tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN February 10, 2016 2:16am-7:01am EST
testimony as well. i urge the president to impose sanctions and enforce them as a result of iran's continued development of ballistic missiles which are a threat not only to the renal -- region but our allies in europe as well. unfortunately he has heeded those request. how important is it do you think we continue to enforce sanctions on iran? >> i think it is important sanction be enforced not only for missiles but other things covered. the iranians have a missile capability they continue to work on. they fired 140 missiles since
after 35 years i found the most capable force to be it's soundness and accuracy. it has all the ranges covered that can lead to the national targets. in the long-term, i expect they will invest some of the money into improving the rest of their military capabilities. what is the long-term? >> in other words, how many years is long-term? five years, ten years? secondly, what should be our
response, and i believe it has to be a robust and strong response, to that increase in longer-term military capabilities that threaten our allies and friends in the region, most particularly israel, with terrorism and other conventional military capabilities as well as the counter incentives that we can provide. >> that long-term, as far as five years, we've artie seen an agreement between iran and the russian 300 air defense system. we are seeing them demonstrate tremendous capabilities as they have done their out of air deployment into syria. there's lots of weapons technology being displayed and i suspect within the next two to five years we can expect to see them invest in some of that military weaponry that's being displayed on the syrian battlefield. >> what should be our response? >> i will put him back to the policymakers on how iran arms
and how they might use this weapons capability. >> you would agree we should respond robustly and strongly question what. >> i agree we should have a policy to be prepared to respond appropriately. >> thank you. thank you general, thank you director. >> we think both of you for your service. dir. clapper, thank you for your decades of service to the country. that is something we all respect and value. general stewart, x appreciate seeing you again. you been in the battlefield and you've seen it from both sides and know the importance of intelligence. director clapper, it seems to me that we are about to see a tremendous expansion of players ration of the numbers of weapons and those who possess nuclear
weapons. that's something that the world is united behind, trying to stop, the un and nato has sought to maintain a limited number of nations with nuclear weapons and we have been particularly concerned about nuclear weapons in the middle east. where do we stand on that on a strategic position? your best judgment, the risk we now face? >> of course we worry about north korea in this respect. i think in the mideast, i think the agreement the jc poa which does prevent, if complied with, the nuclear capability in iran, at least in the foreseeable future. that should serve as a tempering factor for the likes for other countries that may feel
threatened if in fact iran proceeded on with its nuclear weapon program. >> so we have india and pakistan, jerry kissinger testified here a year ago, in which he said we could see multiple nations in the middle east moved toward nuclear weapons. we do know that north korea will sell weapon technology, do we not? and they have done so in the past. >> that is true. they are a proliferator. that is one of the potential ways they attempt to generate revenue is through proliferation. i worry frankly about more mundane things like man pads
that north korea produce and distribute and as a threat to aviation. we must be as vigilant as possible as we can and report when proliferates spread. it is a great concern, particularly in the mid- east. >> thank you, that is a serious subject. mr. stewart, tell tell us where we stand in iraq. do you serve there and argue with the sunnis? you saw them flip and become turned against al qaeda. can we replicate that now and what are the prospects for the
sunnis once again turning against the terrorists? >> i think of the sunnis believe they have a real prospect, even for involvement with the iraqi government or some other confederation construct with their views and interests are represented, i think they will likely turn against i asked il. i don't think that message has been communicated yet. i think a body would like a more inclusive government but i am not clear if he has all of the members of his ruling body behind such inclusivity. until that occurs, the sunni tribes are very likely to remain either on the fence or choose the least worst option which is to not and tag and eyes and maybe even support isis in the western part of iraq.
>> that would be the decisive action that needs to occur and the decisive action would be if the sunnis would turn against isis as they turned against al qaeda. >> i think that would absolutely be decisive, but i think they will be very cautious to ensure we will not leave them hanging out there after they have turned against isis. this is or pragmatism. if were not successful or supportive of the sunni tribe, they will die. al qaeda or isis will be brutal, they will be ruthless. if were going to support them we will try to convince them to turn and fight against isis that we have to have a true commitment of the government of iraq and all of the parties that encourage them to fight against isis because this is purely about survival for those tribes. >> that effort to push back against isil would be an and
extremely important development. >> yes sir, i believe it would be. >> what about the city of a million that would not have the heritage of isil and that kind of extremism. what are the prospects of turning the situation around in mole so and freeing bozo from isis? >> i think there is lots of work to be done there in the western part. i don't believe that the ramani is completely secure so they have to secure that area. they have to secure the quarter in order to have some opportunity to fully bring all the forces against them. it will be a complex operation and i'm not as optimistic. as you say, it's a large city. i'm not as optimistic that we will be able to turn that in the near term, in my opinion. certainly not this year. we may be able to begin the campaign with some operations
around the city. securing or taking that city is not something i see in the next year. >> thank you very much, general stewart stewart. >> thank you mr. chair. welcome back director clapper. thank you for that briefing. director clapper, i've always believed that the ground war against isis must be won by our air partners rather than american ground forces. it was therefore, pretty encouraging to hear saudi arabia and the uae voice some openness to putting ground forces in syria. what is the intelligent community assessment of the capability of saudi and uae ground forces. how realistic do you think this proposal is? do you assess they have the political will to potentially do that? >> let me start with uae witches very capable military although
they are small. there forces in yemen have been quite impressive. i think you can appreciate the value in the saudi willingness to engage in the ground. i think that will be a challenge. it would be a challenge for them if they were to try to take that on. >> i fully concur with the uae forces. whether they have the capacity to do both yemen and something in iraq or syria is questionable for me. i think they're doing extremely well in yemen but the capacity to do more is pretty limited. >> thank you both. director clapper, one of the things we've been been struggling with, obviously, is trying to crack down on isis financing.
they have multiple sources of revenue that include oil sales, taxation, taxation, extortion of the local population, looting of banks, personal property, and to a lesser extent kidnapping for ransom, foreign donation and more. i'm pleased to see some progress has been made where we have escalated tactics by targeting road tankers. 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
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.
putting candidates to the test and demanding answers on the tough issues the next president will confront. it's also another important step in choosing our next commander in chief. and 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, sound judgment, and confidence 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 tecintear techniq.
it might be easy to dismiss this rhetoric, but these statements must not go unanswered because they mislead the american people about the realities 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, and what kind of nation we are. it's important to remember the facts, that these forms of torture not only fail their purpose to secure actionable intellectual intendintelligencer values stained our national honor and did little practical good. while some have shamefully sought to minimize the practice of waterboarding, it is clear to me that this practice, which is a simulated execution by
drowning, amounts to torture, as any reasonable person would define it, and how the geneva quengsz, of which we are signatories on the treatment of war definefines it. the use of these methods by the united states was shameful and unnecessary because the united states has tried, convicted, and executed foreign combatants who employed methods of torture, including waterboarding, against american prisoners of of war. following world war ii, japanese generals were tried and convicted and hung, and one of the charges against them was that they practiced waterboarding. contrary to assertions made, some of the defenders, it 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 that 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 torturers want them to say, if they believe it will stop their suffering. most of all, i know the use of torture compromises that which mosmost distinguishes us from or enemies. all 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 approved harsh interrogation methods and those who use them were sincerely dedicated to securing justice for the victims of terrorist attacks and to protecting americans from further harm. and i know that in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in paris and san bernardino, many 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 interests of justice, not our security, nor the ideals we have sacrificed so much blood and treasure to defend. it is the knowledge of torture's dubious efficacy and the strong
moral objections to those -- and strong moral objections to the abuse of prisoners that has forged broad, bipartisan agreement 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 an 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 91-3. there was debate and discussion about it in the armed services committee and on the floor of this senate. the vote was 91-3. now candidates are saying they will disregard the law. i thought that was our complaint, republicans' complaint, with the present
president of the united states. the u.s. military has successfully interrogated more foreign terrorist detainees than any other agency of our government. the army field manual in its current form has worked for the united states military, including on high-value terrorist detainees in iraq, afghanistan and elsewhere, and it reflects current best thinking and practices on interrogation. moreover, the army field manual embodies the values americans have embraced for generations. preserving the ability of tower 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 from the u.s. military, c.i.a., and f.b.i. supported this legislation as well as numerous human rights organizations and faith groups,
including the national association of evangelicals and the united states conference of catholic bishops. general david petraeus, a military leader that i admire more than literally any living military leader, general david petraeus said he supported the use of the army field manual because -- and i quote general david petraeus -- "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 use of techniques beyond those in the manual. and obviously that includes waterboarding. why don't we listen to people like general david petraeus who has had vast experience in iraq
and afghanistan with detainees and the information we have gotten from them and our practices. and if general petraeus 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 produces more misleading information than actionable intelligence. and that -- and what the advocates of harsh and cruel interrogation methods have never established is that we couldn't have gathered as good or more reliable intelligence from using humane methods. most importantly, we got in the search for bin laden came from using conventional interrogation methods. i think it's an insult to the many intelligence officers who have acquired good intelligence without hurting or degrading prisoners to assert we can't win
this war on terrorism without such methods. yes, we can, and we will. but in the end, torture's failure to serve its intended purpose isn't the main reason to oppose its use. i've 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 made our way in this often dangerous and cruel world not by just 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 their creator with inalienable
rights. that's all men and women. how much safer 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 learned from abu ghraib. our enemies act without conscience. we must not. it isn't necessary, isn't even helpful for this strange and long war we're fighting. our nation needs a commander in chief that 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 this sacred ideal and that sacrificing our national honor and our respect for human dignity will make it harder, not easier, to prevail in this war. and our nation needs a commander in chief that reminds us that in
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. :
>> i know it in your statement that cyber technology headlines or global threats. i agree with the assessment that innovation and increased reliance on information technology in the next few years will have significant 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. al qaeda continues to have a presence particularly inside the eastern part of afghanistan. they continue continue to work with the taliban as well as with the -- and they present a threat to the afghan government as well as to our u.s. personnel inside of afghanistan.
>> thank you. >> thank you very much gentleman. my view is you cannot have passionate debates in this room without the great work that the men and women of the intelligent community do to preserve our freedom. i just want to start by saying we are very grateful for that. director brennan, and 2014 the cia conduct an unauthorized search of a senate file including the emails of senate staff investigating the cia's use of torture. the cia inspector general later stated that the search involved improper agency and access to senate files and a review board that you appointed concluded that the search resulted in inappropriate access to the committee's work. you initially denied the search took place but the reports of both your inspector general and the review board show that this denial was the fact.
after it was expose the cia wrote an apology letter that you do not send. his senior senior official from the nsa, the fda, fbi all testify that you would be inappropriate is certainly search files without external operation. we still have not gone an acknowledgment from you. so i think it would be important, i would like to hear from you, i'd like to set the records great that this would never happen again. would you agree that the cia 2014 search of senate files was improper? >> this is the annual threat assessment is it not? i think senator as you know there were unique circumstances with that. these were cia
computers at a cia police facility, with, with a cia network that was shared between senate staffers conducting that investigation for your report as well as cia personnel. when it became quite obvious for cia personnel that staffers had unauthorized access to an internal draft document of cia, it was an obligation on the part of cia officers who had responsibility for the security of that network to investigate to see what might have been the reason for that access that the senate staffers had for that document. they conducted that investigation, i spoke to the chairman and vice chairman about it. i try to make sure they understood exactly what the challenge was that we had. we conducted an investigation, i then referred them to the ig, when the senate leadership was concerned about the action of cia officers. i also subsequently convene an accountability board. i think if you were to read those reports, including the accountability board you would
see that it was determined that the actions of the cia were reasonable given the very unclear and on written or on specific understanding between the committee and cia at the time. in terms of. >> mr. director my time is short but that is not what the inspector general. >> i respectfully disagree. >> i would like to read the exact words of the review board were. it resulted in inappropriate access to the work product. the inspector general reached the same conclusion. so the question here is, is when you're talking about spying on a committee, responsible for overseeing your agency, and my view that undermines the very checks and balances that protect our democracy and it is
unacceptable in a free society and your compatriots in all of the sister agencies agreed with that. now you disagree. >> yes, i think he was characterized by their comments as well as what is in the reports. i apologize to the chairman and vice vice chairman about the access the made to five e-mails during that investigation. i apologize to them for that very specific, inappropriate action i was taken as part of a very reasonable investigative action. i do not say we spied on senate computers or files. we did not do that. we are fulfilling our responsibilities. >> i read the exact words of the inspector general and the exact words of the review board, you appointed the review board. they said nobody ought to be punished but they said there was improper access. my point is, in our system of government we have responsibility to do vigorous oversight and we can't do vigorous oversight if there is
improper procedures used to access our files. my time is up. >> senator i would not agree with that there is improper access senate staffers had to cia documents. was that not inappropriate. >> i can tell you having talked at length to our staff, everything that we determined they did was appropriate but i asked about cia conduct into reviews, inspector general and your review board said it was improper. >> yes, i'm still waiting to review what was done by the senate to take a look at what the staffers actions were. separation of powers goes both ways. as i said i apologize to the chairman and vice chairman for the very specific, inappropriate access that agency officers that were investigating this incident made to those emails. very limited, inappropriate actions. overall that investigation was done consistent with our obligations, consistent with obligations, consistent with the law, consistent with our responsibilities.
i do think you're mischaracterizing the full tenure of both the accountability board emmy inspector general's report. >> pretty hard to mischaracterized word for word quote. >> i will exercise something here and recognize senator. >> i want to start by thanking our panelists were being here for the continued excellence work for their respective agencies do every day and providing world-class strategic analysis and keeping our country safe. the world and growing and complex threats that have been laid out today the work that is done by your agency is critical and i want to thank the men and women of those agencies to continue to do excellent work. i want to think the chairman for holding this hearing. it's been two years since we have had one. i hope we don't like that longneck sign. i think it's important the american people have a chance chance to hear from these officials directly. especially since many of our actions with these threats take
lace behind closed doors. while that certainly appropriate most circumstances, public debate benefits tremendously from transparency. i appreciate the opportunity today. i. i want to start with admiral rogers. as you know the world has seen a truly alarming increase in attacks on critical infrastructure. for example, in december dhs reported a 20% increase of cyber incidents between fy 14 and fy 15. while critical manufacturing was the most targeted sector and that, energy rank second, and the number of incidents with water and wastewater systems coming in third. on top of that, we we have seen recent attacks against turkish banks can ukrainian electricity providers and recently revealed that iranian packers infiltrated dam just north of new york city. my question for you is this,
particularly an essay did they have sufficient insight into cyber threats into u.s. critical infrastructure that we are seen by porn actors and what can we do to better position ourselves because those threats specifically to critical infrastructure question what. >> you never have all the site you like. i don't think you're going to hear an intel professional say look i could use more. i think the biggest challenge in some ways is not so much the level of insight but it is how do we generate action and make the changes that i think we believe is necessary given the dynamics of the world that you outlined that i do not think our short-term trends. i don't see this changing the future. i see this as a nature of the world where living in and will be likely to be living in percent. of time. the challenge is how to take the insights and generate action. that's the biggest challenge. >> have you thought about particularly given the focus of those something like electrical
generation and water and wastewater systems, the ramifications of some of the changes within those fields of distributed approaches and resiliency as opposed to the very traditional approaches of sort of one-way generation and large-scale transmission? >> you are watching most of the sectors in the area trying to go that way. how can you build resiliency, i've talked to several moments of power of water over the last few years and you can see them trying to go that way. just given the breath of infrastructure, the amount of time it is going to take to do that it crossed the in tire nation, that is not an insignificant challenge. >> would you agree that some of the movement towards more distributed purchase per particularly in electrical generation, things like micro- grids, island microgrids,
distributed storage and -- are helpful. >> yes, i think that should be a foundation an element of a broader strategy. i try to remind people there is no critical goal. >> is a smart senator said sometimes there's a silver buckshot when you don't have a silver bullet. >> while the united states is obviously not addressing the isil issue alone in syria and iraq, the reality is that many of our foreign partners in the region right times heavily distracted by unrelated conflicts that are sometimes counterproductive to that fight. for example, example, as you are aware turkey is targeting the kurds have been some of the most engaged fighters in the battle against isis. saudi arabia putting money into
equipment in the fight in yemen instead of focusing on isil and syria. you spent time in the middle east over the years, what has the cia done and what might else be done to get a regional partners more focused on confronting the threat. >> as you point out in the middle east right now it's wracked by instability and violence than we have seen in the past 50 years. the amount of bloodshed and humanitarian suffering is unprecedented. we work very closely with our partners throughout the regions to make sure the intelligent services are fulfilling the responsibility professionally as far as making sure that we can share information with them about the flow for fighters in particular, given there is such a difference among these countries and individuals who might go to syria, iraq and onto libya or egypt. i tried to make sure we give them the intelligence they need, the training they need, and also give them the professional training that is required. there is a tremendous application on them to make sure
they can carry out the responsibility want the same time respecting human rights rights obligation they have a security services. trying to do a serve as a inter-with one of them and enhance their relationship. sometimes we have intramural conflicts among some of these countries. building these services up and making sure they carry out the responsibility professionally is very important. >> thank you. the chair would also make a note that the senators correct we did not have an open threat last year we had a close one. last year we had open hearings with directors from the fbi, and and others and we had one scheduled with doctor brennan and were blitzed by a snowstorm. baby had we had him and he would not have fallen and wrecked his
knee. it is the intent of the chair to continue to allow every agency the opportunity not just to be here for worldwide threat here hearing about to come in and share about what you do and why you do it and why the american people should care about your success. today's drinking out of a fire hose tried to address the entire globe at one time. the rest of of it is good to be more constructive. i think the committee has attempted to increase the amount of open exposure with a degree of specificity that we haven't had in the past. >> thank you mr. chairman. i note on the very first page of the statement for the record you say the order of topics presented in the state that there is not necessarily indicate the magnitude of the threat of the intelligence
community. my my question is is this because we're dealing with such a complex and ever-expanding level of threads and is difficult to prioritize or is it because we ought to be talking about this in a closed session. if that's that's the case please tell me. if you had to prioritize, we have to make decisions here we have budget limitations, your budget limitations, we want to try to address all of these threats equally. that equally. that is not always possible. it seems to me that as a committee member and is a member of congress we need to know how to best allocate our budget toward what you mean. i know this can be ever-changing but wanted to response to that how should we best address that.
>> the more i spend doing this the harder it becomes to write threats. any of them can leap up and bite us. so we don't have the luxury -- i don't like to mislead people that this one threat is the one that we're going to focus on at the expense of others. so that's why the statement there. what does that that mean from a resource standpoint? in terms of funding and resources we are to do our job. we've taken what i -- those resources that enable resilience and agility so that we can respond and hopefully anticipate
and then respond to a variety of threats. that is one thing that i have said this before an answer to a question this morning, again in my time i do not recall a time when we have been confronted with a more diverse array of threat. whether it is the nationstate threats posed by russia and china, particularly their nuclear capabilities or non-nationstates of the likes of isil, al qaeda and et cetera. all of these threats are serious whether it be terrorism, cyber, or others. >> as pointed out we are facing an array of threats one area i'm concerned about is the increasing concern about vulnerabilities in the digital domain is cyber. i think we as a country need to make sure we understand what those liabilities are. i think to jim and other points we need to make sure the intelligent security services in this country have a role to help
and protect that environment. our way of life, our future depends on making sure that a strong. we have adversaries overseas that have capabilities to carry out attacks. >> the other part of this if i made, just a thought is that mixture, the combination of threats posed to us in the cyber domain and the connection of that with terrorism. so that makes ranking these discrete threats very difficult. >> maybe that is why you have cyber technology is number one, i just assume and i appreciate the response and i. i would like you to comment on that as well because this is your domain where we stand on the. >> for me, my counterparts on the panel i tell her team i am always leery about this hierarchal approach of doing business. i watch it.
we focus on number one. they would think about number two in the number three. the world around us does not work that way. for me the way i try to bend it with our team's protection of u.s. persons and u.s. infrastructure is priority number one. i look at this and i see cyber and counterterrorism world in particular bringing those together in a very concerning way as you heard from director clapper in his opening statement. cyber and his opening statement. cyber remains so foundational to every aspect of our daily lives. in a way that we have not necessarily seen as much in the past. it represents an opportunity for us as a society but also potential for great impact. >> to follow up on that point, i
was a governor in september 11. shortly afterwards we had our state please go to all of our vulnerable pieces of infrastructure in our stay, electrical, electrical, chemical plants and those type of things. and assess their level of vulnerability and read to them about how they could be attacked. do we that with our critical infrastructure? it seems to me you could create a team to go to our water, gas, utilities, financial services and say look this is what could happen to you. have you you. have you thought about this? you don't really need legislation to do this, and another was more proactive, trying to alert them to the risk and to some of the protections that may be available. >> so now you're really talking about outside my lame and more
into the department of homeland security. i share your concern. it's one reason why speaking within my lane of the dod we can do just that. we attempt to make sure that we understand our structures and to keep our mission and their vulnerability. we we do penetration testing and red teams, we do know notice inspections. >> seems to me we are to talk about be more active and not just wait and hope they are doing the proper defensive measures but to alert them to wear their phone and then to help them figure out the defensive measures. the research the subject for a moment to heroin which is an epidemic. ten or 12,000 people per people per year now die. the number is accelerating astoundingly and tragically. director clapper talked about mexico and that's what seems to be coming from.
specific question, one of the problems with heroin that we are seeing is it's laced with fentanyl. that makes him more potent and dangerous. where does that come from? do we know? to have until june sunwear -- do we have intelligence on was coming from? >> we have a sense that a lot of it is may be manufactured in china and other places in the developing world. so dea and fbi are spending time trying to understand where the sources are. >> i think we should know that and should be publicity and we should name and shame those countries. this is entirely unacceptable. i would hope that there be for the analysis of that and also analysis of the trade scheme
that allows it to get to mexico or central america. second question, do we have adequate resources in terms of intelligence also in terms of interdiction in mexico and central america. my understanding is is that we have a small number of people and some of those central american countries which is also contributing to this. do you feel as an intelligence community that you have adequate resources to understand this trade and were comes from, who's behind it, and then that leads to interdiction and i'll follow up with that. >> surely not given the size of the title wave of heroin that is washing over from mexico. there's two waves, we talk about the heroine way for good reason, there's another wave which is methamphetamine from mexico. the two waves are now crashing together in the middle of the united states. so surely not as the honest answer. we have built much more effective relationships among ourselves and focusing on the
problem and with our partners in mexico and central america. honestly, it's not good enough given the size of the threat. >> another question is how is it getting in? do you know how much by land and how much by water? my understanding is a great deal of this is coming by water. one of the problems is a lack of adequate interdiction resources both in terms of military and the coast guard. >> large amount comes by water. it tends to switch from both sides of the north and central american landmass, the pacific or atlantic side. >> ..
you and i first met in 2004 when lieberman and i wrote the laws and i take special pride in the work that you we're doing. headaches for all of your years of service. >> the key is senator collins. >> and with those actionable intelligence that would allow was to disrupt and interdict moreover the fed general least herewith the coming in from mexico that we are able to act on because of the operational constraints?
they are using to ship large quantities. to get the drugs off the street. >> director you talked about how difficult it is to make the job of law enforcement efforts to detect improvement terrorist plots in said that encryption in this at the center of the terrorist tradecraft but yet the administration has not submitted to date and the legislative proposal to deal with encryption. i would like to know if any of the three of you have made recommendations to the
president that he said the legislation with the encryption and problem for the encryption problem. >> with those recommendations is encryption and is also a great faith that in mind is the challenge and that the private sector was struggling so much and i was optimistic but i can't quite clearly see what the future looks like i've not comfortable talking about those deliberations. >> i will change the question is do you think we should pass legislation with encryption? >> i will dodge that it is not the fbi's job.
congress and the american people have to grapple with this because there is a collision in-house -- with public safety. >> you don't have to be careful in case you are retiring in. [laughter] >> i am not sure we have exhausted all possibilities technologically. i am not and i 80 expert by any means i would hope that we have not exhausted all options it is the good thing for all kinds of reasons for privacy but at the same time is a neighborly nefarious activity with the national security rigo.
and we are losing information because of it. my hope is the technological solution and i would also asked to comment. >> encryption is foundational to the feature. is unrealistic. it is foundational to the future what is the best way to meet with these imperatives? for their protection in alien to safety is incredibly important. the challenge i have seen is three years spending a lot of time talking about will
be keen to do i think we're the most innovative technologically of the installation in the world. let's think about what can you do. >> thinks first of all, for your service. that the drug threat to is growing in our country. and i suspect we're not put date their resources into the prevention side of the equation. with data missile defense system to say to provide a
greater deterrent against north korea aggression? >> but having said that with the discussion of the missile defense that it not be deployed but the north koreans make dash hard to sustain in that position. to that extent there are forced displays of missile defense it could have been a defect but invite the to do
more stick it is hard to tell which way they would go. and we will monitor compliance to space the support cyberwith competitive advantage and private security experts have a limited john billy cyberactivity to have verified state sponsorship for data for commercial gain to understand but can you help me to understand how this is helpful if you came in to monitor compliance.
>> but there has been a decline we need more time to assess if this is a case of the state sponsors of those elements have actually reduced activity and we will need some more time to assess that also that challenge that it is used for economic and vantage. >> i would agree there is no doubt that we could show with the past where that was the case with its desire with the counterparts and we have to work our way through this with the use of the powers of the state to use
cyberas a tool. in a dozen we have seen some activity but as a result for the chinese counterparts. >> will they ever be able to resolve this dilemma? would you care to comment? >> north korea has real-world objectives the second is to deter u.s. actions on the crimean peninsula is to separate the u.s. from the south korean ally.
to show that we still have a string band will not be deterred and it will be very beneficial however is unpredictable so we should do everything we can to maintain our relationship but is still the unpredictable wild card. >> into also have an impact on china could be another answer? >> for us to put together a fairly good picture it is getting harder, not easier
trying to hurt or diminish with the specific actors. >> could you like to add to that? [laughter] >> correct answer. let me start by thanking you for your service it for those who work to keep the country say if and the fact we have the office to see a fight -- california and a series of other entities and the fbi as well. and i hope you will relay that message that they don't
get the credit that they deserve. i want to commend you on your testimony today and the recognition talking about encryption with artificial intelligence in the tools issues that sedgy he is out of the bottle first to commend those comments to we litigate the origination of the encryption and that is appropriate 2.0 of the
intellectual capital with other types of the intrusions is announced that bin potentially a liability. i fere it is just on this piece other then digital security with this notion i guess director clapper my concern is with all of these competing interests with civil liberties security i am not sure all these competing interest could all come to gather to try to
challenge innovation and how to get this back had information in security specialist for privacy and civil liberties i'd like to see if we have a thoughtful approach to the debate. >> debt would. i feet you gave to those of the key constituencies. for the for security in other law-enforcement with the civil liberties concerns therein is countervailing interest in we try to sort
our way through those competing equities after 25 years and the telecom industry but the notion of that top-down solution but that will be constantly evolves being challenged and the response will be constantly transitioning with the peace on encryption but it is a much broader issue as you have laid out a to be part of this conversation did fly time is running about but the chair
has been very helpful as to think about overhead satellite issues on commercial satellites one company alone has 250 this year would be spent a moment how all that fits in overall ? >> i have then a huge proponent since 1911 and is a crucial part but is also important that these commercial entities remain viable if they have the product or service that they can use we should take
your leadership with a the workforce of the future so one thing i will ask a question for all of you is with engineering and technology and math are we doing the kinds of things we need to do to identify people to do these jobs generally is administration would be helpful. but to be more appropriately aston a closed setting and i will do that later but in that regard with the transfer of money that occurred when it did with
$400 million from the past military sale we have had a given that coincidentally at the same time those three hostages were released this is money that congress said had to go to victims' of the iranian-backed terror. like the church business meeting we have of $1,000 deficit what should we do? with give half to the pta and half to the girl scouts. this money is gone but it was an excuse i think to do the right thing in the wrong way. you said that secretary kerry said in the last few days undoubtedly some of the money returned to iran would
go to a terrorist groups in e. verify today you see no real change of behavior of state sponsor of terror. are we doing any analysis? what do we think happens when suddenly everyone gets 100 million or 50 billion so what happens in places that don't have very much money has bad activity? 400 million could make a lot of bad things happen and reevaluating what happens when the taliban get the new infusion of money that i think everybody understands they are about to get? >> hi will show constraint about what could be said publicly but we are watching to the best of our ability
with our insight to on where this money is going. most of it so far has been taken down each with loans and other needs those fall mainly in uh economic arena and if they do something with that they have a lot of debts they need to pay weakened go into more detail in a classified setting but there hasn't been much so that period of heavy sanctions specifically to be
funded in the every indians found the way to sustain them and they have businesses they generate their own income. >> that last point is the best point so they attempt at the 100 billion even if they didn't have money they could find terrorism whatever percentage comes back the argument that we hear they will screw us but they could have done all of those things and they still found monday to finance care efforts all over their neighborhood. >> thanks for appearing here.
i will associate myself natalie for your service but for the men and women that you represent. director, you stated earlier we have not seen as much violence and instability in the time period was your lifetime? [laughter] what are those key drivers? >> i think it has been five years since the arab spring took a rich with had a very dramatic impact on governments throughout the region and as the streets became alive and as organizations that did not trigger that it took full of vintage so that instability we see in syria and yemen
was an outgrowth of the arabs period the turnover from libya and yemen. these are individuals from different areas of the country with the sectarian tensions playing account because of the authoritarian governments never in power for many years. so this popular reaction is basically civil war and challenges against the government they don't have those political institutions nor the ability to address the challenges in the region and therefore the various
backgrounds are now finding ways to fight among themselves. >> by want to address electronic communications the legislation would clarify to specify a electronic transaction records so what a short position of the fbi? >> we need that very much it is an ordinary fix it is necessary because i believe it is a typo in the statute that has led to some companies interpreting it in the way congress was never intended it affects our work in a big rand practical way. >> i want to return to the
north to rea test how much of that treaty with any other particulates? >>. [laughter] i have 10 questions and that is not one of them and then i would like to the answer but i appreciate the opportunity. >> what does this tell us about north korean vessels and technology? >> with the building capacity and have a bite you talk about this in a closed
hearing. >> i believe we will have the chance to do that. director, you mentioned the document in shared space of violation has any member ever apologized to you over that document? >> no senator. >> was that in violation and what this committee had? to make it was inconsistent of that understanding. >> as the document and return to? >> i will check on that. >> classified information is a serious matter. >> yes. >> we will have a second round starting in the first -- as the order is the first
consisting of one question or two minutes whichever is fastest and we will be out of here shortly. general you were recognized too soon because i have a question i don't think it is one you like to be answered but assessing where we are today in iraq share with the weather looks like it's the end of this year as a relates to be different if at all. >> the kurds solidified their positions they probably will not move any further south because that is not in their interest. the militia will take control over the central part of iraq.
we consolidate our gains in raimondi and to we begin the move meant to secure the borders and to possibly beginning the isolation and effort put in the western parts of iraq i am not optimistic we have done much to move the forces out of the region. >> i am not betting on that. >> will be very difficult to isolate. >> faq you are a bit of principle standing up for what he believed.
last year some of us received a report from the fbi that show the individuals on the terrorist watch list and attempted over a 10 year period to buy a gun or an explosive and they were successfully 91% of the time. could you describe that standard that all the individuals who pose a threat to national security are placed on the database? >> will try to do that briefly there is the extensive process to see faye believe there in terrorist activity to put them on the watch list but
to make sure in the suit americans are not placed on the database stick we have to make sure our records are accurate and then department has readdress procedures if anyone thinks there were wrongly placed there is a process they can challenge that. >> want to go back to afghanistan. talked about the al qaeda presence in the deficit is increasing and the influence and how probable is that other merchants in afghanistan? >> there is 100 members the
leader there is a individual who has very depp with other organizations including the taliban they continue to apply their trade but they are concerned that al qaeda and us can regenerate why we need to maintain as well as working with our partners. isil mckewon take it vantage so it is seen as the threat by afghan officials and it was one of the real concerns that they had it is plenty of a flag in different parts of afghanistan now seen as a competitor. >> stop there. how are you recessing?
>> not the methodology but how big of a deal is that? >> it is a concern as several hundred members and it is distributed going up against other organizations but it is a concern in places like indonesia. >> we did that four quarters intelligence strep in we had the privilege to spend time with women parliamentarians and that the taliban will not come back and then it
goes up and up with terrible things with schoolchildren do happen to be girls and wondering if we can and make sufficient progress. >> the afghan people there are thousands of afghans your given their lives that's why you want to work very closely with them. the host challenges that foreign assistance is important as well as the economic side. but they need to make sure they can address the concerns of the afghan people there some of the greatest people.
>> the vice chair has worked five questions in to the one question ground. [laughter] >> i will not incur the wrath of the chairman but director written by the independent group the title is don't panic can match olson to we have enormous respect for from the national counterterrorism center getting into the nuts and bolts of the encryption that is available all over the world very cheap the basic thesis is with sensors and the like to have more opportunities to prevent our country from going dark.
because of the experts involvement i would like to have your team take a look to give us an analysis of 60 days to have the unclassified version would that be something that did say breakthrough report with a cross section of experts is that something you can do? >> sure. >> one quick comment there has been a lot of praise upon new today studying american in history i appreciate washington not this early presiding over that constitutional
convention to establish precedents and how the whole enterprise is would function. i know you're not the first director but with the intelligence and for that to i want to profoundly complement to help create an institution now will serve this country well for some period of time. my question is very broad broad, and you commented your report to be on the upward trajectory since the '70s were groups have a safe haven than in the other time in history would kill 20,000 members of isis to yet more foreign fighters have gone to join them.
it is a hydra we cut off one and to grow back. is it time to stop to say do we need a new strategy other than trying to kill enemies as they arise and i am thinking of the strategy of containment not that that is right but there was of a comprehensive strategy rather than an ad hoc to deal with each individual attack for crisis i would suggest it seems to seek how to read deal with that extremism toward those that deal with other countries to get at the roots instead of the tactics with the very
important and crucial point and to try to track down terrorist end to be focused of the fundamental systemic conditions to give rise the you can rattle off those spaces with of population bulge of the frustrated bales to whom such propaganda appeals. what has to be caught in a fundamentally is to collect intelligence and to give
rise to the phenomenon. >> one question or two minutes which ever is lager? -- launder? [laughter] i will address briefly section and that expires next year to deter ged non-u.s. persons for purposes of acquiring foreign intelligence. sections of the attitude is a vital tool as multiple layers of oversight after requesting a stray
reauthorization do you believe congress should have that straight reauthorization? >> i do believe ready to continue as the mecca but adversarial questions into a speech and asked if he agreed with my speech. [laughter] the committee will take up 72 very quickly from the standpoint of the preparation to educate to have them bring us up to speed on the usefulness with any tweets that may have to tune be made but this something that director clapper has said we cannot go without this it is crucial that the centerpiece >> before we end go back to
encryption i have had more district attorneys come to me about that encryption issue because they're getting into a situation they cannot prosecute cases town by town or city by city or state by state sanders ranges from the york to a town of rural birth carolina in sunday's we need to take seriously. want of their responsibilities is to beecher:dash make sure it has the tools to authorize what you need traditional tools i see no different
reedy to provide a tool to have access to that information i could care less how that is accomplished it is the priority of both of us to be voluntary but if it is something we cannot achieve the balance voluntarily then it is the committee's responsibility to pursue in any fashion and that we can because it isn't valuable to our future and i fear this isn't the toughest decision we will make with how technology might impact the world we are in. the american people expect us to exceed 72 individuals.
you are on track to probably do that i am not sure we can turn around to see we have 11 because we cannot see inside the communications we won't stand for that. i hope the work with the administration towards the save end goal. i want to take one last opportunity to take each of you for those who work for the american people at any given point in time the work force has been challenged to address of etfs over the of
holidays and cannot imagine you were going through to track down the number of threats i don't think anybody had a comfortable holiday season in this year but we got through without any event in we don't take that would have been the outcome but now we're focused on tomorrow and not yesterday. we will continue to do that successfully in this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]
to help the american people better understand what intelligence was important to the government, to presidents and why presidents value it. >> sunday night at eight eastern on c-span q&a. >> and now live to london for british prime minister's question time. we also invite your participation via twitter using
hashtag pmqs. prior to question time members are finishing up other business. and now live to the floor of the british house of commons. >> can the secretary of state confirm under -- part of the scotland bill the scottish government will be able to -- income tax along the scottish government to make the threats of choices? [inaudible] >> no, no. order. members need to learn the merits of the blue pencil. if they use the blue pencil and questions were shorter they benefit. minister of the state. >> the scottish parliament will indeed take on these very significant tax powers would still be able to use as they s