir putin anticipated. i think he believed that he would go in quickly and be able
to leave early. that is the turning out to be the case and they are getting into a long-term stalemate themselves. >> thank you, my time has expired. >> thank you mr. chairman, and good morning gentlemen. i repeat what so many have said here, thank you for your public service. given what you just said, general clapper, about russia being concerned about being bogged down and going back to the comments of senator kane about the cash reserves of russia diminishing because of the price of oil, and you mentioned that at some point the street in russia, these these
are my words, is going to a wrapped. can you give us any sense of when that could occur? >> senator nelson, i cannot. i don't know when that tipping point might occur. as i said, the russian people have a great capacity for enduring discomfort and inconvenience and pain. i think at some point, they will reach of breaking point. i think the russian leadership is mindful of that and very concerned about it. there is sustained economic recession which will go well into 2016. i think it's somewhat in ponderosa to predict when it
will cause a breaking point and when the street will say something. >> from an intel standpoint, vladimir putin can continue his diversions, crimea, syria, whatnot, to get the nationalistic fervor of the russian people continually stoked up. when they can't get butter and they get to the point that they realize that's going more to guns, do we have any sense from the history of russia or from an intel standpoint, do we we hear anything of the rumblings going on in russia that would give us a better idea of how to predict that timing?
>> well, no. i don't think predicting social logical dynamics -- it's very difficult when people will collectively reach a breaking point. that's kind of what happened with the demise of the soviet union when the big lie became evident to more and more people. that's another thing that the russians worry about, that's information per they spent a lot of energy and time and resource on controlling information and controlling the message in russia. the combination of these factors, the ability to endure the gradual erosion of the economy of russia, their tight control of information, not
unlike the heyday of the soviet union makes it, to me at least, very difficult to predict when all of those forces will collide. >> let me ask about assured access to space which is essential to our national security. we have a great deal of optimism as a result of what we are seeing, a number of companies are producing rockets that seem to be quite successful. we have the likelihood of new engines being produced, but this senator is concerned not in the long term, but in the short term of is there a gap there? if we do not have that russian supplied engine, the rd 180,
that we will not have the assured access to space because the alternative is being the delta for cannot be produced quickly enough and number two that it would be prohibitively expensive compared to the alternative. >> as i said earlier, senator nelson, i'm in the customer mode. i have certain imperatives in terms to our assured access to space. this is extremely crucial capability for the nations safety and security. so i looked to the providers of those who get those things into space, which to me is the air force. the delta has worked great for us. we felt it was responsive, it was cost-effective and a
workhorse. >> are you concerned that there could be a gap? >> i certainly would be. when we've had to manage gaps, not so much because of a launch, launch, but simply because of the capabilities in space, that is a great concern to us and the intelligence community. >> yes i would be very concerned about gaps. >> thank you mr. chairman. director clapper and general stewart, thank you for your service to our country and the participation that you have in this meeting today. in october of last year, the u.s. naval institute published a chilling article detailing the long list of advanced weaponry of the chinese military that they have cloned by stealing
from other nations through cyber espionage or reverse engineering. what roles do you see the intelligent agencies taking to prevent this hemorrhaging of american technological advantage? >> i think it's our responsibility to ensure that our policymakers and particularly the department of defense are aware of this hemorrhage, if you will, of technological information that the chinese have. i think our duty, our obligation from a standpoint is to make sure people know about this and suggest ways to try to stop it. >> general stewart. >> i don't know if i could add anything to that. we detect and get enough of previous appreciation and understanding of the threat factors. we inform, and if we provide -- if we can we provide potential
solutions. i think we identify more and report. >> with regard to the tools that you have available today, do you have the appropriate equipment, tools and technology to be able to detect and report on these attacks? >> yes we do, but i do think, and this gives me an opportunity for a small commercial that we do sustain r&d and that we stay ahead of cyber technological development for intelligence purposes.
>> what you believe constitutes an act of war in cyberspace? what you assess it would look like question when does it become an act of war? >> that's a great question senator, one that we have wrestled with and i guess it's in the eye of the beholder. it gets to the whole issue of cyber deterrence and all of those complex questions. i think that's a determination that would have to be made on a case-by-case basis. it depends on the impact. >> if we suggested time to define what an active act of war in cyberspace would be appropriate or should we simply look at what an active war
constitutes with regard to cyber activity. would that be helpful or not? >> i think it would be extremely helpful to have clear definition of what constitutes cyber events versus acts of war. we generally look at all cyber events and we define it as and attack. in many cases you can do reconnaissance or espionage or theft in this domain we call cyberspace. the reaction always is, whether it's an adversary of reconnaissance or an adversary trying to conduct human's operation in this domain, we define it as an attack. i don't think that's terribly helpful. if we can give a much fuller definition of the range of things that occur in cyberspace and then think about the threshold where an attack is catastrophic or destructive enough that we define it as an act of war, i think that would be extremely useful. >> have we done enough for a sufficient job in deterring cyber aggression?
>> i think we have pretty robust capability to understand the adversaries. i think most potential adversary understand that we have a capability. whether or not we are ready to use that because that's the essence of the charge, that an adversary feels we will use a capability capability that we have, i'm not sure we are there yet and that goes beyond our ability to understand and to counter its military capabilities. i think there's another dimension of convincing from a policy standpoint that were ready to have that. >> do you think it would be a good idea to have a policy? >> as i understand it we have no policy whether we should deter or respond.
wouldn't it be good if we had a policy? >> i always find it good to have a policy to guide the things i can do as a military officer. >> i think that's not an earthshaking comment, to tell you the truth. i don't think we will stop the presses. the fact is we don't have a policy. i don't don't know how you act when there's no policy as to how we respond to threats or actual acts of penetration into some of our most sensitive information. senator sullivan. >> thank you mr. chairman and welcomed gentlemen. it's great to see two marines at the table. mr. chairman knows the term marine and intelligence are considered synonymous by most. >> really. [laughter] >> glad to see you are bolstering that fine tradition. i wanted to focus on what's going on in the south china sea
and director clapper, last time you were here you expressed concerns over the possible militarization of the formations that are being built up in that part of the world by the chinese and, as you no, here we here we are a year later and that's exactly what has happened in terms of 3200 acres of new land, and airfield, what do you believe the chinese, what you believe their goals are in the region? >> i think the chinese are very determined to sustain their claims in the south china sea. they've had this line -- line claim for some time. they've sustained that. i think they will continue with
building up their capabilities on these outcroppings. >> do you think they are clearly looking to militarize those outcroppings? >> i'm not sure what the depression addition of that is and they may have a different definition then we do, but i think when you put in runways and hangers and start installing radars, doing port calls with the chinese navy and chinese coast guard ships, they have not yet landed any military fighter aircraft yet, but they have tested the airworthiness, so to speak of their air drones with civilian aircraft. i want to make it very clear that they will try to exert possessiveness if you will over this area and the south china
sea in general. >> i want to follow up on a.the chairman just made. >> as far as far as our policy to counter that, this community in a bipartisan way has been encouraging the military to conduct rage regular operations in the region with our allies. i think our allies are motivated to see leadership here. do you think we have clearly articulated what our policy is? do you think regular follow-ups by u.s. military vehicles, ships, etc. with our allies is an important way to counteract the strategy that seems to have very little pushback on it? >> again, this is policy and we are just -- i do think we've made clear the policy on freedom of navigation and we have --
>> do you think our allies understand? >> i think they do. i think they are reluctant to speak reluctantly as much as they do in private. >> i appreciate both of your focus on the arctic in your testimony. as you know there's been a dramatic increase in the build up in the arctic. there's been statements by the deputy prime minister. you even mentioned that the russians would unilaterally protect their interest in the arctic. let me ask a couple question in both of you can answer them however you want in terms of
your opinion. what do you think there up to in the build-up of the arctic. vladimir putin probes for weakness. how do you think he is reacting to potentially withdrawing the only arctic train forces. do we need to be looking at operations in the arctic given that the russians have such a significant interest and have build up their nordic fleet and have 40 icebreakers? the strategic northwest path will only become more important. is that something we should be doing on a regular basis? >> are you going to answer all of those questions? >> i can comment on an intelligence perspective that we are turning attention to the arctic. this is about 6000-kilometer
coastline that they have on the arctic. they've built their northern sleet and joint command to oversee their military activities. they are refurbishing bases there. they are quantitatively, they appear to have less than what they had in the arctic regions during the heyday of the cold war, but qualitatively it'll probably be better. the russians grand plan for investing with energy extraction have been stymied because of the economic recession. they need foreign investment from a technological standpoint. they are not getting it because of the economic stress that therein. so yes arctic is important. we engage with the places, we
are stepping up our intelligence hearings with those countries and in terms of what the russians are doing there. as far as what we do about it and troop deployment, that's not our department. >> but you can give us assessment on what you believe vladimir putin would think as he build up the arctic and were withdrawing forces. your assessment of how he operates and thinks, what does he think about that? how will he view a reduction of forces by the united states when he is building up? you can certainly answer that. >> i don't know what he thinks. i don't read his mind. if that services purpose, he
will take advantage of it. >> the russians intend to increase their ability to control the arctic regions. they have built airbases, they have coastal and naval defense capability, they are doing that for military reasons. in the absence of something that counters that they will continue to expand. there is an imperative that we have the willingness and capacity to push back on the arctic region. i think they are in a place where they would be willing to negotiate how you conduct operations in the arctic but they have to have something to push against. >> thank you. >> senator king feels compelled to ask an additional question.
>> thank you. i have a question about money. two questions actually. where does north korea get its money? they don't have much of an economy but they are building missiles and military buildup, where is their funding? >> their primary treating court is china for sure. 90% of their trade, the biggest single export from north korea to china is coal. they get about 1.2 billion a year from wholesales. also elicit finances. they have an organized approach to laundering money and the sort of things. most of their trade in north korea is natural resource heavy.
the chinese exploit that. that's where they get the lions share. >> is it safe to say that of china decided they didn't like the north korean policy they could have significant influence over it? >> i don't think there is any question to the extent of someone who has leverage over them. >> what percentage of the russian budget is funded by oil revenue? >> i will have to take that for the record, but a large part is a significant portion of the budget is from war revenue. i don't know exactly what it is. >> you talked about a 4% contraction in their economy which is projected to continue into this year. >> correct. >> at some point, it seems to me they will reach a point where they run out of money. i wouldn't imagine they would be too good of credit on the world. >> they do have very significant reserves that they have built up over the years that are starting to eat into -- you're quite right over us sustained. time they can't sustain that.
>> very quickly, director, general kelly testified about the issue of this manufactured heroine which is becoming a major issue all over america, particularly the northeast and all over america. some of it comes across the land border. general kelly testified that because of his lack of assets, he watches seaborne transportation of drugs that land in various places in the caribbean and come up to the united states. isn't that an issue that you can trace to some degree to sequestration and also the squeezing the balloon theory? >> i can't say specifically whether or not this is attributed to sequestration. i do know this is a great deal
of an intelligent community and intelligence produces flow into the united states and some of that -- some of that has shifted to seaborne. >> exactly. these semi- submersible vehicles that are sailed to america in coasts. the difficulty has been not enough operational resources, particularly in navy or coast guard resources that could be used to take advantage of the intelligence that is produced. i saw general kelly speak to that. >> the interesting thing about this is that if you talk to literally any governor in the midwest of this country, they would say this is practically an epidemic and a dramatic increase in heroine drug overdose deaths. now we are going to have this
agreement that all of us want and claim via, but does that mean they will go into the drug business? >> the other thing i alluded to briefly in my statement was that we are seeing an increasing cocaine which comes from columbia. it is part of the agreement and also they took heed of what was presented as environmental concerns. they are stopping the eradication. they are trying to appeal to farmers to grow other crops which will probably be a challenge. >> the experiment in afghanistan, trying to get the farmers to go to other crops.
>> well it didn't seem to work, no. there is is so much money to be made in such a huge moneymaker that it's very hard to find alternate crops that are equally profitable. >> and finally, i college eyes for imposing on your time, the company that sells the russian rocket engines to the united states is ripe with people who are cronies of vladimir putin, people who have been sanctioned, part of criminal activities, would it be better for us, rather, rather than giving tens of millions of dollars to vladimir putin and his cronies to buy more deltas as part of a solution, and i know your answers going to be, you're the purchaser, but i also think that this almost borders on a
national security issue. before going to give tens of millions of dollars to people who are known thugs and pollutant himself, who just recently implicated by the british for the murder of a former agent, for us to unnecessarily provide the russians with tens or hundreds of millions of dollars doesn't seem to me to be a logical way to do business, particularly particularly if we have the opportunity to buy more deltas and have the development of russian rocket engines here in the united states, which people like space acts and others are working on. you have have any common? >> i would agree with you. i'm interested in the service
and launch and getting them deployed on time. i would much prefer that the totality of the system that gets those satellites into orbit the american. >> thank you. >> i want to thank general stewart and general clapper for their testimony. >> can i say, sometimes we have hearings that are maybe not too productive. i believe this is one of the more helpful hearings that we have had before this committee. i think the witnesses for their candor and their wisdom. this hearing is at adjourned.
>> today is the 100th new hampshire presidential primary. no matter who wins this is a celebration of our democracy, engaged citizens putting candidates to the test and demanding answers on tough issues the next president will confront. it's also another important step in choosing our next commander-in-chief. the stakes couldn't be higher. as we heard from the director of national intelligence this morning, the threats to our nation are growing more diverse, more complex and more dangerous. more than ever, we need a commander-in-chief with a clear vision, a steady hand and sound judgment and competence, not only in our nation's power, but in the values and ideals that generations of american heroes have fought for and died defending. that's why it's been so disappointing to see some
presidential candidates engaged in loose talk on the campaign trail about reviving waterboarding and other inhumane interrogation techniques. it might be easy to dismiss this cheap campaign rhetoric, but these statements must not go unanswered because they mislead the american people about the reality of interrogation, how to gather intelligence, what it takes to defend our security and at the most fundamental level, what we are fighting for as a nation. what kind of nation we are. it's important to remember the facts that these forms of torture not only failed to secure actionable security to prevent further attacks on the united states and our allies,
but they have compromised our values, stained our national honor and did little practical good. while some shamefully sought to minimize the practice of waterboarding, it is clear to me that this practice with is a simulated execution execution by drowning amounts to torture as any reasonable person would define it and how the geneva conventions of which we are signatories on the treatment of prisoners of war defined it. the use of these methods by the united states are shameful and unnecessary because the united states has tried and convicted and punished those who have committed crimes of war. some were tried and convicted and hung in one of the charges against them was that they
practiced waterboarding. contrary to assertions made, some of the defenders have produced little useful intelligence to help us track down the perpetrators of the september 11 attacks or prevent new attacks and atrocities. i know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners will produce more bad than good intelligence. i know the victims of torture will offer intentionally misleading information if they think their captors will believe it. i know they will say whatever they think their tortures want them to say if they believe it will stop their suffering. most of all, i know the use of top torture compromises that which most distinguishes us from our enemy. our belief that all people, even captured enemies possess basic
human rights which are protected by international conventions, the united states not only joined but for the most part authored. i understand that in the aftermath of the worst terrorist attack on our homeland, those who plied harsh interrogation methods were sincerely dedicated to securing justice for the victims of terrorist attacks and to protecting americans from further harm. i know that in the aftermath of the terrorist attack in paris in san bernardino, any americans feel again the grave urgency that we felt 15 years ago. but i dispute wholeheartedly that it was right for our nation to use these interrogation methods then or that it is right for our nation to use them now. waterboarding or any other form of torture is not in the best interest of justice, not our
security nor the ideals we have sacrificed so much by an treasured to defend. it is the knowledge of the efficacy and the strong moral objections to those committing abusive prisoners that has forged by partisan on this issue. last year the united states senate passed, in an overwhelming vote of 91 - 3, the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2016, legislation that took a historic step forward. to ban torture once and for all by limiting u.s. government interrogation techniques to those in the army field manual. that vote was 91 - 33. there was debate and discussion about it in the armed services
committee and on the floor of the senate. the vote was 91 - 3. now candidates are saying they will disregard the law. i thought that was our complaint, the republican complaint with the president of the united states. >> u.s. military has successfully interrogated more detainees than any other area. the field manual has worked for the united states military including terrorist in iraq, afghanistan and elsewhere. it includes best thinking and practices on interrogation. moreover, the army field manual and bodies the values we have embraced for generations, preserving the ability of our interrogators to extract critical intelligence from our adversaries while recognizing that torture and cruel treatment are ineffective interrogation
methods. some of the nation's most respected leaders of the u.s. military, cia and fbi supported this legislation as well as numerous human right augmentation and faith groups including the national association of evangelicals and the united states conference of catholic bishops. general david petronius, a man i admire more than any other living military leader, he said he supported the use of the army field manual because, and i quote, our nation has paid a high price in recent decades for the information gained by the use of techniques beyond those in the field manual and in my view, that price far outweighed the value of the information gained through the information techniques beyond those in the
manual, and obviously that includes waterboarding. why don't we listen to people like general david petronius who has had vast experience in iraq and afghanistan with detainees in the information that we have gotten from them and our practices. if general petronius were here he would tell you that the most effective method of gaining information is establishing a friendly relationship with the detainee. obviously we need intelligence to defeat our enemies, but we need reliable intelligence. torture provides more misleading information than actionable intelligence. and that and what the advocates of harsh and cruel interrogation have never established is that we could have never gathered as good or reliable intelligence from using humane methods.
most important league, we've gotten in a search for bin laden and that came from using conventional interrogation methods. i think it's an insult for the many intelligence officers who have required good intelligence without hurting or degrading prisoners who were certain we can't win this war on terrorism without such methods. yes we can and we will. in the end, that isn't the main reason to oppose its use. i have often said and will always maintain that this question isn't about our enemies. it's about us. it's about who we were, who we are and who we aspire to be. it's about how we represent ourselves to the world. we've made our way in this often dangerous and cruel world not by strictly pursuing our geopolitical interests, but by exemplifying our political values and influencing other
nations to embrace them. when we fight to defend our security, we fight also for an idea that all men are endowed by the creator with inalienable rights. that's all men and women. how much they for the world would be if all nations believed the same. how much more dangerous it can become when we forget it ourselves, even momentarily as we learn. our enemies act without conscience. we must not. it isn't necessary and it isn't even helpful in winning this strange and long war that we are fighting. our nation needs a commander-in-chief who understands and affirms this basic truth. our nation needs a commander-in-chief who will make clear to those who fight on our behalf that they are defending
the sacred ideal and the sacrificing our national honor and our respect for human dignity will make it harder, not easier, to prevail in this war. our nation needs a commander-in-chief that reminds us that in the worst of times, in the chaos and terror of war, when facing cruelty, suffering and loss, there will always be americans, stronger and better than those who will destroy us. mr. pres., i yield the floor. >> tomorrow tom frieden, dir. of, director of the center of disease control and prevention talk about the zika virus and efforts to prevent it from spreading. we will have live coverage on c-span three. >> the reality is the best
president, the greatest president have been willing to recognize they were the smartest person in the room and they surround themselves with people who they felt were smarter than them. >> sunday night on q&a. secretary of defense and director of the cia, robert gates discusses his book, a passion for leadership essence on change and reform from 50 years in public service. he has served under several presidents, most recently george w. bush and barack obama. >> at the end of the cold war, when i was director of central intelligence, i came to believe very strongly that the american people had given the cia a pass on a lot of things because of this conflict with the soviet union. i believe after the end of the cold war we were point have to be more open about what we did and why we did it and even how we did it in order to help the
american people better understand why intelligence was important. why presidents valued it. >> sunday night at eight eastern on c-span q&a. [applause]. >> every election cycle we are reminded how important it is for citizens to be informed. >> i think it's a great way for us to stay informed. >> there are a lot of c-span fans on the hill. my colleagues, there to say i saw you on c-span. >> there so much more that c-span does to make sure that people know what's going on inside it. >> leaders of several intelligence agencies gave an assessment of global threats to the u.s. including isys, north korea's nuclear program and russian military operations in the middle east. witnesses include the director
of national intelligence and the heads of the cia, fbi and fan defense and intelligence agency. this is just under two hours. >> i would like to welcome our witnesses today. director james clapper, director john brennan, dir. of defense intelligence agency at general stewart, director of federal bureau of investigations james
comey. to each of you, welcome. i note that director clapper and general stewart have already appeared before the armed services committee this morning. i appreciate you both suffering through a very long day of testimony. i also think are other witnesses for their attendance and process of patient. today's hearing presents an opportunity for both the witnesses and members of the committee. it is my sincere hope that our discussion will shed some light on the dedicated and tireless work of our intelligence community professionals. :
consequences on society's way of life and more specifically, how your officers perform their mission. >> i look for to your highlighting some of the challenges and consequences as you see them. i also remain concerned by the technological reach of isis and the danger of their using the information technology, social media and other capabilities we use every day to propagate their barbaric message. i do hope you'll dedicate laying out the particular threat and i thank you for being here today. i would also like to highlight for my colic that the committee will be holding classified hearings on worldwide threats later this week. to the degree it needs saying, please reserve any question that you think might not be a propria for an open session until the thursday hearing.
with that, i welcome our witnesses today and i turned to the vice chairman for any, she might have. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. i join you in welcoming our witnesses and also think in the intelligence community for its service to this country. i also share your sentiment that this annual open hearing is important to help explain to the american people the threat that face this nation and the efforts of the dedicated men and women of the intelligence community to keep us safe. i want to open my comments by recognizing the significant contributions made by you, director as the leader of this community. you are are the longest-serving director of national intelligence to date. i think both the chairman and i remember when this was developed and put into effect. you're capable stewardship of the community has driven it to
be a more integrated and capable organization than at any time in history. i want to personally thank you for the contributions you have made to this country's security. as you know, there is no rest for the weary. the threats that face this nation and our allies seem only to grow. the syrian war is approaching its fifth year. yet bashar assad is still in power and is destroying the lives of millions of innocent families and wreaking havoc across europe. we are witnessing the insurgence of an unpredictable russia and eastern europe in series. north korea last month conducted its fourth nuclear bomb test in two days ago conducted what it called a space launch. of course, this is actually a test to develop missiles that could develop weapons of mass
distraction against a number of countries including the united states. while these threats are significant and troubling, we are all deeply concerned about the threat from isis. the islamic state of iraq and other terrorist groups. to us, isis is more than more than a regional threat within syrian and iraqi borders. it is a a terrorist army, a global exporter of terrorism, with a presence in a number of countries. the official count is 11 including isis affiliates. some of our friends like the king of jordan have said there is as many as 17 countries. isis has the ability to spread its message of hate and violence around the world using social media in a very sophisticated way. director, i have read your written comments and i am very interested in your assessment of these global threats.
their status today and your outlook for the future. i also ask you to comment on how the intelligence community is positioned to address these threats. is it better today than it was five years ago? for instance, while the coalitions air campaign is helping to deny isis some territorial safe havens and financial resources, how do we degrade it and destroy it if all they need to carry out an attack in the west is an internet connection and an encrypted message application? i would like to hear your assessments of how the rise of end-to-end encryption has impacted our nation's ability to identify and track individuals who seek to do us harm. director comay has spoken of this concern often.
was recently highlighted as well. i am interested in your views today about its impact and how you recommend we tackle this problem of terrorists and criminals communicating by these encrypted message applications. the u.s. rita. >> reporter: that passed last year eliminated the bulk collection of telephone communications metadata. the new new law now requires specific queries with approval to individual telecommunication companies. has this change affected your ability to discover new threats and relationships? so i will send the rest of my comments for questions. the gentleman thank you very much for being here, we look for to the discussion. >> before i recognize director clapper, let me say to members that it is my intent and hopefully it has been conveyed
to all members will be recognized for five minutes, in the order that you appeared. with one exception. if there is no objection when director clapper's testimony is over i would like to recognize senator langford for questions for the simple reason that on tuesday he has to provide untried preside over the senate at 3:20 p.m. and i would him to get his questions in. again with that the floors your. >> chairman, members of the committee, first thank you so much for the acknowledgment particularly of the great men and women of the u.s. intelligence community who we represent here today. it is very appropriate that you do that for the great work that they do. thank you very much for acknowledging my long service that is very gracious of you.
we are here today to update you on some but not all of the present intelligent national security issues facing our nation, many of which you both alluded to. will use the time and get your questions will cover just some of the waves in mind will be the only opening statement so we can go to your questions, i apologize in advance to the crossover members who are present this morning at the senate armed service committee, but in highest tradition it will be the same statement. >> as i said last year unpredictable it instability has been the new normal and this will continue for the foreseeable future. violent history mix are active in 40 countries, seven countries are experiencing the collapse of central government authorities and several others threaten stability or both. another 59 countries face a significant instability through
2016. the record level of migrants, more than 1,000,000 arriving in europe million revenue in europe is likely to grow further this year. migration and displacement will string countries in europe, asia, africa, and the americas. there some 60 million people worldwide considered displaced. extreme weather, climate change, environmental degradation and rising demand for food and water, poor policy decisions, inadequate infrastructure will magnify this instability. infectious diseases and vulnerabilities in the global supply chain for medical countermeasures will continue to prose threats. for example the zika virus first discovered in 2014 has reached the usn will cause up to 4 million cases in this hemisphere. i want to briefly comment about technology and cypresses specifically. technological innovations in the next three years will have a significant
impact on our way of life. innovation is essential for our economic prosperity but will bring new security vulnerabilities. the internet of things will connect tens of billions of new physical devices that could be exploited. artificial intelligence will enable computers to make a thomas about data and physical systems. and potentially disrupt labor markets. russia and china continue to have the most sophisticated cyber programs. china continues cyber espionage against the united states. whether china's commitment last september moderate success be a notch remains to be seen. iran iran and north korea continue to conduct cyber sp nash as they enhance their technic goal capabilities. isis has used cyber to its great advantage not only for recruitment and propaganda, but also to hack and release of sensitive information about u.s. military personnel. as a nonstate actor, isis displays unprecedented, online
proficiency. cyber criminals remains the most pervasive criminal threat to the u.s. sector. there are more sunni violence extremist groups and safe havens at any time in history. the rate of foreign fighters traveling to the conflict sounds in syria and iraq in the past few years is without precedent. at least 38200 foreign fighters including 6900 from western countries have traveled to syria from country since the beginning of the conflict in 2012. as we saw in november paris attacks, returning foreign fighters with first-hand battlefield experience pose a dangerous operational threat. isis has demonstrated its sophisticated tactics. isis, including including is eight established and several more emerging ranches have been the preeminent terrorist threat.
isis has attempted to score attacks outside syria and iraq the last 15 months and there a estimated strength globally exceeds that of al qaeda. isis isis leaders are determined to strike the u.s. homeland. beyond inspiring homegrown violent extremist attacks. although the u.s. is a harder target than europe, isis external operations remain a critical factor in our threat assessment for 2016. al qaeda's affiliates have proven resilient despite counterterrorism pressure that is largely decimated the core leadership in afghanistan and pakistan, al, al qaeda affiliates are positioned to make it in 2016. al qaeda in the arabian peninsula and the al qaeda chapter in syria are the two most capable al qaeda branches. the increase use by violent extremists encrypted secure internet enables them to go and undercut intelligence and law
enforcement efforts. iran continues to be the foremost state sponsor of terrorism and exert its influence and regional crisis in the middle east through the islamic resolution regard. it's terrace partner lebanese hezbollah and other groups. iran and has blood remain a continuing terrorist threat. we saw firsthand the threat posed to the united states by homegrown violent extremists in the july attack in chattanooga and the attack in december in san bernardino. in 2014 the fbi arrested nine isis supporters and that number increased fivefold. turning to weapons of mass distraction, north korea continues to conduct tests concern to to the united states. on saturday evening they conducted a satellite launch and claimed that it was successfully placed in orbit. additionally last month north
korea carried out its fourth nuclear test claiming it was a hydrogen bomb. the yield was too low for it to be a successful test of a thermonuclear device. they continue to produce missile material and launched ballistic missile. it has also committed to developing a long-range nuclear armed missile that is is capable of posing a direct threat to the united states although a system has not been flight tested. despite its economic challenges of russia continues to address military modernization program. it has largest and most capable for nuclear armed ballistic force. it has developed a cruise missile that violates the intermediate range nuclear forces or inf treaty. china continues to modernize its nuclear missile force and a striving for secure second strike capability. it continues to profess and no first use doctrine. the joint comprehensive plan of action or jc poa provides a greater transparency into iran's
missile production. it increases the time the iranians would need to produce highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon from a few months to about a year. iran probably views the jc poa as a means to remove sanctions while preserving some of their capability. iran's perception of how the jc poa helps it achieve the overall strategic goals will dictate its level of adherence or compliance to the agreement over time. chemical weapons continue to pose a threat in syria and iraq. they have used chemicals the opposition on multiple occasions. isis has also used toxic chemicals in iraq and syria including the blister agents sulfur mustard. the first time an extremist group has produced and used a chemical warfare agent in an attack since it was used in japan in 1985. turning five. turning to space and counterspace, there are about 80 countries now engaged in the space domain. russia and china well understand
how military flights and how heavily we rely on space. there each pursuing destructive and anti-satellite systems. china. china continues to make progress on its anti- satellites missile program. moving to counterintelligence, disrupt both state and nonstate is persistent and complex. target collection of u.s. military, economic and technical information by services continue unabated. russian china pose the greatest threat followed by iran and cuba on a lesser scale. as well the threat from insiders taking advantage of their access to collect and remove sensitive national security information will remain a persistent challenge for us. with respect to transnational organ is the organized crime. i want to touch on drug trafficking. southwest border
seizures of heroin in the united states have doubled since 2010. over 10000 people die of heroin overdoses in the united states in 2014. much of it laced with that knowledge is 30 - is 30-50 times more potent than heroin. that same year more than 20000 died from opiate overdoses. cocaine production in colombia for which most u.s. supplies originate has increased significantly. let me move through a few regional issues. any stage at china leaders are pursuing inactive form policy dealing with much lower economic growth. chinese leaders are also embarked on the most ambitious military reforms in china's history. regional tension will continue as china can pursues construction on the south china sea. russia has demonstrated capabilities to project itself is a global power, command respect from the west, maintain the mystic support for the regime in advance globally.
moscow's objectives in the ukraine will probably remain unchanged including maintaining long-term influence over kiev and frustrated in his attempt to integrate into western institutions. putin is the first leaders in stalin to expand russians territory. moscow's military venture into syria marks its first few cents its foray into afghanistan, significant power outside of the post-soviet space. its interventions demonstrate the improvements in russian military capabilities and the kremlin's confidence in using them. moscow faces the reality however of economic recession driven in large part by falling oil prices as well as sanctions. russia's nearly 4% gdp contraction last year will probably extent well into 2016. south asia is an lebanese or more cross-border military operations underway in the mideast region than at any time since the 1973 arab israeli war. in iraq iso forces iraq will
probably make it criminal gains through the spring and summer in the past few months. isis is now somewhat on the defenses and his territory manpower is shrinking but it remains a formidable threat. in syria pro- regime forces have made some strategic gains in the north as well as in southern syria. manpower shortage however will continue to undermine the syrian regime's ability ability to accomplish its strategic battlefield objects is. the opposition has less equipment and groups lack unity. they sometimes have competing battlefield interesting compete against themselves. meanwhile some 250,000 people have been killed as this war has dragged on.
the manager and situation in syria continues to deteriorate. as of last of last not approximately 4,400,000 syrian refugees and another six and a half and a half million internally displaced persons which together represent about one half of serious pre-conflict population. in libya, despite the agreements of the national core establishing authority and security across the country will be difficult at best, with hundreds of militia groups operating through the country. isis has established its most developed branched outside of syria and libya, in libya and maintains a vote present in benghazi, tripoli and other areas of the country. and yemen the power remains still made it least mid- 2016. meanwhile i filled affiliates in yemen have exploited the conflict to recruit and expand territorial control. the country's economic and and humanitarian situation also continues to deteriorate.
iran deepened its involvement in the syrian iraq and in yemen conflict in 2015. it also. it also increase military cooperation with russia, highlighted by its battlefield in support of the regime. iran's supreme leader continues to be the united states as a major threat. we assess the views will not change despite the implementation of the jc poa deal, the exchange of detainees and the release of the tenuous sealers. and south asia, afghanistan is at serious risk of a political breakdown. waning political cohesion, increasing local power brokers, shortfalls and sustain countrywide taliban attacks are eroding stability. needless to say there are many more threats to us worldwide then we can address much of which is covered under statement for the record and i will stop at this litany of doom and open to your questions. before i do that i i do want to answer one
question that madame vice chairman asked about the state of the community now versus five years ago. i would like to think that we are better at as a community just from a simple proposition of the sunbeam greater than the parts because we operate as an integrated enterprise. others may have, on that and none of them are unwilling to disagree with me but that's my view. i will stop there and open to question. >> thank you for your testimony. i would remind all members that everybody at the witness table is available for questions directed at them. with that i will recognize the senator for five minutes. >> thank you. i do remind people back home, because in oklahoma we are extremely grateful for many folks in the armed services and
that service every single day, we recognize them and we recognize them by their uniforms but i remind them there a lot of people in the intelligence community they will not recognize at all, they will never bail think personally. so please pass on our gratitude to them and we are incredibly grateful for the work they do everything they. you said this morning and you're 50 years of the intelligence business you cannot recall a more diverse array or of challenges. he graced us with a long list of doom as he listed just now. whether that be space, proliferation, rattle goal islamic terrorism. i want folks want to focus on one area specifically and that is narcotics. and the movement into our country and what we deal with on a day-to-day basis as a challenge. again this morning you mentioned you that the focus should be more -- so my challenges for this group and my interests, what are we doing on the intel gathering to build find out what is happening, the pathways that some of these narcotics are moving into the united states and how will we are cooperating
among agencies? >> the challenge as i indicated this morning when i go back to a series of testimonies by general kelly, the former commander of the southern command in which he made the point that we did have a great deal of intelligence on drug flow into the united states. our challenge has been the lack of resources sometimes to react to it, to actually interdict it. so in one sense i think that is a plea or commercial for more operational assets to respond. i'm a big fan of the coast guard and i think it has done some great work. the deployment of these new coast guard cutters which has a national security component to it had a dramatic impact when
they have been able to be employed. so to me the big thing here is the operational resource to respond. i think the community works very well together on the issue of drug intelligence and facilitating interdiction. >> any comments on that from any other leaders? let me move on then as well because there's a conversation about libya and isis and their movement into other areas they call provinces and moving all around the world. libby has been especially large and that, what you think isis intention in libya is? >> i think not unlike what they have done in syria and iraq. what is unique about isis is its possession and control over
territory. that that has been the case in syria and iraq. and that has very abilities. i think think it is similarly their goal in libya, essentially on governance space also substantial oil resources like in syria so they are right now centered are headquartered which is on the coast of libya and there's trying to spread out along the coast. they are present as i indicated in my's statement in in cities from benghazi tripoli. >> you have mentioned as well about iran being the state-sponsored terrorism in the world. have you seen that role in that direction from terrorism since
the signing of the jc poa, since that has occurred have you seen a change in iran's behavior toward sponsored terrorism? >> have not seen a change in the behavior of the force. they are right now consumed with the situation in iraq and syria. as well as in supporting the who these in yemen. that has been the focus, that's not to say elsewhere. >> you have mentioned that in about 140 missiles launched in violation of un agreements. two additional and the last few months from iran. any change in behavior you have seen in their testing of ballistic missiles? >> no. you're exactly right. that is what i said. since 2010 and since 1929 they
fired off a hundred 40 missiles, but half of them took place during the negotiations. they launch two, one in one in october and one in november which i personally think was a message that they are still going to continue to develop what is already a very robust missile force. >> thank you, yield back. >> thank you senator. the chair recognizes myself for a few question. >> director, what is the risk to law enforcement into prosecution if when presented out legal court order a company refuses to provide the communications the court has ordered them to? >> the risk is that will not be able to make a cast case in a really bad guy will go free. >> can you, for the american
people, set a percentage of how much of that is terrorism and how much of that fear is a law enforcement and prosecutions that take place in every town in america, every day? >> i. >> i say this problem we call going dark which the director mentioned which is the growing use of encryption to lock devices when they sit there and cover communication so they move over fiber-optic cables is actually overwhelmingly affecting law-enforcement. it affects cops, prosecutors, sheriffs, prosecutors, shares, detectives trying to make kidnapping cases, the murder cases, and other cases. >> this would include tomography and the list goes on and on. i think the consensus in america that if that is carried out, that if a court certifies that the reason is there that accompany out to then produce
that information, is that logical. >> yes. especially with respect to devices. phones, that default lock. that is overwhelming can serve and of state local law-enforcement. all of our lives are being increasingly digital. those those devices are going to hold the evidence of child per nigra fee, communication that someone may before they were killed, before they went missing, the evidence that will be necessary to sell vote crime including things such as car accidents. it it is a big problem for law-enforcement armed with a search warrant when they find a device that can't be open even though there's reason to open it. it affects all of our cases. we still have one of the killers phones from san bernadino that we haven't been able to open. were still working on it. but it also occurred on the criminal side. one was murdered in louisiana
last summer, eight months pregnant and killed, we still can open her phone so the case remains unsolved. this is something i hear about all over the country from my partners and state local law-enforcement. >> is it safe to say that if companies were required to honor that court order that law-enforcement and the prosecution element isn't concerned at all about how they access that, that can be proprietary and within each company, but supply the information is absolutely crucial to the continuation of that investigation. >> that is one of the aspects of a conversation which is healthy. there's a conversation going on. the products get confusing to me is when folks talk like we want access to a company server, we want access to their source code, what we like is a world world where people are able to comply with court orders, lots of companies do. people make phones and can unlock phones
when the judges order it. others can't and there in lies the problem. it's not about us trying to get a backdoor term that confuses me frankly, i don't want to door, window, sliding glass door, and like people to comply with court orders and that is the conversation where trying to have. >> thank you. >> thank you for much mr. chairman. mr. brennan i would like to ask you a question if i may, subject libya. how does the cia açai's isil's intrusion into libya? >> we see libya as the most important theater for isil outside of the syria iraq theater. we have several thousand members there. they have absorbed some of the groups inside of libya that was very active prior to the rise. libya has been a place where this form of extremism and
terrorism has gone up over the years. as the borders of the syria, iraq, iraq area were being tightened down we know that some of those foreign fighters started to divert into libya. libya has become a magnet for individuals, not only inside of it libya but also the african continent. it is a real problem problem an issue. we see isil in libya as a very important hub for activities. >> second question, assessment on north korea. we know they possess anywhere from ten - 20 both uranium and plutonium weapons. we now have seen the recent launch which my understanding is capable of reaching the united states. then there is the k and oh eight. how do you assess korean leaders
intention with what he is doing with respect to these tests and the development of both the plutonium and uranium strain of weapons? >> i think it is very obvious that he is trying to demonstrate to the world that he has capability of both in terms of the new their test as well as ballistic missile capability that he wants to showcase as a way to demonstrate his strength. also also as a way to help market some of his proliferation capabilities. so it is something that is obviously a key concern to the intelligent community as a whole. it is a priority collection area for us. the. the assessment for my perspective, is that he has developed both the nuclear capability as well as the ballistic missile capability together to demonstrate that he has reached far beyond the cream peninsula.
>> third question, how do you assess the taliban and al qaeda in afghanistan? how much of the territory of afghanistan today is controlled by the taliban? >> it is a difficult question to address because a lot of times the telepathic control of certain areas is dynamic and fluid. they will will go in and take various government and military outposts, season the pullback. there is large parts of the country that fall under the taliban influence and we have been working closely with the afghan military security services to try to concentrate their focus on areas that need to be protected, whether it be critical infrastructure, cities, transit, and transportation routes. as you know the taliban and controlled a lot of terrain outside of the central government's reach.