tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 21, 2016 8:00am-10:01am EDT
scenario. as for the cost, it should not have cost that much. i think any american who looks at the cost and is proud of that cost has not seen the big picture. it cost too much. but that capability is critical. and it will be awesome on the battlefield. it will create an advantage for the united states for decades to come. >> i have does the president of the united states have the absolute abilitd and the power to call for a nuclear strike without any input from congress, legislators, any input from generals whatsoever to negate that? he or she alone can call forat? that strike. >> my job as a military officer is to follow orders of the commander in chief. >> so there's no checks or balances. you don't check to make sure if you get the order from the't president, then it is a go order speak with the president will as before the military advice. i will give it a strong and
powerful as i can. he is the commander-in-chief or she is the commander-in-chief and the orders will be followed. >> so that person has the ability, sole ability to call for nuclear strike?? >> they are the commander-in-chief. >> also i'm very supportive of the national guard as you mighty know. i would like to know how you see your performance in space, missile defense and cybernc operations, how they could be more effective. >> spectacular. >> but -- >> but anyways we just scratched the surface. if you think of many other nations we do in space andhink cyberspace, they are stateside mission. missions that is perfect for the guard and reserves. some of her most impressive the cyber units are guard unitsmp because they can leverage the civilian workforce and civilian population. they're stepping up into the
space in new and exciting ways. i just met with the head of the air national guard and head of air force reserve and we're looking at new ways to expand both space and cyber in space command. if i'm confirmed as commander of the street you commit it is a total force problem in everything we do. we will leverage the total force in every possible. >> thank you, general. do you think where exercising an option and opportunity we have to enhance that with the guard or more needs to be just because i think there's always more needs to be done. i'm not sure that what that is what the because we meet with him frequently but i just look at the potential that is out there and realized i think there's even more that can be done. we are doing a tremendous amount. >> thank you, general. >> i think you ought to read the constitution, nuclear strike, depending on the circumstanceses would require a declaration of war. only the congress can declare a declaration, approve of a declaration of war. >> yes, sir.
>> thank you, mr. chairman, in general congratulations and thank you for being willing to take on this task. and thank you to your family for being here and for all of the service is also provided. there was discussion earlier about north korea and the erratic behavior of north korea's leader. we saw as you point out just of this morning that they tested a new rocket engine to launch satellites. it's the latest in a succession of nuclear weapons tests and ballistic missile launches asss they steadily increased their nuclear stockpile. so can you discuss what you see as stratcom mission and operations to come as a look at what we can do to deter what's happening in north korea, if anything? det >> i think we have to roles.
if i'm confirmed as strategic command commander that we have to play. roll number one this strategic deterrence and assurance mission for our allies. and i kind of love those both together. assure our allies that they are defended by the capabilities of the united states i think is extremely important. the second piece of the puzzle is to make sure we provide the right kind of ready forces that can allow the united states in concert with other joint combatant commanders to respondu to those capabilities across the board. >> center in off earlier talked about missile defense system in eastern europe as being -- senator in all -- were the actions that might have contributed to russia's aggressive behavior. do we see that the missile system in south korea has the potential to produce that kind
of response from north korea inl from china? >> and i'm not sure, ma'am, if i can properly assess a china or north korea would look at that. but from a military perspective, the thad ms. lagarde does not change the strategic deterrence it was because it provides a point defense capabilities against our close and threat. it doesn't impact the ability of a strategic force to effectively operate. >> do you think that is clear to china and north korea? >> i think we've done everything in our power to make it clear.r. how they perceive what we have said and what they believe, i don't think i can comment on that. >> there was a very interesting segment on 60 minutes on sunday night, i don't know if you sawm. it or not but it was talking about the nuclear deterrent. and one of the people they interviewed was former secretary of defense william perry.
they were asking him if there ever been a close call in terms of someone launching a nuclear weapon from the united states. 8.1 incident in 1977 for someone had put in a training tape that was misinterpreted. as you look at, at least i thins that is, have so much residents right now is because i think this campaign for president probably has had more discussion of nuclear weapons and to control nuclear weapons in any campaign for instance, 1984.4. so as you look at the current nuclear command and control structure and architecture, are there any concerns that you have about the potential for something unforeseen to happen for somebody to make the wrongso call and a weapon to be launchee
inadvertently? >> i believe that our nuclear command and control architecture is most resilient, robust demand to control architecture that can be created by man. i think there are multiple checks and balances through the system that you have men and women in the loop that can respond to those kind of anomalies to make sure if it is an anomaly they can report that a. nonetheless, you heard what i said, it was created by man.ur it was created by man, there's a way to create perfection but that's why we put so many checks and balances in the system all the way up to make sure it would've to give a recommendation to the president, that recommendation is clear and is based upon solid data. >> one of the concerns i've heard from folks in the foreign policy arena is that unlike during the cuban missile crisis and much of the other periods of our history, we don't have the
same kind of communication channels between us, our military leaders and the military leaders in russia. i don't know, they didn't suggest that china was in that category as well but certainly that was true of the united states and russia. do you share that concern? >> i don't have enough information to really comment on it, except to say that i'm a big believer in military to militart relationships and i think that if we have military to military relationships with allies, friends and potential adversaries were in a better posture to diffuse a situation if something should happen. if i'm confirmed as commander of stratcom i will find out the details of what relationships all right now and then i will advocate for improving the relationship in the future. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general, congratulations on your nomination.
i think you are highly qualified. i also, as we talked about i appreciate your example of our alma mater and what you dide there and what you stand for, i think sometimes our universities in this country need to see and respect military and rotc, i think you're a great example of that. i want to continue on. to continue on to another discussions been a lot about missile defense and what do kind of continue on with water senator sheila was talking about and senator inhofe. -- senator shaheen. deeply a part of our job both your job if you're confirmed as a combatant commander and thus in his job to anticipate threats to our nation and then people to address them? >> so i think it's the responsibility of any public servant to look at that always. my primary job come if i'm a confirmed as combatant commander, will be to make sure our forces are ready to respond
today but i the second or job is to advocate for capabilitiese respond to future threats and future. and if confirmed i will take both of those jobs very surgically. >> it's my sense, we talk a lot about north korea here and the threat, and it is definitely a h growing threat, but i think the american people probably continue in general to see that, maybe most members of congress,l as a regional threat to japan, korea, to the region. two days, there was a "wall street journal" piece today that north korea successfully tested a high-powered engine for launching satellites and intercontinental ballistic missiles. do you believe that in two to three years the leader of north korea is going have the abilityn to reach the united states with nuclear weapons? to think that it's just a matter of time? maybe three to four. don't you think the american
people assume maybe with in your tenure, if you're confirmed, are going to wake up to the fact that this is not a regional threat?ak this is a direct threat that a crazy dictator from north korea has the capability to arrange our country with ha intercontinental ballistic weapons? to you think it's going to happen within five years? >> i can put a date on it.ar i've talked extensively the intelligence community the last couple of weeks. i do have a confident they what. i can say is pretty but you do think it will happen? >> it will happen. >> should we start preparing for that not? >> we should. >> the american people will not wake up and sit on my couch,ul nobody has even thought about this. >> i think we are thinking about that and we have to be preparedn for it. >> i think we're not doing enough in terms of missile defense to prepare for this inevitability.re
can you give me your sense right now with 40 ground-based missile interceptor's in alaska, a 4 couple in california, a new lrd our radar system being deployed, do you think we're doing enough in terms of missile defense to be able to anticipate a threat that we know is coming,, literally a big taters with no stability in his mind being able to range our country? are we doing enough? >> i'm a big believer in missile defense.it i think we need to do more. i think that the number of interceptors we have would havee to constantly look at that ability of that forced to respond to the size of the threat. that would be in north korea in the future. f i think forced size corrected today perhaps i'm concerned about the size of the force in future. we need to always monitor that. if i'm confirmed as strategic
but i will ask you to take a long hard look at that to make sure we can with the option is. >> i like to work with you because i think is a critical issue for the defense of our. nation are a lot of senators arh very interested. na be honest i don't think we are doing enough to be ready for threat we know is coming. if we are not in a position to tell the american people we knew this was coming and we took decisive action to create a strong missile defense and i think that's not what we should be doing can any of us. can you describe in terms of the technical aspect how important the lrdr, we often talk about ground-based missile interceptions but the raiders system itself we are not trying to deploy? >> the elements are extremely important. number one can you can't target a weapon without the sensor so you need the center. that start with the capability we have been orbited a.
the radars we have our old. they need to be modernized. one of the most critical radars we are building out, long range discrimination radar, that clear in alaska to respond to that threat, that's a critical element of any future architecture special in that part of the world. we also need look at space based on the. we need to be able to broadly use the global nature of space to be able to add a global tracking capability because it not only allows us to track what allows us to operate weapon systems more efficiently than just firing many at one time. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. java, i think you're highly qualified. i look forward to voting in favor of your nomination, confirmation. >> thank you for your service. thank you to your family. i'm going to start with all of it about the dq. in august of this year weyear
deployed the b-2. the second time with deployed these to the pacific command area of responsibility in marc march 2132 spirit bombers conducted a long range precision strike by flying more than 6500 miles to the korean peninsula and returning to the continental u.s. in a singleil continuous mission. i know that you understand howin important missions like this are to demonstrating our commitment and our capabilities, and what an important role they have inha deterrence. particularly as we look at the actions of north korea. they continue, our averages continue to develop advanced systems which eventually could hold even our homeland at risk.d i know there's been a lot of discussion regarding the affordability of maintaining upgrading nuclear triad. there are some improvements to the mitigation systems of thee
b-2 spirit which will extend the viability of this flexible dual use platform. and what would be the consequences of a delay in completing the mitigation upgrade to the b-2? >> senator, i think went to look at documentation upgrades to the b-2 in concert with the entire bomber force. right now it's probably the most important element of our bomber capability, and so thatt capability is extremely important to maintain the viability now into the future. but i think the best answer that we owe to this committee and tos the congress is an answer that looks across the entire bomber force. i think that's a question of the air force should enter but as the commander of stratcom what i would advocate for is an effective bomber force t to have all the threats we have in the future, if it is the air force's job is a family of to upgradehe the b-2 or we can wait until the be 21.
why nothing for the 21 as a bit too far off to respond to that but i think the answer has to be across the entire bomber force spirit award to make sure we don't make the same mistake with the b-21 with the 35. that is we start pulling back on the faa teams in the 18th because of the anticipation of a system that clearly was way over budget and way out of time. as a result we have vulnerabilities on aircraft carriers and we shouldn't have and we're continuing to scramble to make sure that we don't have those. i want to make sure i make a point. in addition i'm really proud the 131st bomber wing at whiteman, of the missouri national guard was the first national guard unit to be certified to conduct a nuclear nation. this took a tremendous amount of work at a tremendous amount of n commitment on the part of the the active air force at that base along with the missouri national guard.i
can a teacher commitment today to continue this integration and continue to allow the card to play this important role going d forward? >> so senator, i'm a huge fan of the total force. the guard and reserve provide a huge capability to our forces worldwide. i pledge to constantly advocate for full integration of the guard into all our military forces across the board. if i'm confirmed, it will be inside stratcom. >> i also want to talk about this will defense as it relates to north korea. the first ballistic missile to defense test, target will be conducted in us all. first time this happened sincete 1984. a second ground-basednce interceptor is scheduled for fy 2017 but due to budgetary constraints it will have to sli
to fy has been scheduled for 2017. it will have to slip to 2018. gao report found that the agency charged with developing the system from the missile defense agency delayed or removed 40% of its planned flight tests to re-o prioritized the testing plan because of the fiscal constraints we have placed upon the military. could you address briefly, if we don't stop playing games withe what we need to invest in a military as a relates to oco ani spending money off budget, what is going to be a result in terms of our capability come in terms of ballistic defense, particularly in light of what north korea is up to? >> senator, i think we desperately need a missile defense capability it's got to be robust tested. our adversaries, north korea, in this case, has to be concern that it will work if they operate against it. if it's not come it's not there.
therefore, just like in every is other element of our defense department i think we need stable funding, close working relationships with the entire congress and especially this committee to make sure we understand exactly what we are, going. i'm concerned though if we gond back come in and enjoy the hearing last week on readiness, and if we go back into budget control act level, but many of those decisions we will make will be bad decision for the security of the united states. >> thank you very much, general. congratulations. >> thank you, senator. >> general, you are an outstanding choice for stratcom. if you have been an outstanding and have done an outstanding job as the head of air force space command. a subject that i understand a little bit about and i just want to say that for the record.
we thank you and i look forward to you being our combatant commander. would you characterize your thoughts on the need for modernization of our nuclear arsenal, as well as our nuclear command and control? >> senator, i think all three elements of the triad are essential to security of the nation. i think it is the foundation of what we built our entire defense posture on. each of those elements of these triad are aging out at a similar time, and an order for us to have an effective triader for individual after modernize each element. lill have to modernize the capability for icbm, which will be the ground-based deterrent. we need a replacement program on the sea leg of the triad and we need a new bomber. i also believe we need an advanced cruise missile, the
long-range strike option. >> i think each of us has to be pursued. i think it to be pursued in an integrated manner. and we have to pursue the nuclear command and control piece on top of that. the nuclear command and control i think is the most importantol piece of the puzzle, and as we continue to focus on the delivery platforms which are essential, we just can't take a eyes off the nuclear command and control capability. without those we can effectively execute a nuclear deterrent option. >> and specifically, do you have any thoughts on the modernization of come i said the nuclear arsenal, meaning the nuclear weapons. >> right. i think is a look at the nuclear weapons, we have to consider the environment they were going to operate in. we have to consider how many nuclear weapons that we need. i think we need to take a whole approach to look at the existing nuclear stockpile as well as
what we need any future nuclear stockpile. ideally, if i'm confirmed, i would like to have some flexibly across platforms with those nuclear weapons. it's really a conversation and for different classification forum, but at this ossification i would just say if i'm confirmed i will work closely with the national labs will see other element of the nuclear weapons environment to make sure that we have a solid plan going in the future, especially givenh the environment we are in. [inaudible] >> -- assessment from your events policy questions, growing importance of cyberwar to the elevation of you cyber commandnd to unified combatant command.
is it also your professional military judgment that maintaining a dual that relationship with the command of cyber command is also the maintaining a director of nsa is in the best national security interest? >> that is my belief. i strongly believe that right now. that maybe the individual that is not the case but today is not that case. >> i think you. that discussion continues. i was going to talk with senator reid and other members of the committee, but i think we may ask you to come back, perhaps maybe not this week but later on to brief us on the information that you provided me with to yesterday. will it's quite -- disturbing isn't the work. compelling i think is a better word. >> general, thank you for your service. look forward to voting for yourc confirmation and doing it
[inaudible conversations] >> the senate returns at 9:30 a.m. eastern. live coverage on c-span2. they will begin with debate on a 10 week spending measure to fund the federal government beyond the end of september. also senator rand paul introduces a resolution expressing disapproval of a painting 1.5 million dollars arms sale to saudi arabia. for more details on what's ahead in the house and senate we talked a couple of the reporter. >> host: kellie mejdrich is a reporter with cq roll call. the senate finally votes to move forward with a continuing
resolution funding the federal government past september 30. what's the latest you're hearing about the status of negotiations? >> guest: so this has been weeks of painstaking negotiations back and forth between the senate, the house and the white house. the senate just agreed to take a procedural step forward to limiting debate on the motion to proceed to the dilbert that's a bunch of pursue to drop in for the to one inch forward but there's a lot of senate procedure left before they can consider the resolution. >> host: one of your capitol hill colleagues tweeted in effect they were voting on a blank page to move forward. in fact, the headline at ctu reflective of that saying the senate forges ahead on acr but at last without a deal. what do they have to do i in the steel to move forward? >> guest: the public, senator sasse oenophile text on the continuing resolution, but as
majority whip john cornyn told me and a bunch of other reporters, he sees this as move to just take a step forward, something that has to get done before september 30. otherwise, the government is going to shut down. because procedure takes longer in the senate, this is a clear indication that the senate wants to move ahead. complicating this and perhaps spurring this vote to move ahead with a continuing resolution can't even though there's no final agreement is the fact the republican study committee chairman bill flores introduced his own version of the continuing resolution in the house. it runs the same length that said majority leader mitch mcconnell says there see arnold run, which is december 9 and page the combatant the mosquito borne mosquito virus and has full 24 military construction and appropriation bills. one of the 12 regular spending bills that the republican-controlled congress hopes to send to the president.
but the house version contains controversial writers that democrats in the senate have threatened to block passage of legislation over. that includes targeting refugees and halting the transfer of internet domain organization that h use currently has control over that the president wants to transfer over to the international community. right now we are seeing a bit of a tussle between the two chambers about who is going to move forward first. although majority leader kevin mccarthy on outside said he's waiting for the senate to act and is waiting for the senate deal before the move forward. >> host: on the senate side you are some of the major players, senators involved on both sides in negotiations? >> guest: this is a high level negotiations at this point the senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, minority leader harry reid and then we have barbara mikulski, the ranking democratic on the appropriations
committee and thad cochran, chairman of the senate provisions committee working with the top appropriation members on the house and in working with paul ryan and nancy pelosi. this is really a high level negotiations that's going on but the main contention has to do with a legislative provision they want to attach to the stopgap measure, which again since congress didn't finish regular appropriations process, just keep funding about level at fiscal 2016 levels, last year's levels, no increase in spending or anything like that, but one of the things that's made it hard for them to move forward on this negotiation islamic about to attach aid to help combat this mosquito borne zika virus. once that happened there were a whole married number of lawmakers including high ranking
republicans on the house side, for example, who have interest in louisiana which is been ravaged by floods. you know, high level democrats on the senate side who want to see money for the water contamination crisis in flint, michigan. senate minority whip dick durbin told us this morning that the white house appeared to be a little bit frustrated i so many different demands coming from all different directions trying to attach onto this continuing resolution. >> host: the house has to be, is here until september 30. tell us about the timetable, the thing is facing. the majority leader mitch mcconnell singh is likely to senate will be in next week. is a likely they will be longer than that? >> guest: we are really unclear at this point will remember originally the idea was to try to maybe get out of town by this week. majority aides would not confirm this but that was a rumor flying
around, including senator tester said during a hearing committee. senators are eager to get home because as your viewers probably know this is a very contentious race for control of the senate. their hope was, given the house, house republicans have been disagreement over the length of the continuing resolution, senators were hoping to pass legislation and leave town leaving the house no option but to concede whatever the senate did, otherwise risk shutting down the government. but this move by floris is an indication that republican leaders in the house are willing to maybe exert a little bit more power over the process since they don't see a lot to build on the senate side. we been in negotiation for two solid weeks of really pop level negotiations, and still no bill text has emerged house of representatives kellie mejdrich is a reporter for cq roll call. you can follow her on twitter
and also at cq.com. thanks for the update. >> guest: thanks a lot. >> for campaign 2016, c-span continues on the road to the white house. >> we all want to get back to making america strong and great again. >> i am running for everyone working hard to support their families. everyone who has been knocked down but gets back up. >> ahead, live coverage of the presidential and vice presidential debates on c-span, c-span radio at and c-span.org. monday september 26 is the first presidential debate live from hofstra university in hempstead, new york. then on tuesday october 4 vice presidential candidates debate at longwood university in farmville, virginia. and on sunday october 9, washington university in st. louis hosts a second presidential debate leading up
to the third and final debate between hillary clinton and donald trump taking place at the university of nevada las vegas on october 910. live coverage of the presidential and vice presidential debates on c-span, let them live on the free c-span radio at or watch live or anytime on demand at c-span.org. >> the c-span reader app makes it easy continue to follow the '20s 16th election whereeo ever you are. it's free to download from the apple app store or google play. get on your coverage and up-to-the-minute schedule information for c-span radio and c-span television plus podcasts times for our popular public affairs book in history programs. stay up-to-date on all the election coverage. it means you always have c-span on the go. >> yesterday director of national intelligence james clapper sat down for an interview with the "washington post" david ignatius answering questions about the military strategy against isis.
edward snowden of north korea's nuclear program and cyber attacks sponsored by foreign governments. this is just under one hour. >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you very much to read hunt into fred ryan, my boss. welcome to caucus with the director of national intelligence. i apologize -- >> you are cutting into my martini our. [laughter] >> i know that but it will go quickly and there's hope on the other side but we are very pleased to have a director clapper hear, just expand on what fred ryan said in introducing director clapper. he is a rare person in our government. he has been an intelligence officer for 50 years.
he has served, he's run intelligence agency. is directed intelligence in the defense department, and now as dni is basically the nation's top intelligence officer. i have had a chance over the last few years to come visit director clapper and talk with him on the record and ask him questions, and he has been, as you know if you read some of my articles, direct, blunt, sometimes undiplomatic, but he gives an honest answer. he says i just can't talk about that. so truly a pleasure to have you here. thanks for doing this. there are a lot of issues that are in the news come and i want to start off with some newsworthy subjects. it is the report that has been moving this afternoon on cnn that says about really dreadful
attack on the u.n. aid convoy to the west of aleppo on monday may have been a result of a russian airstrike or other russian attack. and barbara starr this thing that. the preliminary conclusion of you is specials as the study does. i do want to ask you, director clapper, as a starter, whether there's anything you can share about this, just in general how you're looking at this kind of issue in this very complex battlefield? >> i think your last few phrases kind of characterized the challenge we have is, hostile situation there's always the fault of war, a classical combat situation which is not a series of unbelievably complex.
to be specific and directly respond to your question, i have not myself gotten into the specifics of whatever evidence we may or may not have a who was responsible. that is being worked as we speak but i can't speak to it here right now. >> the other issue obviously that's in the news about our minds -- >> per your introduction. >> exactly. is the terrorist attacks in new york city area by ahmad khan rahami. i think we are all looking at that and ask a couple of questions. the first one i would put to you is whether there's any evidence that you found of connections that he had to tear networks, direction or inspiration, anything like that that would connect him more broadly to isis
or any other group? >> again, this is obvious a very fast breaking situation. fbi is all over this. it is under active investigation. i spoke with senior fbi officer just before i came down here, and i think there's probably more to come, but again, and i can't say one way or the other. i don't think we've found any definitive evidence of any connection yet. there's a lot of evidence to look at, but i can't point you and external direction at this point. >> one thing that surfaced today is the possibility that rahami's father might have notified law enforcement who then in turn notified the fbi that he was concerned about his son. i want to ask whether that report is a credible one, and more generally, ask you about
this question of getting muslim communities, other communities from which extremists might come, to talk about people in those communities who are concerning them? >> a couple issues here that this brings up, and regrettably, this will not be the last such instance in this country. it's regrettable, but i think that's just the situation we are in. and we will undoubtedly do when this is over with, as we always do, a critique, lessons learned, and that sort of thing. i've noticed in the six years i've been in this job, we the previous cases like this, boston marathon case in point, that it's been decided after the fact that we should've been more invasive. we, speaking broadly the icy and
the law enforcement community. so this pendulum swings back and forth. this is an issue that i think is something requires some discussion and debate in this country. this line that we supposed to thread between keeping the nation safe and secure, and not invading anyone's privacy and civil liberties. and that is something we agonize over a lot, and i'm sure we're going to have a reprise of the discussion after all the information on this incident is in. >> and when people ask you as -- >> and by the way, one more thing, this i do regularly engage with muslim community leadership. and i personally, i learned a lot when i listen to them because a lot of phraseology that we use in the intelligence community and law enforcement
community has a great sensitivity on the part. and it is a dilemma for them, and most of them are loyal, patriotic americans. this is a bad time for them. they are under siege right now. have to be mindful of that as well. >> since you raised this since in the muslim community of being under siege, i need to ask you. there is out there in the political campaign some polarizing rhetoric about muslims, and it's sometimes argued that that makes the job of our intelligence, law enforcement, fbi officers harder because it may close precisely the doors that we need to open. strictly from an intelligence standpoint, not a political question is that true? is that tend to close out the? >> i think in general some of
this heated rhetoric is not helpful either in this country, and i've been doing some traveling overseas lately. it is striking to me how people overseas hang on every word that is uttered in the course of this rather hyper heated campaign. there are many countries around the world come at least my interlocutors, mike intelligence colleagues who are very, very concerned about this. so doesn't help? probably not. it doesn't, it isn't -- doesn't encourage freedom of dialogue, always the we have. i worry about it inhibiting fat and the concerns people have about commitments we've made overseas and that sort of thing. >> so you mentioned earlier that there's a difficult trade off
here if the country wants to be more secure in a time of lone wolf attacks and a lot of these things that are very hard to track. our intelligence, law enforcement agencies would have to be more intrusive. if people ask you as director of national intelligence what do you think that would be wise what would your answer be? >> to be more intrusive? >> yes. >> well, i think we have to be very careful about that. we, i say we collectively, the i.c. very sensitive about infringing on infringing on privacy. we could clamp down very hard on this country, in this country, i suppose if you wanted to. i just don't think there's the political will or the societal will to want to live like that. so there is a compromise that we have to strike.
a couple years ago i spoke, i meant it only half jokingly, about the expectations for intelligence, we collect and analyze timely, accurate intelligence and do in such a way there's no risk, due in such what we don't make anybody mad, don't do in such way that if it's discovered no foreign government would get upset with us and do anyway there's not any jeopardy to anyone's privacy. we call that immaculate collection. [laughter] >> so you're not confident that you're going to be -- >> and it was taken humorously, but it does illustrate i think the dilemma, the challenge that we have. i am a citizen, to. i care about my civil liberties and privacy just like anyone else. as does everyone else in the intelligence community. we are mindful of that.
>> let me ask you about a series of issues that are going to confront the next president, whoever he or she is. issues that i'm sure you in your waning days, i should ask you, how many -- >> 122. [laughter] >> i happen to know that director clapper keeps on his desk a clock. is also count off the number of hours? >> minutes and seconds. i don't have that with the right now, but yes. >> so you will be asked by the next president-elect about an issue that has caused deep concern from which is the appearance of attempts to interfere in our political process from outside. it's been widely reported that the fbi and the department of homeland security are conducting an investigation of russian
hacking, not simply the collection of information by russians, but the dissemination of that information, the weaponization of it, if you will, for direct action purposes, to destabilize. eyed ask you to speak about that problem and help all of us get a sense of what we know, how we should think about it, what the dangers are and what we should do about it. >> well, first of all, there's actually a long history of the russians trying to interfere with or influence elections, going back to the 60s in the heyday of the cold war. so there been several documented cases of previous elections that would appear they were trying to somehow influence the election. in the u.s. come in the united states. of course, there's a history
there of, there's a tradition in russia of industry with elections, their own and others'. so it shouldn't come as a big shock to people. i think it's more dramatic maybe because now they have the cyber tools that they can bring to bear in the same effort. it's still going on, but i will say that it is probably not real, real clear whether there's influence in terms of outcome or what i worry about more frankly is just sowing seeds of doubt where doubt is cast on the whole process. so what are we doing about it? apart from what you talked about, certainly dhs, secretary jeh johnson come has been very active with state election officials, offering our services and best practice and not
surfing to secure, where appropriate, particularly if there's any dependence on the internet in the course of the conduct of the election, voter registration, databases or the actual conduct of the election. we have a strength here in that we don't have a centralized electoral system. it's very decentralized. of action works to our advantage to be really monumental undertaking to try to affect the election nationally. but again i think probably the more likely, and i'm surmising, the more likely objective would be to try to just so seeds of doubt about the efficacy of the viability and the sanctity, if i can use that word, of the whole system. >> you mentioned that there have been past instances where russia in this case i assume the soviet union, have tried to interfere
in our election process. i probably should know what those are but i don't. what comes to mind in terms of past history of this? >> where they have that money to opposition candidates or tried to feed this information, again in the way was done during the cold war, which, of course, preceded what we now know as the cyber era. and, of course, the records we plead with cases of influencing elections in east europe and that sort of thing, by today's standards more primitive methods but they have a history of that. >> so to turn to the question of what we should do about this, what the united states should do about it, there is an official dod cyber strategy that talks about deterrence. but as you look at that set of
options, response, denial, resilience are the three words that are used in this strategy, it's hard to know how they would exactly helpless now in establishing the rules of this game you're someone to ask you to think with us, director clapper, about ways that we could send a message. some people in the government have argued we really need a high level message from somebody, you, the president, just to say publicly this is basically what we know and it's not acceptable. is that a good idea, do you think? >> certainly is a good idea. of course, you're getting into the policy realm. i don't do policy. understand and interim shoveling intelligence goal. people on a cruise do that. i think in the context of how degenerate deterrence?
and deterrence has both a substance added psychology about it. if you think about deterrence in a nuclear sense, which works because there are physical things you can see, mushroom clouds twice, 1945, hasn't been used since. and you can see, feel, measure, gauge bombers, subs, that sort of thing. very difficult in the cyber domain because you can't render it physically. so there is i think the challenge, despite our issuance of policies and strategies, of how do you actually generate both the substance and the psychology of deterrence. nuclear deterrent principally focused on nation-states, and nation-states are easier to deter a non-nation state groups or individuals, which is what we
are confronted with here. the other thing is that deterrence is hard in the absence of international norms. at some point in order to make him the rule of law, and as a part of that deterrence come work in the cyber domain, there has to be international understandings of what is acceptable behavior and what is an. then you will be in a much better position to generate deterrence. but deterrence come in the absence of that, i think it's very hard to do unilaterally. >> in the real world that we all grew up in, on the playground, whatever, one rule we learned is that if somebody bumps you hard, you probably better ball him back or you're going to get picked on. does that kind of trial and error process of establishing how people are going to behave, does that apply in this intelligence world, in the cyber world?
>> it could. if you think the way to respond to a cyber fraud -- a front or cyber assault is by cyber means. what we've actually done is to react in other ways. so again this is why deterrence is hard to conjure up when, in fact, the exchange may be in a completely different mode. cyber attack of some sort, a sanction of some sort. and that's what it's very hard to develop deterrence and why we need to develop what i would call a body of law here for where we have developed come have an experiential base for what works and what doesn't. i think we unfortunately are going to have to endure more
breaches in this sort of thing, hacks, et cetera before we reach that point. there also has to be i think sort of international recognition and acknowledgment. there's been some work done at the u.n., for a preliminary on trying to develop cyber norms, but i think before they are recognized and importantly adhered to, we are a waste away from that. >> officials in the obama administration, political officials, have pointed to china as an example of successful messaging, action that has the effect of changing behavior, and they argue that after our threat of sanctions and our naming some chinese pla actors, and enumeration of four rules that a summit with xi jinping last
september, the chinese behavior has changed her i want to ask you, as a top intelligence officer, is that true? do you see a change in chinese -- >> well, there has been a decrease, and we are the sum industry as well, at least what has been detected no. of course, the question we always have, we have a few skeptics in the crowd and into. this is because they have actually reduced their exfiltration or they have just gotten more secure? frankly not enough time has elapsed, not enough experience has elapsed to make that call. the other thing is what we actually agree to a would they agree to was not to use what the exocrine for economic gain. well, turns out to be -- exfiltrate -- turns out to be hard our, a high bar from an evidentiary standpoint to make that relationship. so i think there's some room for
cautious optimism because there has been over all a decline at least in what we have detected. i had to caveat that, so we will have to see. >> turn to another issue that i'm sure is going to be high in the inbox of the next president, and that north korea. and north korea's ability, soon, based on the reporting that we have in the public media, ability soon to have a nuclear warhead that it can put on top of a missile that has sufficient range to strike targets in japan, conceivably even u.s. territory, not the u.s. mainland until they get a submarine launched missile, but u.s. territory in the pacific. i want to ask you about the
intelligence officers side of this question. not the policy issue, but what you can tell us as you look at the evidence about north korean intentions. is the leader of north korea as volatile, as much of a risk taker, as he seems or is that for public consumption? and do you see a different picture of? >> well, first of all, we have long possessed that the north koreans have the capability to fit a nuclear weapon and a warhead on a missile. they have fielded what's called a kn-08, which is in the icbm range which would include at least alaska, hawaii and part of the west coast, depending on, well, a lot of factors. ..
it came up five or six times about b-52s. they don't like b-52s. for them, this is all about, their ticket to survival. i didn't think ken un realizes he were to launch will the end of north korea. for them, it's more of a psychological thing rather than the likelihood of them actually using it. i can't predict, can't read his mind although some people can. i just don't think that's logical. >> just a slightly different way to ask is whether kim jong un can be deterred. >> key can be i believe and has been. one of the great vulnerabilities
of north korea which i don't think we exploit as much as we might is information. they are deathly afraid of information and they are fighting a losing battle. they keep outside information from coming into their people. back to me is a great vulnerability. their reaction to leaflets that are dropped over north korea by middle groups, their reaction to the loudspeakers along the dn c. i think says a lot about what they are really concerned about and where they are most vulnerable. >> i want to ask you briefly about china. so many questions, but i will focus on one, director. the south china sea and chinese
behavior after this very strong arbitration ruling in the hague in a case involving the philippines. initially the chinese seem to be fairly cautious. they didn't announce a zone and some people had feared. they seem to step up their activity in the east china sea which is where the japanese claim islands. but there have been reports in the last couple weeks that the chinese may be actively dead -- active again in claiming the re-area near the philippines, which would be a worrying sign that they are resuming the activity the arbitration panel said was contrary to international law. i want to ask you, how does that evidence looked to you and how do you in general see the
assessment? >> you know, the chinese have embarked on this reclamation campaign in south china sea to military facilities, runways and other military equipment and mistakes in their mind. by the way, you wonder why there isn't an outcry from environmentalists because of the tremendous in the south china sea. the tribunal ruling i think did take the chinese back. i don't think they expected it to be as far-reaching as there was in a pretty thorough rebuttal of the chinese
assertion in their exorbitant claims. the crucial thing to me for an early and i'm getting out of my lane here a little bit, but i've seen is to be at in various consensus among ozzie on countries and the extent they are willing to speak in a single voice to push back icing would have a great impact on the chinese. the chinese have talked themselves into believing that this is a legitimate claim on their part. that is why it's important the u.s. continue what we've been given, which is to reaffirm freedom of navigation both maritime and arab. >> i want to turn now is any discussion of intelligence for an policy inevitably does to the middle east. i thought i might start by remembering a conversation you and i had after the iss isil
break out when took mozilla. you had a conversation on the record that you thought the united state had underestimated the will of this adversary and overestimated the will of those allies of the iraqi security forces for speaking basically truth to power. just saying the way of bias. two years later, do you see any significant side of change on either side? the united states and allies have been going hard at islamic state and was assigned to use
the think they may begin to be affected by that. we put a lot of effort in training, work. visited a number of the training bases in iraq to try and create a stronger iraqi security force. and each side is that to where we were two years ago, how would you estimate it? >> we are in a better place. specifically the iraqi security forces with our mission. they've made headway and there's been a very significant in the territory held by isil datastream team. we've taken literally thousands of coalitions and thousands of fighters off the battlefield and that is starting to show informed threats for isil.
we are seeing desertion rate go up. they are having to move forces around from place to place more. contrition is affecting them. the revenue stream are not what they were ice has declined for lots of reasons. so that all is great except what this will do is if isil is anything else, it's resilient and adaptable. it can revert to its roots and what it was as a q. i., al qaeda in iraq in the early 2000. and all referred to that. conversely, i think there has been improvement in the iraqi security forces although they still had any endemic systemic problems in terms of morale, leadership, attrition,
logistics, command and control, et cetera. but if you look at the map, it is better. >> i might add that this issue of world fight has always been a challenge for i see and intelligence to engage a very subjective thing. southeast asia did a couple tours there, was always an issue there how to gauge the will to fight of the army of the republic of vietnam. we have gained a lot of experience here on how to try to train -- raise and train and military while it is under attack and that is sort of a common theme with vietnam, with afghanistan and iraq. i was chief air force intelligence turned desert storm.
we didn't do a very good job there. the iraqis will to fight is one of the worst. >> so just to close this question now, what the contrary would want to ask its top intelligence officer and i had the chance to ask you is whether the u.s. strategy for dealing with isis is working. >> it is working in the sands of those things if i can use the words better match or cobol comic territory is reduced, number of fighters reduced. we've taken a lot of key leadership off the field. the foreign fighter flow has reduced so i think there's been great progress made.
what has been more the challenge for us frankly is the ideology and the appeal to people around the world and they are very sophisticated, very slick at the use of social media whether it's for proselytizing, recruiting or command and control. that's been more problematic. >> to look more broadly at the middle east as you and i dated another conversation more recently, i was asking you for your judgment about whether through this strategy in dealing with isis and other aspects of policy we are going to see it turn the corner with these problems of instability and you basically said no, that we shouldn't expect that in the words you used were we can't fix this. meaning it is not in our power
to reorder this. >> the writer for "the new york times" >> too important to ignore and too expensive to fix. that is why we are going to be in this business as we are now at suppressing these extremist movements whether it's al qaeda or isil or something else. we in the intelligence business will be suppressing these groups for some time to come. when you think about it, by the time you get to where we are involved, it is too late because until the fundamental issues that gave rise to these movement , economies that are strained, ungoverned areas,
places awash with weapons, large population of young men, et cetera. until those conditions are addressed to the people in my business, my profession and the military will be doing this depression for some time to come. >> so when we think about this, we should think about this in generational terms and not vote for an in-state that is like the endings of most wars that we've fought. this just ain't like that if i understand you. >> it isn't the ease of looking at the daily line of contact, the forward line of troops kind of thing that you're used to on the conventions that peace is not like that. this is a very amorphous thing. it's a global challenge.
that is why engaging with partners is so important. i would say for the intelligence did i don't know of a time in my x areas where we share more with friends and allies who are similarly confronted with the same threat and that will continue as well. >> there's a younger generation of leaders -- there is a young young -- other younger leaders who are beginning to surface after so many decades as i remember of basically frozen leadership. can you make an assessment? >> i do. there's a lot of controversy,
but i think he is, you know, has a vision for the future. i think he is committed to reforming its economy so it's not so dependent on one's source of revenue. i think he has in mind a lot of other reforms he begged to make. he is an example of this younger generation. not without without controversy in this controversy about concert in saudi arabia. last time i met with him i was genuinely in prize with his vision and his commitment to it. >> if anyone in the audience doesn't know who director clapper is talking about, this is the deputy crown prince and his 30-year-old. so we invited people to submit
questions. there's still time to do it. the hash tag is securing tomorrow. i just want to turn to one or two and ask you, this is an interesting question. it's one over the years. why doesn't the u.s. and its allies used there in the legends to do more to expose corruption around the world. it's a good question because corruption is in reasonably kind of strangling both government and in some instances the ability to trade freely. but it would do more about that? >> first, i think we look at that as an individual country issue getting into peoples internal business and their own sovereignty.
there's a way to do this rather than making it public display of it in the hopes that the question if that's what it is will take that on itself. the other thing is frankly to the extent to which corruption or crime poses a national security threat has a lot of influence on how much time, influence and resource to be honest. >> it's an interesting question that raises other issues and not at to the question. the twitter versions has given the intelligence community's reliance on private sector technology and the government post noted. what can you and other
intelligence community leaders do to repair that relationship? i've got to ask you because it's now a public issue that is getting a lot of debate. what your own view is about pardoning bad word snowden. >> first, we do need to repair the relationship with industry and we are working on not. there are actually many commercial concerns still willing to work with the government and so that is the case for a time wounds all heels over time it will get better. i think in the dialogue that i've had with industry, the areas genuinely support for the
safety and security of the country and those elements of the government they try to do that. as far as edward snowden is concerned, you know, i could understand what he did if it were limited to so-called domestic surveillance if i use air quotes intentionally. but he exposed so much else that had absolutely nothing to do with domestic surveillance where he is damaged our capability against foreign threats. he has taken away capabilities that were used to protect our troops in afghanistan. so the question is not a post officially but if it were, i don't think i could concur and offering him apart.
>> what if you were asked as to direct your own national intelligence about some sort of negotiated plea agreement. not a pardon, but an agreement in which snowden undertook to tell us more about what he knows about what he may have taken that we might not know about that's not in your inventory and contacts he may have had over the last couple years. without negotiated settlement of this through our legal system. does that make sense to you? >> no. [laughter] >> why not? first of all, the damage is done this we are dealing with, ages off over time. just like previous buys that it can damage to us.
we recovered technology changes, especially at the rate of change today. so the more time that goes on is actually in my mind less and less incentive for any kind of negotiated agreement. at least as far as the intelligence community is concerned, we are not in that camp. >> that will be a determination that we will make after the department of justice. you have touched on this question earlier in our conversation, but it's been asked in an interesting way, so i'll throw this one at you. russia spends millions of rubles on disinformation campaigns online and on tv in the u.s. and europe.
if you look at russian tv, you do see an account of what's going on in the world of u.s. networks are u.s. wire services. the questioner asked, is this ever work in? are they getting their moneys worth? >> you have to ask them. i will tell you that is a big feature, a big aspect of their approach. whenever i travel, particularly in europe and i surf the tv channel, it is pretty slick stuff. the angle perspective they try to take to paint the united states always been a bad light and russia always been a good light. they are aggressive about that and they tailor these information operations, these campaigns in europe and they seek to drive wedges between the
european nations and between europe and ice. i worry sometimes that we are not keeping pace. >> i'm going to turn back to my own question list that is only five minutes remaining. we are hoping for this power rather if it's not possible. i want to ask you in your remaining 122 days and however many minutes what you worry about in terms of the future and the intelligence community and the system to your hand onto your successor whoever that person is. areas where you have concern for you have weakness, where they need to, but that bother you.
>> so what we try to do and certainly i have in the last six years is make investments in those capabilities they give us the greatest agility and greatest adaptability. there's no way to predict all of the potential threats that we face. if you contemplate the technology as it always has in our history has double-edged swords. artificial intelligence, well, some people are very concerned about that at this abuse. it also is a tremendous tool for us. genetic research and genetic manipulation that about kind of ethical moral considerations and weapons and chinese are doing research in this area. the next great leap in how we compute, which has huge
implications for cryptology. so all of these challenges that we will face as they always have, as i look back in the intel business, the one constant, lots has changed. we are better today. we have more capability. we can move data around much quicker than when i first came in during vietnam. automation intelligence was asked to take two corporals. we are a far cry from that. so with all the chain, though more constant and no-space themed altruistic, but it is the quality of the people that for whatever reason we can do need to be able to track service in the intelligence community.
>> and wide, to focus on that, why would a smart young person put up with all the intrusion, control, all the limitations that go along with getting security clearances. do you worry about that? >> the unusual experience i have a grandchild in the business he works at the cia. we have a lot of interesting discussion about that very thing. the millennial generation and what appeals to them and what doesn't and what he finds frustrating. what i find with his and i think he's representative of young people today better in the intelligence community is they are very interested in their
patriotic, dedicated. they are not however as committed to an institution as i was when i was his age, 22 when i was first commissioned in the air force that that's a big difference. we have the intelligence community need to be sensitive to that. we need to be able to promote mobility for young people said they are able to move around not only within the intelligence community, but evolve. leave the government, but industry and come back to us. we need to build our systems in such a way that will accommodate that. >> so with that, a wonderful way i think two and our conversation i want to offer my personal thanks to director clapper for taking time at the end of a long way to do this. the securing tomorrow in a lot of ways we are going to secure tomorrow.
one of the most import and obviously is to have a good collections agency that operate with sad and have good oversight and experienced people running them. i think we all want to thank you for coming and sharing this time with us. [applause] ♪ [inaudible conversations] >> the u.s. senate is about to gavel and for short-term continuing resolution to fund the government at a
september 30th deadline. members don't have an agreement yet on the bill but they did so yesterday to officially move on to the legislation. lawmakers expected to take up a resolution by senator rand paul would disapprove an arms sale. three hours of debate on that hill before a debate on the motion. now to live coverage of the u.s. senate era he spanned two. -- here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. our father, we wait in reverance before your throne. cleanse us from our sins, creating in us clean hearts,
while renewing a right spirit within us. help our lawmakers today to discern your voice and do your will. give them the ability to differentiate your guidance from all others, permitting you to lead them to your desired destination. grant them, o god, minds to know, hearts to seek you, wisdom to find you, and conduct to please you. speak to them through your word, guide them with your spirit, and sustain them with your might. we pray in your great name.
amen. the president pro tempore: pleae join me in reciting the pledge f allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: yesterday the senate took the next step in allowing us to eventually pass a continuing resolution. while negotiations are on-going,
i want to thank colleagues on both sides for their cooperation in voting to proceed to the bill that will be used as a shell for the c.r. zika legislation. this will allow us to start work so that when we have an agreement, we'll be able to review and debate it. we all know how important these funds are for combating zika and supporting our veterans. so let's continue to work quickly so that we can eventually pass an agreement as soon as possible. now, on another matter, my friend, the democratic leader, has a favorite saying. he often says that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. i'm not sure his fellow democrats got the memo. at a time when obamacare is raising health costs dramatically, chasing competition out of the health industry and collapsing on itself, democrats just rolled out a brand-new health care idea to fix the problem that even they grudgingly admit are plaguing families, and what is
their answer? more obamacare. no, this is not a joke. democrats actually introduced legislation last week calling for obamacare 2.0, a new government-run health plan. it's not like this is even 00 new -- a new idea. it's just a stale leftover from the health care debate back in 2009 arranges idea that -- back in 200 9, an idea that democrats -- now it is beyond tone deaf. there are good reasons why so many in their own caucus won't support t it is insulting to millions of americans who continue to watch their premiums spike after democrats said they'd be lower. it is insulting to the millions of americans who continue to watch their out-of-pocket costs shoot ever higher after democrats said it would be affordable. i'm sure democrats will make plenty more promises to sell
their latest bad idea. i'm just not sure the american people are in a mood to listen anymore. health care costs just rose last month by the largest amount in over three decades. deductibles are outpacing wages. premiums are spiking by double digits just about every and could even -- everywhere and could even increase as much as 60% in some places. this is obamacare's legacy. it's a direct attack on the middle class. it's ruining lives and making life even harder for those who struggle already. so i have a message to our friends across the aisle: remember what your leader likes to say about doing the same thing over and over. stop denying reality. stop pretending this is somebody else'else's fault. owning up to what you've done to the middle class, then work with us to build a bridge away from it.
obamacare is scary enough for america's middle class. the last thing americans need now is some government-run sequel. mr. reid: mr. president? officer sphesh the democratic leader. -- the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: my entire caucus got the message. we understand einstein's definition of "insanity," doing the same thing over and over again. and the over and over again, my friend should understand, is the fact that republicans have voted 70 times to repeal obamacare.
70 times. each time were the same result -- each time with the same result. so, no, every one of my senators got the memo, as he said. if someone would spend a minute each day flipping through the newspapers about health care, they would understand that obamacare has changed america for the better. 20 million people -- 20 million -- have the opportunity now to go to the doctor when they're sick or the hospital when they're hurt. that wasn't the way it used to be. and the american people are beginning to realize that the constant carping about obamacare is -- from the republicans is wrong. it's wrong for a number of reasons. the american people are beginning to realize with just a little bit of help obamacare could even be made better.
premiums for obamacare are still less than employer programs. that came out yesterday. about 3% lower than the company-run plans. so the marketplace is what it's all about, and that's what's determining what's happening with obamacare. the disabled can get insurance, young men and women can stay on their parents' insurance until age 26, insurance companies are limited in how they can punish people, as they did in the past, setting an arbitrary limit as to how much insurance they would provide. if somebody got hurt in a serious accident, they would just terminate them. and all of the other things that we were at the mercy of the insurance companies. and obviously the republicans want to go back to that same
system. it is not a good system. mr. president, i learn add long time ago here in the senate that it's not -- the rules of the senate do not allow pictures, graphs, and things of that nature to go into the "congressional record," and that's really too bad. i wish i had ha time this morni. but i read the paper this morning -- to blow up this cartoon by the syndicated cartoonist of "the washington post," tom tolles. i talked to tom tolles a couple times in the past decade because he is really good. today's cartoon is as good as it gets. this is a picture of tom tolles' donald trump. i would invite everyone to take a look at it. i wish i could put it in the record. and he says, "maybe we should start profiling."
this is donald trump speaking. this is a picture of him. "we should profile the haircut, beady eyes, blowhard lips, unhealthy orange glow, obvious self-dealing -- and he has got money pouring out of his pocket. tolles has a person down in the bottom making a snide remark. what that person says today is there's a body of evidence, the body of donald trump. and he is the one that should be profiled, not the people that he wants to be profiled. so a little more about donald trump. mitt romney and i agree on one thing, and that's one thing for
sure. there are other things that we would agree on, but let's talk about one thing that military rom -- that mitt romney and i agree on, and that's that donald trump should release his tax returns. he comes up with one excuse after another to not release his tax returns. it is a little odd because this is the donald trump we're talking about. he is not known for caution or restraint. he is the most unhinged and reckless presidential candidate ever. let's consider just a little bit of his track record. we've seen trump refer to women in the most crude and derogatory manner. we've seen trump call immigrants murderers and rapists. we've seen trump fearmonger against muslim-americans, even the parents of one of our proud soldiers who lost his life fighting for this country, our country.
we've seen trump mock someone with a disability on more than one occasion. we've seen trump impugn a federal judge. why? because his parents were hispanic. we've seen trump continue to question president obama's country of origin. we've seen trump casually raise the specter of an assassination against hillary clinton on more than one occasion. this is the donald trump we know. donald trump will do and say anything, regardless of the consequences. so why has trump refused to produce his tax returns? why is this the one time in his life where he exercises caution? why on taxes does he maintain absolute silence? the answer is very simple, mr. president. because trump's tax returns would further destroy his presidential candidacy. production of his tax returns would prove again that he is a fraud if the american people had steeks tax returns, they would
show he's not the billionaire he claims to be. trump wants us to believe that in spite of all his bankruptcies and this litigation that's been on-going for decades, he's a credibly worthy, successful businessman that he portrays himself to be. but he's not. and his tax returns would prove that he's far from wealthy trump. donald trump's ttach -- tax returns would also prove that he avoids paying his fair share of taxes. on the rare occasion that his tax returns have been made public -- that was one occasion some time ago -- they showed that he pays nothing in income taxes. as "the washington post" reported earlier this year -- this is a direct quote -- "the last time information from do do not's income tax returns was made public, the bottom line was striking. he paid the federal government zero in taxes, zero in income taxes. donald trump is afraid if his
supporters discover that he has avoided paying taxes, they will see him for what he is: someone the i.r.s. should charge with a crime, investigate, do something because he deserves all the scrutiny he can get, because he doesn't want us to see what he has in his so-called income." perhaps the most damning evidence of trump's tax records is that he lives off the american t donald trump is a free loading. even though he refuses to pay his share of taxes, he is content to use others' hard-earned money. we learned yesterday that his charity -- he gets other charities to donate to his charity and then he goes out and tries to be a bigshot donating other people's money. even though trump refuses to pay
his fair share of taxes, he is content to use others' money. over the past three decades, donald trump has received $885 million in tax breaks. $885 million in tax breaks. let's put that in perspective. in 2014, the entire state of ohio received $686 million in federal funding to provide benefits for needy families. that funding helped almost 120,000 people in ohio. $885 million for trump compared to $686 million for the entire state of ohio. there's no question about it, donald trump is a welfare king. but the welfare king doesn't want voters to see that he doesn't pay tax, even as he uses billion dollar taxpayer dollars to keep his bankrupt companies
afloat. trump doesn't want americans to see that he claims middle class tax credits. this is what was reported in "the new york daily news." i quote, "the flame throwing republican candidate for the white house claims the only new york city billionaire that snagged a tax break raising even more questions about his alleged billions. analysis of property records for 38 big apple billionaires on the forbes 400 list conducted by canes new york business found trump was the only one to receive star tax credits. that credit gives those entitled to it around $300 off their tax bill. so is he a billionaire? i don't it. donald trump's self--- the self reported billionaire loves to talk about how rich he is has been faultily reporting a $300 tax break for years and has done it for a number of years.
like a sponge donald trump soaks up all the tax pair money he can found -- taxpayer money he can found while not paying his fair share of taxes. the same donald trump who once said and this is another quote, the problem we have right now, we have a society that sits back and says we're not going to do anything and eventually the 50% cannot carry and it's unfair to them but cannot carry the other 50%. i think donald trump is confused about who's carrying whom. he's the one relaxing, playing golf at his golf courses, many of which are made for -- are paid for largely by taxpayer dollars. and depending at the same time the american taxpayer to bankroll his company and golf game. but trump doesn't seem to care. in fact he brags about how he uses other people's hard earned money. here's what he said yesterday. i'll quote. "it's called o.p.m., other people's money. there's nothing wrong with doing
things with other people's money. that's what i do." end of quote. how can speaker ryan, senator mcconnell and other congressional republicans endorse this man for president? endorse him for anything? how can they continue to support donald trump as a shuns -- as he insurances transparency and refuses to release the most basic information about taxes about income. hillary clinton has posted all her tax records for the last four decades for the world to see. donald trump shows us nothing. he's afraid to. mr. trump, prove to every american that you're wealthy, successful, and you're the man you claim to be. mr. trump, prove to every american that you've paid your fair share of taxes. mr. trump, prove to every american you're not mooching off the american taxpayer. mr. trump, release your tax returns. prove me wrong. profit romney wrong. i dare you to come clean and
show us your tax records. but he won't. mr. president, i see my good friend, the senator from illinois, the assistant democratic leader on the floor, but i would ask the chair to announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to h.r. 5325 which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to the consideration of h.r. 5325, an act making appropriations for the legislative branch and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, every morning paper and most of the newscasts this morning focused in on a hearing of the senate banking committee yesterday. it was a hearing where the president of the wells fargo bank was called on to testify.
at issue was a recent disclosure that over a period of many years wells fargo bank was enrolling its customers without their knowledge in the ownership of bank accounts and credit cards. many times she faced penalties and charges which they did not understand because they had not asked to be enrolled in these programs. the employees of wells fargo bank did it in an effort to win favor within their corporate ranks and even to receive bonuses. so this defrauding of thousands of wells fargo customers was finally unearthed by the media and by the consumer financial protection bureau. and as a result, a substantial fine of millions of dollars was paid by wells fargo bank and the president was called before the committee yesterday to explain the situation. he faulted the -- over 5,000 employees of wells fargo bank
whom he said were not honest in their dealings with their customers and they dismissed. there were questions asked of mr. stump about the responsibility of the management of wells fargo bank for this terrible miscarriage of justice. and apparently very few if any managers were held accountable. one particular woman who was in a management exas si had been a-- capacity had been allowed to leave the bank under extremely positive circumstances. she was given a parachute, golden parachute of over $100 million in leaving the bank. while 5300 people making around $12 an hour are being dismissed because of their lack of ethics, this managing woman was in fact rewarded with over $100 million parachute as she left. questions were raised by many of my colleagues, senator brown and even republican colleagues were skeptical of this wells fargo
presentation. senator elizabeth warren was particularly poignant in her remarks that so many of the lower echelon of employees were found morley culpable and paid a when heavy price while those at the highest ranks including mr. stump himself were compensated grandly for their leadership during this terrible time. it's an indication of what it takes to bring real justice to a free market system. i am a person who believes that america is lucky to have the economy that it has, but i also know that throughout history, there have been excesses where people have had to step in. sometimes the media with disclosure. many times the government with oversight and regulation to right the wrongs which occur in runaway rampant capitalism. we saw it of course in the recession that hit our country in 19 -- in 2008 and many of the
largest banks in this country took advantage of individuals and families and businesses at the end of it many of them lost their savings, their homes, and their jobs because of the greed of wall street. but we're talking about an area of justice doesn't just apply to financial institution. it applies to health insurance as well. on a regular basis now, the leadership on the republican side of the aisle has come forward to condemn the affordable care act. it apparently is a big issue that they want to take into the election in november. well, i hope that the american people listen carefully to what we've just heard from senator mcconnell, the republican leader in the senate. day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year for the last five years republicans have come to the floor and said let's abolish obamacare. let's end the affordable care act. i'm still waiting for the first republican to come to the floor and say, and here's what we'll replace it with. there's a saying in down state
illinois and i'm going to clean it up a little bit that any mule can kick down a barn door but it takes a carpenter to build one. in this situation the republicans can't wait to kick down the affordable care act. they don't have any plans to build a replacement. so here's what they want to do. they want to go back to what they consider the good old days of health insurance in america. six years ago, six years ago let me tell you health insurance in america was no picnic for most american families. not only was there a steady increase of premiums year after year but the health insurance companies were very picky on the people they would ensure. if you happened to be the parents of a child who had weathered the storm and survived cancer treatment, your child had a pre-existing condition. if you could get health insurance, you paid a lot for it. the same thing was true if your wife had survived some heart attack, for example, and was now on the mend doing well. she had a pre-existing
condition. and so the pre-existing conditions became the basis for discriminating against american consumers. who among us comes from such a perfect family without any health record that we could say there are no pre-existing conditions in my family. well, if you don't have one today, you might have one tomorrow. so one of the things about the affordable care act as we said, health insurance companies cannot discriminate against people because of pre-existing conditions. in the bad old days which the republicans would return to, they could. under the affordable care act, they cannot. we also said that lifetime limits on health insurance policies were unacceptable. $100,000 may sound like a lot of money until you're diagnosed with cancer. and then you realize that the course of treatment is going to blow through that $100,000 before you're ultimately going to get what the doctor needs or what they ordered, i should say. so we've eliminated the lifetime caps on these policies that were
in fact creating poverty among many american families because of medical diagnoses. he eliminated discrimination based on gender. why was it that a man applying for health insurance policy was paying less than a woman applying fo for a health insurae policy? that discrimination was allowed under the bad old days of health insurance which the republicans want to return to. we went further and said if you are parents and have a young son or daughter, they can stay under your family health insurance plan till they reach the age of 26. why is this important? because kids out of college are still looking for work. they may not get a full-time job. they may not get health care benefits but families want the peace of mind to know they're covered till age 26 so they can have a chance to develop their own health insurance comple. under the bad -- coverage. under the bad old days that coverage was not there. the republicans would like to go back to that. that is a mistake as far as i'm
concerned. we basically said as well if you're a senior citizen in america, you are not going to be burdened by what was known as the donut hole. you see, people under medicare are given a benefit for prescription drugs, but as the law was originally written, there was a gap in coverage net benefit called the donut hole. you would be covered for the first few months of the year on expensive drugs. then you would be on your own to pay out of your savings or not to take the drugs for several months before coverage started again. we're closing the donut hole as part of the affordable care act. the republicans would take us back to the days of the donut hole where individual retired americans would face expenses of $2,000 or more for prescription drugs each year. we closed that donut hole. we're in the process of closing t. the republicans would take us back to the bad old days when we didn't have that closure and they would eliminate the coverage of health insurance brought on by affordable care act for over 20 million
americans. 20 million americans senator mcconnell would basically say sorry, we're going back to the bad old days. you and your family don't get health care coverage but there's something we discovered. even families without health insurance get sick and when they do get sick and in the worst f circumstance -- worst of circumstances turn up at the doctor or hospital. they are treated and many times can't pay for it. who pays for that care? everyone else. everyone else is paying health -- paying health insurance will pay for it. we think it's better and under the affordable care act we achieve this and more and more americans have their own health insurance, both for care when they're sick but also for preventive care. and we provide preventive care under affordable care act particularly for senior citizens so that they will avoid serious illnesses that get very expensive down the line. so what's been the net result of this? not only 20 million more people who have health insurance in america because of the
affordable care act but also the fact that the rate of increase in cost in health care has slowed down, slower than any time in recent records or modern memory. it has extended the life of medicare for another 12 or 13 years because the cost of health care is not rising as quickly as we thought it might. so the republicans would take us back to the bad old days when the cost of health care was going up even more rapidly. i don't think most americans would sign up for that. we also understand that when it comes to the affordable care act, there are ways to improve it. i signed on to one of the provisions that senator mcconnell took exception to this morning. it's a provision for us to consider a public option when it comes to health insurance. i'm all for private health insurance companies competing, doing their best, trying to win the support and the enrollment of american families, but what's wrng with -- wrong with creating a medicare-like proposal that is
a not-for-profit entity providing health insurance along the style of medicare? oh, senator mcconnell was pretty critical of that this morning. he hasn't asked most americans what they think about medicare. he should. many of them thank god that we have it. but for health insurance -- many of them it mernts health insurance when they didn't have it. now many have health care after they retired, health care that is really quality care and affordable. so putting that out as a public option to be considered by those who were signing up for health insurance would let them shop, let them compete. that, to me, is consistent with what we want to achieve when it comes to health care in this country. so we listen time and again to these attacks and critiques of the affordable care act. we have yet to see