tv Americas Newsroom With Bill Hemmer and Martha Mac Callum FOX News January 5, 2017 6:00am-8:01am PST
media lies to make it look like i'm against intelligence when, in fact, i'm a big fan. >> there you go, donald trump very busy this morning. thank you very much for joining us. we'll be back tomorrow same time, same couch. >> friday, yes, friday. >> bill: thank you, fox news alert now. a tough story to begin this morning. alleged kidnapping and torture. a white teenager with special needs tied up and beaten as a group of young african-americans calling out donald trump and calling out racial slurs. i'm bill hemmer, welcome to "america's newsroom." >> martha: i'm martha maccallum. this shocking story breaking in chicago and we want to warn you this video is very disturbing to watch. it shows an 18-year-old victim who was tied and gagged. the suspects put a knife to his throat at different points in this video. they make him drink from the
toilet. they shout expletives against white people and president elect. this torture goes on for more than 30 minutes. listen. >> bill: from chicago police have arrested four so far. matt finn is live there to begin our coverage. let's talk about charges. when will they be filed? >> police tell us the four attackers are in custody now and charges filed later today. they think the mentally challenged teen is from the suburbs and was driven into the city in a stolen van. police say he was held captive for up to 48 hours and then released. he was found wandering in the cold. here is how the chicago police superintendent responded to all
this. >> it's sickening. it makes you wonder what would make individuals treat somebody like that? >> this morning a big question is whether this rises to the level of a hate crime. if it does, these attackers face up to 30 years in prison. >> bill: certainly it's catching fire online and across the country. what are people saying, matt? >> major responses online. first people seem to be outraged people online making jokes about the video and cheering on the attackers and outrage over a chicago detective who said this might amount to nothing more than just a childhood prank. take a listen to that. >> kids -- they're legally adults but young adults and make stupid decisions. >> that police official taking a lot of heat. many people also tying this to the black lives matter movement giving its own hashtag bom kidnapping. one twitter user writing bom is
being linked to the kidnapping because so many people have experienced violence and racial hatred at the hands of blm. the twitter account wrote back saying some people are disgusting. what happened to the teenager is terrible and tragic but has nothing to do with the blm. we'll attending to press conference later today where we might learn what the four attackers will be charged with. >> bill: more to come on that. matt finn leading our coverage in chicago today. >> martha: another horrific chapter in what is a crime-ridden city. at the beginning of this week we were discussing chicago's exploding murder rate over 700 people were killed in the city of chicago over the course of 2016. that is more than in new york and los angeles combined. i spoke to former chicago police superintendent gary mccarthy about the situation. he says police feel in many ways that their hands are tied.
>> the police are being ham strung and criminals are being emboldened. that is happening for a number of reasons. one of the things that is blaming black lives matter. i have never actually said that. what i have said is there is accountability that extends way beyond policing. the police have to do better, no two ways about it. but the department of justice, various community groups, elected officials and the media all play a role in creating this political landscape that is putting the police on their heels and as a result we're seeing accelerated crime across the country and assaults on police up anywhere from 100 to 200% depending which numbers you listen to. >> martha: we spoke with him yesterday and he talked about what is plaguing the police and the fact that police stops are down by 80% because they feel somewhat intimidated, i don't know if that's the right word. they're on their heels because
they're concerned about how things will be perceived. >> bill: the video is tough to watch. it is tragic and terrible. kudos to the police for finding that young man and giving him the help that he needed badly and quickly. details coming up from chicago when we get them today. >> martha: meanwhile top intelligence officials are set to go on the record on capitol hill this morning. the director of national intelligence and the head of the national security agency are about to be grilled about russia's alleged hacking of the dnc. the president-elect donald trump has cast some doubt on that intelligence specifically. now the "wall street journal" reporting this morning that mr. trump is working on a plan that would restructure some elements at the top u.s. spy agency. chief white house correspondent john roberts covering it for us as always today at trump tower. how far is the president-elect looking to go with this
intelligence overhaul? >> good morning to you. as with all things coming out of trump tower, remains to be seen and very much a work in progress. the president-elect has made no secret of his skepticism on certain specific items from the intelligence agency. this report that he wants to significantly restructure a couple of the main intelligence agencies is way overbroen. the source wouldn't say what part was overblown. the "wall street journal" was reporting that trump believes the director of national intelligence is bloated and police sized and wants to restructure the cia to bring back staff at the headquarters in langley, virginia. and put more people out into the field. all of this, of course, comes as donald trump is expected to receive an intelligence briefing tomorrow here in new york on russia's alleged involvement in hacking democratic party servers. of course, trump and his number two are pushing back on this
idea that russia was involved at all. here is what mike pence said about it yesterday. >> i think given some of the intelligence failures of recent years, president-elect has made it clear to the american people he is skeptical about conclusions from the bureaucracy and i think the america people hear him loud and clear. >> still unclear what donald trump might do but the office of national intelligence and who may actually lead that organization. dan coates on the senate intelligence committee in con fres -- congress is said to be the leader for the job. >> martha: a lot of back and forth over the credibility of julian assange and how much we should believe from him. donald trump weighed in on that as well, right? >> sure. we saw earlier this week on hannity julian assange repeated his assertion russia was not the source of the documents posted by wikileaks. donald trump weighing in on all
of that and a lot of people said he was in agreement with julian assange. the dishonest media -- i state what he states is for the people to make up their own minds as to the truth. the media likes lies to make it look like i am against intelligence when in fact i am a big fan. we'll find out how big a fan after he takes office and see what he does about the dni and cia. >> martha: thank you very much. >> bill: a big meeting at trump tower this week. all three men will be there to talk to trump by russian hacking. sir, good morning to you. welcome back here. "wall street journal," donald trump plans revamp of top u.s. spy agency.
based on what you know and understand is there something to that, or not? >> i think it's like everything in his life. he is an entrepreneur and things getting in the way with the cia and f.b.i. have often said there are stove pipes in washington where you have the cylindrical bureaucracies and break it up and spread out the information so we get more coverage, bill. i think the president-elect and cia director pompeii want more field operations and more human intelligence opposed to less. last year october 2015 when i was in afghanistan on a troop support mission general campbell mentioned the cia needs more field agents and so this is something that the president-elect is responding to. i think it will be healthy for the agency and i just want to reemphasize what he said on twitter. he is a huge fan of the intelligence community, enormous amount of respect for
the c.i.a. and f.b.i. but i think the american people appreciate he is taking his time drawing these conclusions about what went on in the hacking incident. >> bill: does the trump team believe the intelligence community has become too political or not? >> well, you know, i think it's too early to make that statement. i think that's something if you invite me on in a couple of months and ask me that question i'll give you a direct and honest answer. my guess is, though, i would give the benefit of the doubt to these agencies that they aren't really political but political decisions probably were made in terms of staffing, potential cutbacks on the field agency side. that's the authority and the purview of the president of the united states. president obama and his team probably made those decisions and the agencies had to comply with that. i have think the president-elect and vice president pence, congressman
pompeii will take a different approach. after listening to people in the field and military officials and listening to people like general flynn. they're probably not that political is my guess. i do think some political things have been done in terms of the organization's structure. >> bill: we'll hear from them in about 19 minutes when the meeting begins. we stand by for that today. then the big meeting tomorrow. very interesting as we know to see how the president-elect reacts to what he hears tomorrow and what he tells us publicly. >> martha: nice to be a fly on the wall with that meeting with those three individuals and the president-elect. top intelligence officials as we said set to testify on capitol hill and boy, are there a lot of questions for these folks today. all about russia's alleged interference in the u.s. election, exactly what did they find factually that led them to
those conclusions. we'll talk to one of the lawmakers asking questions. >> by the time you get to easter the obama legacy will be so small you'll need a microscope to find it. >> the signature law on the chopping block. is president obama's legacy in danger of disappearing? we'll debate it fair and balanced moments away here on "america's newsroom." the lack of saliva can also lead to tooth decay and bad breath? well, there is biotene, specially formulated with moisturizers and lubricants... biotene can provide soothing relief and it helps keep your mouth healthy too. biotene, for people who suffer from a dry mouth.
three people hurt after an explosion near a courthouse in the city of izmir. three people were reportedly injured in that. as we get more details. authorities saying they're closing in on the gunman who killed 39 people at an istanbul nightclub. more police raids in connection with that massacre and isis has claimed responsibility. >> bill: did russia mess with our election or is that claim overplayed? that issue taking center stage moments from now in washington, d.c. the senate armed services committee about to begin a hearing and david purdue sits on that committee. he is with me now. what is your first question? >> i want to know what constitutes an act of war. we've been hearing all the inoue endo. i'm action to get to the facts.
we have great witnesses who can give it to us today. we have a series of questions that go to that end, bill. >> bill: all right. ultimately what comes from this? does it -- >> i hope we know if -- what we have here is a wake-up call in my mind this is bigger than russia and bigger than this one incident. this is about the future defense of america and what i hope that will come out of this meeting today will be a start, what constitutes an act of war. are we prepared to deal with it and what is the appropriate response? the allied supreme commander of nato said this year we need to mature the way we think about these threats. are we organized to respond and are we prepared to respond in a way to protect our country? i hope to hear those issues today. >> bill: you know sean hannity was with julian assange earlier
this week. lindsey graham said this about that versus talking about our own intel community, watch. >> i hope the president-elect will get his information and trust the american patriots who work in the intelligence community who swear oath and allegiance to the constitution and not some guy hiding from the law with a record of undercutting and undermining american democracy. >> bill: he is going with them, meaning the intelligence community. this is one republican to another. what do you think of that, senator? >> i think he is speaking about getting the facts and that's what we're talking about today. we have the administration officials here today and they are highly regarded people. they have the facts. we're going to get to that today and i think that the president-elect has a high regard for the intelligence community. what he is asking are the questions we're asking? are we organized in a way to defend ourselves? are we prepared to have the appropriate response? what is the appropriate response? do we have the right
intelligence gathering system to do that? you heard your prior guest mention something about general campbell in afghanistan. i was on a mission over there two years ago and i heard general campbell say the same thing. cia needs more people on the ground. when we hear the potential administration talking about right now. >> bill: do you believe the outgoing administration is trying to use this issue to undercut the next administration? >> well, i never can speak to motive. we have no evidence right now that this attack had any impact on the election. but what i do is look at this as a wake-up call, bill. as i said, we now have a four plus one series of threats out there. 20 years ago we had a one plus one. we have russia, china, north korea, iran and isis attacking us through cyber-warfare. we know what russia is doing in europe today, trying to destabilize the satellite
countries in eastern europe. this is something that he admonishs us to do today and i want to get started in the process and we'll do that today. >> bill: a fine point on that before we wrap this up. there are many who believe the administration is trying to suggest that the election was thrown. do you believe that the obama administration is trying to suggest to the president-elect that perhaps he did not win this fair and square? >> we've heard hillary clinton say that and obama say that. there is no evidence of that. look, the people of the united states spoke very clearly. it is no mystery what they were saying. they want a change in direction in the united states federal government here in washington they picked an outsider, a business guy, someone listening to them back home and it had nothing to do with a hack or -- by the way, remember that whoever perpetrated this attack tried to attack the rnc just as well as the dnc. they happened to have gotten through the dnc and picked up those emails. >> bill: that hearing begins in 10 minutes. senator, thank you for your
time. we're talking about russia but you may be correct the next could come from china, iran, or north korea. thank you for your time. we're waiting for that to begin in washington thanks. >> martha: so the president-elect doubling down on his criticism of obamacare and house republicans promising to do something about that. so what is next for our nation's healthcare? >> the first order of business is to repeal and replace obamacare. >> the republicans say repeal and replace. the only thing that has going for it is ill iteration. >> families are hurting. they broke the healthcare system. you're here to buy a car. what would help is simply being able to recognize a fair price. truecar has pricing data on every make and model,
tweeted this. the democrats, led by head clown chuck schumer, know how bad obamacare is and what a mess they're in. instead of working to fix it they do the typical political thing and blame. obamacare was a lie from the beginning. keep your doctor, keep your plan in quotes. is it time for republicans and democrats to get together and come up with a healthcare plan that really works? much less expensive and far better in all caps. each party took the fight to capitol hill yesterday. if republicans kill obamacare, what will trump care as it's already being called look like exactly? junior editor of the national review and fox news contributor. jonah, good to see you this morning. what do you think it will look like? >> no one really knows. it's really a hot mess. part of the problem is that most of obamacare was not actually passed in reconciliation and so you
actually need to get past the filibuster to get of all the regulations and they can't quite do that yet. so they're left in the situation where it is sort of like you have a bad horse pulling your cart called obamacare, but the only place you can get a new horse is about 10 miles down the road. and instead of riding this horse another ten miles and putting it out of its misery they want to shoot it left and be left with no horse at all. it's a really difficult situation. and nothing paul ryan has said so far makes sense about what they'll replace it with. if you have six, seven, eight plans but can't agree on one you don't have an actual plan you're ready to implement. and i rarely agree with donald trump's tweets but he is right. republicans should be careful about getting stuck with the blame for obamacare when it is
such a disaster and taking ownership -- healthcare. taking ownership of all these problems is a problem going into 2018 and 2020. >> martha: he doesn't want them to try to repeal it too quickly and wants the democrats to own the failure on this. it doesn't get us a new horse, now to use your analogy. it doesn't fix the situation that people are in. i don't know how much patience they'll have for that. mike pence says he wants some kind of plan by february 20th and chuck schumer is folding his arms and saying forget it. we'll resist everything. >> that's right. the problem is that the repeal part doesn't fix anything. first of all doesn't do anything for the people on medicare which is most of the gains under obamacare. all it does is hasten the problems that already exist for people who bought on the individual market, premiums will get higher, people will pre-existing conditions can drop out. all these things are going to
make it more expensive for the normal person who has already been given the shaft by obamacare and washington the problem is they'll put the republican logo on these problems. >> martha: we'll see how much the clown calling on both sides get anybody anywhere at this point. we'll see you next time. >> bill: story of the morning, john mccain in the room chair of this committee on senate foreign relations and -- senate armed services committee set to begin now and set to convene a hearing on foreign cyber threats here in the united states. you know what the issue has been since the election. some alleging russia played a role in trying to influence the outcome. senator mccain just came back from a trip overseas. he was in a number of countries that, by the way, had been threatened by moscow. ukraine, georgia, lithuania and others, you'll hear from james clapper head of the national intelligence as well as two
others including michael rogers, the leader of the national security agency and the united states cyber command. what we'll learn today we await a day before the president-elect donald trump will be met with the three top intelligence leaders in america today at trump tower to present him with what they have found thus far. now, publicly we have seen no evidence but the strong suggestions from the white house is that russia was trying to do something back in early november. >> martha: we had heard there were 17 agencies that agreed that the russians or russian entities were where that hacking had come from that caused so much embarrassment and theous tear of the head of the dnc and put pressure on democrats they believe in the course of the election they think they hurt them politically. i want to bring in retired lieutenant colonel ralph peters as we get started. you've been listening to the
debate about how good our intelligence is. >> our intelligence agencies have been insulted enough. to listen to political hacks demean and insult the patriots. more than half of them are unformed military and veterans within our intelligence agency. these are people who have kept us safe. our homeland safe since 9/11 and track down thousands of terrorists around the world and killed them. they monitor north korea, russia, china, iranian nuke program. compared to the intelligence world i served in 20 years ago, the strides have been phenomenal. we're really good. people who don't know about the intelligence world say intelligence failure. which intelligence failure? people go back to 2003 and weapons of mass destruction. even back then, martha, the intelligence community was not unified. there was plenty of dissent.
the political neocons pushed through the weapons of mass destruction scenario. they're not perfect but the front line of defense keeping us safe and the people are great. >> martha: we'll go to john mccain and let's listen in. >> to trans national criminal organizations. in recent years we've seen a growing series of cyberattacks by multiple actors, attacks targeting our citizens, businesses, military and government but no escaping the fact this committee meets for first time in this new congress in the aftermath of an unprecedented attack on our democracy. at the president's direction. director clapper is leading it with a goal of informing the american people of what happened. director clapper will put in the same professionalism that characterized his half a
century of government and military service and confident in the dedicated members of our intelligence community. the goal of this review as i understand it is not to question the outcome of the presidential election nor should it be. as both president obama and president-elect trump have said, our nation must move forward. but we must do so with full knowledge of the fact. i trust director clapper will brief the congress on his review when it is completed. this is not the time or place to preview its findings. that said, we know a lot already. in october our intelligence agencies concluded unanimously that quote the russian government directed compromises of emails from u.s. persons and institutions including from u.s. political organizations. they also assessed that quote disclosures of alleged hacked emails were consistent with the methods and motivations of russian directed efforts and that these thefts and
disclosures were intended to interfere with the u.s. election process. since then our intelligence community has released additional information concerning these russian activities including a joint analysis report that provided technical details regarding the tools and infrastructure used by the russian civilian and military intelligence services to attack the united states. every american should be alarmed by russia's attacks on our nation. there is no national security interest more vital to the united states of america than the ability to hold free and fair elections without foreign interference. that's why congress must set partisanship aside, follow the facts and work together to device comprehensive solutions to deter, defend against and when necessary respond to foreign cyberattacks. as we do, we must recognize that the recent russian attacks are one part of a much bigger
cyber problem. russian cyberattacks have targeted the white house, the joint staff, the state department, our critical infrastructure, chinese cyberattacks have reportedly targeted nsa, the department of state and commerce, congressional offices, military labs, naval war college and u.s. businesses including major defense contractors. most recently, china compromised over 20 million background investigations at the office of personnel management. iran has used cyber tools to attack the u.s. navy. u.s. partners in the middle east, major financial institutions and a dam just 25 miles north of new york city and of course north korea was responsible for the massive cyberattack on sony pictures in 2014. what seems clear is that our adversaries have reached a common conclusion. that the reward for attacking america in cyberspace outweighs
the risk. for years cyberattacks on our nation have been met with indecision and inaction. our nation has no policy and thus no strategy for cyber deterrents. this appearance of weakness has been provocative to our adversaries who have attacked us again and again with growing severity. unless we demonstrate the costs of -- the cyberattacks will only grow. this is also true beyond the cyber domain. it should not surprise us that vladimir putin would think he could launch increasingly severe cyberattacks against our nation when he paid little price for invading cry crimea and helping assad slaughter people in syria with impunity. the same is true for china,
iran, north korea and any other adversary that felt bold to challenge the world order. put simply we cannot achieve cyber deterrents without restoring the credibility of u.s. deterrents more broadly. to do so, we must first have a policy, which means finally resolving the long list of basic cyber questions that we as a nation have yet to answer. what constitutes an act of war? or aggression in cyberspace that would merit a military response? be it by cyber or other means? what is our theory of cyber deterrents and what is our strategy to implement it? is our government organized appropriately to handle this threat? are we so stove piped we cannot deal with it effectively? who is accountable for this problem and do they have sufficient authorities to deliver results? are we in the congress just as stove piped on cyber as the executive branch such that our
oversight actually reinforces problems rather than helping to resolve them? do we need to change how we are organized? this committee intends to hold a series of hearings in the months ahead to explore these and other questions and we look forward to hearing the candid views of our distinguished witnesses today who have thought about and worked on these questions as much as anyone in our nation. senator reid. >> thank you very much. i want to commend you for your leadership in promptly scheduling this hearing on foreign cyber threats. also like to welcome our witnesses director clapper, thank you for your service and dedication. i understand our witnesses will be discussing the cyber threats that many countries including china and india pose to our nation i would like to focus for a few minutes on the widely reported instances of russian hacking and disinformation that raised concerns regarding the election of 2016.
in addition to stealing information from the clinton campaign and cherry picking what information it leaked to the media the russian government spread fake news and conspiracies across the vast social media landscape. at the least the effect of russia's actions was to erode the faith of the american people in our democratic institutions. these and other cyber tools remain engaged in misinforming our political dialogue even today. there is still much we do not know but russia's involvement in these intrusions does not appear to be in any doubt. russia's best cyber operators are judged to be as elusive and hard to identify as any in the world n. this case, however, detection were not so difficult. the implication being putin may want us to know what he has done to support an official rejection of culpability. these russian cyberattacks should be judged within the larger context of russia's
rejection of the post cold war international order and aggressive actions against its neighbors. russia's current leaders perceive the democratic movements in the former states. the rule of law and democracy as well as nato and eu enlargement as a threat to what they believe is russia's sphere of influence. putin's russia makes no secret of the fact it is determined to aggressively halt and counter what it characterizes as western encroachment on its vital interests. invasion of georgia, the annexation of crimea and ukraine. continuing military build-up despite a declining economy. saber -- what remains of the russian democratic operation. and the creation of an iron
information curtain like china's great firewall and its aggressive interference in western processes are in one piece. russia's efforts to undermine democracy at home and abroad and destabilize the countries on its border cannot be ignored or traded away in exchange for the appearance of -- what russia did to the united states in 2016 it has done and continues to do in europe. this challenges the progress of democratic values since the end of the cold war must not be tolerated. despite the indifference of some to this matter, our nation needs to the know in detail what the intelligence community was an assault by senior officials of a foreign government on our electoral process. our electoral process is the bedrock of our system of government and an effort to manipulate it by a regime -- it is a challenge to the nation's security which must be met with bipartisan and universal
condemnation. consequences and correction. i believe the most appropriate means to conduct the inquiry is the creation of a select committee in the senate. this issue and the solutions to the problems it exposes spill across the divide of the standing committees on armed services, homeland security and judiciary. failing that, our committee must take on as much of this task as i can and i commend the chairman for his commitment to do so. i'm pleased and grateful that his efforts will be extended and the energy invested on the matters that are so critical to the american people. i also want to applaud president obama's initial steps for last week to respond to russia's hostile actions. general clapper, undersecretary -- we want to make these facts known to the president, president-elect, congress and
the american people. although your investigational report to president obama is not yet public, we hope you will be able to convey and explain what has been accomplished so far including the steps already announced by the president. in addition, i am sure we'll have many questions about how we're organized in the cyber domain and what changes you have recommended going forward. subjects that president obama referenced in his signing statement of the national defense authorization act in 2017. these are difficult issues but they are of vital importance to our nation, security and democracy. mr. chairman, i look forward to working with you in a bipartisan manner and do more to address the threats that face our nation. >> welcome the witnesses. mr. secretary we'll begin with you for any opening statements or comments you might have. >> thank you, chairman, ranking member reid and members of
committee. i appreciate the offer to be here today. i will turn the microphone over to admiral clapper. before stepping down of eight years of pentagon service in a few weeks, i want to thank >> i'm sure you'll regret not having that opportunity again. >> it will be nice to be skiing a little bit in february, that's for sure. but having said that, since i am just a few weeks from stepping down i do want to thank this committee for its partnership and i want to thank director clapper and admiral rogers for the privilege of being able to serve together with them in the leadership of the u.s. intelligence community. and to the men and women of the u.s. intelligence community, civilian and military, thousands of whom are deployed today around the world advancing u.s. interests and protecting america. i do admire your integrity and your service. it has been an honor to serve
with you over the last many years. in the interests of time, i will briefly note the department of defense's views on cyber in three core themes. first, the threats we must address. second, what we are doing to address them now. and third, the difficult but urgent work we know still lies ahead. first the threats. as you know, the department of defense's leadership believes we confront no fewer than five immediate but also distinct and evolving challenges across all operating domains. we are countering the prospect of russian aggression and coercion, especially in europe. something we unfortunately have had to energetically renew our focus on in the last several years. we are also managing historic change in perhaps the most -- the asia pacific and watching
for risks associated with china's destabilizing actions in the region. we are checking iranian aggression and influence across the middle east. we are strengthening our deterrent and defense forces in the face of north korea's continued nuclear and missile provocations and countering terrorism with the aim of accelerating the lasting defeat of isil and al qaeda. these are what many in the department of termed the four plus one. four state-based challenges and an ongoing condition of battling terrorism. as our joint written statement for the record has detailed, each of these security challenges, china, russia, iran, north korea and global terrorist groups such as isil presents a significant cyber threat dimension to the u.s. military. cyber is an operating domain that is real, complex, dynamic, contested and must be addressed.
second, what we are doing about it. the department of defense has for several years pursued a comprehensive strategy for maintaining the necessary strategic dominance in this domain. secretary of defense ash carter has pressed for d.o.d. to change to adapt and innovate not only to meet today's challenges but also to ensure that we effectively defend against cyber threats well into an uncertain future. we have built and continue to build the means and methods that will strengthen our relative position against each of these dimensions of the cyber threat. the government's cyber policy is reflected in presidential policy directives and executive orders provide guidance on the absolute necessity on the whole of government approach critical to protecting our nation. the department has published its cyber strategy which clearly lays out three clear
cyber missions. defending d.o.d. networks, providing cyber options for military commanders and when called upon by our nation's leaders defending the nation against cyberattacks of significant consequence. as the director and admiral rogers will note, since 2009 the department has matured cyber command to ensure clear command responsibility and authority and growing capabilities essential to our unity of effort for cyber operations. we also continue to mature our cyber mission forces which this fall achieved initial operating capability or i.o.c. status. this force is providing military capability to execute our three missions in cyberspace. we're building new capabilities and new tools for the cyber mission force to use. third, what remains to be done. as much as we have done, we recognize there is much more to do. let me mention just a couple of those most important tasks here.
first we need to continue to develop and refine our national cyber policy framework which includes the evolution of all dimensions of our deterrence posture. deny the enemy. impose costs and ensure we have a resilient infrastruck tower to execute a multidomain mission. our capability will further empower decision making at net speed. second, within the department, cyber command has matured and is doing more to protect the nation and support global operations than ever before. and we need to continue, in fact, accelerate this maturation. accordingly the secretary of defense supports the elevation of cyber command to a unified combat and command. and supports ending the dual hat arrangement for the leadership of nsa and cyber command and doing so do a
conditions-based approach while continuing to leverage the shared capabilities and synergies. finally redouble our efforts to deepen partnership between government and the private sector and between the u.s. government and our allies. we must continue to seek help from american industry, the source of much of the world's greatest technology talent, in innovating to find cyber defense solutions, build resilience into our critical infrastructure systems and strengthen our deterrents. with international allies and partners we must work together to promote stability in cyberspace. universal recognition that existing international law applies in cyberspace and the adoption of voluntary peacetime norms of responsible state behavior. mr. chairman, thanks. i look forward to your question. i'll pass the baton to director clapper, thank you. >> bill: general mccain, ranking member reid and distinguished members of the committee.
thanks very much for your opening statements. obviously we're here to talk about cyber threats that face our nation and i will offer some brief recommendations and a few parting observations. i certainly want to take note of and thank the members of the committee who are engaged on this issue and have spoken to it publicly. i know there is great interest in the issue of russian interference in our electoral process that is provided already to the congress. jay johnson and i have issued statements about it. the joint analysis report that you alluded to publicly issued by the department of homeland security and the federal bureau of investigation provided details on the tools and infrastructure used by the russian intelligence services
to compromise infrastructure associated with the election as well as a range of u.s. government political and private sector entities as you described. as you also noted, the president tasked the intelligence community prepare a comprehensive report on russia interference in our election. we plan to brief the congress and release an unclassified version of this report to the public early next week with due deference to the protection of highly sensitive and fragile sources and methods. but until then we're really not prepared to discuss this beyond standing by our earlier statements. we are prepared to talk about other aspects of the russian cyber threat. we also see cyber threats challenging public trust and confidence and information services and institutions. russia has clearly assumed an even more aggressive cyber posture by increasing cyber
espy onacknowledge operations and targeting critical infrastructure system. china's continues to conduct cyber espionage against the country and u.s. companies. the security experts have observed some reduction in cyber activity from china against u.s. companies since the bilateral september 2015 commitment to refrain from espionage for commercial gain. iran and north korea continue to improve their capabilities to launch disruptive or destructive cyberattacks to support their political objectives. non-state actors terrorist groups, most especially including isil continue to use the internet to organize, recruit, spread propaganda, raise funds, collect intelligence, inspire action by disciples, and coordinate operations. so in this regard i want to
foot stomp a few points i've made here before. rapidly advancing commercial en cirption capabilities have had profound effects on our ability to detect terrorists and their activities. we need to strengthen the partnership between government and industry and find the right balance to enable the intelligence community and law enforcement both to operate as well as to continue to respect the rights to privacy. cyber operations can also be a means to change, manipulate or falsify electronic data or information to compromise its integrity. cyberspace can be an echo chamber in which information, ideas, beliefs, true or false get amplified or reinforced through constant repetition. all these types of cyber operations have the power to chip away at public trust and confidence in our information
services and institutions. by way of some observations and recommendations, both the government and private sector have done a lot to improve cybersecurity and our collective security is better but still not good enough. our federal partners are stepping up efforts with the private sector but sharing what they have remains uneven. i think the private sector needs to up its game and not provide the government to provide a magic solution or warning. we need to influence international behavior. more global diplomatic efforts to explore setting limits on cyber operations against certain targets. when something major happens in cyberspace, our automatic default policy position should not be exclusively to counter cyber with cyber. we should consider all instruments of national power. in most cases to date non-cyber
tools have been more effective as changing our adversary's cyber behavior. when we do choose to act, we need to model the rules we want others to follow since our actions set precedents. we also need to be prepared for adversary retaliation, which may not be as surgical either due to the adversary's skill or the inherent difficulty in calibrating effect and impact of cyber tools. that's why using cyber to counter cyber attacks risks unintended consequences. we currently cannot put a lot of stock at least in my mind in cyber deterrents. unlike nuclear weapons, they're he femoral. it's hard to create deterrents in my view. we also have to take some steps now to invest in the future. we need to rebuild a trusted
working relationship with industry and the private sector. on specific issues liken ciption and the roles and responsibilities for government, users and industry. i believe we need to separate nsa and cyber com. we should disassembly the dual hat arrange: this isn't purely a military issue. i don't believe it is an nsa or the ic's long term best interests to continue the dual hat setup. third we must hire, train and retain enough cyber talent and appropriately view an i.c. workforce. cyber will be a challenge for the u.s. intelligence community and national security for the foreseeable future and we need to be prepared for that. adversaries are pushing the envelope. since this is a tool that doesn't cost much and sometimes
is hard to attribute. i certainly appreciate, as we all do, the committee's interest in this difficult and important challenge. i'll wrap up by saying after 53 years in the intelligence business in one capacity or the other happily i have 15 days left. i'll miss being involved in the intelligence mission and i'll most certainly miss the talented and dedicated patriots who are in the united states intelligence community. i'm very proud of the community of professionals i've represented here for the last 6 1/2 years who don't get much public recognition and who like it that way. they've always supported me and confident they will do no less for my successor whoever that turns out to be. with that let me stop and pass to admiral rogers. >> bill: thank you, general. admiral rogers. >> chairman mccain and members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee
today on behalf of the united states cyber command and the national security agency. i'm honored to appear beside director clapper and the under secretary and applaud them both for their many years of public service. it's been a true honor. when we last met in september i talked about the changing cyber environment and i look forward to discussing this issue. some aspects of what we do must remain classified to protect our nation's security. i will limit my discussion to those in the public domain today. we have seen over the course of the last year how this cyber threaten vier onment is constantly evolving. we've all come to take for granted the interconnectivity ing built into every facet of our lives. it cree at opportunities and vulnerabilities. those who seek to harm our fellow americans utilize that same things that we, our families and friends here and around the world use. we must keep pace with such
changes in order to provide policymakers and our operational commanders, intelligence and cyber capabilities they need to keep us safe. that means understanding our adversaries to the best of our ability and understanding what they mean to do and why. we're watching sophisticated adversaries involved in criminal behavior, terrorism planning, malicious cyber activities and outright cyberattacks. whoo it's a global a problem we've witnessed it here at home. the statement for the provided that we provide jointly covers the threat picture worldwide but i know this hearing today will focus on reports of interference in our recent elections. i echo director clapper in saying that we'll await the findings of the just-completed intelligence review ordered by the president and defer our comments on its specifics until after the review is shared with our leaders and congressional overseers. i want to add over this last year nsa and cyber command have
worked with our broader government partners to detect and monitor russian cyber activity. the hacking of organizations and systems belonging to our election process is of great concern and we'll continue to focus strongly on this activity. for nsa's part we focus on the foreign threat actor in foreign spaces but we share our information as readily as possible with the rest of our partners in the department of defense, intelligence community and federal law enforcement as well as others within the u.s. government and the private sector. as you know, russian cyber groups have a history of aggressively hacking into other country's government insfra structure and election system. this remains a top priority for nsa. in the changing threat environment i want to talk about improving cybersecurity. we continue to engage with our partners around the world on what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior in cyberspace and we aren't where
we want or need to be in this regard. we continue to make investments in technologies and capabilities to improve detection of malicious cyber activities and make it more difficult for those doing us harm. it takes more than technology. it takes talented, motivated people. we're investing more than ever in the recruitment and retention of a skilled workforce that is knowledgeable, passionate, and dedicated to protecting the nation for the safety of our citizens and of our friends and allies around the world. innovation is one of the key ten either of nsa and cyber command and we need to invigorate the cyber workforce to think about challenges that don't subscribe to borders and boundaries. a key driver and challenge as we look to the future. cyber command is well along the building our cyber mission force deploying teams to defend the vital networks that support dod operations and commanders
in their missions worldwide and to bolster d.o.d.'s capacity to defend the nation of cyberattacks of significant consequences. those i lead have provided intelligence, expert advice and tailored options to the nation's decision makers in response to recent events. much of their activity can only be discussed in classified channels but i must say i'm proud of what both organizations have accomplished and will accomplish even as we acknowledge we have to do i loo questions and finally one personal note i apologize for all of you, i have an ongoing back issue and if i have to stand up don't take it as a sign of disrespect in any way. i guess i'm just getting older. that's all i have for you, sir. >> i know how you feel. director, i just have to --
general clapper, i have to mention the name mr. assange has popped up and i believe that he is one who is responsible for publishing names for individuals that work for us that put their lives in direct danger, is that correct? >> yes, he has. >> do you think there is any credibility we should attach to this individual? >> not in my view. >> not in your view. admiral rogers? >> i second those comments. >> thank you. for the record, on october 7th the homeland security and office of director of national intelligence, their assessment was that u.s. intelligence community is confident that the russian government directed the recent compromise of emails
from u.s. persons and institutions including from u.s. political organizations. goes on to say it's intended to interfere with the u.s. election process, quote, such activity is not new to moscow. russians have used similar tactics across europe and eurasia. based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts that only russia's senior most officials could have authorized these activities, general clapper, those are still operable and correct statements? >> yes, chairman, mccain. they are. as i indicated in my statement, we stand actually more resolutely on the strength of that statement that we made on the 7th of october. >> i thank you. and so really what we're talking about is if they succeeded in changing the results of an election, which
none of us believe they were, that would have to constitute an attack on the united states of america because of the effects if they had succeeded, would you agree with that? >> first, we cannot say -- they did not change any vote tallies or anything of that sort. we have no way of gauging the impact that certainly intelligence community can't gauge the impact it had on choices of the electorate made. no way for us to gauge that. whether or not that constitutes and act of war i think is a very heavy policy call that i don't believe the intelligence community should make. but it is certainly would carry in my view great gravity. >> thank you. admiral rogers, have you seen
this problem in your position getting worse or better? in other words, it's my information that their techniques have improved, their capability has improved. the degree of success has improved. is that your assessment? >> i have publicly said before the russians are a competitor in cyber. if you look at cyber at large, the level of capability of nation states and actors around the world continues to increase. i can't think of a single significant actor out there who has either decreasing their level of investment, getting worse in their trade craft or capability or in any way backing away from significant investments in cyber. >> and with all due respect do you, mr. secretary? i have not seen a policy, in other words, i don't think any of our intelligence people know what to do if there is an attack besides report it. i don't think that any of our people know if they see an
attack coming what specific action should be taken. maybe i'm missing something. but i've asked time after time what do you do in the case of an attack? and there hasn't been an answer. there hasn't been an answer. and i believe that unless we have specific instructions to these wonderful men and women who are doing all this work, then we are going to be bystanders and observers. i'm glad to hear you respond to that. >> mr. chairman, you're right that we have a lot more work to do to put the right deterrents and response framework in place on cyber. this is somewhat of a new domain of operations and in some cases warfare. and in my personal opinion the next administration would be well served to focus very early on those questions of
continuing to develop our overarching policy, a comprehensive approach and an increasingly robust and refined deterrence framework. >> admiral, would it make your job easier if you didn't have to report to seven different committees? >> chairman mccain, my hands have been slapped before when i ventured into the delicate area of congressional jurisdiction. so in the remaining 15 days i'm in office i don't think i'll speak to that. afterwards that might be different. >> we look forward to calling you back. [laughter] admiral rogers. >> can i second the comments of the director? >> it does make it difficult, doesn't it? it's not exactly stove piping
but -- >> the way i would phrase it is i think clearly an integrated approach is a key component of our ability to move ahead here. i would say in the government, in the private sector, there is no particular one slice where that is not applicable. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. general clapper you responded to the chairman in october you and the director of security concluded that the russian government interfered in the election. that is also today the view for the record of the f.b.i. and the central intelligence agency. all the intelligence community, is that correct? >> yes. the forthcoming report is done essentially by those three agencies. cia, f.b.i. and nsa. >> the same conclusion with respect to the involvement of
high-level russian authorities is shared by all these agencies? >> yes. >> the chairman just noticed the legislative compartmentalization. is that reflected also in terms of operations in terms of, for example, admiral rogers if you through nsa or your sources detect something that is obviously a disruption, something that is patently wrong, you can communicate to the f.b.i. or law enforcement but there is no mechanism to make things happen administratively, is that fair? >> there is certainly a process and there have been several instances i can think of in the last 18 months where we've run through that exact same scenario. intelligence as it does in other domains will detect incoming activity of concern. nsa will partner with f.b.i.,
the department of homeland security, u.s. cyber command to assure the department of defense and f.b.i. in its relationship with the private sector. the biggest frustration to me is speed, speed, speed. we have got to get faster and more agile. and so for me at least within my span of control, i'm constantly asking the team what can we do faster and more agile? how do we organize ourselves. what makes the most sense? we can't be bound by history and tradition here. we have to be willing to look at alternatives. >> thank you. general clapper, one of the aspects of this russian hacking was not just disseminating information that they had exploited from computers, but also the allegations of fake news sites, fake news stories that were propagated. is that an accurate -- is that one aspect of this problem? >> yes, without getting too far
in front of the headlights of our roll-out next week to the congress, that was -- this was a multi-faceted campaign. so the hacking was only one part of it. and it also entailed classical propaganda, disinformation, fake news. >> does that continue? >> yes. >> do the russians particularly are ataout at covering up their tracks. it appears that they weren't quite as diligent or let me ask this question. do you believe that they made little attempts to cover up what they were doing as a way to make a point politically? >> well again, without
preempting the report that's classical trade craft that the russians have long used to particularly promulgating so-called disinformation as they often try to hide the source of that or mask it to deliberately mask the source. >> let me ask one more time. in this situation, though, was there attempts to mask their involvement very elaborate and sophisticated or was it just enough to have plausible -- >> i would rather not get into that. that kind of edges into the sources and methods and i would rather not speak to that publicly. >> these activities are ongoing
now in europe as europe prepares for elections, is that a fair assumption? >> it is. >> thank you. yesterday the wall street journal indicated that the president-elect is considering changes to the intelligence community. have you at all as the experts in this field been engaged in any of these discussions, deliberations, advice? >> no, we have not. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we heard this morning that the news media was characterizing this as a hearing on russian hacking and actually it's on foreign cyber threats to the united states. let me cover a couple of the others ones. i received something this morning, admiral clapper. i often read the threats we're
facing today more than the cold war. your statement that was in print this morning said sometimes all this makes me long for the cold war when the world essentially had two large mutually exclusive, so forth. i think it's important we talk about this. the general public isn't aware of the threats that are out there that haven't been out there before. admiral, -- director clapper, we've had a lot of and most damaging cyberattacks perpetrated against the american people when the chairman gave his opening statement, he singled out three or four of them. one of them was in 2014-2015. office of personnel management. personal information, birth dates, home addresses, social security numbers of over 22 million individuals. i would like to ask you what action was taken after that and
what kind of effect that might have had on the behavior of the chinese? >> well, the major action that we took, of course, was remediation in terms of advising people of what the potential risks were and, of course, there was a lot of work done, nsa was deeply involved in this in enhancing or improving the cybersecurity posture of o.p.m. and the admiral might speak to that. i would say that this was espionage. not an attack per se. of course, i always am a bit reticent about people living in glass houses shouldn't publicly throw too many rocks. there is a difference between,
you know, an act of espionage, which we conduct as well and other nations do, versus an attack. mike, you want to comment? >> just as a broader point, i think o.p.m. issue highlights that massive data concentration increasingly have value all of their own. i remember 10 years ago earlier in my time in cyber thinking to myself large databases are so large the ability of an intruder, an external actor to fully extract and bore their way through millions and millions of records would be difficult. but with the power of big data analytics. it now becomes increasingly attractive targets. the ability to mine that data for insights which is what we think drove this action in the first place, becomes more and more easily done. >> okay.
appreciate that very much. in your joint statement -- by the way, i like the idea of joint statements. it makes the questioning easier. you talk about the -- you end up stating to one of your paragraphs in short cyber threat cannot be eliminated but managed and it is interesting that in the edison electric institute that came in this morning. there seems to be one of the rare cases where we have government and industry working together. their statement was the electric power industry recognizes it cannot protect all assets from all threats and instead must manage risk. now, they go on to describe the working together with government and they say the industry's security strategies constantly evolve and closely coordinated with the federal government through a partnership called the
electricity sub sector coordinating council. is that something -- are we looking at getting some success out of that? >> i think it's emblematic of a lot of work that the intelligence community has done, the department of homeland security in engaging with 16 key infrastructure sectors in this country and providing what we have embarked on is providing them tailored to each one of those sectors intelligence estimates of what the threats and vulnerabilities are in order to help them take measures to enhance their cybersecurity. i think the major point here is that if there is any connection whatsoever with the internet, there is an inherent security vulnerability. and we have to manage that -- the risk that is generated
accordingly with full knowledge of that fact. if there is an internet connection, there is always going to be a vulnerability. mike. >> i would echo that. i think part of our challenge is our defensive strategy must be two pronged. we have to spend time making it difficult for people to gain access but we must acknowledge that despite our best efforts there is a probability that they are still going to get in. so what do you do? the guy who defends networks on the cyber command side, i would tell you is a whole different thought process, methodology, risk approach in dealing with someone already in your network trying to keep them out in the first place and we have to be able to both. >> my time has expired. one last question. a year ago for -- a year and two months ago i think it was admiral rogers you made the statement before this committee that we, quote, we have peer
competitors in cyberspace and some hinted they can crip will our infrastructure and set back our standard of living if they choose. if you can outline which of our peer competitors might be the closest to choosing to use their power. >> as i publicly said before the russians are the peer competitor but i look at other nations. you look at china and the level of capability and investment they're making. i'm watching their abilities rise significantly. iran, north korea at a moderate level but clearly the level investment, the capability we're seeing and their willingness to employ cyber in some very aggressive ways that would be way beyond our normal risk. is of concern. >> i think it is the general assumption that you all have said that our systems can be
invaded, that has the american people, we as policymakers concerned, but the average american concerned that there is no privacy anymore. general, do you think in the report next week that you all will ascribe the motivation to putin for the election attempt? >> yes, we will ascribe a motivation. i would rather not again preempt the report. >> understood. well, then will you discuss after the report what is sufficient in the future to impose enough cost to make them stop this kind of activity?
>> no, we -- if we're going to speak to that, that would be separate from the report. what the report will include per the president's tasking was a section contributed by the department of homeland security and nist i believe on best practices for defending. but it does not speak to that which is really out of our lean, that's a policy call. >> so we're now talking about deterrents. and as one of you said in your testimony, it is not like a nuclear stand-off of mutually assured destruction because we don't have a particular deterrent now. would you discuss that? >> what i was -- the point i was trying to make is that in the case of nuclear deterrents,
they are instruments that you can see, feel, touch, measure, weaponry. we've had demonstration a long time ago of the impact of nuclear weaponry. and that is what creates both the physical substance of deterrents as well as the psychology. and the problem with the cyber domain it's not -- it is not -- doesn't have those physical dimensions that you can measure, see, feel and touch as we do with nuclear deterrents. >> bill: two major headlines watching that hearing for the past 55 minutes. cybersecurity is a big problem in the united states government is behind. point number two with regard to the election last november james clapper is not able to say whether it changed any vote
tallies and too soon or no way to gauge it affected the choices that voters made. great lineup for you, bret baier is in washington wash. so is ralph peters, mike huckabee in jerusalem and we begin the bret baier in washington and martha. >> martha: feels like afternoon after watching it for 55 minutes. good morning to bret baier. brett, good to see you this morning. a lot of that seems dry as you are watching it but in many ways it reflects where intelligence is right now and the kind of process that we go through. and where donald trump has talked about potentially wanting to take it and cutting programs and the like. it seems in many ways the questioners in this were very much on the same side. >> as you look at this, a few things we learned. one, this report is now complete. it will be put out in an unclassified version early next week. and we'll be briefed obviously at the white house and to the
president-elect this week. you heard that there is more confidence, according to the officials there, the dni, clapper and admiral rogers that russia was behind some of the hacking around the u.s. election. and they are going to lay out the specifics there. they will lay out a motivation you heard clapper say. now, what you are not seeing is that specifics laying out at this hearing. i thought it was also interesting the questioning of senator john mccain about julian assange and whether he should be trusted in any credibility after threatening u.s. servicemen and endangering lives and all of them on the table said no, we don't believe so. >> martha: they seem to be if agreement on that. you sort of supplies that with the "wall street journal" story this morning that says that donald trump would like to restructure some of our intel agencies in terms of the depth and layers of bureaucracy.
the department of national intelligence, the dni that was supposed to centralize and streamline all of our intelligence agencies after 9/11 may be first on the chopping block it sounds like. >> just initially we're getting some feelers from the trump team that that story they believe is overwritten or overblown. there will be some restructuring as there is in pretty much every department when a new administration comes over. it is pretty specific that "wall street journal" peels -- piece what about the plans may be. the president-elect tweeted that the media is saying it makes him appear to be on julian assange's side. he always stands with the intelligence officials. that's a different take than previous tweets and statements he's made. it is a big issue as he gets
ready to take the helm january 20th. >> martha: he will meet with those top intelligence officials including john brennan and clapper will be there tomorrow and director comey and trump tower. >> bill: mike huckabee joins us. i'll ask the question and get out of the way. what's the effect of hearings like this on the american public do you believe? >> very little because most of the american public they just don't believe the russians impacted the outcome of the election. even if it's proven they hacked into systems and got john podesta's emails there is not a shred of evidence it had any impact on how people voted and certainly not that the russians were able to involve themselves in the election itself. i'm here in israel. there ought to be a senate hearing why did obama and so
many of his people get involved in the election in israel against benjamin netanyahu. that is an issue of intervening in a foreign election. heard very little about it in the u.s. >> bill: do you have any issue withholding this public hearing then? >> no, i'm fine. >> bill: russia, north korea, china. we've seen congress take up this issue repeatedly but we as a nation are clearly behind. >> we are behind. that's one of the things it reveals. let's be clear. do all those nations attempt and sometimes successfully hack us? i'm sure they do. are we trying to hack into the russians, chinese, north koreans and everybody else we're afraid of? of course we're doing that. we're idiots if we aren't. we need to be better on the defensive side but better on the offensive side. we need to develop the very best strategy for cyber not only security, but for cyber
war in going after those that we know we can't trust. >> bill: thank you for your time. from overseas today mike huckabee. thank you, sir. >> martha: we'll keep one ear to the senate hearing and let you know when the questioning continues. we'll take you back if there is any new being made on capitol hill. another big story today is the future of obamacare. >> i'm grateful for the leaders of the house and the senate is to keep our word to the american people to repeal and replace obamacare. >> martha: republicans promising to repeal the affordable care act. do they have a replacement? republican senator marsha blackburn joins us now. good to see you this morning. can you hear me?
the first pledge from republicans in congress repeal and replace obamacare. what about replacing it? marsha blackburn and how are you and welcome back here in the new year. >> thank you and happy new year. >> bill: it was a big day yesterday. >> yes, it was. >> bill: what are you prepared to tell the american people on the replacement aspect of this. >> we are hard of work. we have the american healthcare reform act introduced by the republican study committee yesterday. you have our better way plan that speaker ryan has worked on. our energy and commerce committee is going to have the lead along with the ways and means committee on getting obamacare off the books. phasing it out and phasing in patient-centered healthcare. wouldn't that be great? patient care rather than obamacare and government-run care. >> bill: seems like you have a long way to go. >> yes, we do. it is fair.
it is a very fair statement because you aren't going to be able to change all of this with one stroke of the pen. you are going to have to phase out obamacare, give the insurance market time to get the work done underwriting work done on the product and get it to the market place and give our providers the opportunity to get the networks rebuilt. we have to make medicare and our providers whole as we work through the process. we have to make certain there is the environment where affordable healthcare is accessible by all americans. >> bill: you are hitting all the points. >> yes. >> bill: we'll see if it can be done. donald trump said this earlier today. the democrats led by head clown chuck schumer know how bad obamacare is. he continues they do the typical political thing and blame. obamacare was a lie from the beginning. keep your doctor and your plan.
time for republicans and democrats to get together and come up with a healthcare plan that works. much less expensive and far better. he also said yesterday be careful. you hear that message? when he talks about being careful, not to go too fast so it's not hung around your neck as a national issue. >> you're right. >> bill: when it comes to being careful, how can you assure the people who voted for you and the president-elect that you will do just that? >> well, that is what we're going to do. bear in mind, we laid out our private sector patient-centered provisions in february 2010 at the blair house healthcare summit and you had the democrats go over here and lay out a government-controlled plan. that's what they passed. they passed it fast. they had to read the bill after it was passed to figure out what they had done. it doesn't work. driven up the cost of
insurance, limited care. what we're saying now is let's phase it out. it did not work. let's be adults and say okay, it doesn't work. it is too expensive to afford and use. let's go with private sector options. and let's pass -- >> bill: you know the first american voter that democrats can find or anyone can find that is given a raw deal after you replace it. they will be in the headlines of every webpage and newspaper in america and they will come back and say to the republicans this is what you've created. you broke the thing, you bought it. chuck schumer alluded to that yesterday when he said the following. listen, one moment. >> they can't keep all the things that americans like about the aca and get rid of the rest without throwing the entire healthcare system, not just those on aca but those with private insurance, into chaos. the republican plan to cut
healthcare wouldn't make america great again, it would make america sick again. >> bill: congresswoman? >> what we have to remember, they are the ones that disrupted the healthcare market. increased the cost and narrowed access. they have broken the delivery system. now we have to clean it up. they should work with us on this, bill. here is a stat. if you look at the 20 million in the marketplace, 11 million in the exchanges. 12 million in the expanded medicaid access, that is 7% of the u.s. population. so what they did was a disenfranchise and make life more difficult for 93% of the population. out of that 7% that you have affected by obamacare, 7 million of those individuals had healthcare insurance prior to obamacare. it was dropped and they were forced into this system. so what we have is say let's be fair to everybody in
this process. let's put the focus on patient-centered care. let's utilize items like across state lines purchase of health insurance. my legislation expanded health savings accounts, tort reform which our providers are telling us we really need to address, and let's provide an environment where individuals -- all individuals can have access to affordable quality healthcare. >> bill: final question. can you get any democrats to vote with you on this? >> sure, we're going to be able to get democrats to vote with us. their constituents are disenfranchised and their hospitals are having trouble keeping their doors open. their doctors are closing practices because of the negative impact of obamacare. if they're committed to the goal of access to affordable healthcare for all americans they'll work with us. >> bill: thank you for your time.
>> good to be with you. >> bill: appreciate you coming back today. >> martha: president-elect donald trump firing back at those accusing him of siding with julian assange over our own intelligence agencies. he says he is a big fan of our intel agencies. the big question whether or not russia really did interfere with the outcome of our election and what evidence do they have of that. we'll show you what he is saying when we come back.
>> martha: we want to take you back to what happened a moment ago with senator cleare mccaskill as part of the questioning going on with regard to our intelligence agencies on capitol hill. >> who benefits from that, the american people, them losing confidence in the intelligence community and the work of the intelligence community? who actually is the benefactor of someone who is about to become commander-in-chief trashing the intelligence community? >> i think there is an
important distinction here before healthy skepticism, which policymakers to include policymaker number one should always have for intelligence but i think there is a difference between skepticism and disparagement. >> and i assume the biggest benefactors are the american people having less confidence in the intelligence community are, in fact, the actors you have named today, iran, north korea, china, russia and isis. >> the intelligence community is not perfect. we are an organization of human beings and we are prone sometimes to make errors. i don't think the intelligence community gets the credit it's due for what it does day in and day out to keep this nation
safe and secure and the number of plots, just one example, terrorist plots that have been thwarted both those focused on this country and other countries. >> i want to thank the chairman and i want to thank senator graham and others, others i can count on maybe a little bit more than one hand who have stood up in a non-political way to defend the intelligence community over the last few weeks. the notion that the elected -- the soon-elected leader of this country would put julian assange on a pedestal compared to the men and women of the intelligence community and the military that is so deeply embedded in the intelligence community. i think it should bring about a hu and cry no matter whether you're republican or democrat. there should be howls and mark my word, if the roles were reversed there would be howls from the republican side of the
aisle. thank you, mr. chairman. >> bill: thank you for that nonpartisan comment. [laughter] >> martha: there you have it moments ago joining us now the deputy editorial page editor for the "wall street journal" and a author of a piece this morning for the main street column for the "wall street journal." now that we've watched all this unfold we wanted to get your thoughts on this as well. at the heart of this is the question about whether or not there has been a politicalization of intelligence and whether or not it's convenient for some to argue that the russians threw the election with their interference and that donald trump is illegitimate as the pick of the american people. isn't that really what's at the nut of this, bill? >> the entire cleare mccaskill questioning we saw is totally political. it was not about the russians or assange. it was about donald trump. she belongs to a party that since 2011 has been complaining that intelligence was
politicized. we've had the iraq war, the mistakes there. we had benghazi and suddenly the party that has been attacking our intelligence trying to prevent people actually in the nsa from collecting good intelligence to present themselves as the defenders of the intelligence community is just incredible. >> i'm glad all this is happening. the idea that especially to hear a democrat like cleare mccaskill praising the c.i.a. this is a new one for the democratic party. the idea that the intelligence community as they keep referring to it is -- there are 17 intelligence agencies. it's a bureaucracy and i agree with mr. clapper, they do a terrific job stopping and thwarting plots but they have a lot of other responsibilities including predicting the future. that was the problem with weapons of mass destruction in iraq and now they are supposed to predict the future about what isis might be doing or russia might be doing.
they aren't necessarily so good at that. i have no problem with donald trump suggesting that he wants to take a good hard look at how we collect intelligence and how we deploy those resources because they are bureaucracies and they need to be looked at from time to time. i think his nsa director michael flynn who has been in intelligence his entire career has clear ideas how to go about that. >> martha: clearly michael flynn and the head of the cia you would imagine are the top voices he is listening to. >> these are serious men who are interested in intelligence and know how it can be done. i think it's good to take a look. we're in just this very political world. the people making the accusations are almost the most guilty of it. >> martha: how dangerous is it to suggest that the russian hacking, if it did or did not come from them. clearly there is a lot of people in the intelligence agencies who believe that it did, but to make this
connection and we'll get the report at least the unclassified part of it tomorrow, to make the suggestion that it had an influence on the outcome of the election is another bridge to cross and it gets tossed around a lot. we have to know that if that's a fact before we assume it and talk about it as if it is one. >> but martha, how did it affect the election exactly? no one has suggested that they got in there and altered voting machines. remember that was the early threat. >> martha: by releasing truth. >> they got these emails from john podesta and others, released them through wikileaks and we're supposed to believe that john podesta's emails and emails between them and jennifer threw the election to donald trump? no serious person believes that. i like the idea of opening up the question of russian hacking. cybersecurity, serious problem. a very difficult and complex problem. trying to determine whether that hacking was coming from a
basement in moscow or coming from somewhere in romania, ukraine or somewhere else by distant servers by solo players. >> martha: this is not something that has happened once or twice and it will continue to happen and it will happen to republicans and all sides before we're through. >> i was in the bush administration. my personal information was hacked into by the chinese i think director clapper called it espionage. what happened then? what were the consequences? were chinese diplomats thrown out for doing this? since 9/11 the cry has been we failed to connect the dots. everything the democrats have done since then is to prevent us from collecting the dots. so if we want to get into this debate i say bring it on. >> martha: thanks you guys. great to have you both here this morning. >> bill: 10 minutes before the hour. the population at gitmo will drop soon. my next guest says that prison, however, will be open for a very long time.
>> bill: back inside this hearing during the commercial break. there is questioning in a direct fashion james clapper. >> admiral rogers in november at the "wall street journal" forum you stated it was a conscious effort by a nation state to attempt to achieve a specific effect end quote. by that did you also refer to the hack of the dnc, the hack of john podesta's email and the leaks of those emails? >> yes. >> did you refer to anything else? >> i don't remember the specifics of that one 30-minute engagement. i said what you outlined was part of my thought process. >> further on in the statement
director clapper the intelligence community said it will be extremely difficult to alter actual ballot counts or election results by cyberattack or intrusion, end quote. you've stated that earlier today as well we have no evidence that vote tallies were altered or manipulated in any way. >> that's correct. >> that's what happened. let's discuss why. director clapper in response to senator nelson you stated that the report soon to be released will discuss the motive. would you care to give any kind of preview today? >> i would rather not. there are actually more than one motive so that will be described in the report. >> in your 53 years of intelligence is ascertaining the plans of foreign leaders is one of the hardest tasks we ask our intelligence services to perform? >> it always has been. >> this has been expressed by secretary clinton that vladimir putin favored donald trump in
this election. and to expand and accelerate oil and gas production which would harm russia's economy. hillary clinton opposed or at least was not an enthusiastic about all those measures. would each of those put the united states in a stronger position against russia? >> anything we do to enhance our military capabilities absolutely. >> there is some contrary evidence despite what the media spec later that perhaps donald trump is not the best candidate for russia. that's what happened, that's why it happened at least a preview that we'll know why it happened. let's move on to the impact. director clapper you said to senator mccain earlier quote the intelligence community cannot gauge the impact, end quote, on the election. is that because that kind of electoral analysis is not a
task within the traditional responsibility and skill sets of intelligence services? >> that's correct. >> something more suited for other election analysts that have written on the election. >> it isn't the purview of the u.s. intelligence community. >> thank you. >> thank you, chairman. since this will likely be the last hearing that some of you will attend in front of this committee, i just want to thank you all for your service and thank all the men and women who work for you. i want to say a special note of gratitude to director clapper for 50 years of incredible service to this country. i think what makes america great has been our ability to elect leaders through a fair, through a peaceful and a transparent process without fear of rigging or interference in elections and unfortunately in this past election we know that interference occurred.
and when i say interference, i want to be specific. it is not about someone physically stuffing ballot boxes or someone hacking our electronic voteings machines to give one candidate more votes than another but releasing damaging information. i believe this is going to happen again unless there is a price to be paid. this interference impacts the foundation of our democracy. our elections, which is why i welcome the sanctions against russia announced by the president and why i believe we need to be evaluating additional russian sanctions. it is simply too important for both parties and for the future of our country. secretary, given the need for deterrents in this atmosphere which as you said is not always achieved by a cyber response, how important are tools like
sanctions to imposing the kind of clear costs that you articulated? >> sanctions are a very useful tool in that toolkit. in the case of the current situation we find ourselves in it would be prudent to continue to look at options to impose more sanctions on russian actors as the facts continue to develop. >> i would agree with that estimate and i hope that folks on both sides of the aisle will be looking at those additional tools. for any of you who want to answer this i would like to know how is the president-elect's at least inferred dismissive attitude towards the intelligence community broadly impacted morale in your agencies? >> well, haven't done a climate survey, but i hardly think it helps it. >> does anyone want to add to
that? >> i don't want to lose good, motivated people who want to help serve this nation because they feel they aren't generating value to help that nation. i am the first to acknowledge there is room for a wide range of opinions of the results we generate. we don't question that for one minute and every intelligence professional knows that. i've had plenty of times in my career when i presented my intelligence analysis and policymakers said thanks, thation not the way i see it or you'll have to sell me on this. that doesn't bother any of us. what we do i think is relevant and we realize what we do is in no small part driven in part by the confidence of our leaders and what we do. and without that confidence, i just don't want a situation where our workforce decides to walk. i think that is not a good place for us to be. >> i think many of us could