were struggling with the depression and world war ii and we get these things into balance. i hope this is the day that you look forward to, because i like watching you walk the tightrope, refer back to the data, encourage us to do so, and not take the topline focus group points, but look at what it actually says. and i think what you have done here in your testimony is pointing out the difference between jobs and workers and loss of workforce persecution, not necessarily bad. and that risk corridors are not some foreign concept that's going to cost us money that we can steal as part of a budget debt ceiling notion and that revenue we have enjoyed over time when we were in surplus are actually higher.

>> thank you. >> mr. williams. >> i'm going to take one of his second as he went on as you noted. >> i cut him off as well. >> i don't cut off director ellmendorf. i cut off members. [laughter] >> now you get the drill. >> thank you mr. chairman and doctor for your testimony. i'm a small-business owner 42 years, family man. like a taxpayer and a small-business owner rather than a politician. the economy and main street economy is not fixed. it's hurting. i can tell you that. and the 0% hasn't worked in the stimulus money has not worked. the effects are evident from the high unemployment. people are living from paycheck to paycheck. people on food stamps, and frankly larger deficit.

we see that. i believe the last thing that we have to fix its economy and turn it around is through small business owners and lower taxes. i think that is what we have left and i am a big supporter of cutting the corporate and cutting the cap gains and dividends into the tax employer and employee, accelerated depreciation, and also inheritance tax. i believe there's places that if we let -- if we reduce all that small business generates a lot of our opportunity to do the great things to make money and frankly small business doesn't save money, they spend money on the infrastructure and hire people and i think that is a big answer to the love of the problems that we have had. with that being said, my question to you would be what benefits would we be reforming the book and tax code by lowering taxes and tax rates and broadening the tax base on the individual and corporate basis

which is revenue neutral as i have indicated? >> congressman, when he and other analysts think that sort of tax reform that could you have described could boost economic growth. but the metal into the first depends specifically on the tax reform that the congress would consider. and we are standing by to do an economic analysis that approaches the tax reform. if you and others on the committee would be interested. >> if you do these things, i'm convinced if you put more people than the job market, more taxpayers and more cash flow, it works. >> we talked a lot about the minimum wage today off and on. my question to be for someone that owns a business, we have raised the minimum wage. how do i pay for that? >> congressman cohen as i mentioned in the earlier question we are currently doing the analysis on the effect of raising the minimum wage and looking at the effect on the family income and we hope to present that in the congress, and i don't want to get ahead of

that. >> it could raise prices and it could affect the consumer. next question would be we talked about the tax decreases. what would be the effect on the economy of increasing the marginal tax rates? >> we think that, again, it is a widespread view that increasing marginal tax rates would slow down the economy. all else equal. and i would emphasize we have a significant deficit. we think growing deficits we have a high level of debt on the economy. so, unless some changes made to either spending or revenue, the sizable nature that high level of debt will weigh in on the economy so as you think about the partial tax rate and the spending programs and i think it's important for your colleagues to think about the direct effect on the changes but also to think about the effect on the overall balance and less on the debt and the economic

impact on the debt in the economy. >> i agree -- the retailer when you're not selling your project, you don't raise the price cuts the price to get more people by eating and more people in the system. and i kind of think that's where we are. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> mr. chairman and i would ask unanimous consent that we enter into the record the "washington post" article from february that says no cbo did not say obamacare will kill 2 million jobs. >> without objection. >> i enter that in the record because as i sit here and listen to this for two hours, i have to think of that the figures never

lie. but sometimes people with an agenda misinterpreted facts. >> i spent all of yesterday sitting on the ways and means committee going through this name thing. obamacare is causing a deep and jobs i heard over and over again and we are saying the same thing over again. we are blaming private companies are cutting hours on their own volition at the feet of the aca because somehow it is unreasonable to expect a million or billion dollar corporation to provide health insurance for their people to who work slightly less than 40 hours a week. has anybody bothered to read mr. ellmendorf's report all the way to the end coming and you heard mr. jeffries and others talk about it, but i want to talk about it again. may we read the conclusion in the appendix of the labor market. it is subject to, quote, and

these are mr. ellmendorf's words, substantial uncertainty. and they would find this quote even more. quote, in the cbo's judgment, there is no compelling evidence, no compelling evidence that that part-time employment was increased as a result of the aca. so all this disaster, without the airwaves, is simply fear mongering. this speculating about a disaster without evidence and before the reforms are fully implemented, but as a strategy. a political strategy for the campaign. it goes nicely with the classic deficit bogeyman that we have been hearing about for three and a half years. the affordable care act isn't going to kill any more jobs than our deficit is threatening our economy. our economy is coming back, but i still hear the bogeyman waiting around the deficit, the deficit. paranoid speculation.

it might make it seem so come up but the facts do not add up. if you read that article in the "washington post" it is their fact checker that looks at the facts and comes up with the fact of what is being said while all of the headlines in the country it is simply not what the report says three at what is hurting us is the persistent notion that as the economy is asking for a breath we believe we should tighten our belts and ration the air. the only way we will ever get these numbers by investing the education to research, the development of america's resources. we have the knowledge, the ability and the exception of people to build the economy back up. but we won't do it on scraps. this is a congress then the house of representatives we have with the tax credit expires. we have not asked the transportation bill.

we are going to come up to the summer season and there isn't going to be any money in the state to build roads and bridges and all the infrastructure. we have cut research universities and it is an avenue that we say well the aca is killing all the jobs. we cannot train if without the social programs. and mr. ellmendorf, my view is that if you have any kind of subsidy, you are going to have some disincentive to work. we are at 400%, to the senate is talking about 300%. they have a disincentive to work as well, right? >> yes, this problem is intrinsic in any program that provides benefits to people that don't have a churning in the labor market. and the amount of the effect on people's decision to work, how much to work depends on the size

of the benefit and to some extent on the structure of the program. but the basic issue here is the same for any program that would try to provide that. >> let me put you to the end of that. if we had a universal system that they are saying we need a universal system that covers everybody, if we had that kind of system, nobody would go to work, right? >> that's not true. >> if they go to work in different ideals goes to work, right? >> yes, congressman. [laughter] >> thank you mr. tremaine and doctor ellmendorf. it's good to see you today. i want to go to a topic not talked about in the deficit and growing deficit in where we might be in the future if we do not address that. but social disability, to go back and put some context on this, since 1970 one of the inflation adjusted to disability insurance expenditures have risen from 18 billion to 140 and

100 -- 2014. a portion of the increase is due to two things and we have heard that from testimony before the aging population which we all know and also the entrance of women into the workforce. we have heard that. but if you look at these factors they only account for 6% on the aging side and 17% increase on the entrance of women for the increasing disability caseload. so at the same time, the individuals are self reporting an increase in their help. but it's improving. and so, we see approximately 20 people per 100,000 of the received benefits and 1970 as compared to now about 80 people per 100,000 today. so the latest projection from the cbo estimate is that social security disability insurance will go bankrupt so by the end,

no more dollars, 2018 were bankrupt. notwithstanding the aging population and the women entering the workforce. can you tell me why this spending has grown rapidly in this program? >> i don't have the specific numbers at hand but as you know we have have retained two reports for the insurance trying to document and explain the sources of growth and to offer you and your colleagues some specific alternatives for changing the disability insurance program if you would like to go that route. in addition to the factors of the population and rise of participation to the women in the workforce making them eligible for the disability insurance benefits that they become disabled. they've also been important changes in the rules for entering the disability insurance program legislated by the congress over the past decade that have pushed up the number of people receiving benefits and the state of the

economy matters as well and one thing that has happened in the past several years is people have lost jobs and haven't been able to find new jobs. to find a job to accommodate the disabilities in some cases to enter the disability in the programs into programs that there is a wide array of factors but i do not have on hand at the relative importance of those factors. >> i want to make sure i'm reading those reports because i've read a lot of reports and i want to be sure that i'm reading the reports that you have referenced. what happens when this goes bankrupt? how will this affect the beneficiaries? >> well, congresswoman, the trust fund runs out of money and we think that there will be no legal authority to pay until more money comes in. as you know the last time the disability insurance was on the cusp of the problem of the congress they should get money from the old age survivors trust fund into disability trust fund

in that outcome. but if nothing were done, then i believe that the legal authority on the to pay money in the trust fund, and that would require a substantial reduction in the benefit to fall down at the level of the ongoing income in recent. >> said, -- so,pardon me for interrupting. but for those of the recipients to actually gain the benefits. >> this would have been in 2017 at the trust fund would run out of money to the money to pay the benefits promised under the current law. >> do you reference the consequences that we are seeing in the abuse of the program? >> so, we talked about that, congresswoman. and i -- the issue for the congress is to find the policy to change that. and i think there are some that we talked about in that report. >> i appreciate that and my

final question is what is the reduced labor participation would have on the economy? >> the central factor in slowing the economic growth out of the current downturn later in the decade and beyond, the principal reason why we think the economic growth will be less than it was well be a slower rate of growth on the workforce. >> i yield back mr. charan. >> mr. chairman thank you very much and i, like both of my colleagues, appreciate your efforts and the work that you do because i don't think there is a single member of this committee or anybody in congress who isn't concerned about making sure the economy is growing and we are providing every kind of policy support that increases job growth in any context

particularly in a state like mine where we actually have the negative population growth and really struggling for economic growth because we have a higher than national average on the federal investments, but it largely related to the intellectual investment in the laboratory that we haven't figured out that segway to stable out of the economy. i'm interested in both sides of the aisle about what we ought to be doing to make sure that we are focusing on as many policies to give as many opportunities to grow the economy as much as possible and i know we talked about unemployment and i appreciate that but i want to talk about two more. one is increasing the minimum wage and some of my colleagues are going to argue that the minimum wage earners are mostly teenagers entering the workforce

for the first time and they are going to argue that it's a drag increasing the minimum wage on the economy and you might suspect i disagree with that statement and that the average age of the minimum wage workers 35 and these are the adult to bring a significant portion of the family income and a majority of these are women. mostly two thirds of the minimum wage workers are women. while we have you here i would like to get more information on the second plate and really point and really hone in on the impact of the increase in the number of wage would have on the economy. >> you are certainly right that the minimum wage workers stand the age distribution and some are teenagers but many are not. we are currently trying to complete a report on the effect of the increasing on the minimum wage on the economy taking into account the increases and the wages to income for many people.

we hope to finish that report in a few weeks and i don't want, rather enough to offer my sense of that until the analysis is completed, but this is in time to the useful information for you and your colleagues that you consider this legislation. >> the studies have had a positive impact on both the wages, earning, spending and therefore jobs. and certainly it impacts women in my state where you have so many women as a single head of household that is going to be a significant impact on our economy. and as a comprehensive immigration reform has a significant impact on the economy. not only in new mexico, but on the entire country. can you estimate of the entire immigration reform on the gdp over the next decade? >> we did a very thorough

analysis that was passed by the senate to increase immigration and we thought that legislation would reduce the budget deficit in this decade and in the following decade we thought it would increase the size of the economy and overall gdp. i should emphasize that analysis was specific to that piece of legislation and to be situations in the immigration policy might lead to rather different effects that that piece of legislation would, as i said come increase the size, increase the size of the economy and the budget deficit. it's 832 billion the impact over the few decades is about 850 billion. does that sound about right? >> i don't have the numbers in

front of me. >> the point being that again we increase wages and jobs, we increase opportunity and stabilize the economy. which on the other side i'm interested in all of the impacts on health care and the acute care and primary care system in my opinion, with the affordable care act and the future changes are easy. the long-term spending on medicare and medicaid and long-term care and home healthcare and hospice benefits and of the last days days of dying in the hospital, this gives us the opportunity to be thoughtful about those decisions going forward and really making a much it much more than a balanced decision in the economy. >> thank you. >> doctor ellmendorf, thanks for coming. i always appreciate it. picking up on where my colleague left off, contrary to her assumption or assertion, i want people coming and my party wants people to live the best possible

ways to build for themselves that they can. whether or not they vote for us. that is what america has always been upheld. i am for young people having their first job. imf are women actively being part of the workforce. we are not saying no. we are just saying that there is a better way. so in light of that, when you are completing your study, can you tell me if you are going to contemplate any alternatives to the approach of just raising the federal minimum wage across all of the sectors? are you going to look at the effects of the earned income tax credit for the subsidy in terms of the payroll tax deduction on "the side of things or anything like that? >> this will focus on the effects of raising the minimum wage and we would note other approaches have been discussed in the past and the alternative

ways of boosting the tax income on the low income people come and as you know, they have been an analysis of some of the alternatives in the past. >> so i came from an education and workforce committee and we were talking about early childhood education and that is combined with remarks i have heard so far that reminded me of the president's state of the union address, where again he demanded the across-the-board minimum wage but there wouldn't be any effect that i came in being is being replaced by machines or declining of unemployment by his businesses. at the same time, he was calling for head start increasing the early childhood education program. so if the federal minimum wage that he is calling for a prized programs that he's also calling for like head start, that would increase the administrative costs of the head start programs

thereby the number of slots of the kids that need programs like head start. >> i see your point, congressman we will tell you all that we think we've been able to figure out. >> are you going to have particular programs as examples of your analyst is? >> we are not quite finished and i would rather not be specific about exactly what we are doing, but we will try to talk about -- we do intend to talk about how the changes in the minimum wage would interact with parts of the government budget. that is exactly what we will say on how specific we would be on certain things. >> so, because i was in the other hearing i didn't hear the beginning of your testimony or questions. but did you discuss at all in any depth my program? let me go down that road a bit. the president recently proposed in the same speech, my ra

program which would allow all americans who qualify in the u.s. debt instruments similar to the debt instrument similar to what is available to the federal employees through our thrift savings program. it's called the g. fund that is available to the employees and and it is nonmarketable. and the best way that i can describe it is that it provides a subsidized interest rate over the the long term of what is a short-term security. if we apply something similar to the g. fund product to the entire american population or a subset of it within that increase the borrowing cost as a government? >> congressman, i don't know. as a matter of course we do not affect the particular administrative action. as you know. however we do fault on the administrative action because we

need to understand that when we are updating the refund if this particular change is one that we conclude ultimately that has important effects on the budget, then you will see that come through in the next base fund projection but i don't know if at this point we have had any time to stop and look at that. >> just in general in the 22nd i have remaining talking about the deficit versus the debt, i hope you'll understand at this point, that is not going down, right? the debt has increased? >> right. >> is it better to encourage people to work in order to reduce the deficit were to encourage people not to work in order to reduce the government's deficit? >> well, it could be done at no cost to the budget itself. let me rephrase that debate. people who work all else equal the larger input in the tax revenue into smaller deficit. >> thank you, chairman ryan we

started with ryan and we will end with ryan. the report did not say that obamacare would get rid of or cost 2 million jobs, correct? it said that the affordable care act will cost the equivalent of 2 million jobs and that means hours, correct, there will be a reduction in hours? >> we have it in total hours worked but i want to be careful about the word cost. we are trying to draw an important distinction between changes in people's work that it is forced upon them by their employer saying we can't afford to pay you to work or we can't afford to pay you to work as many hours and the choices the individual workers would make. >> so these are choices that the workers would make because of the coverage that i have, i can choose to reduce. >> the effects that we estimate

-- >> of that group, who is the largest group that you would classify as people who will eat that choice? >> so, there are a number of channels to which the affordable care act reduces the incentive to work and thus we think would reduce the work hours. some of them are through the subsidies of, particularly the subsidies for lower income people but there are also some effects on the tax rates of higher income people. >> so who would this be? would this be houses? >> i think a number of groups of people could be affected in that sense would not try to break this down. so it could be spouses, but they could be primary earners do decide to scale back their hours and may not leave the workforce altogether. it can be older people that decided to retire earlier than they would have been able to otherwise and it also includes younger people. >> so we are talking about a situation where there is a husband and wife and they are both working and they have a baby and one of them decides to

not work or to reduce their hours in order to stay home with the baby. they would fall into this category. >> yes congressman. >> so if you worked from 18-years-old to 58 with 60-years-old, retired, now has a little part-time job, low-wage job in order to pay for their health care if they stop working, because now they will have access to health care, that steelworker would fall into this category? >> yes. >> and your analyst as of this, do you account for anyone who is going from, say working three jobs to go down to working two jobs? >> that would fall into this analysis as well. we haven't tried to break this down. >> someone who has done that, because i remember george bush come at a set mr. president i'm having a hard time working. i have three jobs. he said that's great. what we are saying is we want to try to make it a little bit

easier to go from three jobs to two jobs or from two jobs to one job, and i think it's important for us to see those people fall into this number. they will be reducing their hours. if you are a two parent home and you have a sick parent and you say well, i am now because we can afford healthcare, because of the credit or the expansion of medicaid or whatever the case may be, i can reduce my hours i'm working as a husband or wife to take care of a sick parent. and maybe they don't have to go into a nursing home and draw on the medicare program. none of that is factored into the long-term care cost either. you don't say a number of these people will reduce their hours and they will be able to take care of mom instead of her going to a nursing home. >> i think that's the point. there are so many different scenarios where average people across the country are living with right now, not anymore so much, but have struggled to make

an. and the pressure put on these families is being reduced now because of the affordable care act. and i would like to say i think there's been an undertone of disrespect in this hearing as i sat through it about people just don't want to go to work. there's always a few people i'm sure that would find a way even if they work to sca scan the coy or run a scam. there are always going to be people like that. but if there is a job that opens up in our town and the pays well, there are thousands of applicants that would want a job and we can get away from this idea nobody wants to work everybody just wants to get on and nobody wants to work for a living. that's not true. and the scenarios we discuss i think outline that, and so i appreciate you being very clear

this isn't about 2 million jobs this is about average people having an opportunity to reduce the burden on their own family. >> doctor ellmendorf, thank you for your time today. the hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

.. ..

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> congressional budget office director doug elmendorf wrapping up his committee before the house budget committee. here on c-span2. on c-span radio, we are putting up phone numbers to hear your thoughts in reaction to what you heard from the ceo director of the questions from members. the director talking to the ranking member, kristen holland. if your public can call (202)585-3885. democrats call 202-58-5386. all others call 202-58-5387. based the.com/these. hash tag is c-span.twitter. the news that the topics came up in the report. this is one of the regular reports the congressional budget office does for congress on the

future of the deficit and the economy and some of the news that came out with the impact of the affordable care act may result in the matchup of some 2 million or so jobs in the next couple of years. the chairman of the committee, paul ryan, asked about what kind of worker would be impact it. here is what he had to say. >> the effect is principally on that labor supply of lower wage workers. the reason is what the affordable care act does is to provide subsidies focused on lower and lower middle income people to buy health insurance. in order to encourage an efficient number of people to buy products like health insurance, subsidies are fairly large. those subsidies are then withdrawn over time for people as their income rises. by providing heavily subsidized health insurance, people with low incomes and with drawing the

subsidies creates a disincentive for people to work relative to what would have been the absence of that act. the subsidies make those lower income people better off. this is an implicit tax. the government raises our taxes. we are worse off than face a disincentive to work mark. they do have less of an incentive to work. >> i guess sanders and. >> doug elmendorf before the committee today. we will show you all of that hearing coming up tonight on c-span2 and 8:00 p.m. eastern. getting a reaction to what you heard testimony, let's go to california. laura is on the republican line. go ahead. >> yes, house representative ryan spoke about the benefit of lowering their working hours. i think he does take into the

facts that by lowering your hours, you are not paying taxpayers. by going on the government side said the, now the taxpayer is paying that subsidy. he doesn't take all of that into the fact of what happens when a worker lowers their hours ago from a government will hear >> arden in simi valley on our independent line. martin, hello. caller cattle i want to say i am independent. when you watch c-span come is a wonderful way to gauge what the rest of the world, how they perceive what is going on. to watch something like this done c-span, every question from the horses mouth. then you get to watch the nightly news and see how they interpret and how they direct you. you get to see -- sorry about

that. >> host: if you get the nightly news, what would your lead before the nightly news tonight? >> caller: how they would react? it would depend which nightly news you are talking about. if you're talking about the big three, they would be steering the conversation towards the last ryan in my estimation. all i am saying is this is a great way to see what is going on in our country. i am independent. i don't take sides, but i will say that watching the democrat constantly play cya instead of trying to get some things done is discouraging. they demonize the other side. it didn't used to be this bad and it's sad. >> host: martin, appreciate you watching us on c-span2, following us on c-span radio.

the hash tag is c-span chat. it will diminish over the years due to obamacare job loss that could be 5 million, not 2 million. what is so bad with the affordable care act that gave some workers the choice not to work? most people would be happy with that. our democrat line, what do you hear in that testimony from doug elmendorf? >> caller: what i hear is a good many people who will receive health insurance under the affordable care act will actually have the ability to go out and start their own businesses. some may pay less. however, some may pay more. the good thing is millions and millions of people will not have to worry about being bankrupt or losing their home because of an

illness. their families will benefit. younger children will benefit. and as we know the growth of this economy is based on individual entrepreneurs like mark zetterberg or many others. however, what the cbo report does not address is the fact that many people will want to work more because they will increase their income more and pay their taxes. my biggest concern is the fact the ineffectiveness of congress to work together has cost the economy millions and millions and millions of jobs and they don't take responsibility. they work 95 days this year. it's a ridiculous amount for someone making 200 or $185,000. the fact congress has given itself a raise every year for the last 20 years. there is such a discrepancy between our congressional officials and the people they

represent. they don't even want to give people making $7.25 and 1 dollar raised a raise at $10.10 an hour. there is such a divide in the reality of the congressional institutions that are representing americans don't understand. their constituents. >> host: by the way, the sun is out today. when i come back or not they will take up to three month extension on unemployment. let's hear from robert in ashley, illinois on our library's line. >> caller: hi, i have been independent all my life. it is sickening to last four to five years for what the republicans have done. they are talking about jobs, jobs, jobs. i see the repeals of the affordable care act. i've seen how many votes on abortion. when they did do a vote for

jobs, have filibustered in the senate. everybody says the democrats are treating jobs. i don't even want to vote for republicans. i think i've got to go straight. it is sickening to watch boehner get up there and make excuses about jobs, jobs, jobs. and it turns around and what do they do? they tie in abortion bill to a farm bill. this is farm country where i am from. it is sickening to watch these idiots plays games. >> host: facebook.com/c-span. the first one from brandeis said how would liberals been nice one? douglas elmendorf was just kidding? also susan says we need to listen to the entire testimony. the number refers to the number of people who won't have to work in order to have health insurance. a couple more who say if you're between dixie two and 65 and you want to retire aca is a godsend.

not everyone wants to wait until 65 when medicare kicks in. judy says the wealth distribution built sold to americans as affordable health care has been killing jobs since the first aid emerged. hillsboro, virginia, republican line. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. six years ago the government wants us all on the dole. it is coming true. they've reduced the middle class and we will soon all be of one class. this is not america. the republicans need to take a hold of the senate and they need to clear harry reid status. he has bills that would save america.

why doesn't the president go over there and clear the task and let's vote on the stuff that is very important? >> host: on the issue coming out of the potential loss of jobs due to the affordable care act, a tweet from lord andrew who quotes the "washington post" fact checker. obamacare what killed 2.3 million jobs. three pinocchio's from the "washington post" fact checker. here is what he writes.

that is some of the opinion of the fact checker at "washington post".com. and isn't prescott, arizona on the republican side. prescott, go ahead. >> caller: yes, i agree with the last caller. our country needs real change. our democrats have a ride on. republicans are standing behind corporations for slave labor overseas. there is no doubt in this country obama is doing a wonderful job and i will vote straight democratic anymore. i see the disparity. i watch c-span regularly. thank you for your show. >> host: we thank you for

watching. a reminder, we will re-air the entire two and a half hour hearing with doug elmendorf tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. back to call a spare fargo, north dakota. joseph on the independent line. >> caller: just one point i wanted to make about when they said it would increase jobs for the obamacare, what would happen is i don't think it would increase jobs. it actually takes money out of the hands of the people. when you give more money to the people, they have more money to work with. they can start companies and do more things and put more money back into the economic growth. that would increase taxes. that would actually boost the economy. i don't see how the obamacare is actually benefiting more people than it is not benefiting people. another thing too, it is

increasing the health care cost more because it actually makes these companies that are regulated for the insurance fraud, they are just boosting the health care. now that we have more people than are actually being put into the health care system from being older and how these people are withdrawing more out of the system. when they are making the system more expensive, how is that going to help everybody? >> host: a lot of conversation in today's testimony about the aging population and changing demographic. let's hear from arlington, virginia on our republican line. >> caller: i think one thing you touched on was the aging population. that is not what the cbo reported. the cbo reported that the lower wage earners would be impacted

most. those people that leave the workforce, not just 60 euros, those are not entry-level jobs. we are also afraid to say that we are going to lose 2 million jobs because people choose not to work. but what we are not saying this are choosing not to work based on subsidies, and now, only in washington d.c. can you say a lack of workforce participation does not equal unemployment. when you're not working does not mean you're not unemployed. i think the republicans have over 100 jobs bills that are still sitting on harry reid status. the dismal economy that we are ran as a result of five years of obama nontax and it is very obvious. >> host: let me ask you about

the jobs bills because you pointed out republicans would say that. democrats say they would bring up a jobs bill, but can't bring that package to the house floor. what kind of jobs bill, if there were a perfect jobs bill, would help get the economy going? >> caller: there are very few things the cbo did make. lower taxes, lower employee taxes for the workers. all of that spurs economic growth. i think you need to have interstate trade for health care. it doesn't cost a thing other than government authority over the people. >> host: appreciate your call. this is from harris from the post who treats, when would you eliminate massive tax break subsidies to large corporations? lastly, raise the fast food minimum

wage will it stand till den, illinois, democrats line. call code yes, i vote democrat and republican. i don't believe in voting straight ticket. when it comes to the health care law, it has got a good point, but it's got a bad point. something that hasn't been addressed for years is abuse to people on medicare and medicaid use the hospital systems. i have been an i.t. person in a hospital and seeing first hand you've got repeat people coming. rather than going to adopt her, they go to the emergency room. we the taxpayers pay their bills. if i was going to go to the emergency room, i've got to pay a $500 co-pay. i think we need to look closer at the gift that we care for people. there are those that need it. is that responsibility as well so they stop abusing the system as much as they haven't stopped

raining at and causing problems with the economy. host to one or call springfield, missouri. james on the other line. >> caller: thank you for allowing me to speak. i appreciate c-span's role india for the lack area. with c-span areas provide governmental oversight to the public for free instead of cable or other media? i think it needs to be so important money provided to schools, colleges, everybody as a public service and not just those with social economic funds who can get access to the media. >> host: c-span i see now is provided by the cable industry as a public service and all of our material streams for free on c-span.org. our new and improved website. it is available to you that way.

call code the issue of economy and jobs, the new farm bill they passed is really sort of an oddity. it is a misnomer since about 80% of the funds are going through nutrition or other food stamps, it is a relief bill. the rest of the 20% of 30% covers 10% of all the funds going to find us. 70% of the money goes to 10% of the rich big farms. i wondered if anyone had ever covered that situation. >> host: james, appreciate your input. speaking of the farm bill, the president will sign that this friday. he heads to michigan with debbie stabenow who heads the agriculture committee and the senate and a signing somewhere in michigan on friday. enthrall your calls and comments. continue the conversation online.

twitter #cspanchat is the hash tag. facebook.com/c-span. we will re-air the entire committee hearing tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. next up on c-span2, one of the many hearings we've covered over the past couple years to look at the oversize is pending threats against the u.s. coming yesterday the house intelligence committee heard from the heads of the top intelligence agencies including the director of national intelligence and had at the fbi. this is fran yesterday. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> of the committee will come to order. i have a few preliminary announcements before we start. last evening we had a specified commission to express our intelligence issues, including covert action programs, threats emanating from terrorist organizations and adversarial nations, the increase in cyberattack capabilities around the world. a full scope of intelligence capabilities and priority. now we turn to our open session with the american people receive the benefit of as much transparency about intelligence as is possible. as a reminder to all members, we are in open session and we should be careful not to discuss classified matters. further, the committee will not tolerate any disruptions in the gallery today. those who hold up signs, tackle witnesses are members, are disruptive with clothing or

appearance or engaging in activities that distract from the hearing will be removed from the hearing room by capitol police. i would like to welcome our witnesses today. the director of national intelligence, james clapper, cia director, john brennan, director of defense intelligence agency, general michael flynn. at the director of ntt sica menotti olson and director of the fbi, james comey. the harm done to america by the constant flood of illegal disclosures these past eight months is outmatched only by the shocking value of critical information that was stolen and likely disclosed to her adversaries. but the department of defense recently explained, we have experienced a single largest compromise of national security information in our nations history. we are not talking about business records and phone metadata. these compromises go to the very core of this country's ability to defend itself, seriously

threaten capabilities of every one of our armed services. army, air force, marines, navy. long into the future of the stolen material will threaten the safe insecurity of our soldiers and marines in the field. yet at a time when our intelligence agencies need leadership and clear direction, and they must endure what appears to be more regulatory confusion emanating from the administration. for five long years we have witnessed delays incoherence and confusion on policies that do little but make it difficult for intelligence agencies to do their work. redlined metaphors. one task force reviews another task force. important programs or change because they have done nothing wrong. indecision on key covert action activities has had a serious negative consequences to the national security of the united states. when it comes to america's current approach, national security, there is only one thing is certain and that is our

allies have no clue what our policy is for one day to the next. we just returned from the munich security conference. we had roughly 10 bilateral meetings in a bipartisan delegation. to the individual, they expressed frustration over the lack of clarity in u.s. policy when it comes from engagements and west parts of the world. as a matter of fact, one particular come a very senior official, highlighted the confusion when he stated that unserious policy matters very recently received direction from the pentagon that was different from the same direction he 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 time. talking about the problem, reviewing the problem, signing 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 the last five years. america's strength and stature in the world has diminished. that is not one member's opinion. that is the opinion of our international partners we meet with frequently. terrorists are emboldened. rogue nations are more bellicose. our adversaries with russia and china capitalize on indecision absence from the world stage at their own strategic advantage. policymakers embrace national security policies based on what sounds good in a speech. those left to untangle the master those gentlemen you see sitting before us today in a very courageous men and women who work for those agencies. so i thank you all for the work that you do. not only with the good work you are doing now, but the years you have spent making the arguments, standing up for what is right and needed the most challenging

times i argue in the national security history, our countries history. i also fear that its lack of leadership has created a growing risk aversion within our intelligence agencies as al qaeda has morphed as frederick gannett, syria, lavonne and africa. we have piled on in washington d.c. even more bureaucracy and our intelligence agencies. today, individuals who would've been previously removed from the battlefield for counterterrorism applications 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 paralyzed because of a 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 leaves american flags that risk.

those changes, while sounding ice in his speech are today right now endangering the lives of americans at home and our military overseas in a way that is frustrating to our allies and frustrating to those of us who engage in the oversight of our classified activity. as afghanistan, last year at the same hearing, i asked whether we had the conviction to submit our gains and achieve a lasting big array or would we just walk away? ..

>> now is not the time to disengage from the world. the classic insulation designed to undermine this interest will continue but we must move past the false accusation and feigned outrage. we need leadership and clear thinking in a very difficult time. we must get back to business of protecting america and we must give our intelligence services the clarity and certainty and the tools to be successful in that effort. that's why we look to you, the heads of our intelligence agencies, to find innovative ways to make sure you have the ability to impact potential terrorist operations targeted at the united states and our allies and collect information for policymakers to make the right decision in difficult places of the world. it is no small task. for turning our witnesses over for an opening statement, i will yield to mr. ruppersberger for an opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i think the director of national intelligence, general

clark, john brennan, director defense intelligence agency general michael flynn, james cole me and matt olsen, director of national characters and, thank you for being here today. this is an important hearing so we can communicate your constituents and america what the intelligence community is doing. about 2013 the -- a vital information necessary to promote the values of interests of america as well as to protect and defend it. they did so and its profound challenges not really a broad but at home, too. that in syria or boston the intelligence community has worked hard. this bastard intelligence community has had to work and missed the worst leaks of classified estimation in our countries history. make no mistake, when we hand over our classified information, our adversaries and enemies adjust accordingly. we know that this has happened already as a result of these leaks. terrorist networks like al qaeda and foreign countries are changing their tactics to avoid our detection.

the work of the intelligence beginning to respond and uncover threats that much harder. we must protect americans. we must not forget that these authorities and to the villas are in place to give our country and our citizens safe. while the intelligence community has all the law, that is clear, apparent that the public has lost some confidence in these programs are to do with that issue. i believe we must adopt important reforms to restore america's confidence in what the intelligence community does. we must increase transparency, strength, oversight and other safeguards to the privacy and civil liberties. i now want to look ahead to the challenges of 2014. the threats we face continue to grow. there's no greater example of this than the threats to american cybersecurity. while the house passed the cyber intelligence sharing protection act last year, it is not yet become law even though we worked very closely with the white house come intelligence community critical ever structure companies there is industries across the technology spectrum and privacy and civil liberties groups to greatly improve the bill. this means the government still

cannot fully share cyberthreat intelligence with the private sector and the private sector cannot share cyberthreat information with the government. in the meantime countries and terrorist continue to tackle economic infrastructure, our trade secrets under critical infrastructure. we hear about these images every day. early just last year, for example, our financial sector suffered a widescale network that proved difficult and very costly to mitigate. the retail giant target is another recent example of our vulnerability to cyberattacks. we also have to do far more to expand -- by investing early education and science, technology, engineering and math, s.t.e.m. education. our adversaries are making heavy investment in education of the youth, and we must also do seem. education is the keystone to security and prosperity in the 21st century. a source collection priorities of this year, intelligence community must remain vigilant on iran. we must recognize that our tough sanctions have brought us to a point were i the important

progress can be made on ending iran's nuclear program. i'm hopeful that the realistic on what we are, where we are and where we can go with sound intelligence, strong diplomacy and robust defense. i'm encouraged to know that more can be done to keep a nuclear weapons out of the hands of dangerous iran. in syria, unfortunately there's less cause for optimism. i applaud the agreement to remove the chemical weapons but i'm troubled by the delays. we must keep our intention focus on completing this process and doing it quickly. at the same time we must to lose sight of the arendt is he managing crisis that continues in syria and we must remain vigilant against the rise of al qaeda and other extremist. the area has become a magnet for terrorists further destabilizing an already fragile region. we must ensure that they do not make the way to our shores are hurt our interest and allies overseas. islamic extremes are not just a problem in syria. in 2013 we saw aqap, yemen fashion and the group north

african affiliate aqim posted very severe threat to the united states. in august the threat force the state government goes 19 emphasis across the middle east. and north africa in response to an aqap plot that was thanks to your efforts, intercepted. on the other hand, aqim success to conduct an attack against western interests in mali. as for china, he continued to look with great concern on their cyber activities. they are counterspace posture and on the recent moves in east china sea. beijing's so-called air defense identification center which would require u.s. forces to identify themselves and their mission to chinese forces as they fly near or over certain tiny islands in a land grab. it's also an affront to international law. these moves increase the risk of misunderstanding and miscalculation between washington and china making the role of intelligence that much more important. in russia our athletes and athletes from around the world will be convening in just a few

short days to compete in the 2014 winter olympics. we have seen some troubling terrorist activity and we must keep up our guard. in afghanistan, 2014 marks the year in which combat operations end. we know our vital national security interest their will not cease. we need to maintain our intelligence efforts better even after the military withdrawals. core al qaeda and the taliban will continue to represent a threat. we must not forget that afghanistan is more than a front in the counterterrorism war. afghanistan has broader strategic implications. it was both iran, pakistan and is close to russia and china. we must also continue to focus our attention on space. we must continue to vote our commercial space industry and relax those outdated regulations that are hampered. we cannot emphasize enough the use companies must also be allowed to compete in the free market. this competition will promote innovation in our space industry. we need to rely on the intelligence community to look were others are not to lift that is beyond the shiny objects of

today. when you identify long-term trends that cut across individual states or groups. these trends, environment, demographic, technology or the emerging fault lines of conflict, early action can avoid long-term pain. we needed all this and everything we do in ways that protects civil liberties. liberty and security are not mutually exclusive. we can and must work to protect both and we must remain ever vigilant in this area. i look for during from you on the challenges facing our country, how you plan to address them and how you'll work individually. before i close i want to take a minute to appreciate the men and women of the intelligence community who are working to keep us safe 24/7, especially with a government shutdown of last fall and the leaks, we heard a lot of negative in 2013 directed towards federal employees, generally at our intelligence professionals specifically. this is unfounded and unjust. these employees work nights, weekends, holidays and in some of the most remote and dangerous locations to defend the nation and to do so not for money or fame since they also must remain

anonymous. upper levels country and dedication to ideals. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. ruppersberger. and welcome back. director clapper, the floor is yours. >> general rogers, -- chairman rogers, ranking member ruppersberger, the establishment of the committee, my colleagues and i've are here today to present the intelligence committees worldwide threat assessment as we do every year, although i must commend ranking member ruppersberger for his outstanding rendition of the threat briefing. i'll cover about five topics in about 10 minutes on behalf of all of us. at dni, this is my fourth appearance before the committee to discuss the threats we face. i have made this next assertion reduce the, but it is if anything even more evident and relevant today. looking back over my more than half a century in 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 the scourge and diversification of terrorism, loosely connected and globally dispersed, to include here at home as example find by the boston marathon bombing. the sectarian war in syria, its attraction as a growing center of radical extremism and the potential threat that it poses to the homeland. let me briefly expand on this point. the strength of the insurgency in syria is now estimated that somewhere between 75 or 80,000, or up to 110-115,000 insurgents who were organized into more than 1800 groups of widely varying political means. three of the most effective our they on nusra front and the islamic state of iraq.

in total about 26,000 insurgents. complicating this further of the 7500 or so foreign fighters from some 50 countries who have gravitated to syria. among them are a small group of afpak al qaeda veterans with aspirations for external attack in europe if not the homeland. and there are many other crises and threats around the globe to include the spillover of the syria conflict into neighboring lebanon and iraq. the destabilizing flood of refugees in jordan, turkey and lebanon now about two and half million people come a symptom of one of the largest imagine disasters in a decade. the implications of the drawdown in afghanistan, the deteriorating internal security posture in iraq, with aqi now in control of falluja. the growth of foreign cyber capabilities, nation states and non-nation states as well.

the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, aggressive nationstate intelligence efforts against us, and an assertive russia, a competitive china, a dangerous, unpredictable north korea, a challenging iran, lingering ethnic divisions in the balkans, perpetual conflict and extremism in africa, in mali, nigeria, central africa republic and the south sudan. violent political struggles and among others, ukraine, burma, thailand and bangladesh. the specter of mass atrocities, the increasing stress of burgeoning populations, the urgent demands for energy, water and food. the increasing sophistication of transnational crime, tragedy and magnitude of human trafficking, the insidious rot of synthetic drugs, the potential for pandemic diseases occasioned by

the growth of drug-resistant bacteria. i could go on with this litany but suffice to say that we live in a complex, dangerous world. the statement for the record we have submitted provide a comprehensive review of these and other daunting challenges. my second topic is what is consumed extraordinaire time and energy much of the past year. indeed intelligence community and the congress and the white house, and, of course, in the public square. i'm speaking of course about potentially the most massive and most damaging theft of intelligence information in our history by edward snowden and the ensuing avalanche of revelations published and broadcast around the world. i won't dwell on the debate about snowden's motives or his legal standing, or on the supreme ironies occasioned by his choice of freedom loving nations and beacons of free expression to which he fled, and from which he rails about what

an orwellian state he thinks this country has become. but what i do want to speak to as the nation's senior intelligence officer is the profound damage that his disclosures have caused and will continue to cause. as a consequence, in my view, this nation is less safe and its people less secure. what snowden has stolen and exposed has gone way, way beyond his professed concerns with so-called domestic surveillance programs. as a result, we lost critical for intelligence collection sources, including some shared with us by valued partners. terrace and other adversaries of this country are going to school on u.s. intelligence sources, methods and tradecraft. and the insights that their games are making our job much, much harder. and this includes putting the lives of members or assets of intelligence community at risk as well as our armed forces is,

diplomats, and our citizens. we are beginning to see changes in the communications behavior of adversaries, particularly terrorists. snowden, for his part, claims that he has won and that his mission is accomplished. if that's so, i call on him and his a cop us is to facilitate the return of the remaining stolen documents that have not yet been exposed to prevent even more damage to u.s. security. as a third and related point i want to comment on the ensuing fallout. it pains me greatly that the national secure the agency and its magnificent workforce has been -- i started in intelligence profession over 50 years ago in signal intelligence. members of my family, my father, father-in-law, brother-in-law and my wife and i have all worked at nsa, so this is deeply personal to me and my family. the real facts are as the president noted in his speech on

the 17th of january, but the men and women who worked at nsa, both military and civilian, have done their utmost to protect this country, ma and do so in a lawful manner. as i and other leaders in the community have said many times, in essays job is not to target the e-mails and phone calls of u.s. citizens. the agency does collect foreign intelligence. the whole reason that nsa has existed since 1952, performing critical missions that i'm sure the american people want us to carry out. moreover, the effects of the unauthorized disclosures hurt the entire intelligence community, not just nsa. critical intelligence capabilities in which the united states has invested billions of dollars are at risk are likely to be curtailed or eliminated either because of compromise or a conscious decision. moreover, the impact of the losses caused by the disclosures will be amplified by the substantial budget cuts we are

entering. historic consequences of this perfect storm are plainly evident. the intelligence community is going to have less capacity to protect our nation and its allies than we've had. in this connection, i am also compelled to note, as did ranking member ruppersberger, the negative morale impact this perfect storm has had on the iec workforce which are compounded by sequestration, furloughs and shutdowns and salary freezes. this leads me to my fourth point. we are thus faced collectively and by collectively i mean this committee, the congress at large, ma executive branch, and most acutely, all of us in the intelligence community with the inescapable imperative to accept more risk. it is a plain hard facts and circumstances that the committee must and will manage together with you and those who support the executive branch. but dealing with reduced capabilities is what is needed to ensure that faith and confidence of the american

people in their elected representatives and we will work as hard as we can to meet the expectations he for us. and that brings me to my fifth and final point. the major takeaways for us, for me, from the past several months is that we must lean in the direction of transparency wherever and whenever we can. with greater transparency about these intelligence programs, the american people may be more likely to accept them. the president set the tone and direction for us in his speech, as well as in his landmark presidential policy directive. a major hallmark of which is transparency. i have specific tasking in conjunction with the attorney general to conduct further declassification, to develop additional protections under section seven '02 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act governing collection of non-u.s. persons overseas, to modify how we conduct both collection of telephone meditated under section 215 of the patriot act and to ensure more oversight of sensitive collection activity.

clearly we'll need your support in making these changes. through all of this we must and we will sustain our professional tradecraft and integrity. we must continue to protect our crown jewel for sources of medicine we can accomplish what we've always been chartered to do, protect the lives of american citizens here and abroad, for the new death threats i described at the beginning of this statement. with that i will conclude and we are ready to address your questions. >> thank you, director. director brennan, there seems to be a surfacing, widespread, bipartisan interest and may be changing our city policy both from the administration 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?

>> i think as director clapper mentioned there are three groups in particular that are of concern from an extremist standpoint. the al qaeda on the within syria and the islamic state of iraq. it is those latter two that i think are most dedicated to a terrorist agenda. 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 out attacks outside terri but also gives syria as a launching pad. it is those elements that i'm concerned about. especially the ability of these groups to attract individuals from other countries, all from the west as well as from throughout the middle east and south asia, and with some expense operatives who have had experience in carrying out global jihadi.

>> do you believe there are training camps established on either side of the iraqi or syrian border for the purposes of training al qaeda operatives? >> to our camps inside both iraq and syria that are used by al qaeda to develop the capabilities that are applicable both in the theater as well as beyond. >> do you believe that that ungoverned space presents a real threat to the united states of america via al qaeda operations or the west? >> i do. >> i'm sorry? >> i do. >> what do you make of the trial separation between al qaeda and the lavont and al mishra front spent -- al-nusra front. i think there are groups that are not following the guidance of al qaeda core. al-zawahiri was still in the afpak area. and i sil has decided to go on

its own and pursue its independent agent and that's what a lot of the actual fighting is deeply sincere, reflects the division among some of the extremist element within the opposition. >> does that mean iraq and al qaeda would not pursue external operations if you're not a philly with al qaeda? do they present an equal threat that we need to be concerned about? >> i think both those groups, any group that has its origins in al qaeda or so so so with al qaeda presents a threat. >> isn't there some concern in the community that by this recent significant and unprecedented action from al qaeda core, that al qaeda was something to prove themselves and that may, in fact, escalate any interest in external

operations outside of syria, given us one of the reasons that they separated in the first was? >> it's a near-term concern as well as a longer-term concern. >> so you would argue that this is a clear and present danger and a growing danger if we don't have at least some effort and we won't say how that effort might come together can but try to do something to disrupt their ability to plan, disrupt and train for extra operation? >> it presents a number of challenges to u.s. national security interest in terms of the potential spillover of the fighting inside serious to neighboring countries, but also an increasingly so concerned on the terrorism front. >> we, again just returned from the security conference. the huge expression of frustration about what they believe is an implement policy. do you see that? is there anyway we can get to that in the near term to bring our allies back to the fold on what is a very competent at

circumstance in serial? >> certainly the intelligence community in essays working very closely with our partners internationally to try to address the terrorist challenge. syria is a complex issue with me to dimensions to it. and sometimes some of those objectives that we have maybe intentioned but the growing terrorist threat is something that really presents a challenge for all of us. >> great. i've a lot more questions. i do want to get general flynn to the defense intelligence agency report that was issued result and made available to the committee which i think is the first agency to complete its review of the stolen information by the nsa contractor. in your professional opinion to believe these links will cost american lives on the battlefield either now or in the future? >> i do. >> get the compromise make it harder to counter the threat from ieds use against our forces in afghanistan?

>> i believe that we will face problems with the ied threat because of these leaks, whether it's in afghanistan or on some future battlefield, yes. >> that has a fairly immediate threat level to our soldiers, marines and other military forces in the field in a combat zone today in your as mission? >> in my judgment it does. >> has the safety of u.s. government personnel throughout the world been put at risk by these leaks? in other words, have you had to alter any assignment as a result of this compromise material? >> let me just say really for the purposes of our task force study, we assume that, that snowden, everything they touched we assume that he took, stole. and so we assume the worst-case in how we are reviewing all of the defense department actions,

you know, events, exercises around the world. so to sort cut to the adjacent to your question, i believe that we will have to make adjustmen adjustments. >> what particular military services have been impacted by the stolen material? >> all of our services. >> army -- >> army, navy comment air force and marine corps. >> there will be changes necessary to mitigate the theft of this material in order to maintain security of operations and the safety of the united states military personnel, correct? >> i believe there will have to be, yes. >> to these leaks give our adversaries insight into how, about how we track them and what their military one of those are and how they might look at what might be someone abilities from the united states military? >> i mean, yes, they do. what i don't want to do, chairman, is i don't want to get too far, you know, in front of

where the investigation is going on, on this issue and also -- >> i'm just talking about the material that was stolen. if our adversaries are looking at them, certainly many of the intelligence community believe they are, that gives the enemy our adversaries a better word today, it gives them operational and strategic advantage when it comes to military service operations around the world. >> yes, it could. >> you believe the russian intelligence services would have any interest in exploiting someone who had access to these documents to? >> absolutely. >> and do you believe that there is any indication that the end -- the nsa contractor who's not in moscow might be under the influence of russian intelligence services? >> i don't have any information -- i don't have any information to that effect. >> excuse me?

>> do you believe that mr. snowden was in the custody of the intelligence services in moscow today, by your own information, as a possible event to be under the influence of russian intelligence? >> yes, there is a possibility. >> do you believe russians have any capability to gain influence of -- or the nsa contractor who is now in their custody and mosca? >> yes. they have the capability to do that. >> would've 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 material he still? >> absolutely we have to assume that. >> director clapper, how would you rate the russian intelligence service in relation to the rest of the world of? >> pretty capable. >> would you say the russians intelligence service is hostile to the united states? >> there are times when we are in confluence as we are right now with the sochi olympics, and

there are other times when we are not. >> although recent reports indicate they are not cooperating, 100% of information available to security concerns with the sochi olympics. >> i think, as i think both director comey and director olsen would say though, that's improving. >> well, that would be a little inconsistent from what we heard last night. what we heard last night was that information that has to do with internal operations, less forthcoming. if not at all. is that -- >> no. i'm guessing in relative terms, it's certainly better now than when i first engaged with the russians about three years ago on this subject in which i got basically stiff armed. and. right -- you are quite right. they are more -- less so with an internal threat. >> based on your historical

knowledge on how the russians operate would you expect them to have conversations with this individual already? >> i would find it incredulous if they didn't. >> would you expect someone who is living and being taken care of in the custody of the fsb to cooperate with the russians in order to remain living in? >> that survey a possibility. >> throughout the long history of russian codeine syrup is how they conducted disinformation campaigns against the united states of american? >> they have. >> do they conduct international is the notch on behalf of american companies? >> it does not. >> would he be against the law for them to do so? >> it would. >> does spreading misinformation about the united states conducting industrial espionage to our european allies, would that hamper americans economic interests there as they negotiate a trade agreement?

>> you're speaking of the spreading of disinformation? yes, it would. >> could such allies he and other russian misinformation campaign? would it not be in the interest of the russians to dismantle the trade negotiations in your? >> i'm sure they would look for any opportunity they could to achieve political or economic advantage, if it serves their interests. >> generally speaking, what proportion of the information he still pertains to something other than the nsa's telephone metadata program? >> well, the vast majority of what is potentially at risk here is -- bears on many other topics besides telephone metadata, as i indicated in my oral statement. >> is it your belief that what was given to newspaper outlets versus kept for some other purpose, what kind of

proportionality do you believe that represents? >> i don't know. that's one of the unknowns here in sse exactly what he took and what he shared with either the media and with whom in the media, or with a foreign, we don't know that. what we do know are the 200 or so articles that have been published around the world and which you give us some insight into what was taken. >> so do you have any estimate at all what the taxpayer, the cost to taxpayers would be to mitigate the loss of? >> i do not. and, in fact, i think there's more to be revealed here. aand 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 both newspaper outlets and other places. to the best of your knowledge, is fencing stolen material, is that it can? >> yes, it is. >> would selling the access of classified material that is told from the united states government, would that be a crime? >> it would be. it's an issue that can be complicated, involved in news gathering but in general, fencing or so and so improper is a crime. >> so if i'm a newspaper reporter for, fill-in the blank, and i still stolen material, is that legal because i'm a newspaper reported? >> if you're a newspaper reporter and you're hawking stolen jewelry come is still a crime. >> and if i'm hawking stolen class of material that i am not legal in the possession of for personal gain and profit, is that not a crime? >> i think that's a hard question because it involves a newsgathering function that could have first amendment

implications, something that would be better answered by the department of justice. >> entering into a commercial enterprise to sell stolen material is acceptable to a legitimate news organization? >> i'm not sure i'm able to answer that question in the abstract. >> something we have to think about. >> certainly. >> if there are countless is, shouldn't we be concerned about them? >> we should be concerned about all the facts surrounding the theft of classified information and promulgation. >> interesting, again the munich conference where we had individuals tell us that, in fact, there in the joe's who are said to be in possession of this information were eager to sell this information to other news organizations. would that be a legitimate exercise on behalf of a reporter of? >> that's a question, now you're getting from the general to the particular. i don't want to talk about the case in particular because it's an active investigation of ours spent it's an active

investigation speaks warmly of the totality of the circumstances around the theft and promulgation. >> i have a whole host of other questions that i will get to later, but in the interest of time, make sure of the members have opportunity to ask questions. >> first thing, i think we need to have the debate on what's happening here with respect to snowden, the issue of privacy versus what the intelligence community is doing to protect us from future attacks, from stealing information from people in the united states of america. i look forward to this debate because right now, in my opinion, i believe the public are concerned, the activities of the intelligence community. it's unfortunate because those of us who work in this community every day understand that, especially the nsa, are not breaking any laws. there are checks and balances, probably more in our country than any other country. between committees, between justice department, the twin the

courts. but we have a challenge to move forward. some of those things we've been working on. a bill that passed the house overwhelming. what the public doesn't understand at this point is that 80% of our network and the united states is controlled by the private sector. we need the government, the intelligence community need to enter into a partnership with the private sector to protect us from these outrageous attacks that are occurring every day. we just recently, the target attack, and it goes on and on. cyber command in about two and half years ago estimated that the united states loses close to $400 billion of trade secrets. and that doesn't 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 want to ask you, general clapper, is that we have a long way to go.

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

present direction, we are working away right now have some options and hope to come ultimately to the congress fairly soon on a proposal. so that's one specific area we will need help. >> my suggestion to you and the administration is you were very close with congress week by week. what we would like to do is really not future proposal and then react to. we would like to work with you on the. i know that this committee works with the administration on cispa and they still can find way to support. but we came a long way to try to resolve some of these issues. i would hope that we could work this very closely together. we have a lot of expertise on both sides of the aisle and lots of different points of view so i would hope that 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, general clapper, is getting in the way of the intelligence community's ability to do their job?

i've been up for a couple of weeks. there's some allegations out there, we can't be afford -- we can't afford not to get right to commission work with our allies. the whole purpose is to protect the country and citizens, whether it is lies, destructive attacks or whatever. if there are allegations that are out there and come from other areas, could you please address those issues of? >> i do not feel that the administration and the president specific is getting in the way of the intel commission. i thought the speech he gave on the 17th of january when he personally was -- it described the dilemma, the balance that must be maintained between protecting national security and protecting civil liberties and privacy. he gave due credit to the work of the intelligence community, and specifically the men and women of the national security agency. as well, we have i think a

specific task a list which i briefly outlined in my oral statement that we are going to work away at. and among those, i am a believer in as much transparency as we possibly can inject into this, this whole dialogue. but at the same time, protecting sources, methods and tradecraft. so i think, i personally think with all that's happened we are in a reasonably good place, but clearly we will need the support of you and the congress spent the also some issues with allies because of the student leaks and other allegations like that. that they have the concern may be on working with us. do you feel that there's a problem with our relationship? from what i understand, it's more on the political side than the actual intelligence community themselves. could you address that issue? >> we have all had dialogue with

our colleagues and counterparts in foreign countries, and yes, there is a political dimension to this. they each have their own domestic agendas that they have to contend with. but in the confines of an intelligent discussion and our intelligence partnerships, the vast majority of our allies want to get on with business. >> and i want to make sure, too, if there seems to be any confusion and policy, you are director, it's important we focus on the issue and do with it directly with respect to our allies or our community. that your job as coordinated. there's one area that i will very quickly to do this and others can ask questions. not many people talk about it but we have to continue to keep our eye on the ball as it relates to space. all the other issues, snowden, syria, iran, space is the one of most important things that we do to protect the united states of america. because of the actions of our forefathers, i guess president

kennedy, we became the strongest country in the world mainly because i believe our space program. i'm very concerned that china has been conducting tests and they conducted a destructive anti-satellite test against its own satellite. it was troubling to our satellites and our space missions. but these activities rebuild the country are working with the ability to destroy our satellites on which so much overdue lives and a military intelligence capabilities depend, including citizens, gps systems, things that space is everyday that the public really don't understand how important spaces. can you describe the counterspace threat and what we can do to better protect ourselves? i'm also take a interest in whether chinese leadership fully realizes the ramifications of disabling one of our united states of america's satellite systems? >> mr. ruppersberger, that's what intentionally brought this up at a closed session yesterday

evening, is first, obvious recognition of the tremendous importance that the united states places on space assets. and i'm not speaking of intelligence reconnaissance resource but for many other purposes as you alluded. obviously, other countries potential adversaries recognize that heavy dependence on space. so as we described last night, there are countries who are pursuing very aggressive, very impressive counterspace capability which i cannot go into here because of classification restrictions. suffice to say, we documented and projected ahead what those potential threats are, and are taking appropriate actions to deal with them. i most certainly think that the nationstates, meaning russia and

china, well understand the implications as an act of war to do something destructive against any of our satellites. >> i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. if we could move to another region of the world for some discussion. i'm interested in, as we draw down in afghanistan, pakistan's influence. do you see them as a stabilizing or a de-stabilizing force in the region? >> well, i'll ask mr. brennan to help here, but one comparative for the pakistan's always is their primary concern, which is india. i think pakistan has the potential to be a stabilizing force, particularly with the new administration there. i think that is their instincts,

and they would like to be. let me ask john if you want to add to it spent more individuals have been killed at the hands of terrorism than any other country worldwide. we were close with and. sometimes our differences of you in terms of how to approach extremism. particularly in the northern part of pakistan, but it is a partnership and the characters of relationship that must improve and get better. >> can you talk about our continued relationship with afghanistan, regardless of the regular troop withdrawal? >> we would hope whatever the troops us that we would have a positive relationship with the afghan government, whatever form that takes after karzai. and, of course, one of our major regions -- continued ability, if

need be, surveil and conduct counterterrorism operations. >> what happens if assad does not go in syria? >> well, the prospects are right now that he is actually in a strengthened position than when we discussed this last year by virtue of his agreement to remove the chemical weapons, as well as that process has been. so if he doesn't go, in the absence of some kind of a diplomatic agreement ensuing from geneva or follow-on discussions, i would foresee kind of more of the same sort of a perpetual state of stalemate where neither the regime nor the opposition can prevail. >> as the regime given up all its chemical weapons or production capability? >> well, it hasn't given the of innocents they are not physically out of the country,

no. no. >> are they comply with all the terms of? >> they have. initially in terms of all the declarations that they were required to make, was, we think they did reasonably well. there have been, i'll say a slow pace of the removal of these since there's only been two shipments totaling about 83 metric tons. and, of course, it's somewhat difficult to parse out which is genuine concern from a security or logistics standpoint versus what is enshrined in the interest of prolonging the process. >> director, you called on snowden to return all the documents that had not been disclosed. is there any reason to believe that the russians are not in possession of whatever else he brought with him? >> that's a reasonable assumption, but we don't actually know that.

>> you also talked about political issues at play as it relates to other countries, but it seems that you believe this administration is not political when it comes to intelligence, is that true? >> it is as far as i'm concerned, yes. >> and my final question, can anybody at the table tell us when somebody will be held responsible for the murders in benghazi? >> what i can tell you, congressman, is this is a top 40 of the fbi. we have made progress on the matter. i'm not at liberty to talk about in detail of that progress. it's a difficult investigation but once we've invested a lot of resources in a and that we have made headwind on. >> when can we expect some movement? >> and by movement, you mean? >> captured, killed, detain? >> i'm not in a position to

answer that at this point. >> are we going to? >> we will do everything in our power to make that happen. we will never give up on this matter and to we the people responsible in our custody. >> no matter how long it takes? >> no matter how long it takes. >> a year, to your? >> as long as it takes but the one thing we don't do that the fbi, is we never forget. >> yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director clapper, i would like to follow up on both the state legitimate and a follow-up questions the ranking member made to his statement. do you feel our country is more at risk for terrorism because of the obama administration's policies? >> i do not. i don't think it is anything to do with policies of this administration or any other. what i think it has more to do with is the transformation, if you will, of the terrorist

threat, its diffusion, it's globalization and its franchising. >> you are not confused or obstructed by any policies that are coming out of this administration? >> no. >> thank you very much. shifting gears to russia, over the course of last couple of years we've seen russia's support the regime in syria, provide limited information regarding the boston bombers, or by a safe haven to snowden, strong-armed ukraine to reject a pro-u.s. fostering a provide limited cooperation regarding the terrorist threats the u.s. olympic athletes. do you assess that these are isolated events, or do you see russia return to more of a cold war posture towards the u.s.? >> that's a great question. i do think that this is somewhat reflective of the current leadership in russia. and i think there is clearly a desire to return to great global

power status, and i think that colors the behavior of the russian government. and the pursuit of their interest in which they are competitive with those. >> thank you. specifically on the olympics in sochi, the uss that the russian government has taken adequate precautions to protect olympic athletes and visitors? >> let me, if i may, sir, pass that to matt olsen, who has been working this problem pretty intensively as director of the national counterterrorism center. >> we are very focused on threats to olympic games and we are working very closely with the russians and with other partners to monitor any threats we see and to disrupt those. as you know, the primary threat from a terrace of perspective comes from the most prominent terrorist group in russia. is made its intent clear to seek

to carry out attacks in the run up to the games. we think the greater danger from terra perspective is potential for attacks to occur outside of the actual venues to the games and cells in the area surrounding sochi or outside sochi and the region. but we are sharing information with the russians. they are sharing information with us. there's always more we could do in that regard, but as of right now i would characterize that level of sharing as good. >> do you know any specific threats targeting the olympics? >> there are a number of specific threats of varying degrees of credibility that we are tracking. this is what we expected. iit's what we saw in the run up prior in prior events like these. so there are a number of specific threats as we discussed in closed session yesterday. >> is it safe for americans to travel to sochi? >> i would say that americans

while the state department guidance in that regard. >> related to the situation in such -- in sochi, we have an upcoming world cup in the 2016 olympics in brazil. are we fully monitoring the safety situations in regard to those two events? >> i can say for our part, for all of these types of events we helped organize the intelligence community to basically share information within the united states and also have relationships with our partners and making sure that there is an integrated intelligence effort and we're doing that i don't with the social ethics but also future events like the games in brazil. >> director clapper, with respect to the ukraine, the uss that the pro-democracy opposition will prevail? >> that's hard to say. i hope they deal, but i am

struck with the depth and breath of the opposition, particularly now as it has spread to the eastern part of the ukraine which, of course, traditionally has been russian leaning. and now we are seeing signs of demonstrations in opposition in the eastern part of the country which i think it's an interesting turn of events. >> thank you. yield back, mr. chairman. >> mr. conaway. >> gentlemen, thank you for being here. can we talk about china's intentions, the growing tension in their efforts in the south china sea and towards japan, all those neighbors, vietnam, brunei and the philippines. why are they doing it quick do have any insight as to what might come if we had some sort of a trigger event that occurred, ships running together, planes running into each other, interference that looks like an act of war.

why is china precipitating these kinds of tensions in the area and can you talk to us about -- >> china sees itself as a global player as well, and they feel they have historical, as unreal as it may seem to us, in their mind, historical claims towards the nine dash line in the south china sea and over these islands. they have great concerns about our pivot, which in their mind is, represents an attempt to contain, contain them. so they've been quite aggressive about asserting what they believe is their manifest destiny if you will, in that part of the world. so it does create potential flash points here over the

dispute over the islands and over energy and access to drilling and this sort of thing, particularly in the south china sea. and having traveled to the region recently, i can attest that is is of great concern, expressed probably more so than probably on the part of the countries you mentioned. >> you talked about the traditional region in the south china sea. d.c. china going beyond that area? >> well, i think they will overtime trying to protect -- project themselves globally. they have interest in the indian ocean. they are reaching out and participating in more humanitarian and peacekeeping operations. so i think over time they intend to project globally. >> how active do you think are

estimations have been of their increased military spending have been over the last several years to? >> i will have to research the exact assessment of spending. i can describe, and did last night, wanting me has been a very impressive modernization program across every sphere that has a military application, to include space, cyber, and in all of their armed forces. and they place a lot of emphasis of light on combined arms operations which they haven't done in the past. so across the board, whether it's 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 strengths, basis, isr,

command and control, et cetera. so they looked at us and that's what i think has influenced a great deal of what they give. >> can you give us any insight into what we perceive as their internal threats? they believe that unrest among the populace is a threat to regime. >> well, one of their major tenets particularly of the new regime in china, of course, is internal control, and they go to great lengths to control access to the internet and information exchange among their citizens. >> thank you, mr. chairman. yield back. >> thank you, mr. conaway. mr. schiff. i'm sorry. correction, ms. schakowsky. my apologies. >> thank you, gentlemen. i really appreciate this open

hearing. let me be clear director clapper, do you have any concrete intelligence of relationship between snowden and the russian government in regards to stolen documents to? >> that's best discussed in a closed session, as we discussed last night. >> okay. i want to thank you, director clapper, foia robust defense of transparency, which has been characterized action as a potential threat to our security, or dismissed as politics. i prefer to call it democracy. i believe that a national debate on domestic surveillance has been valuable, but, unfortunately, it was an innocent contract leader who initiated it and not the government. the drone program is another example of a significant activity that the public is trying to discuss but has been thwarted by a lack of transparency. ..

that had become an instrument of war. i spoke about that to the extent i