tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 26, 2016 4:55am-6:51am EDT
what kasich and to runz decided is not against each other where the other guy has a better chance of beating donald trump. here in indiana, ted cruz is now out on a one and has in exchange ted cruz ceded new mexico and oregon to john kasich. thinks those states are favorable to his centrist brand ,pon sex, and that -- politics and the goal was trying to keep donald trump under the magic is it too little too late for crews and kasich
campaign? >> that is what i'm hearing from a lot of people. even if the ted cruz rally earlier today. at this manyok different ways, it would've been harder to do something like this in january or february. ,here is an argument to be made having some kind of arrangement where certain candidates seated in certain states. work you will hear more about why didn't this happen six weeks ago, why are we just talking about this today. >> as you pointed out, it it is a urgent arrangement. is there any presidents with this type of strategy? in recent history, i cannot
think of anything. it is unusual and general for opponents in a political race to come together with the common core of beating another one. one thing that i think is important is that this kind of thing fuel the argument that theld trump is making -- on campaign trail, which is what the party establishment is going behind closed doors and trying to break this. -- rig this. what you have these campaign saying, it adds fuel to donald trump's argument. antishas been running an establishment campaign going after the republican party. up to now his complaints aired mainly centered on the delegate battle. not something a lot of people understand.
political reporters like me don't even fully understand. it is difficult to make the case only on those grounds. where you have to campaign together are working to take down donald trump, it is easier for voters to understand and digest. >> lists look at the calendar. the indiana primary is next tuesday, the oregon primary is may 17 and the new mexico , along withn june 7 california. how is this all going to play out? plan thatng to the they have set in motion next week is a ted cruz victory at in indiana. is pretty the race close. that is far from a sure bet. a series of, or down and new mexico if kasich were to win
those, you have a situation depending on how california turns out, you might keep traub under that magic number. most ofia divvies up its delegates by congressional districts. the state could split their delegates among kasich, ted cruz and donald trump. you would have an june 7 as donald trump somewhere below at 1227 or 1217, but somewhere below 1200. being in indiana today and cruz, you0 -- ted mentioned about how one woman had talked to about the response for this. what have you heard from the campaign staff? >>2
clean clearly, they are rude john kasich. i think that they see that with this, they can win the race and it is a choice between donald trump and ted cruz. even if they don't necessarily say that out loud. a loss would be devastating to ted cruz. >> sean sullivan, we will look for your reporting online. thank you. >> five states hold primaries this week. today, voters in connecticut, delaware, maryland, pennsylvania
and rhode island go to the polls. we have live coverage starting at age: 30 p.m. eastern. >> c-span's washington journal live every day. covey of the sporting,-wallner talks about the presidential primary in maryland, rhode island and delaware. then, terry madonna. he previously presidential primary and the state historical role as a swing state and the current political climate. then, a harvard institute polling director on the latest poll of millennial views. .nd dr. john knows where the talking about the affordable care act and how it impacts hospitals. watch washington journal beginning this morning, join the
discussion. during campaign to 16, c-span takes you on the road to the white house. we follow candidates on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. no, a defense department update on the president's decision to send up to 250 special operation forces to syria. peter cook reports at this meeting. >> hello, everybody. it is really tall today. taller than normal? where is the button? thank you.
hope everyone is doing well today. good to be back in the same time zone as most of you. i see fellow weary travelers. .e just had a successful trip the secretary went to asia and the middle east and we spent a productive day in iraq where the big focus was the fight against isil and that is where i want to begin today. a week ago, secretary crary might with the top commanders in the fight, including macfarland and he met with u.s. troops providing critical support to forces. he shared with those troops additional steps we are taking to accelerate the campaign in iraq. those steps include advising and assisting the headquarters. helicopterse attack
available and supportive operations to retake most so. and increasing u.s. personnel to provide further aviation support and other assistance. secretary also indicated that we were prepared to do more in the fight and today, the president spoke that out in more detail. his authorized up to 250 u.s. forces included medical and logistic personals to be deployed to syria for taking the fight to syria. forces have been proved the picture of the battlefield, made connections with local capable forces and enhanced targeting areas in syria. these horses will build on what has been working. they will increase the pressure on isil at this time. the circuitry believes this will
make a difference. the secretary will fight on the isil campaign alongside chairman dunford and we will have the latest senior leading briefing tomorrow morning, hope you will tune in for that. with that, i would be happy to take your questions. >> can you give us more details on the deployment of the 252 syria? have any of them been chosen? what units are we looking at? when to you expect them to go at will it be a similar deployment to the 50 who are -- there hasn't been a lot of transparency on this but will they be growing in in groups and coming back out to another location? >> we're going to be very careful in how we describe the
activities of these personnel because we want to maintain the national security. we will get into a lot of details. theseld like to see forces too much of the same thing at the original 50 did. they will be establishing connections with forces on the ground. it will be improving our picture of the battlefield, our sense of what is happening on the ground. the original 50 provided helpful information. so they will be engaging with forces on the ground to get a better picture to improve the intelligence assessment. we will not get into details about where they will be located. our plan is to keep them as safe as possible. >> will they go in the same kind of deployment as the previous
50? it will be an extended amount of time? >> we won't go into details. >> what is the concern of that? i'm just asking for the op tempo. if it is going to be too hundred 50 that are deployed and the 50 who are already authorized, will there ever be a true time when there will be 300 troops on the ground in syria? will it be a smaller force or rotation? >> it is safe to say that there will be a presence of u.s. forces in syria doing this kind foreseeablethe future. i will not say whether they will all be on the ground. some of these people are not special operators. we have medical and logistical personnel. but we will have a presence of
some form in syria to try and the fight to meet more forces. and to accelerate the campaign. that is the campaign and coal. this, williming of you be able to inform the american public -- these are american soldiers, will you inform us when the first of them have deployed or are deployed? will there be any effort at transparency in this mission? >> there will be an effort to preserve the operational security and to share as much information as we can to maintain the operational security. we will provide details as we can but again, we will defer specifically to the idea of preserving their safety, doing
everything we can to bolster their own security while they are in syria and they are conducting their operations. >> help close will they be to combat? will they essentially be engaged in combat? >> they will be in support of forces on the ground. the idea is that they will not be in combat. they will be provided forces with support to those who are fighting isil but they will be in harms way. they are in harms way and they should be able to defend themselves if they come under fire. but that is not the intent of this deployment. the intent is to bolster the forces to enhance efforts and these particular forces will act bringorce multiplier to the weight and the might of the
u.s. military pi and local forces in a way that we have seen previously conducted by the initial department that they did. yes? >> just to follow up, will these forces be insulted such as what has explained in iraq last week? and this is the second announcement in a week with the deployment of a substantial number of special operators. i'd what point is the strain two great if they are the primary force assisting? let me answer the second part of your question first. we feel confident that we have the resources we need within the special forces community to be able to carry out these operations. you are correct, we are looking to these particular personnel to carry out unique capabilities and in these particular
circumstances in iraq and syria put we do feel confident that we have the resources. and the leadership team to carry this out as well. the first part of your question again? >> with the announcement in iraq, can we expect the same in syria? >> the picture in syria is different. but yes, they will be engaging with leadership people and making connections but i wouldn't categorize this as a brigade. they will be away from the frontline and meeting with leaders to get a sense of the battle space, a picture of local dynamics and trying to see what forces might merit further support from the coalition. relationships in expanding relationships and again, as we've talked about in the past, those forces that perform well will get additional
u.s. support. and these u.s. forces will identify who these people are. >> a big part of the effort is to beef up syrian fighter aircraft. the numbers for the syrian air, anywhere from 3000-5000. i'm told they want to be set up to 15,000 arab fighters? does that sound right? how long do you think that will take? yourwon't weigh in on specific numbers because i've never heard somebody identify a target but i will say that in our visit last week, to iraq and the conversations that we have had, the numbers of syrian arab forces are growing at this is a snowball effect. the secretary has talked about
this. success against isil has brought out more people and forces willing to engage in the fight against isil. and we believe that is true of syrian air forces. so there will be outreach to those forces and they will be critically important in the fight to rocca, but we are looking for folks who are prepared to take the fight to isil and the air forces are part of that. >> do you know the size? have anl see if we updated number but certainly in the thousands. there may be a number that is more accurate. >> as far as taking rocca, is there still hope? >> there hasn't been a calendar. get there bype to year's end? >> as soon as possible. same with the fight for postal
but we are in a circumstance where we are counting on local forces to carry out the fighting. in that sense, we have to operate on their timetable. we're trying to do everything we can to accelerate the deployment. we try to speed things up in iraq and put pressure on ice -- on isil. we think this deployment will certainly help to amnesty pressure even higher at a critical time and perhaps speed up the overall timeline for when we might be able to retake postal. >> the secretary announced 217 soldiers would be deploying last week and today, too much or 50 more going to syria, by the incremental approach? >> these are specific capabilities and needs as we
talked to our partners. including our assessment and talking to local leaders on the ground. these are decisions that we think makes sense to accelerate the campaign and to further accelerate local forces. >> another 200 to be announced next week? >>'s secretary has said that these are the next steps and we will look for opportunities where we can accelerate the campaign further. we will beat with more coalition partners to get a sense of what the additional steps are that can be taken in the future. but we are not taking anything off the table. >> so you could announce 200 more next week? >> we continue working with local partners to see how we work with local campaigns. i've you have seen with these very specific deployments, we looking at specific capabilities. things that can make a tangible difference in a short amount of
time and bolster local forces on the ground and in the cases of the iraqi specific needs. >> going step-by-step? >> we are building on what's working. both in syria and iraq. we have seen the momentum in recent weeks and have seen what has been successful and these actions reflect the decisions made based on success on the ground. we want to build on that success. >> you mention medical personnel and logistics. could one of her that the u.s. is contemplating setting up some sort of field hospital or a medical support for fighters into syria? >> i think you want to incur that will provide support that these forces deed to succeed. and then we put into place the e theirf setup to enhanc safety and security and to do everything we can to make sure the forces who will be in harm's
way that everything is being done to make sure they are as safe as possible. >> so the medical personnel is to support the u.s. forces, not to provide medical assistance to local fighters in syria? >> i'm not getting into details but again, the idea here is to support u.s. forces who are going to work with local partners. we are taking every step we can to make sure that u.s. forces are in as safe and effective as position as possible. do talk about specific units but where do they number 200 50 come from? do you have specific units in mind and it comes to 250? >> the number came about as a result of the discussions of commanders here within the department and in consultation with the secretary. this was the number that was deemed to be appropriate to
build on the success we have seen. we have seen the original 50 make tangible progress on the ground in terms of improving our picture and connections. and this was deemed to be the right number at this particular moment in time to build on that success. >> so if this increase is also successful on the same scale, what is the argument against continuing to add more and more u.s. forces? >> week is the big factor here is the local forces on the ground and the successes they have on their own to enable -- on their own, enabled by the u.s. forces. at the end of the day, the goal is to have these forces eliminate isil and to hold the territory. this is their home. to continue to try with that strategic approach.
this is about accelerating their efforts. they're on the front lines of this fight. he secretary believe that this is a deployment at can help those local forces make even more progress on the ground against isil and ultimately hold that progress. it will be largely in their hands and the same is true in iraq. iraqi security forces will determine this fight with the help of the coalition. >> the u.s. has been reluctant to add ground forces since the beginning. now it is slowly trickling in more and more and we are beginning to see success. but the initial promise was made to the american people to not get involved in a ground war again so how are we not on the road to a ground war? asked these forces are not on the front line. they're providing advice and assistance to those local forces. they are not in the same role
that you are talking about. they're providing support and are enabling local forces. this is not a question of putting in thousands of american forces to wage this fight, we look to others to cave this -- to carry this fight and we will support them. and the 50 who were there originally, force multipliers is the best way to look at this. a small number of americans with these kinds of capabilities can bring at enormous weight to bear and those forces who have come into contact and worked with u.s. forces, they would attest to that. we can make a difference by providing them assistance. >> i was like to come back to the issue about medical support. i could be wrong but this is the first time i have heard you talk about providing medical support. i would like to ask you if you could really clarify. you talked about it in terms of
safety and security of forces. this medical support doing that. it seems difficult to comprehend that it would only be for syrian fighters on the ground. if you have medical support you have an anticipation that is available to u.s. troops. so what is it? can you consider answering that? what is it that the medical support that you are talking about for the first time, what are they going to do and for whom are they going to do it? will it include helicopter borne medevac? >> we will market into a breakdown of the 250. so medical support, these are folks in harms way. we will do everything we can to ensure that should they get into trouble or be injured in the field, that we would be able to provide medical support quickly and efficiently to be able to
treat those people. that is an appropriate precaution for us to take. same with force protection for these folks. everything they're doing, we want to make sure that they are put in a position of success and that we take every step we can to keep them as safe as possible. >> this is the first time that we have publicly, as far as i know, that you are talking about putting a military medical support function in harms way, -- to be clear, when we deploy social operators, there is always a component to that which provides medical assistance in preparation in case something goes wrong. >> but you have never felt the pentagon -- the pentagon has --er felt that the need
everyone understands that special forces goes with their own inherent medical capabilities but you are talking about a medical support function. what has changed that leads the pentagon to believe these troops will be in harms way sufficient to require this type of medical support function which apparently is different and the inherent deployed medical support special ops always goes with. what has changed? >> i'm not sure. you shouldn't be interpreting this as suggesting anything. i'm not getting into a breakdown into what is done but the two hundred 52 not all include special operators who will be engaging with syrian forces. troops,hese 250 whatever units they may belong to, are they going to continue
to have this structure where you have described it as maintaining positions one terrain behind the front line? because the 50 have openly discussed about doing that in the past. the new 250, can they go as far toward as one terrain feature behind the front line? >> i have not discussed it from this location and i am not going to do this now. we're not discussing the positioning or the specific personnel. i indicated to you that they would not be on the front line. it will be removed from the front line. it will be engaged with local forces on the ground to provide support and enable forces and that is the extent to which i'm going to describe the activity. that's it. >> the secretary talked about giving the system in iraq to
support iraqi forces going forward. when you first spoke publicly about weapons being in iraq you described it as being for the defense of the u.s. trainers and iraqi forces undergoing training. but now you are talking about using it to support troops going forward in combat. does that is not that the high mark at the system and the troops who man this are in a ground combat role? if it does not, how does it not? have heard the chairman talk about this as well. the highmore's capabilities are not that different than the airstrikes we're carrying out right now. the level of accuracy is comparable. they will be able to strike targets in the same way our
aircraft is striking targets and they will not be at the front of the line but they will be providing offense of firepower if needed. >> offense of firepower from the ground and not 30,000 feet. >> the same kind of support in much of the same way. >> so it is on the ground, not at 30,000 feet, so how is this not a ground combat operation? they are on the ground. >> a combat that will be moving forward will be the and iraqi security forces. this is in support of the iraqi forces it will be firepower that helps them in the same with the coalition urged port is providing support to them right now, as we speak in iraq and he same with the coalition air support that we provide to syrian forces. it is the same principle here
and those forces will be providing and hitting targets and coordination with the work of the iraqi government. can be used as defensive fire as well. you can be used, going forward thee look at postal and lieutenant general address this well when he spoke to the for reporters last week in baghdad, we are looking at a much larger city. a different set of challenges when you look at ramadi. we want to make sure that the capabilities are in place to deal with a much larger city with a complex set of challenges. can you help me understand the difference between the two into 50 in syria and the 217 in iraq? will this be like the level we
see in iraq? or will they be providing basic training level and not necessarily logistics from point a to point b? >> the best way to look at syria is the notion we are trying to andge with as many forces we don't know all of the forces in play. this is as much as about introductions and connections and seeing what we can do. them we have dealt with in the past. that is what the main task of these forces will be. a lot of will be logistical training and support for iraqi forces that we work with every
single day and we know well. it is a different picture in iraq and syria. but the end goal is the same. support local forces and take the fight for a cell. i will go to the back. we expect potential weapons capability added once they have been vetted and taking notes? recently adding the apaches and time work. >> we are talking memory about enabling forces to enable them to help with their support for the engagements. so i don't think we are talking about these kinds of weapons capabilities to syrian forces. but just enabling them to the extent that we can on the ground. and from the air as well. month orle weeks or two back, we heard there was
some to medication with the russian military notifying them of where this small group of 50 special operators were going to be in syria to avoid a mishap or incident. how will this play out going ahead with this number being larger russian mark will there be further notification to the russians on where these guys are located? to what extent are these guys on the ground in syria >> first of all, i'm not sure to the extent that russian opposition will be in this part of syria. .ou raise a good point in the past, we identified a particular geographic area where we asked the russians not to strike. and not going to discuss those conversations going forward. we will take additional steps.
you can be sure we take every step we can to assure the safety of our personnel and limit the risk that they face. and will not seek to particular conversations that we have had or will have in the future with the russians. >> additional steps with the russians? >> we are taking a number of steps on our own further safety and security of the personnel that have nothing to do with the russians. we are not talking publicly with you all where they will go. we will do everything we can to make sure they are as safe as possible, by will not discuss at this point what discussions we have had with the russians. >> [indiscernible] we be discussed that -- discussed that after the fact. i will not predict that now. yes, joe. sente u.s. troops who were to iraq, the decision to send them was coordinated with the
iraqi government. sending the forces -- can you tell us if the decision was courtney with a third channel with the syrian government in damascus. >> there has been no coronation with the syrian government. >> what is the framework? >> it is the same authorization that we used in sending the initial 50, and a basis for the fight against isil over all. it is the same authorization that has been in place previously. there is no difference between these forces and the original 50. yes, gordon. >> where is the secretary of transgender policy? are we expecting to see that anytime soon? >> there has been a working , you come up with
recommendations for him. his devoted mother and quick. when the recommendations are ready for the secretary's review, they will look at them. that it getsar they pushed to the right so far they cannot get through the building. >> the secretary wants the best or conditions from the working group, and when they are ready to deliver them, he will be ready to review. >> about the troops in syria, i know you don't want to identify theyocation, will primarily the working with the ykg forces? >> they will be working with forces on the ground, syrian
democratic forces. they will continue to identify those forces that we feel are engaged in the fight against isil, and further enabling by the coalition will help accelerate their efforts against isil. that will be a range of groups on the ground. we have been working with some syrian kurdish forces, and i'm sure there will be some kurds on the ground, but there are also fighters and others that we would like to see get more involved in the campaign. >> the forces had some sort of competition -- many saw that as unprecedented, where they were casualties. should you forces come under attack, with a defend themselves and defend their comme comrades? >> if who is attacked, i'm
zydeco >> your forces. >> yes, they will defend themselves. >> if they get attacked by a sad -- -- isil. fight is focused on way from thehat start. >> north korea claimed to have successful test of the missile saturday. what is the assessment of if it was in fact a successful test chuckled >> you're still assessing the test conducted by north koreans.
knowly what to place, we already that this was a inlation of human resolution -- the pursuit remains a significant concern. >> can you provide any to tells in the testing of the launch. assess thenue to launch itself. at this point, we cannot say exactly how best to characterize it other than it was a provocative act from the north koreans. we continue to assess what they did.
it is only the latest that we think has been counterproductive. certainly nothing they have been doing in recent weeks will add to stability in the region. syria, or going into any of them have authority to call airstrikes chuckled >> again, i will not. into the details of what the forces are doing. they are u.s. forces on the ground with the ability to defend themselves and engage with forces on the ground. they will help local forces identify targets on the ground for coalition airstrikes. >> who are calling the airstrikes -- local forces or special ops? >> again, this is to enhance communications that they have in
terms of identifying targets, but will not get into the specific decision-making process. >> a lot of the news reporting is saying the u.s. will deploy apache chirac. iraq. is it the case that the apaches there can be used by iraqis? >> we were asked this last weekend. there are apaches already in iraq, but we will not preclude the notion of additional assets being brought in. closestalia, one of our allies will be mounting soon a multimillion dollar submarine tender. a requirement was that the with u.s. systems. has the u.s. communicated with australians the requirements they would like to see in the
summ submarine? >> this is a decision for the australians, and we don't think it is appropriate to weigh in on it. this is a decision for our ally to make and we will leave it to them. >> you would agree this is a significant decision in building of interoperability with the united states? >> interoperability is something we push with all of our allies and something we look for, for we will not get into any criteria or anything we communicated with the australians. this is their decision. decisionhas been a lingering on the. what is the status of that?
>> i don't know where that stands, if we have had a breakthrough with any of the committees. i know this has been an issue that the secretary has raised previously on the hill. he would certainly like to have as much money freed up for this fight as possible. i'm not aware of what hurdles remain, if any. maybe there has been progress in the last few weeks. record -- the programming is classified. >> you are looking for the amount chuckle >> the document, to see what you are asking for. ?> louis >> we have heard about healthy shift. should focus on a
is that taking place in north korea? also, there were airdrops and additional supplies sent on the conditional basis, has those continued? by sending in the additional personnel, though supply drops have continued as well? >> i'm not going to go beyond what steve shared. that program has been restarted configuration, but will not get into more details in terms of numbers, where it is happening. one of the goals of that has vettedo provide tha
support.ith i cannot read out whether there have been additional airdrops at this point. one cool is to identify leaders worthy of that support and work out the hurdles that would need to be overcome to provide material support for those forces. >> is it safe to assume that they had increased substantially chuckle >> again, i will not get into hypotheticals, but those forces that have shown success, we are willing to provide more material support for them. wayhat sense, that is the we have been looking at it. if you do well, and meet the conditions under which we provided support in the first
place, certainly you can expect that any additional support would be enhanced if you show success on the ground and meet the headlines. >> the appointment of additional personnel is part of that as well? >> one of the main goals is meeting needs on the ground. before we had forces in syria, the picture, quite honestly, was limited. sense, it is right, we hope to meet even more groups who are not only committed to the fight against isil, but capable and capable of benefiting from additional u.s. support. >> is it safe to say the majority of the people you are
otherg either to meet people as opposed to personal? a good number. >> it was reported that north a space missile and it was unsuccessful. can you comment on that? >> i cannot. yes. >> quick question. can you update us on the ability for isis to replace fighters taken off the battlefield. for instance, the estimate has .een downgraded the pentagon has given previous estimates on how many they think they have killed. they don't believe isis can replace fighters as quickly as
they are taking off. >> let me take the question to make sure we get the numbers right. , as youished numbers said, there have been updates that reflect a drop in the numbers. that isilt -- suggest may be having a tougher time. i've time for one more and then i have to go. lucas. >> in the last days, there have been ballistic missile launches russia, and north korea. is there a full-blown nuclear's arms race underway now? >> the ballistic missile threat is something we take very seriously with regard to all of those countries. you can see the secretary's hill this capitol the numbers in
the area. we think it is important for the united states to be invested in the kinds of technologies and deterrence steps that can address the threats of their. what we have seen recently is a reflection of the parties that this department is making. the testing of these countries -- >> will not get into specific .umbers, numbers of tests clearly, these countries have decided it is the moment to test those possibilities. consider that a concern. more important, we are taking steps now, working with allies in the region, but also investments in our own capabilities and technologies to address those threats. thank you, everybody.
on an antenna farm in northern virginia. her dad was also in the signals intelligence business. growing up our guest hacked his tv sets so he can listen to the philadelphia police department. he transferred to the air force rotc program and was commissioned when he graduated from the university of maryland. trained as a single intelligence was in vietnam, where he shared a trailer with his dad, who was also on duty there. later, he flew 73 combat missions in thailand. he rose to become a three-star general and served in the defense intelligence agency before retiring from the military in 1995. after several years in executive positions in the private sector, he returned to government service as the first civilian director of what is now called the national geospatial services agency. he then became sworn as the fourth national director of
intelligence in 2010. now, onto this morning's mechanics. first, thanks to our underwriter northrop grumman. we are on the record here. please, no live blogging or tweeting. no filing of any kind while the breakfast is under way to get this time to actually listen to what the guest says. there is no embargo when the session ends at 10:00. we will e-mail several pictures of the session to all the reporters here as soon as the breakfast ends. as regular attendees know, if you would like to ask a question, do the traditional thing and send me a subtle, nonthreatening signal. given the keen interest in today's guest, i will limit myself to one question and ask that you restrain the urge to post multipart series. -- queries.
we will start off by offering director clapper the opportunity to make some opening comments. then, we will move to questions from around the table. clapper why don't we just go : to questions? i have 270 days left. how is that? [laughter] start with a little softball and then we will move on to my hard-hitting colleagues. the new book "the president's secrets," focuses on the daily briefs and how it has evolved. the book describes president obama as reading the precinct -- briefing alone but not as interested in in person discussions, and not usually including the briefer in follow-on policy discussions with his aides.
how would you describe him as an intelligence consumer, and how do his preferences change the way the intelligence community deals with the white house? mr. clapper: i can't make in person comparisons with any other president. this is the only one i have done this with. but, in my almost six years experience with president obama, i have found him to be a very voracious and astute consumer of intelligence. he is a faithful reader of the president's daily brief which, unlike in the past, we don't brief him because he reads it. i know he does because of the references he makes to the articles in the pdb. that is supplemented by the session we have every day, schedule permitting, and of
course if he is in town, with additional briefing items that complement, supplement what is in the pdb. i think having read the histories of of how the for me, -- how, before me, dci's, and now in this position, each president has his own style of ingesting intelligence. david: but you don't feel that the community is neglected?
mr. clapper: no. on the contrary. in addition to engagement in the oval office is the fact that we have a whole range of interagency meetings, deputy committee meetings, principal committee meetings, a lot of which are chaired by the national security advisor, and national security council meetings, which the president himself chairs. each one of those requires intelligence. the national security apparatus is driven by intelligence. across the board, i think intelligence pervades the decision-making process. david: we will go first to eli lake of bloomberg and aaron kelly of usa today, chuck ross of the st. louis dispatch. talk a little about [indiscernible]
mr. clapper: clearly, this is an ongoing -- now, it has entered into military litigation. so, it is going to be handled in accordance with the uniform code of military justice. i probably shouldn't comment specifically. any espionage case, particularly one that reaches the point of a prosecution is, by definition, serious. >> i need to ask you about encryption. is the administration going to come out in support of the bill to compel companies to comply with court orders? mr. clapper: i can't answer that. i think the issue with encryption, i would defer to what the president said about it. that is, people taking
absolutist positions on it. i think we in the intelligence community -- i have been, as has comey of the fbi, have been pretty consistent. i don't know the technicalities of how we might arrive there, but that has been the characteristic of this country, a way of fighting to thread the and needle so that we ensure privacy and security on an individual basis, as well as security in the context of what is best for the collective good. that is, right now, kind of an
elusive holy grail that we are now pursuing. i am not going to take a position on behalf of the administration on legislation like that. i will refer to what the president said about neither camp assuming absolutist positions. >> i have a few more questions on the encryption issue. former cia director mike hayden has said that encryption is really more of an issue for the law enforcement community. how much of a challenge -- how much of a challenge is the end encryption for the intelligence community, and particularly nsa and cia, and did the intelligence community actually tried to find vulnerabilities that could help the fbi crack fa rouk's iphone.
mr. clapper: i'm not going to speak to the latter point, i will leave that to the fbi. i will tell you that, as a result of the snowden revelations, the onset f commercial encryption has accelerated by about seven years. it has had and is having profound effect on our ability to collect, particularly against terrorists. the most sophisticated user by far of the internet and the technologies that are available privately to ensure and to end encryption. so, that is a major inhibitor to discerning plotting going on, principally by isil or others.
so, with the growing availability, this is obviously a challenge for us. >> kristin donnelly. >> can you talk a little bit about the 28 pages? obviously, these are declassified, but bob grant said on meet the press that it be several weeks or a month. can you talk about the process, what is going on right now. can you talk a little bit about the speculation that there is some type from the saudi government -- some tie from the saudi government and government sponsored charities with 9/11? mr. clapper: thank you for the question, as they say on capitol hill.
we are in the position of trying to coordinate interagency position on the declassification of the 28 pages. senator graham mentioned on "meet the press" yesterday that the white house had told him that they had hoped to have the action completed by june. i think that is certainly a realistic goal. >> thank you for joining us. as you know, the nda just announced st. louis as a site for its new facility. there is somewhat of a
cross-border war, with the -- with the illinois delegation saying it should be across the river near an airport base. can you tell us why it is going to tentatively be in st. louis, and what is being taken into account when these new facilities are built? mr. clapper: the current set up at 2nd street, if you are familiar with it -- that building has one of the lowest facility condition indexes of any such facility in the intelligence community. it is very old. the building there has been historically preserved back to the 40's. it has an adequate electrical system, plumbing. it is next door to a chemical plant. there is a railroad track behind it where we have no insight into
what is in the rolling stock, and it is in a floodplain. other than that, it is a good facility. nga, to its credit, we did all we could to sustain the building facilities and the quality of life for the employees there. it needs a new facility. the director of nga, it is his recommendation, because this process is not finished yet. it is his recommendation that it be located in another site in st. louis. obviously, we knew from the get-go that one delegation or the other was going to be unhappy about this decision-making process. since it is not over yet, i'm not going to prejudice that one
way or the other. i will simply say that i have no basis for countermanded robert's decision. >> given your extensive background, from a marine to a lieutenant general in the air force, to the head of the dia, and now the director of national intelligence, i know you don't wade into political matters. but, given your extensive military and intelligence background, i wonder if you can tell us how important it is that there be a steady hand on the ship of state. mr. clapper: the intelligence ship of state? >> you have probably been to a lot of parties in the last month, and people all want to know about some of these candidates. they are nervous, they are concerned. how does that affect your job?
how relevant is it? or doesn't it make any difference at all? mr. clapper: it personally doesn't make any difference to me because i am out of here on january 20, 2017. certainly, you worry about rhetoric on the campaign trail. i think that history has been that, once a president is inaugurated and in office, and realizes the burden and the responsibilities of the position, i think that has a tempering effect on anyone. i think it will hear regardless of who is elected. i am struck with how simple things are on the campaign trail and and how those very same issues are very hard in the confines of the situation room. just about any example you want to name.
there are far more complexities, policy implications, legal implications to things that would appear on the campaign trail. i will not cite specific examples at risk of finger-pointing at one candidate or another. david: and going to dustin, charlie, ryan brown, julian hatton, robert schlesinger, tim johnson. this is just a test as how, as an old man, i can remember names. mr. clapper: you have two old guys appear, so be careful. a letter to you and your
asked for aneek estimate of -- they believe this is possible and they are ok with a one time privacy concern that would arise from such an estimate. is it possible for you to give us an estimate, and do you plan to do so publicly? mr. clapper: first, i just have to say how important section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act is to the nation's safety and security. this tool is a terrific reducer -- terrific producer of critical intelligence for this country and our allies. point two is that if you could make such an estimate that was explainable and without
compromise, we would have done so. we are looking at several options right now, none of which are optimal. they all have drawbacks. the irony is, as we have found out many times, is that to actually render an accurate number we have to be more invasive and identify more u.s. persons in order to come up with an accurate number. many people find that unsatisfactory, but that is the fact. we are looking at this. i got the letter, or i read about it in the media before i received it. we are going to do our best. any methodology we come up with will not be completely satisfactory to all parties. >> thank you very much. the question is this -- is there any evidence that isis or al
qaeda are planning any actions in the coming months that would influence the u.s. elections, ad are they encouraged in any way by trump as a candidate? in mr. clapper: i cannot point to any evidence that would indicate a preference on the part of isis to who is elected in our presidential election. and whether or not they might do something that could have a bearing on it, well, they could, particularly if they do something in this country. at would probably have some
impact. that certainly could influence how people vote in the election. >> earlier this month, the president talked about the privacy demands of americans online compared to security implications. my question is, when it comes to that philosophy, what expectations should americans how people vote in the election. have for online privacy to receive proper security? mr. clapper: i think they should upgrade assurance despite the hyperbole in the media, because of the many safeguards, oversight by all three branches of the government, aggressive oversight by all three branches of the government, that we're going to be as precise as we possibly can be in exploiting the internet for foreign intelligence purposes. i often long for the healthy on days of the cold war -- the halcyon days of the cold war. we had two intelligent systems.
with advent of the internet, everything was interconnected. so, all of those billions of innocent transactions by millions and millions of innocent people are all mixed up with various activities by nefarious people. so, the challenge is picking up the needles from hundreds and thousands of haystacks without in any way jeopardizing the privacy of americans. believe me, we go to and have gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure that those rights are not infringed upon. by the way, all of us are american citizens, and i certainly care about our own
privacy as well. >> you have spoken about the dangers of cyber attacks, it but on the lot --, but only law enforcement side, there is a response to encryption. you are not an i.t. person, but how do you square that? what kind of questions do you ask yourself when you make the decisions about unbreakable encryption? mr. clapper: i place great faith and confidence in the tremendous technological ingenuity and creativity that we have in this country. this is one case where there needs to be a partnership between industry, commercial sector, and the government.
i would hope that the companies would devote some serious efforts to research, development , some other alternative methods by which we can continue to safeguard the security -- the private security of people as well as ensuring the public's security. >> do you think there are circumstances under which we need unbreakable encryption? mr. clapper: you mean it is impossible to break and it is ensuring that the terrorists get a pass? >> you probably know more about the definitions than i do. mr. clapper: in the history of mankind, since we have been doing signal intelligence, there
is really no such thing, given proper time, proper application, and the application technology. again, i think your question gets back to what -- and i will just repeat what the president said about people assuming absolutist positions, which is not helpful. >> patrick tucker from defense one. >> earlier this year, north korea did an underground nuclear bomb test. they claimed it was for a hydrogen bomb. seismic activity suggests it is not a hydrogen bond. some people suggest it may have been a so-called boosted bomb, a bomb that has some characteristics of a hydrogen bomb, but not as large in magnitude. can you tell today, do you feel that north korea is on the road to creating a hydrogen bomb in
the next five years? mr. clapper: i can't say that. i will say that, aspirational y, the current regime in north korea is very determined to portray to the world that north korea is in fact a nuclear power , and he wants recognition of that. so, despite some of the failures that they recently incurred, they will come in my view, continue to press on to develop nuclear capabilities. which, i think, probably would include hydrogen capabilities, but i certainly can't describe a timeline. >> it has been a month now since the attacks in brussels. what has the intelligence community learned since then? do you believe that they have ce
lls in places like germany, england, italy? mr. clapper: yes, they do. that is a concern of ours and our european allies. i assure you that we are doing all we can to share with them. i was recently in europe. as part of the u.s. delegation there to try to provoke more sharing between and among the nations in europe. that, right now, is a major and isa major emphasis of ours to promote more sharing and to do all we can to share with them. we continue to see evidence of
plotting on the part of isil.in the countries you named. >> what did we learn about the islamic state in the aftermath? mr. clapper we learned that they : are fanatic, very operation security conscious, they are very mindful of that, they have taken advantage, to some extent, of the migrant crisis in europe, something which the nations, i think, have a growing awareness of. >> going back to the north korea issue, they talked a little bit about their hydrogen bomb. mr. clapper: not as though that were a fact. >> in terms of developing these capabilities. what is your threat assessment
of ballistic missiles? there was reports of a successful ballistic missile test recently. what is your assessment of the threat that poses to the united states, in the region, and wider? mr. clapper: we might disagree with the north korean claims of a success. we are still reading that out with a technical assessment over r sobmtent to which thei worked or not. we have to assume the worst. that is traditionally what we do in the intelligence community. we ascribe capability for them to have fielded an intercontinental ballistic missile. we have low confidence in that, because they have never successfully tested one.
that has a bearing on the assessment. if you think about it, the north koreans, in a sense, have created at least the psychology of deterrence, which is what they are very interested in. my brief sojourn there in november of 2014, when i engaged with them some, they are clearly in siege mentality mode, and they think that we are bent on regime change and on and sorting -- and absorbing the dprk. they want recognition as a nuclear power and they want the capability that they view fundamentally.
>> there is a lawsuit that was allowed to proceed last week involving cia contractors in spoke a couple washington. .- spokane, washington it was in regards to their work program of the cia under george w. bush. i wonder if you have any concern about the implications of that going forward or that hinders in any way outside contractors to work with dic in the future? in washington, yes. if there are any concerns about whether it is allowed to go forward, whether it goes forward, will it discourage cooperation in the future? mr. clapper: i don't know. i'm reluctant to comment on an ongoing matter of litigation.
i really can't and shouldn't say anything about it. the likelihood that we are going to engage and hire contractors to do extraordinary interrogation techniques, i think is slim and none. from that standpoint, maybe not. but, i can't really speak to what the total and final legal implications of that case are. >> a question about syria. as you know, the president announced today that he has approved the deployment of 250 additional special operations troops on the ground in syria. this comes after several years in which the assessment of most
of the intelligence community was that the arab opposition forces in syria really had very little capability in terms of organization, military impact, saying power, anything you wanted. has that assessment changed, and is it possible yet to set out any plausible timelines if there capability increases, if pressure on isis continues, for the fall of raqqa. mr. clapper: realistically, i can't project any timelines. i do think the request for additional troops is a manifestation of the need to and the effectiveness of advising ad assisting, and being on the
ground with not just the arabs, but with the others who were there, principally various factions of the kurds. and so, the complexity of the situation in syria is unbelievable. and, to the extent that we can promote proxies who have interest in their own villages, their own towns, their own communities, and, as well, from my standpoint, to gain more on the ground insight, is a good thing. but, i cannot project what is going to be the incremental impact of these additional 250, and how long it will take before there is some sort of resolution . i can't say that.
david: we're going to go next to t -- we're notn going to go to robert. tim johnson from mcclatchy. >> i would like to refer to the panama papers that came out earlier this month. there was a rather immediate reaction from the established democracy iceland in terms of shaking up the political status quo. not so in russia, china. do you think there is impact of knowledge of offshore wealth held by leaders? mr. clapper: it is hard to make a generalized response. i think it will defend very much -- it will depend very much on individual cases. one of the reasons it hasn't invoked a lot of reaction in russia is kind of obvious.
a little tighter control on your counterparts there. the likelihood that that is going to come close to or touch president putin, i think, is pretty remote. other places, it depends on, frankly, the politics, and how individual countries or individual legal system respond. it is hard to make a generalized answer to your question. >> to follow-up on the question about the new deployment of troops in syria, can you say definitively what 250 or 300 soldiers can do that 50 soldiers cannot? mr. clapper: i can't. it is not an intelligence issue. decide how fast they will go and i arrange the furniture on the
decks. i really can't say. >> part of the task is to gather intelligence and you talked about how they would be able to diffuse different groups. can we assume there will be more deployments? mr. clapper: i would not go there either. on the ground insight, intelligence gathering, is but one task, and an ancillary task. anytime you get ears and eyes on the ground, that is a good thing. but, that doesn't necessarily mean that arithmetically, we put more people, that would improve. i can't say what impact it will have. david: shane harris for "the daily beast." >> the candidates for each party receiving security briefings, is that still the plan regarding whoever the democratic and republican nominees are, and
what steps would you take to ensure the proper handling? mr. clapper: we have already established a plan for briefing both candidates when they are named, and certainly after november when the president-elect is known, and it gets more intensive. we already have a team setup to do that, and a designated lead, who is not a political appointee. all of those who are currently involved will not be involved in that other than to oversee it to ensure that everybody gets the same information and that we do comply with the needs to protect sources and methods and comply with security rules. >> how will they get that? mr. clapper: we normally arrange
those depending on the candidates' schedules and where they are. we normally will accommodate their needs through a local secure facility. david: we will go next to alexis from real clear politics. >> a follow-up about what you have learned since the europe attacks. you are talking about your conviction that there are other cells in europe. can you expand on that and describe two things? one is, how much have we learned about the threat of additional attacks? also, if you're making such an effort to promote information sharing, can you expand on how much time it may take for the information sharing to reach a level that you think would be optimal? mr. clapper: the challenge we have in these plots is that, in
many cases, we are only seeing a snapshot or an anecdotal stream. we don't have the total picture all the time. if we did, then the plot would easily be thwarted. because of isil's mindfulness of the efforts mounted to monitor them, they are very, very security conscious. they are more and more going to the use of encrypted applications. it makes it all the tougher. the obstacles in europe have, i think, somewhat, to do with sort of the fundamental conflict between, on the one hand, the european union incentives and
drives to promote openness and free movement of people and goods, privacy, which is, in some ways in conflict with the responsibility that he's country has as a nationstate to protect the security of its borders and people. those are sort of countervailing processes. each of these countries have their own laws, with respect to privacy, and sharing information between their intelligence and law enforcement entities, something that we have worked pretty hard in this country since 9/11. >> is it realistic to expect that sharing to happen? mr. clapper: i think it was very significant when the european parliament, after some 4.5 years of the liberation, it did pass a
law that at least authorizes member nations to take two years to figure out how to better coordinate selective airline passenger data. but, that is fairly limited. so, how long this will take, i don't know. i will tell you that i was in paris two days after the attack on november 13. of course, after that, followed by the brussels attacks. i think there is growing public awareness when these attacks happen that something needs to be done. certainly, with our counterpart organizations, intelligence and security organizations, there is a greatly heightened awareness of the need to share. >> back to syria.
for a long time, another reason that we haven't gotten involved in syria were concerns about the intertwining extremists, islamist groups in particular, al qaeda, job on al nusra, with the other opposition groups. i wonder with the larger number of advisors and special ops forces, if we are getting a better hold on how to separate them out or is it just means we are going to work more with the kurds? mr. clapper: the advisors will not be in the vast bulk of syria. there are sort of two zones if you will in syria. there is the western spine sort of going from the south, south of damascus and north to aleppo and the extreme east and the phenomenon we're dealing with is
the term of art that is used is marbling, where you have these groups and there are hundreds of them. at one point we estimated 1,500 or 1,600 of these various separate groups of varying stripes of ideology and commitment. on the battlefield, there have been tactical marriages of convenience, particularly with the front which is a very capable fighting force. we're doing what we can to influence the separation of these. it's very difficult when many of these groups are focused on their own local area, their own village, their own town, their own community in a large city. inducing them to separate because it works better for us is a real challenge. >> we're going to extend the talk.
-- to natal from politico. reporter: i was wondering if you could talk a little bit about the spread of isis in south asia and how real that is, in particular we're hearing reports that bangladesh has increasing issues with this and also was wondering in countries like india, bangladesh and pakistan in particular, how cooperative are the countries with recognizing there is a problem and cooperating with the united states on that? mr. clapper: that is a very good question. that is a concern because of the provinces to use the isil term that appear to be forming in some countries in southeast asia. i'll just say without singling out anyone is that there are varying degrees of recognition of the problem and we'll do what
we can to share, to enlighten, to educate at least from our standpoint of what is happening in each of these countries. >> is there anyone who hasn't had one before we go to a second round, yes, sir, brian from the "l.a. times." reporter: in syria, have you seen any indications that service to air missiles are in use by anyone in syria and what kind of threat would that pose? mr. clapper: there certainly have been against the regime. the place is awash in man pads. the regime had them. the active procurement networks,
black market, whatever, so there are all kinds of sources for the proliferation of man pads in syria. reporter: are they -- do they pose a threat to civilian aviation in the region? mr. clapper: to civilian, yes, i hope there aren't too many civilian airlines transiting syria. if i was boarding an airplane and found out i was flying over syria, i think i would skip it. reporter: can you assess the new technologies that would have a disabling feature on surface to air missiles? mr. clapper: man pads or shoulder fired or surface to air missiles, this has been
historically a cat and mouse thing, an action-reaction where you field one and they develop countermeasures and they field another one that counters the countermeasures and it goes on. that's the spiral we're in. as type as go on, we have developed -- not just we have developed improvements in the capabilities of man pads as well, so that conundrum continues. i can't point to any specific technology that will be the ultimate silver bullet so to speak that would negate man pads. we won't ever, i think, reach that point. reporter: pushing more of that technology in the theater on the
table? mr. clapper: certainly where we can in the west as we develop new capabilities and countercapabilities, sure. what you always worry about is whatever capability develop, having it full into the wrong hands and again the pervasive access to the systems is kind of an inhibitor towards the widespread distribution. reporter: i rant to return to something you said earlier about the revolution leading to a seven-year speed-up with encryption. with the technologieses i have spoken with, they say there is an armed race to stop hackers puncturing their system.
can you talk about where that figure comes from and whether it's a good thing to encourage the innovation? mr. clapper: i don't understand. reporter: whether it's good or not that the innovation is sped up if it did? mr. clapper: from our standpoint, no, it's not. that's an estimate which i think was quite valid by n.s.a. that the projected growth maturation and substantiation of commercially available encryption, what it forecast for seven years from, well, from three years ago was accelerated to now because of the revelations, the leaks and so from our standpoint, this is not
a good thing. reporter: it's been a few months that you set up the cyber tech intelligence integration center. i was wondering if you have any doubts personally about the ability of that organization to overcome bureaucratic hurdles and do you have a general update of the status of what operationally it's been doing? mr. clapper: just to be clear, the president directed me to do this, to establish the cyber threat intelligence integration center and because of all of the controversy surrounding its standup, we had a lot of time to think through what its capabilities would be. it's only 50 people, bear in mind, and we haven't built to that yet, what it could do and what it couldn't do.
so we spent a good bit of time engaging with stakeholders, both others that have related missions as well as users and consumers to sort out exactly what the ctic is doing. and the feedback that we're getting from that is pretty positive. just like the reason that my office was set up by the irtpa was to promote, i believe, promote integration. so just as the national counterproliferation center and others promote integration across the i.c. in those realms, so it is with the ctic. reporter: has it been used for offensive overseas? mr. clapper: i'm not going to go there.
reporter: director, thanks for doing this again. it's been reported that you agree with senator mccain in that any intelligence obtained from water boarding is not worth the propaganda power that it gives the opponents. does that same apply to in a presidential campaign context when you have a presidential candidate out reinstituting water boarding? mr. clapper: senator mccain asked me to comment on a hearing on the use of torture as a way of eliciting information. first of all, the science tells you that it doesn't necessarily work, that whether you're investigating for intelligence purposes or law enforcement purposes, the most important thing is to develop and build rapport with whoever it is that
you're interrogating. in a torture context, people generally, they'll get to the point where they'll tell you whatever it is you want to hear. so apart from that, the practicalities of the utility of information that's so derived is i think we are much better served as a nation to conduct interrogation activities in a manner that comports with our standards and our values. i strongly endorse what john brennan said about the use of torture. it won't be through me. reporter: when a presidential candidate, does u.s. intelligence when a presidential candidate raises the possibility of water boarding?
mr. clapper: i'm not going to comment on that. reporter: in libya, a major obstacle to u.s. operations there, do you think a political stalemate is close to resolving? mr. clapper: we're very hopeful about the latest version of the government in libya, the government and national court. very, very fragile. it appears that there is room for some hope here. if and as it gains traction and gains credibility within the very fractious landscape in libya. we're much better off if we can operate with a government and cooperate with one and certainly if we are going to do something militarily that we have some recognized governmental entity that we can engage with and
hopefully consent to such operations. reporter: was that nuclear bomb test from earlier this year -- mr. clapper: we don't really know. they claim it was a hydrogen weapon. if it was, it fell way short of what you would regard as a hydrogen weapon or any other type of boost of figures. it's hard -- fission. it's hard to tell what they were going to do. it was much more modest than what they claimed. >> you have a two-minute question, go for it. reporter: there was a report on "60 minutes" last week with a representative about a telecom network and it was made by any intelligence agency that can access that network can surveil any phone number they can identify which would allow them to sull veil members of
congress. the representative is questioning whether the n.s.a. knew about that and if so, why members of congress were never told of that? mr. clapper: i don't know the full history of that. i will tell you we have very, very stringent rules of inadvertent collection on the congress. that's the only time that it occurs. in fact, we're now negotiating with the congress on improving the, enhancing the manner in which we share that information. that's an old system and of course, it was done on the "60 minutes" thing with consent of users. so that's all i have to say about it. >> thank you for doing this, sir, appreciate it very much. mr. clapper: i think we're done.
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] independent media is the oxygen of democracy. it is essential. holding those in power accountable. we're not there to serve some kind of corporate agenda. when we cover war and peace we
are not brought to you by the weapons manufacture. night, journalist amy goodman host and executive producer of " democracy now" talks about the book she has co-authored, " democracy now 20 years covering the movements changing america," which looks back at the stories and people the show has covered. amy: the idea really has not changed. bringing out the voices of people at grassroots in the united states and around the world. they very much represent the majority of people. people who are concerned deeply about war and peace, about the growing inequality in this country, about climate change, the state of the planet are not inge minority. not even a silent majority. majorityilenced silence by corporate media which is why we have to take it back. >> sunday night at 8:00 on
c-span's "q&a." ♪ >> this month we showcase our .tudent cam winners, c-span's annual competition for middle and high school students is road to thee white house. what issues do you want candidates to discuss? rize high school west winners are from phoenix, arizona. daniela mock-zubia and sofia gradersi, 12th and 10th candidates toial discuss prison reform and a video titled "rethinking reform: prisons in america." use ago there were 500,000 people behind bars in america -- 30 years ago. today there are 2.2 million.