you were talking about the practical leaves of the iranians earlier. a country that flares off 13 nuclear power plants come equivalents of natural gas each year. obviously it does not have many practical means for multiple new nuclear power plants to generate electricity. our you going to determine that, what is practical? because obviously there is a very high prevarication coefficient historically in iran, and if they plan on building ten to 20 nuclear power plants the practical means will be vastly expanded nuclear enrichment program in their country, even if it is under tight safeguards. >> your point is very well taken, senator. as i said, nothing is agreed

until everything is agreed. the practical needs are certainly an element of consideration, a comprehensive agreement, but so are our concerns about their ability to have nuclear weapons, which is prairie that they not obtain a nuclear weapon. and so whenever the final agreement is, that is the assurance that is most of concern to us. >> i appreciate that. again, if they build ten new nuclear power plants, it would be a vast and rich a program that would have to have. just the complications of monitoring such a program would be exponentially greater, and i just think that we have to keep that on -- in our mind because that is how they would actually crack this inspections regime in the years ahead, even if we got a comprehensive agreement. finally, since the november agreement have you seen signs of an uptick in the iran support for proxies' and allies around the middle east? do you have reason to believe that iranians feel they now have

greater leeway to intervene more aggressively in the region because of the agreement that has been reached and nuclear program on an interim basis? >> it would probably be valuable to have our intelligence community give you their assessment of exactly that question because we have asked that question. would point out that there was concern by many that they would take the first payment of $550 million cycle that and to support for hezbollah in syria. that does not appear to be the case, and we are glad to give you the briefing on that. more importantly, i think you have seen in the news that iran has visibly just provided food to those that are poor as a way of demonstrating quite treacly that this limited targeted an temporary sanctions relief as a direct impact on the people in the country which is what president run the promised. he did not promise that money

would be used for other purposes >> the senators and others of raise this issue. one hundred french executives traveled yesterday to explore new economic openings, and the same is true for russia, germany, china. i just think that it is very important for the administration to say to each of these countries that if there is no comprehensive agreement that not only is the lender going to be shut on this in the united states is going to sanction any of the business when he think that they will cut deals, but that additional sanctions will be put in place and that additional action will also, perhaps, have to be taken in order to make sure that there is no nuclear program. a clear, explicit statement of that would be reassuring to people to know that there will be no games that will be allowed by any of these businessmen and that there will be punished by the u.s. government. >> senator, i would briefly say

that that is precisely the messes that has been conveyed in the in days is that we have had over the last several weeks. no, there will be robo wavering in the enforcement of the sanctions, and also, we have made the point to if a comprehensive deal is not reached, if, for instance, iran feels that it does not need to reach a comprehensive deal because the kindle sanctions relief through other means, three evasion or through trying to develop business activities that the consequence of that to all of these businesses is going to be to their detriment. it will be much worse than what they face today, and i think that message is getting across. >> let me thank you both for your testimony, engagement. i will have a series of questions for the record including my understanding that on the relief from the oil

purchases countries may, in fact , purchased more than the last reduced amount. i would like to understand how we're working on that. secretary, i will be watching to see your enforcement actions. with that and with the thanks of the committee, you are both excused. >> coming up on c-span2, today's senate debate on the farm bill. then officials testify at a congressional leering about global national security threats . a state department official briefed the senate foreign relations committee on negotiations with iran of did a -- over the nuclear program. >> i think that the american public sees the first lady in very glamorous circumstances, usually for a state dinner in a beautiful gal. you know, some speech where there -- whatever. at think that what they may not imagined looking at the white

house from the outside is that it is actually a very normal life of stairs. those two floors that are the white house residence, the first lady -- and i know i did actually lay on the couch and read a book. in my case my cat would always curl up next to me. >> watch our program on first lady laura bush and our website c-span.org / first lady's or see it saturday on c-span and 7:00 p.m. eastern and live monday our series continues with first lady michelle obama. you're watching a c-span2 with politics and public affairs weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. a league that's what's keep public policy events, and every weekend villages nonfiction authors and books. you can see past programs and get our schedules and our website, and you can join in the conversation on social media sites.

>> congress has passed its first farm bill since 2008. the bill's ban as $956 billion over five years and ceases direct payments to farmers in favor of specialized crop insurance. the senate passed the bill 68-32 sending it to the president who said he will sign the bill on friday during a trip to michigan here is some of the senate debate on the farm bill. democrat dick durbin and republican jeff blake. this is 20 minutes. >> mr. president, this is the conference report from the agricultural act of 2014. when the senator was on the floor earlier she has poured her heart and soul into this document and this work. two years ago we passed the farm bill on the floor of the senate, two years ago. she did it. senator roberts from kansas. i voted for it. i thought it was an exceptional effort on our part off.

went to the u.s. also representatives as is the customer under the constitution to whether endive two years ago. and then a year ago they said, let's try again. let's pass the farm bill again in the united states senate in the hopes that the u.s. house of representatives will take it up. a year ago. mr. president, i asked. >> the senate will be in order. so a year ago the senators send this measure to the house of representatives for consideration. again, it languished. it may have been one of the longest-running conference committees in the history of congress, but thank goodness for the perseverance of senators stab and no and many others. produce this document. for those pseudo live in farm country this may seem like a foreign text, but for those of us to do live colleges reading the to allow accountants will

show you the important elements of this bill will lead is so critically important to eleanor virtually every state in the union. i commend her, i commend the senator for really, as i said, pouring her heart and soul to this document. there are things in here which many of us may never really appreciate that she fought for over a long, long time. and i am going to in knowledge a few of those during the course of my formal remarks. well here on the floor let me give special credits macaulay. she really took on this test in an extraordinary way. after years of expiration's as short-term extensions are rarely do to the problems of inaction in the house of representatives this bill finally is going to provide farmers of illinois and across the nation with some guarantee of certainty on the future. compared to a pre sequestration budget levels, that is but the talk around here for past budgets, this bill is going to

save $23 billion over the next in years. this conference report before us really works to do four things, invest in energy and research, help our world community's growth, those of us represents small-town american know-how of poor and that is to ensure stability for our farmers who face the vicissitudes of whether and markets and provide food assistance for those most in need both here and overseas. these are amazing important goals. i will add the senator and all the conferees really apply themselves to make this happen. i am disappointed by one thing, and i know the senator will not be surprised. despite modest reforms, we still provide extraordinary premium support for many farmers to buy crop insurance. in fairness, this bill eliminates of price support

program that was no longer defensible, a program that pays farmers in good times as well as bad. so it really wasn't what it was designed to become the emergency help for farmers in need. and she laid the direct payment program by and large which is to me a step forward. instead this bill lose farmers toward crop insurance. most of us stepping back say, that sounds like the responsible thing to do. a farmer buys an insurance policy so that if things go bad on the farm, drought, some other problem or the prices happen to be disastrous for the farmer goes to market the insurance policy will make sure that they can live to planting in. that's a good thing. but as i said seven times coming anytime you put the two words federal insurance and the same sentence, i advise my colleagues to step back and answer some questions. this is not insurance as you envision it. it is not a matter of automobile

insurance where the automobile owners pay enough in premiums to create a reserve to cover the exposure of accidents. under the crop insurance program like many federal insurance programs there is a massive federal subsidy. 62 percent of they're reserves that are necessary to make the program functions are provided by the federal treasury, not by premiums paid by farmers. so it is a good program, a valuable program, critically important, but let's keep our minds on the reality here. it is heavily subsidized by the federal government. senator tom coburn of oklahoma, a very conservative republican and i decided to offer an amendment which said, if you are a farmer whose income is over $750,000 a year we will reduce slightly the government subsidy

of your crop insurance. over $750,000 in income. we will reduce slightly the 62 per cent federal subsidy of new crop insurance. you will pay slightly more in premiums because you're able to. you're better off than most. this past not once but twice on the floor of the united states senate they had to turn out conferees primarily from the house hated this provision like the devil in solar water. and so they strike this provision from the bill. and that is unfortunate. not only did we pass it twice, the house passed an instruction to conferees to included on the floor. members wanted to be on record saying they like this idea. when the conferees get there hands on it. let me ask you to hold onto that thought for a moment while i get into another section of the bill

the area where the house conferees really worked up an appetite was when it came to the supplemental the attrition assistance program, the so-called food stamp program that began, let me commend the senator as chairman of the agriculture committee. she called me several times to tell me about the bottles that she had to wage to protect the food stamp program. let's talk about the program for a minute. almost 15 percent of households across america have trouble keeping through the table. a snap and the food program provide 47 million americans with the essential food assistance. 83 percent of the households that receive food stamps include a child for a person with disability or a senior citizen. nearly 1 million veterans use the food stamp program each year

in illinois over 2 million people, almost one in seven residents rely on spent benefits. q. are these people? to in the world need food stamps and the grace to elect a state of illinois. let me tell you about two or three of them. one of them was the elderly lady that i met at the irving park methodist church food pantry. she was on the locker. she had a very short hair cut suggesting that perhaps she had been through some chemotherapy or radiation. she sold -- soldier way up there to get the bag of grocers. that said to her, can you tell me a little bit about how you're doing? sure, senator. i am doing okay. d'agata $800 a month in social security. palin the world to you live in chicago and $800 a month? it ain't easy, senator. to pay their rent, utility in the basics. and she says, i come to this food pantry and one other one. each one of the law gives me three days worth of food.

so i get about one month and six days worth of food and of the to food pantries. thank them for that, and they get food stamps with about $130 a month. that's it, folks. that's where she lives on. an elderly person. and when a house republicans said will we need to do is cut $40 billion, that was their original recommendation, $40 billion of food stamps and apparently have never met this lady in what she was up against. they might have met a couple of workers that i had a press conference with on sunday in chicago. working full-time and qualifying for food stamps. one was a fellow who works on the west side of chicago and a used car lot, does it all, he says. planes the car commercials lots, sells the cars and is paid $8.205 an hour which is our state minimum-wage. for kids. his wife is sick and cannot work. he gets food stamps and the needs of.

food on the table for kids for a full-time worker and a minimum wage job. then on the other side was a lady who is a waitress. and she told the story of being a single mom. she goes up to the city college of chicago. desperate. but she works a job which has a guaranteed minimum wage in illinois go of dollars and $0.50 an hour. that is the waitresses are guaranteed. nationally $2.13 an hour. she says, no work in a fancy restaurant. an unlikely to come over to tender $20 today. do the math. and she said some days they don't call me and to work. i did nothing. she relies on food stamps. a woman who is ready to work, work starts, standing upon their waiting tables. in come the house republicans to say well, we really need to come down harder on these people, these sleazy people on food

stamps. i wish there would be some of these folks who use food stamps to get by, to survive. these people are our neighbors, hard-working people who lost their jobs are got sick, seniors living on limited, fixed income. this bill does cut $8 billion out of the snap program, the food stamp program. i understand the cuts that were made and take the senator and others said. i don't want any thought to recede as in the there. we are tightening up so that it will not affect the payments to those who are truly eligible and those in need the help and yet it will make sure that taxpayers are treated fairly as well. but look at the contrast. some of the conferees walked into this hearing in said that farmers to make almost a million dollars a year should not have any reduction in their soul city for crop insurance, but people

like the lady at the urban park methodist church food pantry it paid $8 a month. we ought to take a hard look, hard, hard look at the $130 a month to give this city. that is upside down. that does not reflect the values of this country were the priorities that we need to face. i think the senator from michigan. she worked long and hard as a real champion when it came to the program, the food stamp program. incidentally, mr. president, the good news is as the economy improves people get back to work and the number of people on food stamps is going down, which is what we need to see. business say something about us as a nation, caring, compassionate nation that we're going to be there to help those families living in our times in our state for billing to our churches when they're struggling to put food on the table. why was that such an inviting target for some of these house conferees? i don't understand that. there's a lot of money that can

be saved from government. we don't to waste a penny of it. let's focus our maryland and those that can afford to pay and are getting a federal subsidy. the asking for a helping hand. this bill does so many things i cannot even start to describe. all the different areas dealing with the risk to mckee investments for energy and research, eric coulture research, pro rims to help rural communities grow and helping those in need. most importantly, this reauthorization gives farmers certainty about farm programs, and they needed. something they have not had for the last three years. i am going to support this bill. i wish that we had been able to preserve that provision, but i believe it is an important step forward in farm country across america, and i yield the floor.

>> mr. president. >> the senator from arizona. >> turn your attention this week to the farm bill conference report. my thoughts turn to the wild west to put provisions in context. treacly, 950 pages and themselves to talk about the good, the bat, and it just plain ugly. i mention the good because while this farm bill falls far short of gaining my support it is not entirely without provisions worth highlighting. conferees include a one term extension of the payment and lower taxes. that gives temporary predictability for counties with low tax bases the to federal land ownership and provides covers with time to chart a long-term solution in this regard. in addition the bill authorizes per reveille the stewardship contacting authority with the critical land management tool that allows us to proactively

reduced the risk of catastrophic wildfires. it is one that i have long called for a while reforms to the liability requirements are also included. the report fails to include necessary flexibility on cancellations since the end is something we will continue to work on in the future. sadly, when it comes to the bad there is not enough time to list all the atoms in the report it should make any lawmaker cringe who is concerned about our crushing national debt or those of us trying to reform agricultural policy. rather than truthfully charmingly already generous an agricultural safety net taxpayers should prepare for yet another round of entirely new alphabet soup subsidy programs. the senator from illinois explained very well the crop insurance program that is so heavily subsidized. 62 percent. all of those with auto insurance or other types of insurance would love to have that kind of contribution from the through government. this report does not even provide common-sense reform to

limit waste and largess to sustain the hallmarks of agriculture of subsidies. the report also fails to live an agricultural payments of those actually involved in farming. cannot provide a reasonable income limits as was discussed with the senator from illinois for those who already receive crop insurance subsidy. incomprehensibly when recognition of the iran from the tree crop insurers and the federal government would be required to be revenue neutral. despite billions of dollars in taxpayer savings faw. this bill as reported to be fiscally conservative because it saves 16 billion in tax dollars. before we pass each other and the back we need to remember that congress has a pretty dismal record of knowing how much farm bills will cost. according to taxpayers with common-sense the last two farm bills, on pace to exceed their

federal budget of the score by more than four under billion. there is no assurance that this bill will be any different. let's get to the ugly. a year of direct payments is a clear sign of what needs to be changed. the federalist iran has been handing a roughly 5 billion per year to farmers regardless of whether their farming the land. i want to pay tribute to the senator from michigan who has fought to end these direct payments. did a pretty good job there, but the house did not. i myself have long sought to end direct payments with senate action. but despite our fiscal situation, the best we can get in the house allowing direct payments to continue, albeit slightly reduced for cotton for 2014 and 2015. this conference report purports to in direct payments but ends them in name only for con. let's be clear, it simply renames direct payments for

convert two years. they will now be called transition payments to be cut tours will continue to receive payments until the other new subsidy program is created in this report on live. instead of western movies i should have conjured up images of shakespeare to describe this fiscal tragedy. government-funded in doubt by another name is still a government-funded handout. since it is also worth recalling that when originally created in 1996 in the 1996 farm bill correct payments when by the name of agricultural market transition assistance payments. it would appear that for some commodities there will always be a transition for something to five from something to something else but will result in a taxpayer funded in no. according to the cbs the report actually takes the zero crossed from the senate proposal and the 44 -- four greuel 43 billion

from the house proposal and compromises and a higher cost of 556 billion in 2015. that is some compromise to go one above what the house and the seven numbers are. while the tenure score for the transition payment is lower than the house proposal the first-year costs are actually higher. it is at this point that one can simply stop being surprised at what will happen when it comes to farm subsidies. sadly, rather than a blockbuster of fiscal sanity, taxpayers will be saddled with what looks to be another rerun of missed opportunities to reform federal agricultural policy through -- the livestock groups have decried the absence of fixes and ongoing regulatory problems, and fiscal conservatives are chafing at the conservative race and spending in this report. this report is still likely to be adopted. there are other issues addressed to and by employees to the some

of this will end up on the president's desk, but i cannot support this conference report, and i will continue to push for real fiscal discipline and federal a report from a policy. i should note, i remember when i first up to congress for just about a year after a came to the floor of the house to rail against the farm bill at that time in 2002, the reauthorization. in the 1990's from the freedom to farm act to the farm security act. for those of us conservatives who talk about moving from freedoms to security and all that means, that was actually in the title of the bill. we have not improved much since that time. that was more than a decade ago. i have to say that we should have made progress that is simply not made in this bill. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. >> on our next washington journal we will talk to florida congressman about u.s. marijuana policy. in maryland representative don

edwards will discuss the latest cbo report that the deficit will drop to 514 billion. this week's deadline of the debt limit. later, former u.s. surgeon general will give an update the latest research to improve survival rates for my edie's and mass shooting incidents. he will also take your phone calls, and you can join the conversation. washington journal live each morning and 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> the new c-span.org website makes it easy for you to find and watch all of the extensive coverage of official washington. look for it on our homepage at a space called federal focus. each day you will find comprehensive coverage of house and senate debates, congressional committee hearings, of is with the president and members of his cabinet, press briefings from the white house, capitol hill,

the state department, and the pentagon plus selected supreme court oral arguments and appearances by the justices. watch live or on your own schedule. federal focus on c-span.org. making it easy to keep tabs on what is happening in congress, the white house, and the courts. >> cia director john brennan briefed congress on terrorist threats including al qaeda training camps in syria. he was joined at a hearing at the house intelligence committee but director of national intelligence and other intelligence officials. congressman mike rogers shares this two-hour hearing. [inaudible conversations]

>> the committee will coats of order. a few preliminary analysis before we start. just last evening we had a classified session before the committee to discuss at length their most pressing intelligence issues including sensitive covert action programs, the threats emanating from both terrorist organizations and adversarial nations, the increase in cyber attack capability around the world, the full scope of our intelligence capabilities and priorities. now we turn to our open session where the american people receive the benefit of as much transparency about intelligence as possible. as a reminder to all members we are in open session, and we should be careful not to discuss classified matters. for the committee will not tolerate any disruptions from the gallery today. those who love signs', are

destroyed to with the closing or appearance and will be removed from the hearing room by capitol police. i would like to welcome our witnesses today, the director of national intelligence, the cia director, the director of the defense intelligence agency, general michael flynn, the director of and ctc and the director of the fbi for the committee's annual open hearing. has been quite a year for the intelligence community, harlow to america by the cost of flood of illegal disclosures. the shocking value of critical information that was stolen and likely disclose to our adversaries. as the department of defense recently explained, we have experienced the single largest compromise a rash of security information in our nation's history, and we are not talking about business records and phone manage data. these compromises go to the very

core of this country's ability to defend itself and seriously threatens the capabilities of every one of our services. and long into the future of the stolen material will threaten the safety and security of our soldiers and marines in the field. yet at a time when our intelligence agencies need and clear direction they must endure what appears to be more regulatory confusion emanating from the administration. for five long years we have witnessed delays, in coherence, confusion and policies that do little but make it difficult for our intelligence agencies to do there work. one task force review is another task force. important legal programs are changed even though they have done nothing wrong. in decisions on key covert action activities has had serious negative consequences to the national security of the united states. when it comes to america's current approach on

national-security there's only one thing that is certain, and that is our allies have no clue what our policy is from one day to the next. we just returned from the munich security conference. we have roughly ten bilateral meetings in a bipartisan delegation. to the individual they expressed frustration over the lack of clarity in u.s. policy when it comes to engagements in rough parts of the world. as a matter of fact one particular senior official highlighted the confusion when he stated that on serious policy matters very recently we received direction from the pentagon that was different from the same direction they got from the state department that was different from the direction he got from the white house. you can imagine the frustration of our allies in a very troubled mind. talking about the problem, reviewing the problem, citing a task force to think about the problem is causing serious

problems. our adversaries completely see it as weakness. we look to see how the world has evolved in response to these last five years. america's strength and stature in the world has diminished. that is not one member's opinion but the opinion of our international partners will meet with frequently. terrorists are emboldened to every rogue nations are more bellicose. adversaries like russia and china if capitalize on our in decision an absence at their own strategic advantage. the policymakers embrace special security policies based on what sounds good in a speech. those left to untangle the nest, those gentlemen that you see sitting before us today and the very courageous men and women who work for those agencies. so i thank you, all of you, for the work that should do. not only with the good work you're doing now will for the years your spent, making the arguments, standing in for what is right and needed, one of the

most challenging times i argue in our national security history , our country's history. i also fear that this lack of leaders has created a growing risk aversion within our intelligence agency as al qaeda as more and spread. we have piled on here in washington d.c. even more bureaucracy on our intelligence agencies. today individuals who would have been previously roof from the battlefield if the u.s. counter-terrorism operations for attacking or plotting to attack against u.s. interests remain free because of self-imposed red tape. while we are busy pondering more transparency, our intelligence professionals are left terrorized because of the totally incoherent policy guidance. let me be the first to say publicly, the president's may 2013 policy changes for the u.s. targeted strikes are an utter and complete failure, and they leave american lives at risk.

those changes, while sounding nice in a speech are today ride no indenturing the lives of americans of how and the military overseas in a way that is frustrating to our airlines and frustrating to those of us to engage in the oversight of our classified activities to this to afghanistan last year at the same hearing ask whether we had the conviction to achieve a lasting victory or whether we would just walk away. a year later we seem even more focused on leaving the war before victory as the one. yet we have already learned what happens after a hasty exit from the instability in these countries gives al qaeda and other terrorist groups their most valued assets under cover to plan, train, and conductor stitcheries against the west and indeed our homeland. such operational freedom results and the loss of hard-fought gains. we are year to fight. policy should be dictated by

what best protect american end of what is politically expedient nell is not the time to disengage from the world. the drip of classified information designed to undermine u.s. interests will continue, but we must move past false accusation and feigned outrage. we need leaders and clear thinking and a difficult time. we must get back to business of protecting america, and we must give our intelligence services are clarity and certainty in the tools to be successful in that effort. it is why we look to you, that's our intelligence agencies to find ways to make sure that you have the ability to impact potential terrorist operations targeted at the united states and our allies to make their right decision in difficult places. certainly is no small task. turning our witnesses over.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. but think the director of national intelligence to a cra director, director of defense intelligence agency thank you for being here today. this important hearing so that we can communicate to our constituents and america what the intelligence community is doing. the intelligence community continues to provide vital information necessary to prevent the values and interest of america as rose to protect and defend it. they did so amidst profound challenges not only abroad but at home. in syria are boss and the intelligence community has worked hard. this past year the intelligence community has had to work amid the worst leaks and our country's history. make no mistake, when we handover are classified information our adversaries and enemies adjust accordingly. we know that this has happened already. terrorist networks are changing

their tactics to avoid detection with this the work of the intelligence community to respond and uncovered threats become that much harder. it must protect americans. we must not forget that these authorities and capabilities are in place to keep our country and citizens safe. of the intelligence community has filed the law it is inherent to the public has lost confidence in these programs and we have to deal with that issue. believe we must adopt simple reforms to restore americans' confidence. we must increase transparency, strength, oversight commend improve safeguards to privacy and civil liberties. i now want to look ahead to the challenges of 2014. the threats we face continue to grow. there is no greater example of this and the threats to america's cyber security. while the house passed the cyber intelligence back it hasn't yet become law even though we work closely with the white house intelligence community critical air pressure companies to various industries and privacy

and civil liberties groups to greatly improve the bill. this means the government still cannot fully share cyber tread intelligence with the private sector, and the private sector can assure threat information with the government. the continue to attack economic corporate structure, trade secrets, and critical infrastructure. we herat these attacks every day for a financial sector suffered a wide scale network to mile service attack the prove difficult and costly to litigate. the retail giant target is another example of our ability. we also have to do far more to expand our cyber professionals and innovators by investing in early education. our adversaries are making heavy investments in the education of their youth, and we must do the same. education is the keystone of security and prosperity. as for its collection perris this year the intelligence committee must remain vigilant. we must recognize that our tough

sanctions have brought us to a point where i believe important progress can be made. i am hopeful and realistic on what we are to where we are, and where we can go with some intelligence to destroy diplomacy, and robust defense. encourage to know that more can be done to keep a nuclear weapon out of the hands of dangerous iran. syria there is less cause for optimism. i applaud the agreement to remove chemical weapons and an increasingly troubled by delays. we must keep our attention focused and completing this process. the same time we must not lose sight of the tremendous humanitarian crisis that continues and we must remain vigilant. the area has become a magnet for terrorists further destabilizing an already fragile region. it must assure them of their way to american shores are our interests and allies overseas. extremists are not just a problem and syria. 2013 we saw 8q8p in the near

north african affiliate pose a very severe threat to the united states. in august the threat forces it to permit to clause 19 and this is across the middle east and north africa in response to a plot that was intercepted thanks to your efforts. al qaeda qmin successfully conducted an attack in malloy. as for china we continue to look with great concern beijing so-called air defense identification center which would require u.s. forces to identify themselves as they fly near or over certain silence is a land grab in the front of the international increasing the risk of misunderstanding between washington and china making the role of intelligence that much more important.

our athletes will be convened in just a few short days to compete in the 2014 winter olympics. in the past month we're seeing troubling terrorist activity and must keep our guard. in afghanistan 2014 marks a year which combat operations. reno are vital national-security interest of classes. we need to maintain intelligence efforts even after the military withdrawals. there will continue to represent a threat. we must not forget that afghanistan is more than a front in the counter-terrorism more. there is broader strategic application. this year we must also continue to focus our attention , prevent or commercial space industry air relax those out to regulations that hamper our competitive and vintage. cannot emphasize enough that u.s. companies must be allowed to compete in the free-market. competition will promote innovation. finally, we need to rely on the intelligence community to lift

their days. when you identify longer-term trends that cut across individual states are groups, these trends be the environmental, demographic, technology, or the emerging fault lines of conflict early action can afford long-term pain free and ready to do all of this in ways that protect civil liberties. liberty and security are not mutually exclusive. we can and must work to protect both and remain ever vigilant to really afford to hearing from you and these challenges facing our country, how you plan to address the and how you'll work individually. i want to take a minute to appreciate the men and women of the intelligence community are working to keep us say 24 hours a day seven days a week. with the government shut down last fall and the leaks we're a lot of negativity in 2013 directed toward federal employees generally and our intelligence professional specifically. this is unfounded and unjust. there were nights, weekends, holidays and in remote and

dangerous locations and they do so not for money or fame says their must also remain anonymous , but for love of country and dedication to our deals. i yield back. >> thank-you. welcome back. corrector clapper, the floor is yours. >> general rogers, ranking member, distinguished are members of the committee, my colleagues and i are here today to present the intelligence communities worldwide threat assessment. must commend the ranking member for his outstanding rendition. about five topics and about ten minutes on behalf of paul thus. as gni this is my fourth appearance before the committee to discuss the threats that we face. i have made this next assertion previously, but it is if anything even more evident and

relevant today. looking back over my more than half a century and intelligence, i have not experienced a time when we have been beset by more crises and threats around the globe. my list is long. it includes this courage and diversification of terrorism loosely connected and globally dispersed, to include here at home as exemplified by the boston marathon,. the sectarian war in syria, its attraction as a growing center of radical extremism and the potential threat that disposes of the homeland. let me briefly expand on this point. the strength of the insurgency and syria is no estimated a summer between 75 or 80,000 or to 100 tend to of 15,000 insurgents who were organized into more than 1500 groups of widely varying political leanings. the most effective in total

about 26,000 insurgents. complicating this further are the 7500 or so foreign fighters from some 50 countries who have gravitated to syria. among them are a small group of al qaeda veterans with aspirations for external attack in europe of about poland. and there are many other crises and threats from the glow to include the spillover of the syrian conflict, the destabilizing flood of refugees in jordan, turkey, and lebanon, a symptom of one of the largest humanitarian disasters in the decade. the implications of the drawdown in afghanistan, the deteriorating internal security posture. with a q arnelle and control of

pollution of the growth of foreign cyber capabilities culmination states and non nation states as well. the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, aggressive nation state intelligence efforts against us, and assertive russia, competitive china, dangerous and unpredictable mockery of, a challenging iran, lingering ethnic provisions in the balkans , perpetual conflict in the extremism in africa tamale, nigeria, central african republic and the south sudan. violent political struggles and among others ukraine, burma, thailand, and bangladesh. the specter of mass atrocities to increasing stress a burgeoning populations, the urgent demands for energy, water, and food. the increasing sophistication of transnational crime, the tragedy in magnitude of human trafficking, the insidious robber of synthetic drugs,

potential for pandemic disease is occasioned by the growth of resistant bacteria. the statements for the record that we submitted provides a comprehensive review of these and other dogs and challenges. my second topic is what is considered an extraordinary time and energy for much of the past year. intel's history the. speaking about potentially the most massive and damaging threats and intelligence information in our history and the ensuing have less of revelations published and broadcast or on the world, the debate about his motives are legal standing for the supreme ironies occasioned by his choice of freedom loving nations and

begins a free expressions to which she fled and from which she rails about what an orwellian state he thinks this country has become. what i do want to speak to is the profound damage that his disclosures of cause and will continue because. as a consequence in my view this station is less safe and the people less secure. what he has stolen and exposed has gone way beyond his professed concerns of so-called domestic surveillance programs. as a result we have lost critical for intelligence collection sources including some shared with us by value partners. chair send other adversaries are going to school and u.s. intelligence sources and methods comment tradecraft. insiders that they are gaining are making our job much, much harder. and this includes putting the lives of members or assets of the intelligence community at

risk as well as our own forces, diplomats, and citizens. we are beginning to see changes in the communications behavior of adversaries, particularly terrorists. snowden, for its part, claims that he has won and that his mission is accomplished. if that is so i call on he and his accomplices to facilitate the return of the remaining stolen documents that have none yet been exposed to prevent even more damage to u.s. security. and the third and related point of want to comment on the ensuing fallout. pains me greatly that the national security agency and its magnificent work force, are started in the intelligence profession over 50 years ago in a signal intelligence. members of my family, my father, father-in-law, brother-in-law and my wife and i have all worked at the nsa, so this is deeply personal to me and my family.

the real facts are as the president noted in his speech on the 70 to january that the men and women who worked at nsa both military and civilian have done their utmost to protect this country and do so a lawful manner. as i and other leaders in the community have said many times, the job of the nsa is not to target the e-mails and phone calls of u.s. citizens. the agency does collect foreign intelligence. the whole reason that the nsa has existed since 1952 performing critical missions that and should the american people want to carry out. moreover, the effects of the unauthorized disclosures hurt the entire intelligence community, not just yenisei. critical intelligence capabilities from which the united states have invested billions of dollars are risk or are likely to be curtailed because of compromise or conscious decision. moreover, the impact of the losses caused by the disclosure

will be amplified by the substantial budget cuts we're encouraged. the stark consequences, plainly evident. the intelligence community is going to have less capacity to protect our nation and its allies. in this connection i am also compelled to know has to remember, the negative morale impact this perfect storm has had on the work force compounded by sequestration, froze, shut down, and salary freezes which leads me to my fourth point. this committee, the cars and large, executive branch, and most acutely all of us in the intelligence community with the inescapable imperative to except more risk a plain hard fact and circumstance that the community must and will manage together with you and those who support the executive branch. but dealing with reduced capabilities, we in the

intelligence community will work as hard as we can to meet the expectations before us. and that brings me to my fifth and final point. the major take a lawyer for us from the past several months is that we must clean in the direction of transparency wherever and whenever we can. with greater transparency about these intelligence pro rims the american people may be more likely to accept the. the president set the tone and direction for us in his speech as well as his landmark presidential policy directive. major a hallmark of which is a conspiracy. testing in conjunction to conduct further declassification to develop additional protections under section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act governing collection of non-u.s. persons overseas to modify how we conduct of collection of telephone minute data under

section 215 of the pitcher enact and more oversight. clearly we need your support. through all of this we must and we will sustain our professional trade craft and integrity. and we must continue to protect our crown jewels sources and methods of that we can accomplish the we'll always been chartered to do to protect the lives of american citizens here and abroad for the myriad threats i described at the beginning of the statement. with that i will conclude and we're ready to address your questions. >> thank you, director. director brennan, there seems to be a surfacing widespread bipartisan interest and that may be changing our syria policy both from the administration and i believe and certainly a bipartisan effort in congress. can you talk about the groups that are posing a threat to our allies in the united states that may be operating in eastern

syria? >> there are three groups in particular that are of concern from an extremist standpoint. the al qaeda element within syria and the islamic state of the rock. it is the letter to that i think most dedicated to a terrorist attempt. we are concerned about the use of syrian territory by the al qaeda organization to recruit individuals and develop the capability to be able not just to carry and attacks outside of syria but to use your area has a launching pad. it is those elements that i am concerned about. especially the ability of these groups are attract individuals from other countries, both from the west as well as from throughout the middle east and south asia with some experienced operatives to have had experience in carrying out the

tax. there are training camps that have been established on either side of the iraqi are syrian border for the purpose of trading al qaeda upper ifs. there are camps inside a both syria and iraq that are used by al qaeda to develop capabilities that are applicable both in the theater as well as beyond. >> to you believe that the mcgovern space presents a real threat to the united states of america? >> i think it demonstrates that there are groups that are not following the guidance.

the decided to go on so and pursue its independence agenda. the elements within. >> is that mean, there would not pursue external operations if they are not affiliated with al qaeda to activate present an equal threat that we need to be concerned about. >> both of those groups, in the group that has its origins in al qaeda or still associated present a threat. >> isn't there some concern that by this recent significant and unprecedented action they will have something to prove themselves which may, in fact to

escalate in the interests given that is one of the reasons this separated in the first place? >> near term as well as long-term. >> you would argue this is a clear and present danger at least some effort. we will say how that effort might come together, but try to do something to disturb their ability to plant and train for external operations? >> and number of challenges increasingly concerns of the terrorism prompt. >> again, we just returned from the conference, i use expression of frustration of what they believe is an inferior policy. is there any way that we can get through that in the near term,

bring the allies back to the fold on what is a complicated circumstances? >> certainly the intelligence community is working very closely to try to address the terrorist challenge. a complex issue with many different dimensions to it. sometimes the objectives that we have, the growing terrorist threat is something that really presents a challenge for all of us. >> a lot more questions. i do want to get to the defense intelligence agency report that was issued recently and made available to the committee which is the first agency to complete its review of the stolen information by the nsa contract. in your professional opinion do you believe these leaks will cost american lives on the battlefield, either now or in the future? >> i do. >> the compromise, did it make it harder to come -- the threat

from ladies used against the forces? >> i believe that we will face problems with the ied threat because of these leaks, whether it is a afghanistan rows of future battlefield. >> immediate threat level. in the combat zone today. as the safety as u.s. government personnel throughout the world and put their risk by this? in other words, have you had to make -- alter any assignments as a result of this compromise? >> let me just say for the purposes of our task force study we assumed that everything that at aristo untouched will reassume that he took. and so we assumed the worst case in how we are reviewing all of

the defense department actions, you know, events, exercises around the world. so to cut to the chase of your question i believe that we will have to make adjustments in the future based on assumptions. >> no particular military services have been impacted by the stolen material? >> all of our services. >> army. >> army, navy, air force and marine corps. >> there will be changes necessary to mitigate the theft of this material in order to maintain security operations and the safety of the military personnel. >> i believe it will have to be. yes. >> to these give our adversaries in sites and now we check them and what their military vulnerabilities are in doubt in my look at what might be some vulnerabilities from the united states military? >> yes, they do. what i don't want to do is get

too far, you know, in front of where the investigation is going on on this issue and also -- >> and just talk about the material that was stolen. if our adversaries are looking at them, many of the intelligence community believe they are. that gives the enemy and adversary is barely a better word today. gives them some operational strategic advantage when it comes to military service operations around the world. >> estimate could. >> you believe the russian intelligence services would have any interest in exploiting someone who had access to these documents? >> absolutely. >> and do you believe that there is any indication that the end as a contractor who is no and moscow might be under the influence of russian intelligence services? >> i don't have any information to that effect. >> excuse me?

>> do you believe that mr. stone who is in the custody of the intelligence services in moscow today by your own information, the possibility to be under the influence of russian intelligence. >> there is the possibility. >> to you believe the russians have any capability to gain the influence of -- for the nsa contractor who is now under custody? >> they have the capability to do that. >> would it be your understanding that if someone were there at the same length of time that this gentleman is there that they would not make an effort to gain his influence over the materialist all? >> absolutely you have to assume that. >> director clapper, al would you rate the russian intelligence service? >> pretty cable. >> would you say their roster out? >> there are times when we are

in confluence as we are right no other times where not. although recent reports indicate that there not cooperating at all. 100 percent of information available, security concerns. >> they would say that is improving little inconsistent from what we heard last night. we heard last i was that information that has to do with internal operations was forthcoming. if not all. is that -- >> in relative terms it is certainly better know then when i first engaged with the russians about two years ago on the subject which i got basically still farmed. you're quite right. more fun to corporate way it is

an external threat to less so with an internal threat. >> based on -- would you expect and have conversations? >> i would find it incredulous if they didn't. >> would you expect someone who is living and being taking care of in the custody of the fsb to be cooperating in order to remain living there? >> it is certainly a possibility . >> throughout the long history have they conducted successful disinformation campaigns against the united states of america. >> they have. >> have they conducted industrial espionage on behalf of american companies. >> it does not. >> would it be against the law for them to do so? >> it would. >> to spreading misinformation about the nest is conducting industrial espionage to our european allies, would that

hamper americans' economic interest? >> if you're speaking about the spreading of disinformation. yes, it would. >> could such lies be another version disinformation campaign? will not be in the interest to dismantle the trade negotiations? >> and sure there would look for any opportunity of they could to achieve political or economic advantage. if it serves there interests. >> generally speaking it pertains to something other than the nsa telephone midday the program. >> proportionally if you can. >> the vast majority of what is potentially at risk here is -- bears and many other topics the size telephone that the data as i indicated merrill statement. >> is your belief that what was given to mr. prelates verses

have for some other purpose, what kind of proportionality do you believe their represents? >> i don't know. that is one of the unknowns with assessing what he took and what he shared with the media and with whom in the media, a nationally we don't know that. will we do know of the 200 or so articles that have been published or round the world and which to give us some insight into what was taken. >> to you have any estimate of what the taxpayer, the cost to taxpayers would be to mitigate the loss? >> i do not. and the fact is i think there is more to be revealed here. and so i think we will be accounting for this for months, maybe years ahead.

>> there have been discussions about selling of access to this material to but newspaper outlets and other places. to the best of your knowledge, is fencing stolen material a crime? >> estimated is. >> and would selling the access of classified material that is stolen from the united states government be a crime? >> it would be. it is an issue that can be complicated. in general fencing are selling stolen property as a crime. >> of firemen newspaper reporter for fill in the blank and i sell stolen material, is that illegal because of a newspaper reporter? >> if you're a newspaper reporter hawking still in julia's still a crime. >> and if i'm talking stolen classified material and not legally in the possession of for personal gain in profit, is that not a crime? >> i think that's a harder question because involves a news

gathering function that could have first amendment implications to be something better answered by the department of justice. >> entering into a commercial enterprise to sell stolen material is acceptable to a legitimate news organization? >> and russia rival to answer that question in the abstract. >> something we ought to think about. >> certainly. >> if there are accomplices, shouldn't we be concerned? >> we should be concerned about all of the facts surrounding the theft a possible information. >> interesting. the munich conference are we have individuals tell us that in fact there are individuals who were said to be in possession of disinformation, eager to sell this information to other news organizations. would that be in legitimate exercise on behalf of the reporter? >> that's a question -- you're getting from the general to the particular. this is an active investigation.

>> an active investigation for complices brokering in stolen information. >> were looking at the totality of the circumstances around the theft and promulgation. >> that is interesting. i have a host of other questions that i will get to later. in the interest of time of major other members have a chance to ask questions. >> i think we need to have a debate on what is happening here with respect to snowden, the issue of privacy versus what the intelligence community is doing to protect us from future attacks, from ceiling in formation from people in the united states of america. i look forward to this debate because right now in my opinion of believe the public is concerned about the activities of the intelligence committee. it is unfortunate because those of us who work in this community ever they understand that especially the nsa is not breaking any laws. probably more checks and balances in our country than any other.

between committees, the justice department, the courts. though we have a challenge to move forward. some of these things we have been working on. an example that passed through the house overwhelmingly. what the public does not understand at this point is that 80 percent of our network in the united states is controlled by the private sector. we need the government and intelligence community need to enter into a partnership with the private sector to protect us from these of rage is the text that are occurring every day. we just recently, the target attacked, and it goes on and on. cyber command about two and a half years ago estimated that the united states loses close to four under billion dollars of trade secrets, and that does not even take into consideration what we call destructive attacks when countries like iran or other countries or al qaeda can literally shut down businesses and those types of things. so what i would ask you is that

we have all long way to go. we have legislation that will be coming before the congress on how we're going to deal with the whole issue of the nsa, the intelligence community. what would you like to see congress do as far as helping the intelligence community do your job but did get the information out to the public. and that believe that we have to -- we don't want to give up sources, but we have to be more forthcoming in letting the public know what the intelligence community is doing to protect us from these attacks . >> one specific area that i think is clear, we will definitely need congressional support on modifying in some way section 215 of the patriot act governing the collection and storage of telephone business record met a data.

and we are in accordance with the president's direction working away right no at some options and help to, ultimately to the congress fairly soon on a proposal. that is one specific area where we need help. >> my suggestion to you and the administration as you work closely with congress week by week, will we would like to do is not get your proposal and then react to it. we would like to work with you. i know that this committee works with the administration. the administration still could not find a way to support it. we came a long way to resolve some of these issues. i would hope that we can work this closely together. we have a lot of expertise and both sides of the aisle. i would hope to you could take that message back. i do have to address this issue. i want to ask you, do you feel that the obama administration is

getting in the way of the intelligence agency ability to do their job? if there is an allegation out there, we cannot afford not to get it right, and we have to make sure we work with our allies. the all-purpose of intelligence is getting information to protect our country's and the citizens. whether is lies. so if there are allegations out there and coming from other areas, can you please address those. .. areas, can you address them? >> i do not feel the administration or the president is getting in the way of the community. he gave due credit to the work

of the community and the woman of national agency. we have a specific task list that i outlined in my oral statement that we can work away at. i am a believer in as much transparency as we can inject into this whole dialog. but protecting sources, methods and crafts. we will need the support of you and the congress. >> there is issues with our allies because of edward snowden release and they have a concern on working with us. do you feel there is a problem with our relationship? from what i understand it is more on the political side than

the actual intelligence committee? >> we have found after having dialogue with counter parts in the foreign countries. there is a political dimension to this. they each have a domestic agenda they have to contend with. but in the confines of an intelligence discussion the vast majority of the allies want to get on with business. >> your direct of national intelligence and it is important we focus on issues and deal with directly. that is your job. there is one area and not many people talk about it. but we have to continue to keep the eye on the ball as it related to space. with all of the other issues with edward snowden, syria, and iran, space is one of the most important things we do protect the united states. because of really the actions of

our forefathers and president kennedy we became the strongest country because i believe of our investment in the space program. i am concerned that china is conducting test and as the re-field has been troubling to our satellites. countries are working to destroy our satellite on which so much of our daily lives depend on including gps actions. can you describe the counter space threat and what we can do to better protect ourselves and i am interested in whether chinese leadership fully relies the ramifications of destroying one of our satellites.

>> that is why i brought this up at the closed section. first, obviously recognition of the importance the united states places on space assets and i am not speaking of intelligence resources but for many other purposes. other countries recognize that heavy dependence on space obviously. so as we describe last night, there are countries who are pursuing aggressive counter space capabilities that i cannot go into here because of classification restrictions. suffice to say, we have docum t documented and projected what the threats are and are taking appropriate actions to deal with them. i most certainly think that the

russia and china well understand the implications as an act of war to do something destruction against any of our satellite. >> i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. if we could move to another region in the world for discussion. i am interested in as we draw down in afghanistan, pakistan's influence. do you see them stabilizing or destablizi destablizing? >> their primary concern is india. they have the capability of being a stable force,

particularly with the new administration. that is their instinct and they would like to. >> more individuals have been killed at the hands of terrorism than any other country wor worldwide. we work closely with them and sometimes we disagree on how to approach terrorism. but it is a partnership that must get better. >> can you talk about the continued relationship with afghanistan despite the withdraw? >> we hope, whatever the troop size, we have a positive relationship with the afghanistan government, whatever form that takes. and one of the major interest there apart from the peace

stability is the need be to survey counter-terror ism operations. >> what happens if asad doesn't go in syria? >> he is in a strengthening position by virtue of his agreement to remove the chemical weapons. if he doesn't go and in the absence of a diplomatic agreement ensuing i would foresee more of the same. neither the regime or opposition can prevail. >> has the regime given up a lot

of weapons? >> well they are not out of the country yet, no. >> are they complying with all of the terms? >> in terms of all of the declarations they were required to make, we think they did well. there has been a slow pace of the removal of these as there has been two sip shipments only. it is difficult to parse out what is a general concern versus what is contrived in the interest of pro-longing the process. >> director you called on edward snowden to return the items that haven't been disclosed. is there reason to believe the russians are in possession of

what else he brought? it is a reasonable assumption, but we don't know that. >> it seems you believe this administration isn't political when it comes to intelligence; is that true? >> it is as far as i am concerned, yes. >> and my final question, can anybody at the table tell us when somebody is going to be held for the murders in benghazi? >> i can tell you this is a top priority of the fbi. we have made progress but i cannot talk about the details of that progress. it is a difficult investigation but one we have invested a lot of resources in. >> when can we expect some movement? >> by movement you mean?

>> captured or killed or detained? >> we will do everything in our power and never give ununtil we have the people in custody. >> no matter how long it takes? >> the one thing at the fbi we never do is forget. >> thank you. director clapper, i would like to follow-up on the statement the chairman made and the follow-up questions the ranking member made to his statement. do you feel the country is more at risk for terrorism because of the obama administration's policies? >> i do not. i don't think it has anything to do with the policies of this administration or any other. i think it has more to do with the transformation, if you will,

of the terrorist threat and its defusion and global threat. >> you are not confused by any policies coming from the administration? >> no. >> thank you. shifting to russia, over the course of the last couple years, we have seen russia support syria and provide limited information regarding the boston bombers and provide a save haven to edward snowden and stronghold the ukraine and provide limited coc cooperation to the terrorist threats into the sochi. do you see russia turning into the cold war post postture of

the united states? >> i think there is cleary a desire to return to global status and that colors the behavior of the russian government. and the pursuit of their interest in which they are competitive with us. >> thank you. specifically on the olympics in sochi, do you assess the rusian government is taking adequate precaution to protect olympic athletes and visitors? >> let me pass to matt olsen as he is working on the problem. >> thank you. we are very focused on threats to the games and we are working the russians and other partners and monitor threats and disrupt them. the primary threat comes from

the most prominent terrorist group in russia and it is making its intent clear to seek to bring about attacks in the run up to the games. we think the greater danger is for it to occur outside of the games and the surrounding areas of sochi. we are sharing information with the russian and they are sharing with us. there is always more we could do, but i mind characterize the level of sharing as good. >> do you think of any specific threats targeting the olympics? >> there are a number of specific threats of varying degree of creditability. this is what we were expecting as we have seen a number of these in the prior events.

>> is it safe for americans to travel sochi? >> i would say they should travel the state department guidelines. >> we have an upcoming world cup in the 2016 olympics in brazil. are we fully monitoring the safety situations in regard to those two avept -- events -- daupt ...

it is hard to say. congressman, i hope they do. but i am struck with the depth of the opposition particularly now as spread to the eastern part of the ukraine that traditionally reid house the science of demonstrations and opposition in the eastern part of the country that i think is interesting turn of events. >> i yield back mr. mr. chairman. >> thank you. can we talk about china's intentions and their eight representing the south china sea and to japan and all those numbers a and the philippines? why are they doing it and if we had a trigger with ships

running together, planes running into each other or interference that looks like an act of war? why precipitating these kinds of the tensions in this area? >> its tightness sees itself is a global player as well. they feel they have historical presence in their mind historical claims to the south china sea the have grave concerns about our kevin it in their mind is it is an attempt to contain them so they have been quite aggressive asserting what they believe is there

manifest destiny, if you will, in that part of the world. it does have a flash point with the disputes over the islands and energy and access to drilling in the south china sea. and having traveled in that region recently i can tell you it is a great concern privately more so than publicly with those countries that you mention to. >> you talk about the traditional reach do you see china going on beyond that area? >> overtime we will try to project themselves globally with the interest of the indian ocean. they are reaching out and participating in more humanitarian peacekeeping operations.

so over time they than a white -- say time to project >> what is the projections of increases of military spending over the last several years? pending. i can -- i did last night to me what has been an impressive modernization program across every sphere that has a military application. including cyber, and all other armed forces. and they place a lot of emphasis of late on combined arms operation which they haven't done in the past. so across the board, whether it's the missiles, subs, aircraft, you name it. very impressive. military modernization program, which i think is basically designed to -- in their minds, address what

they feel are our strengths. our naval strength command and control et. cetera. they looked at us and that's what i think sin influenced a great deal what they do. >> can you give us any insight in to what we perceive is their internal threat? they believe that unrest among the populous is a threat to the regime. >> one of their major tenant, particularly the new regime in china, of course, is internal control, and they go great length to control access to the internet and information exchange among our citizens. thank you, mr. chairman i yield back. >> thank you, mr. connway. mr. . >> correction. i'm sorry. my apologies.

thank you, gentleman. i appreciate the hearing. let me be clear director clapper, do you have any concrete intelligence of snowden and the russian government in regard to the stolen documents. >> i want to thank you, director clapper, for your robust deafen of transparency which has been characterized as a potential threat to our security. or dismissed as politics. i prefer to call it democracy. i believe that the national debate on domestic surveillance has been valuable, but u fortunately it was an nsa contract leaker who initiated it and not the government. the done program is another example of a significant activity that the public is trying to discuss but has been thwarted by a lot of transparency. this year amnesty international

and human rights watch conducted serious research and raised legitimate concerns about the consequences of the drone program on u.s. security. yet, the government has not responded. director clapper, what steps can the intelligence community take to increase tran parent sei to the drone program and foster a responsible national debate? >> we're speaking of activities that are conducted covertly. that's one area where being transparent is one of the number of areas we're not going to be able to perhaps be as fully transparent as some might like. when i was at the white house and i was assistant to the president of counterterrorism i spoke repeatedly publicly about this so-called drones the public aircraft that become an instrument of war. i spoke about it to the extent i

could. this is something, i think, has been discussed quite broadly. >> does the intelligence community weigh or consider how signature strikes, strikes against unnamed military-age males may increase the terrorist threat because they could generate hatred for americans and motivate youth to join rather than reject terrorist groups. director clapper -- or director brennan, either one. >> from the intelligence community perspective we are always evaluating and analyzing developments overseas to include any counterterrorism activity we might be involved in to see what the impact is. i think the feeling is that the counterterrorism activities we have engaged in with our partner, we the u.s. government broadly, both intelligence perspective as well as military perspective have greatly mitigated the threat to u.s.

persons both overseas and homeland. >> do you believe that the signature strike model, if adopted by other countries, that are developing an armed drone program can be a threat to the united states? >> well, there could be. i would have to comment on the -- talk about this here the great care that is exercised by the united states. i would hope in being precise about which targets to strike. i would hope as other countries acquire similar capable they follow the model we have for the care and precision we exercise. >> one other question, as marked up by the committee the fy2014 intelligence authorization bill includes a amendment i sponsored requiring a written plan for

each covert action program to prepare ahead of time for the potential leak of that program. it increases the threat to u.s. sources and method if they are caught flat fooded by the league. any covert action can be disclosed unexpectedly. director brennan, without disclosed classified details. does each covert action have or will it have a written plan of action to deal with leaks of significant activities in that program? >> it's one of the issues we take to account whenever there's a covert action program approved and implemented. it takes in to account the implications could be in the event of leaks. unfortunately there are too many leaks about a lot of things that the united states intelligence community involved in. so it becomes almost part of our business to anticipate those.

>> i yeeltd -- yield back. >> thank you. mr. king. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me thank you for the the outstanding service you govern our country. general clapper, let me thank you for the defense you gave on the nsa. i think it's important to have it on the record time and again. putting in perspective the terrible damage that snowden has caused to our country, to our men and women of the armed services, and americans general. it's unfortune that he's been horrifying some aspect of the media. even some member of congress people in public life and given a distorted version to the american people who somehow think he's a whistle-blower rather than i would say a person who is sold out his country and put americans in terrible danger throughout the world. as a followup to your conversation with the chairman rogers about russia and also attaching it to snowden. the backdrop of increasingly

aggressive russian behavior, diplomatically the role in syria was more than they've had in the region of the world in more than 40 years. seeking economic and weapons transaction with egypt and saudi arabia. more aggressive action in ukraine and intrusive action in scanned knave ya. as pointed out the fact they haven't used the information in the past, can you express your concern about the fact that snowden is basicfully their custody. he is -- i guess we don't know. the fact is that he's only allowed to stay in russia -- i guess the backdrop of increasingly aggressive behavior. how damaging can any information they get from snowden be? >> did t can be quite damaging, congressman king. and of course, we don't

specifically know, but it would be completely out of character having observed the soviet and now russian security services in my 50 years of intelligence. they are very capable and aggressive. so it's beyond belief to me they wouldn't be taken advantage of the opportunity both to exploit and control snowden. i think to your initial commentary, this is, again, a part of russia's image of itself as a global great power. it's long had syria as client in the mideast, and so they have done all they can to sustain that -- take advantage of the opportunities where they can with egyptians as you mentioned.

to extend their influence. as far as what we expect in the future from russia. to me it's significant enough that putin seems to have the idea of a bring back the glory of russia, such as it was. if you attach it to putin. the fact he's a former kgb person particularly interested in trying to extract whatever information they can to use -- as brought out as far as trade agreements, as far as undercutting us for the allies and spreading disinformation through the media as they if for many years. >> i could not disagree with that, sir. >> i yield back. >> thank you. thank you, mr. king. mr. schiff. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director, you have spoken frequently about the unmanned area vehicles and program the

president at ndu in may gave one of the more detailed account of the criteria used in those -- otherwise known as drone efforts. you tried to increase transparency in the program. one way that i think would increase transparency and public accountability is if we could publish an annual report that identified how many combatants were killed through the use of unarmed unmanned vehicle and how many noncombatant were killed. might be beb official as well. is that something you can support. twhiewld be another effort transparency we can make and would that, in your view, as in

mine be a fairly dmin use value to our adversary. >> i think a recommendation that have to go to the administration and a participaten't in the interagency process to discuss the advantages and potential disadvantages of it. it certainly are worth recommendation if you would like to make that. >> can you share any thoughts with us today on the coast of that? if it were done say at the end of the year, if we had categories so you could pin pinpoint any particular incident. is it your sense that the cost in terms of getting our adversary any useful information would be minimal? >> congressman, i think this is something for you to discuss with the administration and the policy makers and then what we would need to do is take a look at it analytically and determine whether or not it's something

that the u.s. government feels as though would be worthwhile to do. there's a lot of debate about you know what is the basis for those determinations and those numbers. it's something i would defer to the administration on. >> thank you. >> the president in his speech in may also indicated there's a wide disparity of view regarding those numbers. i think more transparency and public accountable would be beneficial. director clapper, moving to some of the privacy issues that have come up in the last six months, the tech companies are in a pretty impossible situation. nay somewhere a business model which includes a lot of international business which is becoming increasingly difficult to come by. there's a sentiment with the

recent department which would be help to feel them. can we go beyond that to let them assure the international customers the number of times they're asked to divulge information is very limited compared to the overall number of transactions, and are there other ways we can help them make the international business case because it's very much, i think, in our interest to do so. >> well, first, congressman, thank you for signing the agreement that was recently struck with the providers on categories of disclosure so they can now make and they already have, which i think shows part of the administration's commitment to try to improve that situation. as also, i think it shows in the role of the population out there infrequently these capabilities are called upon. one of the features of the which

was in the speech and in the presidential policy direct was to see what we could do to extend privacy protections to non-u.s. stpts. -- citizens. i think it is unique gnat world. we're looking at that. just like in our own domestic context, we'll have to weigh the risk versus gain and how much that impinges on foreign intelligence. we are working through that. not in a position today to say how it come out. but clearly whenever we can enhance transparency to the benefit of the -- of our commercial partners with we certainly will. >> thank you, mr. chairman i yield back. >> thank you, mr. schiff. >> thank you for our panel for being here today. before i start with a few questions a quick comment that

recently returned from another trip to africa, and for all of our men and women, director ben man especially for your folks, a heart felt thank you for volunteering to be in difficult circumstances and some places that are not very nice at all to protect the interest of the united states. very motivating. they're extremely patriotic making great sacrifices, and i know they don't often get thanks for what they do. not very many people know about it. if you can pass our thanks for the great job they do. >> absolutely, congressman. thank you for the kind words. >> i'm interested to have your take on repeat development -- recent developments in egypt and whether the muslim brotherhood we can expect them to have a

resurgence if the recent attack there -- do we believe it's the first of many, or where -- can you give us any idea where you think it is headed? >> there are a nurnlt of groups that are active inside of egypt. there's one group that carried out some tax. and credit for a tax inside of egypt, cairo, there are a number of groups in the sinai also operating carrying out some attack against the egyptian security and police installations. there are also a lot of low-level violence being carried out by increasing number of activists some of whom may have relationship with the muslim brotherhood. but there is a growing sense of the carrying out attacks of violence with guns or ied. so the egyptian government has been trying to deal with that as effectively as they can. the number of attacks has gone

up certainly over the past six weeks. and some senior level egyptian officials have been killed a the the hands of these terrorists. >> turning a little bit more to west africa, it seems that some of my recent visits with nigeria, mali, these countries are very anxious understand the threat with terrorists what they pose totaling their own country and the rest of the world. they seem anxious to cooperate with us. they may have limited resources. do we have the resources necessary to prosecute the fight against terrorists in that part of the world? >> one of the things we do to leverage the capability is work closely with the french. it was certainly the case in mali and other areas. many of us met with the --

who i think has an excellent strategy for how to do the counterterrorism in that area of the world that banned mali as -- across. and the french have a long history there. they have access. they have insight and understanding. and more importantingly, a willingness to use the forces they have there now and strengthen them in pursuit of counterterrorism. so i think our piece of this, our part that have is to do what we can to -- which i committed to strengthen that their engagement through the provision of intelligence. >> you feel we're dedicating or we are devoting adequate assets to the fight there? >> we can always use more. clearly everything we do in

africa certainly the military in form -- this is clearly what the military calls an economy of force operation. so we can always use more resources. and that's why at least from my part, i think leveraging it and partnering with the french is a way to go to compensate for -- as a way of embellishing our effort there. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. thank you. i want to thank the withins today and the work you're doing keep the american people safe and all the people that work under you. director clapper, you menaced in your opening statement and referenced a couple of times now, the importance, the challenges of cybersecurity and the threat that it poses to our national security. >> i want to focus on that for a

minute. here in the united states we obviously have been working hard to create a cybersecurity framework that effectively defends the nation. we are arguably among the global leaders in this regard clearly much more work needs to be done. director clapper, your statement this morning references the cybersecurity is an international problem and i completely agree. so my i believe the united states has an opportunity to leverage the acknowledge cyber expertise in a leading role in efforts to come together to tackle this issue. director, can you describe for us the intelligence community's outreach to the international cyberspace community and what more can be done can we facility at a time the implementation of international cybersecurity standards to address the threat of today and tomorrow?

we look first to our partners, but that extends out to others. had somewhat of a chilling effect on this has been the snowden revolution. i think it had effect domestically and overseas. but that doesn't detract from the importance of our getting on with our partnering, and i'm speaking specifically now of intelligence relationships in the cyber domain. >> thank you. turning to the issue of the nsa contractor who disclosed classified information as we've

heard the damage from the recent disclosure a great impact on national security. and the range of national security secrets comprised for everything i've seen and as you have described is astounding. these actions have replaced our men and women in uniform at risk as well as our other folks who work in the field, and will don't cost us countless resources. how can such activities be compare to the threat we face from more traditional sources such as nuclear proliferation or cybersecurity. how do we quantify these losses? >> that's a tough question, congressman. i don't know i can give you an answer to that other than the problem is because the potential revelations here affect so many different aspects of our

intelligence efforts. and the other problem, frankly, is we don't really know the full extent or the full impact of these revelations. that is a good question. it's just one that for me is impoundable. >> let me add something related to this. i was recently asked today in the radio interview about the nsa contractor and the information that has been released. one of the things i focused on according to us that the vast majority of the data that has been sold and we've been able to assess today had little to do with just surveillance. most of it is in other areas that comprised national security. can you, in broad term talk about the% age we know of dealing with surveillance and the percentage dealing with

other aspect of national security and can you in broad terms, touch on some of the other areas you believe have been comprised by these disclosures? >> well, that is also difficult i can just say that the vast, vast >> well, that is also difficult. i can just say that vast majority of what has been potentially compromised as i indicated in my oral statement it goes way beyond the revelations of domestic surveillance that that was his primary concern. so but the access door made off with trend since that. it is quite serious it is hard to give a number.

>> and 10%? >> i would say probably less than 10 percent is domestic surveillance is a ballpark. >> do you believe it is a targeted plan with the type of information released at the time it is becoming public? >> i don't know. we have looked at that. there sometimes appears to be a pattern with the timing of these revelations but i don't believe we have the death evidence to make a hard case to. >> my time is expired. think you for the work you are doing. figure mr. chairman. >> for the purposes of clarification you call it domestic surveillance. to minder standing there was no domestic surveillance programs. >> i should have put that in quotes.

>> something that the press has reference but there is no domestic surveillance programs of parts of that? and that is accurate? >> section two did 15 of the patriot act. >> that is not a surveillance program? . . >> i was referring to what the context of the question was as to what mr. snowden claimed was his primary concern, which was a domestic surveillance. >> and that just want to make sure that was clarified for the record. mr. unions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this question is for director flynn and brennan in the release to the files that were found in abbottabad. i assume you're both aware that less than 2,000 files have been released publicly at this time