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

but this is something that i think is then discussed quite probably. >> let me ask, does the intelligence community way or consider how signature strikes, strikes against unnamed military aged males may increase terrorist threat because they could generate hatred for americans and actually motivate youth to join rather than reject terrorist groups quiet director clapper, director brendan. >> from the intelligence community perspective, we are always evaluating and analyzing overseas to include any counterterrorism activities we might be involved in to see what the impact is. i think the feeling as the activities we have engaged in with our partners, we the u.s. government will be from the intelligence perspective and military perspective have greatly mitigated the threats to

u.s. persons both overseas as well as homeland. >> and do you believe the signature strike model, if adopted by other countries that are developed in an armed drone program can be a threat to the united states? >> well, it could be. but i would have to comment -- talk about this here, the great care that is exercised by the united states. so i would hope in being very precise about which targets to strike. i would hope is other countries acquire capabilities that they followed the model we have for the care and precision that we exercise. >> one other question, as marked up by this committee, the fy 2014 authorization bill includes an amendment that i heard,

requiring a written plan for each covert action program to prepare ahead of time for the potential leak of that program. it increases the threat to u.s. sources and methods the intelligence community is black footed by a leak and the realities in a covert action can potentially be disclosed unexpectedly. director brennan come without disclosing classified details, does each covert action plan have or will that have a written plan of action to deal with leaks and significant not get a decent map program? >> it is one of the issues we take into account whenever there is a covert action program that is approved and implemented, take into account what the implications would be in the event of leaks. unfortunately, there is too many leaks about a lot of things that the united states intelligence community is involved in. so it becomes a normal part of our business.

>> i yield back. >> thank you, and is deceptive. mr. king. >> thank you, mr. chairman. by thank you for your outstanding service to our country. i think it is important to have on the record time and again. i'm also putting into perspective the terrible damage snowden has caused to our country, men and women of the armed services and americans generally. he's been almost horrified in some aspects of the media, by some members of congress, people in public life and it's given a distorted version of him to the american people. we somehow think he is a whistleblower, which is a person who has sold out its country and put americans in terrible danger. i follow to your question for chairman russia, also attaching to snowden, the increasingly

aggressive russian behavior. diplomatically, and for more than 40 years seeking economic weapons transactions with egypt and saudi arabia, more aggressive actions in the ukraine and reports of intrusive actions in scandinavia container cyberespionage. the chairman pointed out how to use this information in the past. you express your concern about the fact that snowden is basically in their custody? ideas how we define it that we don't know. the fact is he is only allowed to stay in russia with the government. against his bracht job, how damaging could any information b-day gift from snowden? >> well, it could be quite damaging. congressman king, we don't

specifically know, but it would be completely out of character having observed the soviet now russian security services in my 50 years of intelligence and they are very capable and very aggressive. and so, it is beyond belief to me that we take advantage of the opportunity to exploit and control the snowden. to your initial commentary, this is again a part of russia's image of it up as a global great power. it's long had syria as a client in the mideast, said they've done all they can to sustain that in the mideast in us all to take advantage of opportunities where they can with egyptians as you mentioned, to extend their

influence. >> as far as respect in the future from russia, it is to me significant and not to bring back the glory such as that was. he is a former tbg person to try to extract whatever information they can to use against us in many ways, including now it's brought out as first-rate agreements, undercutting allies and spreading information through the media as they did for so many years. >> i could not disagree with that, sir. >> i yield that. >> thank you, mr. king. mr. schiff. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director brennan, you have spoken frequently about the unmanned vehicles in the program

the president in may gave one of the more detailed accounts of the criteria that is used in this otherwise known as the drone efforts. you try to increase strength parents in the program. one way i think would increase transparency and public accountability is if we could publish an annual report that identified how many combatants were killed through the use of unarmed or unmanned vehicles and how many noncombatants were killed. that seems to me a very limited value in terms of information to adversaries, but in terms of public accountability and being able to correct the record up this time, when there are misleading claims of civilian casualties, it might be beneficial as well. is that something you could support with another effort at transparency we can make and would that be a fairly de

minimis value to our adversaries? >> i think would be a recommendation to go to the administration and i'd be a participant in the interagency process to discuss the advantages and potential disadvantages of it. it is certainly a worthwhile recommendation if you would like that. >> kinney share any thoughts with us today on any of the cost of that? if you were done at the end of the year, if we had categories to see you could pinpoint any particular incident, is it your sense the cost in terms of the adversaries any useful information would be fairly minimal? the >> congressmen, i think this would be something again for you to discuss with the administration, with policymakers in what we need to do is take a look at it and determine whether or not this is

something the u.s. government filters would be worthwhile to deal. there is a lot of debate about what is the basis for those determinations and those numbers. so it is something again i would be fair to the administration on. >> thank you, secretary. i will follow-up with you i'm not. the president in his speech in may indicated there is a wide disparity regarding those numbers and i think more transparency and public accountability would be beneficial. director clapper, moving to some of the privacy issues that have come up in the last six months, attack companies are not pretty impossible situation. they have a business model, which include business becoming increasingly difficult to come by. there is a set of every thought

what the justice department that allows transparency, which will be helpful for them. can we go beyond bad to let them ensure their customers that the number of times they are asked to divulge information is very limited compared to the overall number of transactions and are there other ways we can help them make the business case because it is very much in our interest to do so. >> first, congressman, thanks for citing the agreement recently struck with the providers on categories of disclosures they can now make and they already have, which i think shows part of the administration's commitment to improve that situation. i also think it shows in the relative population not they are out in frequently these are called upon. one of the features, which was

in a speech in the presidential policy was to see what we could do to extend privacy protection to non-us citizens. this is a think unique in the world. so we are looking at that. again, just as in our own domestic context, we will have to weigh the risk versus gain and how much that impinges on the question of valid foreign intelligence. so we are working through that. not in a position today to say how that will come out. wherever we can enhance transparency to the benefit of our commercial partners, we certainly will. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. schiff. mr. lobiondo. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to the panel for being here today. kind of a quick comment that

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

recent taxpayer was to be believed that is the first of many or can you give us any idea where you think that is all headed? >> there are a number of groups that are at it inside of the church. there is one group that has carried out some attacks and has claimed credit for attacks inside egypt, cairo. barry number of groups in the sinai carrying out some attacks against egyptian security and police installations. there also aren't a lot of low-level violence being carried out by an increasing number of act convinced, some of whom have may have relationship the muslim brotherhood, but there is a growing sense of the attacks of violence with the their guns or ieds, said the egyptian government has been trained to do with that as effectively as they can, but the number of attacks has gone up certainly

over the past six weeks and send senior-level egyptian officials have been killed at the hands of the terrorists. >> turning a little bit more to west africa, it seems that some of my recent visits with nigeria, mali, that these countries are very anxious, understand the threat with terrorists, what they posted their own countries and to the rest of the world and they seem very, very anxious to cooperate with that, although they have limited resources. do we have the resources necessary to prosecute them fight against terrorist and not part of the world? >> well, one of the things we're trying to do to leverage the capabilities to a close with the french. that was certainly the case in mali and other areas. we have met with the french minister of defense, who i think

has an excellent strategy for how to do the counterterrorism and that area of the world, i share, chat, although it across to a terrier. the french have a long history there. they have access. they have insight and understanding and importantly, a willingness to use the forces they have there now into string and then in pursuit of counterterrorism. so i think our piece of this, are part of that is to do what we can, which i committed to, to strengthen not, their engagement through the provision of intelligence. >> so you feel we are dedicating or devoting adequate assets to the fight their? >> well, we can always use more. clearly everything we do in

africa, whether it is intelligence are certainly at the matériel trim military calls force operation. we can always use my resources and not by at least for my part, leveraging and partnering with the french as a way to go to compensate, is the way of embellishing our effort. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. lobiondo. mr. langevin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for keeping the american people safe and all the work you've done. director clapper, you've mentioned your opening statement and its referenced a couple times now, the important challenges of cybersecurity and the threat it poses to our national security. i will focus on not for a

minute. here in the united states we have been working hard to create a cybersecurity framework that effectively defends the nation in particular, our critical infrastructure. is why we are arguably among the global leaders in this regard, clearly much more work needs to be done. director clapper, your statement references cybersecurity as an international problem and i completely agree. i certainly believe the united states has an opportunity to leverage its expertise into leading roles in efforts to come together to tackle this issue. director, can you describe for us the intelligence community's outreach to the international cyberspace community and what more can be done -- what more can we do to facilitate the implementation of international cybersecurity standards to address the threats of today and tomorrow? >> well, our focus

internationally has been working with our partners, you know, capable partners that have capabilities in the cyberarena. we look first to our partners, but that extends out to others. now, what is frankly put -- had somewhat of a chilling effect on all of this has been the snowden revelations. it has effect overseas. that doesn't detract from our getting on with our partnering and speaking specifically now of intelligence relationships in the cyberdomain. >> thank you. turning to the issue of the nsa contract or disclose information

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

intelligence affairs. the other problem, frankly, is we don't really know the full extent or the full impact of these revelations. so that is a good question. it is just one that for me is kind of imponderable. >> let me add something related to this. i was recently asked in a radio interview about the nsa contract. and the information release. one of the things i've focused on was the vast majority of the data that has been stolen that we have been able to assess today has had very little to do with just the billions. most of it is in other areas of compromise national security. can you in broad terms talk about the percentage we know i'm stealing the surveillance of the percentage dealing with other

aspects of national security and can you in broad terms touch on some of the other areas you believe have been compromised by these disclosures? >> well, that is also difficult. i can just say that the vast, vast majority of what has been potentially compromise, as i indicated in my oral statement goes way, way beyond the revelations about domestic surveillance, which i was given to understand was his primary can turn. so what he potentially -- what he access, but he potentially made off with transcends that. so it is quite serious. >> hard to describe a number. >> okay. is it 10%? >> i would say that probably less than 10% has to do with

domestic surveillance. >> do you believe there is a targeted plan in terms of the type of information being released at the time it is becoming public? >> i don't know. we have looked at that. there sometimes appears to be a pattern with the timing of some of these revelations, but i don't hang we have enough evidence to make a hard case. >> i know my time is expired. i want to thank you all for your appearance today in the work you are all doing. i yield back. >> director, for the purpose of clarification, you call it domestic surveillance. my understanding there were no domestic surveillance programs. >> i should've put that in quotes. so-called domestic. >> just something the press has referenced that way. there are no domestic surveillance programs part of

that. >> that's accurate. are you resection -- referring to section 215 of the patriot act? i don't characterize it that way. i should've said in quotes, domestic surveillance. >> i don't want people walking out again 10% is to domestic surveillance. >> i was referring to the context of the question as to what mr. snowden claimed was his primary concern, which was quote domestic surveillance. >> i wanted to make sure those clarified for the record. with that, mr. nunes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is or what was found in a pot about known as the bin laden documents. there are less than two dozen have been released publicly at this time? you are both aware that i am sure.

haselman western to designate public. >> i am aware limited number have been released. >> nightstick specific questions that will allow you to take for the record. i would like to have both of you independently send those responses to the committee. you can take these later. how many of these documents can be released publicly? and how quickly? three, when will i be briefed on the full exploitation of these documents? four, what leads on al qaeda financial supporters have been identified in a noninvasive documents? five, how often did osama bin laden receive reports from other terrorist groups? and six, how many messages did he end to other terrorist groups, al qaeda or not al qaeda? i would like to move, to wreck her, would she leave her those in a classified or setting?

>> absolutely. i would just offer one comment that everything that has the next waited, we are but i would describe is going to score on that to make sure we are learning from x location of that particular raid. i would say we are applying a lot of what we are doing in the current effort against terry's based on some of that information. >> thank you. i look forward to response to this question spirit director brennan, which you do want to respond quick >> i don't know what resources will be required to answer, but i will take your questions and follow-up. >> okay, thank you. >> director brennan, i want to switch to benghazi. ayurvedic claims that cia and benghazi are kept in this to many quick >> now, i am not.

>> okay, were you in tripoli in october 2012 is the number of the national security council classics >> now, i do not believe -- i don't i don't recall when i was there, but i was not there after the attack. i don't believe that's correct. >> okay. i know you are familiar with this. to benghazi survivors were made to sign on new nondisclosure forms. there was some confusion on that issue. have you had time to clarify why to benghazi survivors had to sign the new forms? >> yes, there were a number of contract is whose contracts are being updated. anytime there is an amendment to a contract, there is a requirement for a nondisclosure agreement to be re-signed, which is the case here. it was not to deal specifically

with any effort to discourage an individual from coming over. in fact, i actively and explicitly encourage them to cooperate with this committee and the congress. >> okay, thank you, director brennan. director clapper, general dempsey said the u.s. forces are prohibited from telling perpetrators of the benghazi attack and they seems to be this confusion about the difference is between core al qaeda and other al qaeda. i've never heard the term core al qaeda used in any of my intelligence briefings. could you publicly say what the definition of core al qaeda is and how that differs from each uap? the -- aqap >> refers the original al qaeda move meant and the remnants to include zahler heery, the leader

of the al qaeda movement. and so, to me that is my working definition is the core al qaeda and its origins in the pakistan and now primarily fata region. >> do you get across the board to carry out attacks, are you just do not qaeda affiliate? are you answer us a real? or some other terrorist group or related to al qaeda? >> well, i am not sure i understand the question, that there are sort of designated affiliates. five of them, aqap, we now regard that franchise if you build indiana and is what we

regard now is the primary threat of all the franchises in terms of threat to the homeland. >> you understand the question. then maybe berkeley bar clear. the reason we haven't been able to get the pentagon's attackers is because they are not designated al qaeda. >> i don't think that has many varied on the investigation and hopefully prosecution of the perpetrators of the benghazi attack. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield that. >> in october 2012. struck with my staff. >> thank you. thank you, director. mr. himes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, gentlemen, for being with us today. the dedicated people you meet in your organizations. those people have suffered a blow to their morale as a result of the disclosures we been talking about her a lot time.

while the route by which we got to this discussion was also above any clear violation of u.s. law and almost certainly putting americans at, i do believe it's an important conversation for democracy to have as painful as it may be given the circumstances. i also reject it as simply a pr exercise in convincing americans of dollars while. this is complicated stuff. forget what we say and do. federal judges have ruled in opposite directions on the legality of this to 15 metadata program. this is a good debate, which i want to set aside for the moment in a very of the utility of the 215 metadata program. also an area in which there's been a great deal of information stories initially propagated by some of my colleagues.

that rapidly became single digits. maybe one, two or three. director comey, testimony in the senate and in answer to senator king, the primary value of this program is agility. it allows us to do in minutes what would otherwise take hours. my question is, is that the strongest defense of the utility of the 215 metadata program that can be mounted? or is there something else we can keep in mind? >> from our income that agility is its greatest value. it is useful for that reason. >> i might add to that, as i've said before, i don't think us foil is necessarily the only metric that could be used as to the potential value that section 215 metadata is an important tool. last summer, when we had a number of diplomatic facilities in the middle east that were

close because of what appeared to be potential terrorist threat, it turned up some number of selectors that pointed in the direction of the united states. using this tool, we are able to eliminate the fact that there was no terrorist nexus and there was no domestic plotting going on. at least in my mind, that additional metric apart from the pure plots foiled. and of course, the program was conceived as a result of 9/11 and the inability to track a foreign communicant to his communicating with someone in the united state. so it is kind of low probability but potentially very high impact tool. >> thank you. i like to follow-up with you you on a different topic. we touched on it in closed session pertaining to iran and the p5 plus one agreement.

rbc and compliance on the part of her rant with respect to their obligations under that agreement? are we seen any evidence of noncompliance? >> so far they are complying with the agreement and the evidence to that is the initial iaea declaration of their compliance with declaration of the jpoa. certainly the combination of the more intrusive iaea inspections and surveillance coupled with what we are able to do will be watching for that. the mac thank you. do we have intelligence which suggests that the regime is in any way not at them in good faith at this point? and a collection which would suggest there is deception? >> no. can't point to any. >> director clapper, you told senator king on the senate side your opinion that right now the

imposition of more sanctions would be his. let me ask a different question. the president the state of union city would be to sanctions. that is likely off the table. what about resolutions are members would come out of the congress threatening additional sanctions? how would you feel about that click >> as i said to senator king when he asked the question, the reigning answer student and i send our government. they clearly understand how this is what works here. from their vantage, right now additional sanctions would be a poke in the eye and they understand the implicit threat is there any way if the congress decides they are not, for whatever reason and compliance and want to impose more sanctions. that's kind of a policy thing. from the rain and perspective right now, since they do appear

to be complying with the provisions of the said 10, would hold that possibility and reserves. the mac director clapper commented ukrainians believe if there were a violation united states government would be serious and wrap it in imposing different sanctions? >> as their various pockets in this country about this or in her rant. i'll think there is a monolithic view of them. >> gray. my reappeared britannica. thank you for all that you do. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. himes. mr. west moreland. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank you offer coming back today to testify today. general flynn, afghanistan or

maybe what is their counterterrorist -- where we have our counterterrorism right now in afghanistan? >> that is probably best to talk to the groups are sort of scale and the scope of the terrorist threat there. i would say from the past year is certainly the intelligence effort that we have going on there or how they think they can't intelligence collection effort that we do have focused on the most serious threats we are facing in afghanistan and our sources are facing. as has been highlighted in some of the comments, we will continue to have the intelligence capability there until such decisions and made about the size of the force. >> congressman, i would add for the terrorism perspective in afghanistan, probably our biggest concern are the number

of a small number, but number of core al qaeda individuals who are in afghanistan and who over the long term may seek to provide to reconstitute some degree of capability there. there are individuals in northeastern afghanistan who are connected to core al qaeda. >> we have seen what has happened in iraq and mentioned earlier about the terror training camps in both iraq and syria. and of course, we know they are libya also in the eastern part there. it seems like we evidently don't have the will to stick, to try to make what we are doing count because the last a lot of great men and women in the effort we

had in afghanistan. it seems like with the approach karzai has taken, and it may make your ability to get intelligence harassed because of the pull out we are to do and the afghan people in iraq. the fact that we have a date certain, and the fact we are pulling out, has that hindered your intelligent and anyway as far as i'm assets of what we have there, director brennan? >> congressman, we been active in robust counterterrorism program inside of afghanistan working mostly with the afghan services, the nds and others. there is complications associated with the insurgency as far as what the presents will be like going forward. we rely heavily on our u.s. military politics for the support we need in order to

continue her intelligence mission. the threat not just in afghanistan, but the whole border area they are is not just al qaeda, but the haqqanis and others who pose a serious threat to our forces. this is something we have to rely on in colleges with their afghan colleagues to work those threats. >> the opinion if anybody on the payment you don't tank without losing credibility with some of these asset that we've got in the fact when we leave, they could be in great danger? >> i think there is great concern in the area about what the future holds. the standpoint of what the taliban is going to do after 2014 and that is why it is important a bilateral security agreement be signed so we can continue. >> sure.

do you think that the afghan national army and their security forces are capable of continuing on i guess that the fight against al qaeda and some of the other issues or people that are in afghanistan? and do you feel like there is going to be terror camps that will eventually be set back up and asking and, will be basically back where we were pre-9/11? >> well, that is a concern. i think over time, the afghan national army in particular will have its challenges, principally because of the loss of a lot of the enablers that the u.s. has long provided.

on virtually any scenario they will mean you security of a major city areas, where the taliban and will continue the general trend towards growing stronger in the countryside. clearly, the taliban and having gone through this before i think -- i would think, i am surmising here, with think twice about allowing the resurgence of al qaeda back in afghanistan and we established a training camps and all of that. i think they would cause you for they would allow that to happen. >> i yield back, mr. chairman. >> i would just add that there has to be, and i know this is in discussion, that the international commitment to

sustain the capability of the afghan national security force built the international community over the last decade plus, obviously there's concerns that may not be there. our estimate, we believe that is one of the major concerns they have inserted tactically the kinds of capabilities that are at the forefront of the priorities we are addressing are things like, as director clapper mentioned, the intelligence capabilities, mobility, fire, command and control software. these are important issues. as a force, they are actually demonstrating in some respects, a pretty good ability to secure some of the areas they operate with dan. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to thank our panelists today as well as the

individuals who direct for your service to this great country. director clapper, my question is really about our preparedness. so my question is how would you characterize the probability of an al qaeda sponsored or inspired attack against a homeland today as compared to 2001? >> our assessment is that it is a much lesser capability, in fact, the capability of al qaeda to mount a complex, large attack of the scale of 9/11 is greatly degraded. we'd still come to regard that aqap, the terrorists in yemen do still pose the most dangerous external threat to eyes and internally, the most frequent threat for us will continue to be homegrown violent extremists.

>> how has the quest there affected the preparedness of your organization and budgetary constraints generally? >> well, it is having an effect. as i said in my oral statement, the combination of the compromises, decisions we have made and budget reductions occasioned by sequestration for sequestration like reductions is the cumulative effect of all this is what i worry about and the reduction in our capacity. it is not as great as it was a year or two ago. if we continue these kinds, it will continue to have a negative impact. >> a particular capability that is most at risk are vulnerable to?

>> the most important aspect in this has been a consistent as long as i've been in this job is the most resources or people. that is why in so concerned about the cumulative effect on the morale of the workforce with the sequestration, furloughs, shutdowns, pay freezes on top of the pilling the workforce is enduring. one of the things i'm concerned about is continuing the ability to recruit the kind of people we need and our attrition, which is right around 4.4% pretty steadily for the last three or four years. so with those two factors began to be effect did, i think that will be emblematic of our challenge. the thing i wear the most about is the impact on people. >> if i may, i would just say from a preparedness is come in the integration of the intelligence community under director clapper's leadership,

cia, cdc has made us much better prepared to deal with the terrorist attack if we were 10 years ago from the perspective of sharing intelligence and bringing to bear capabilities of the organization's identify and disrupt potential terror threats. again, and integration from a preparedness perspective is a real change from 10 years ago. >> thank you. i'd like to turn to cybersecurity and i guess the fbi director is probably the most on point on this. last year the threat heard with cyberand is if you can visit it to our security. as you know, the news routinely report cyberfraud in cybercrimes. most recently, the pillaging of security and i get stargate and neiman marcus and now michaels,

but the threat not only is it domestic with packing, but also international with threats by sovereign nations on us. in my home state of alabama, the private sector and our higher education is effusions have really come together to respond to this. act, auburn university of the day consortium of seven other higher is effusions in alabama and they work in concert to try to give ongoing outreach as well as guidance with respect to cyber. my question is, how would you see cyberranking in overall global threat today? >> i think there is a recent director clapper talked about it first. it touches everything we worry about. countering terror is, counterintelligence crimes of all kinds because it is the place where all of our lives are. money, secret, control system come to socialize.

laid-back people, that nation, that is. it is nearly everything it touches everything. the notion of borders is an anachronism when you talk about a photon. >> how does the government interacting with other private sector in higher education to come up with some solution? likewise, do you think the failure of congress to come together and pass a bill with respect to cyberhas affected our preparedness' >> we have the government have got much better to do with the threat. we work with the private sector, including education is to shins. we really need guidance for the private sector as to the rules of the road. when each be able to share information with them and we need guidance for that. >> saha early to pass legislation and information sharing affected us? >> at me to harder. we need the guidance. >> thank you.

i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director comey, i want to thank you. you and your men did a fabulous job with taking down a terrorist that could've potentially killed hundreds of people in my hometown traveling through airports. i want to thank you all for that effort. you charge to which a designated terrorist organization. i do prosecute that effectively. do you think the risk today increases the islamic radicalization in the united states israel? 's >> yes. >> have the political ramifications we talk about a lot in this context, as the fallout from these leaks, do you think the political actors my presents at risk that you couldn't catch the next t. really loud in the united states click

>> is always a risk with throughout babysit that letter. when a genetically red discussion on the trade association changes to counterterrorism tools. >> that is aghast. they will cause him to take actions if we get policy decisions on. >> sure, always a chance that. >> director clapper, has russia violated the 1997 ballistic missile treaty? >> we believe there is cause for concern and this is best left to a classified setting. >> thank you. director brennan, "the new yorker" article were president obama was presented with the fact solution is now in control after lots of americans having a mild in the fighting in and around kandahar province. the president's response was quoted a jv team for some laker uniforms, that doesn't make them kobe bryant, end of quote.

is there such a thing as jv al qaeda? 's >> i'm concerned about all of al qaeda. they are dedicated to kill innocent men, women and children. >> you would never recognize it is a junior varsity -- you thank you. director comey, when you capture those killers, when you consider taking them to guantánamo bay? >> that is not a judgment for the fbi to make, but i'm sure all options will be looked at by the government. >> my family brought bad guy out of libya, who had lots of information about terrorists around the world come in a matter of days he was returned to the united states and had a set of lawyers and i'm confident was read his miranda rights. do you think with us the opportunity to gain intelligence we could have a handle this enemy combat in a different way? >> because his case is pending,

he is now being tried in the southern district of new york. more time is always better than less. >> you think having less than a couple of weeks to conduct a series of interviews with someone who is a senior member of al qaeda, chief ink it is sufficient to garner all the information he had about the al qaeda organization in the impact on american lines, do you think that was enough time to a cover that information? >> again, i need to stay away. >> you have them for two weeks. is that enough time to get the information you'd like to have to keep americans safe? >> again, more tennis better. a time when they played me to an individual case, which i can't do. >> appreciate that. >> director brennan, we hear from officials talking about the

jpoa and what it might look like including potentially allowing iran to continue to enrich. a number of nations in the middle east have agreed not to and rich and implicit statement from them was ever read is allowed to enrich, will probably be looked at as well. to have intelligence which indicates who have been in priest number of countries that want the right to enrich uranium if they are enriching the final agreement? >> states are rushing closely the status of these negotiation and what is going to happen. they are concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons and potential for a rant to get a nuclear weapon. they are most interested in preventing that from happening. they are watching this carefully. >> do you have intelligence that they are somewhat other countries intelligence are? we were told by then they were seriously can either abandoning their commitment in the middle

east if iran is permitted to do so. these are folks cooperating today. not folks like a rant, our enemy. >> i think your question by definition leads us to a closed session on not. >> thank you. thank you, director brennan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we have learned of the devastating affects 710 schmaltzy classification of material by an nsa contractor, which has effectively betrayed his country. now i am concerned about it i'm tension all-league of million of americans sensitive data. this is a new article that came out that i would like to ask you about that came out last evening from bill gertz wrote the article and i quote from it. u.s. intelligence agencies last week urged the obama administration to check it health care network for malicious software after learning develops linked to the belarus government help develop

fresh concerns of private data by millions of americans to be compromised. officials in belarus, a former soviet republic were suspected of inserting malicious code that could be used for cyberattacks. the software links millions of americans who sign-up for obamacare to the federal government in more than 300 radical institutions and health care providers. the u.s. affordable care at software was in part delivers by software developers under state controls and not next to suffer a potential target for cyberattacks one official said. they said a potential threat to the u.s. health care data is compounded by what they said was an internet data hijacking last year hoping the liberation state-controlled networks. the munch on rerouted massive amounts of u.s. internet traffic to belarus. it goes on to say officials said they are serious to parents to belarus in software contains

code that would be used to cover the root data from the obamacare website to foreign locations. additionally, they suspect belarusians planted secret backdoor openings to the software that will permit surreptitious century to u.s. government networks by hackers or spies. the malicious code could reroute obamacare website data to belarus or possibly permanent helicobacter access to the health care.gov network and other governments and health industry networks. a security vulnerability could provide access to all necessary personal information of u.s. residents for identity theft and privacy violation. the article went on to say that the threat of diversion is compounded by the discovery that olympus diverted massive amounts of internet traffic coming u.s. internet traffic to belarus.

according to david kennedy, head of the security firm trusted security said the obamacare website was not designed well and has a lot of security flaws. one concern is the system connects to help her network to other sensitive u.s. government networks, and putting the internal revenue service and the department of homeland security. that makes it a treasure trove for hijackers of the kennedy said in an interview, adding a major turn would be cyberattacks from sophisticated state-sponsored adversaries. the threat of factor access points is a particular worry because the chinese military linked technology is suspected of using that technique in the network equipment kennedy said. also contained in the article was a statement from the national security council spokesman katelyn hated his feminine colleges report on the belarus software was recalled by the intelligence community shortly after it was issued. i am wondering if you could

comment on why that intelligence report was recalled after this issue and also, could you tell this congress analyst at the american people why in the world health and human services should immediately shut down and properly stressed as the health care.'s website to ensure that consumers are protected from potential security risks from across the globe. >> well, we'll have to get back to you on not. i'm not familiar with the article. >> are you aware of the problem? >> no, i am not. the affordable care act is not my responsibility. we will look into this, particularly the allegation about a report be withdrawn. i don't know anything about it. i have to get back to you. >> direct her clapper company

said u.s. intelligence curse the obama administration to check its health care site. your the director of national intelligence. you were not aware of this fact in the u.s. intelligence agencies last week urged the obama administration to check the website. .. >> i am not. >> director olsen, are you aware

of this report that was issued last week? >> no. >> so no one at the table is aware of this report that was issued last week. i find this outrageous, considering the fact that you're looking at one of the worst intentional leaks in american history conducted by an nsa contractor. and in the midst of that this is one of the largest unintentional leaks that could impact personally every american citizen as we are now required to sign up for health care what this will mean. because the president of the united states resisted a 3 million americans have signed up for health care on this website which now is potentially vulnerable to an ally of the russian government. and i see what time has expired. i yield back. >> make you very much for your testimony today. -- >> one thing i've learned over the years, is not to believe everything i read in the media.

>> thank you very much for your time today. important dialogue and discussion. will continue to work in a classified setting on those policy issues that we believe needs some attention by the way in a bipartisan way, a strong bipartisan way. we look forward to continue to work with you. please pass along to the men and women in each of your agencies our appreciation. we get a very good fortune to meet them all across the globe in very difficult neighborhoods. and their work is exceptional, their courage is beyond the bounds, and their sacrifices for defense and freedom in this country a well-respected by certainly members of the congress and the american people. so for that, thank you very from a much. we will see you very soon in a classified hearing. >> thank you [inaudible conversations]

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

>> and by the way, that entire hearing from yesterday is available at our website, c-span.org a lot of talk in the hearing about former nsa contractor edward snowden's security leaks. coming up in just under one hour on c-span2 we will be taking you live to capitol hill, a number of house republicans including armed services committee chairman buck mckeon and mac thornberry of taxes, chairman of the emerging threats subcommittee are being briefed, security briefing on capitol hill. they will respect reports at about 4:00 eastern. we will plan to have that live for you at stores. turning overseas, associated press reports saying at least 34 people were killed in kashmir and scores injured in five bombings around the iraqi capital of baghdad. according to the united nations, 2013 was the deadliest year in that country. already for the month of january this year, 618 civilians and 115 members of the country's security forces have been

killed. the house foreign affairs committee held a hearing looking at the rising threat of al qaeda in iraq and republican guardsman dana rohrabacher expressed his outrage at the recent string of suicide bombings, questioned the current u.s. involvement in the country. here's a portion of the hearing. >> let me just say that the idea that we're talking about camp ashraf seems that fundamentally you are suggesting our approach to try to stop the massacre, the ongoing massacre of people at camp liberty that we basically have to go to the maliki government and ask them, an the problem is they're not providing enough security. the maliki government is responsible for these deaths. i don't understand. the military, the iraqi military

invaded camp ashcroft and murdered people. these are the people under maliki's command did that. they recently went in, the 50 or so that were left in camp ashraf, tiger grants behind the back and shot them in the back of the head. and it was maliki's own military we know who did that. we know that camp ashraf and these people were attacked numerous times by the iraqi military. this isn't what the maliki and his people are not protecting the mek. this is a crime against humanity. these are unarmed refugees in which maliki's own troops are murdering. not talking about rockets that we don't know where they come from. we are talking about actual -- by the way, i would suggest they probably know those rockets as well. maliki, let's make it very clear, as far as i'm concerned as far as many members here in

washington are concerned, maliki is an accomplice to the murders that are going on. and as an accomplice we should not be treating him, begging him to have a residual force of u.s. troops in order to help his regime. i don't understand why the united states feels like, we feel compelled to be part of all of this. why do we feel compelled that we have to go in and be in the middle of a fight between people are murdering each other 30 to 40 suicide bombers a month. thousands of people are losing their lives to this insanity, which -- why should the united states, tell me, is my question, why should the united states feels that we need to be, part of this insanity? and does that not instead turn both of the parties against us?

>> congressman, the suicide bomber phenomenon, it is complete insanity. i agree with you. when you look at iraq, look at the region and you define our interests, and i don't go with the leader and beg for anything, but we protect and advance u.s. interests as we defined them. in iraq, whether you like it or not, oil, al qaeda, iran al qaeda, iran combined his interests are at stake in iraq. so need to do what we can and putting u.s. personal speed is why -- let them kill each other. i'm sorry. if it means that we're going to spend our treasure and more of our blood on we've already spent thousands of lives of american soldiers. we've done enough. and i'm so happy that you know to report to us that your negotiations to provide a residual american military force in iraq was not successful. because i'm very happy that we don't have a bunch of american troops in the middle of that

mess. and if -- we are not even capable of leading maliki know we are only -- we are holding him responsible for the murders in his own ranks, for the people, for the military that he commenced to go into camp ashcroft and camp liberty and murder unarmed refugees. this is a no win situation for us. both sides seem to be evil. of sides, all the sites. one less question, i have 30 seconds. who is financing -- you talked about 100 trucks and all of this -- this equipment cost money. bullets even cost money. ak-47s cost money. rockets cost money. who is paying for all of that on the mayhem on both sides of this fight? >> congressman, i defer to my intelligence colleagues for the specific funding, but we believe it's a whole source of funding that private funding about the region, the global jihadists

movement which is now really based in serious but it is about the saudis? >> again i would have to defer to my intelligence colleagues for those wit that sort of info. but a lot of it is private funding. >> and all of today's hearing airing later today over on c-span. you can watch it anytime online at c-span.org. >> this is really an instrument of the president. and that is always been the case. the president is always the master. i mentioned in the book the president, and i served under seven, each come to get us further -- they contracted to do things in secret. they don't have to worry about the normal congressional appropriations process. and you know, it's a convenient and attractive sometimes overly subjective tool in the

president's foreign policy arsenal. >> from the shadows to the frequency to a political controversy, and look at the cia saturday night at 10 eastern and sunday at nine on "after words," part of booktv this weekend on n c-span2. and online at booktv's book club comment on last month's in depth just. join the conversation, go to booktv.org and click on book club to enter the chat room. >> agriculture secretary tom vilsack announced a new plan today to target climate change creating regional climate hubs that would assist farmers in rural communities. he made the announcement at today's white house briefing but we're sure as much of that to you as we can until live coverage of the 4:00 briefing about the impact of security leaks with the chairman of the house armed services committee.

>> i'm bringing guest stars. good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for being here for your daily briefing. as you can see today i have with me secretary -- secretary jewell sect accuse me of seeing a report this morning that the secretary is establishing and the administration is establishing climate hubs injuries regions across the country. he would like to provide some information to you about that. he can also give you a little insight into the bipartisan farm bill that has passed congress. if you have questions for him on the subject areas, please address them at the top of the briefing to the secretary and then he can go on with his day and i were many of the questions on other subjects. with that, secretary vilsack. >> thanks, get to appreciate the opportunity to be with you this afternoon. it may come as a surprise to you, it's only did to me that 51% of the entire landmass of the united states is engaged in

either agriculture or forestry. this is part of our economy that is significant 69 people are employed as result of agriculture and represents roughly 5% of the gross domestic product. and 14% of all manufacturing in this country is related to agriculture, forestry, food processing. so what impacts agriculture forestry matters. we've obviously seen a significant number of severe storms, very early snow storm that devastated the dakotas. the recent drought in california which is now going into its third year but now very intense. is a reflection of the changing weather patterns that will indeed impact and affect crop production, livestock production as well as expansion of past and diseases that could compromise agriculture and forestry. the present has been quite consistent in cabinet meetings and in private meetings expects his cabinet to be forceful and to act. we can't wait for congressional

action. so pursuant to his climate action plan we established a number of climate change hubs. they're located in seven states and there are three sub hubs. the seven states are new hampshire, north carolina, iowa, oklahoma, colorado, new mexico and oregon. the substations are located in california, in michigan, and in puerto rico. these climate change hubs and the substations are going to do a risk analysis of crop production and the forestry in terms of changing climates. it will establish the form of those that we have in each region of the country. it will determine from both of those strategies and technologies instead second be taken to mitigate the impacts and effects of climate change as well as adapting to new ways of agriculture. it will take full advantage of the partnership that we have with land-grant universities to

our sister federal agencies was the private and nonprofit sectors. and every five years these climate hubs will be reviewed. it will be a coordinated effort between our agricultural research service, our forest service and our conservation resource service. this will allow us to identify ways in which we can make a difference and then use the tools that are now being provided with passage of the farm bill. the farm bill passage as a reflection of the president's commitment to working with congress to getting things done, and i'm excited about the opportunities that this bill provides in terms of the issue of climate. the establishment of new research foundation which we will identify up to $400 million of additional resources to go into agricultural research. this will add to the $129 we are currently spending on a wide variety of climate related issues as was other agricultural issues. the opportunity to restore disaster assistance, livestock

producers throughout alaska leaders have been unable to access it because the program has expired under the previous farm bill that is now been restored. the ability to create new market opportunities to use what is being grown and raised in creative ways. manufacturing is going to come back to rural america. the establishment of a bio-based manufacturing opportunity when we take crop residue and livestock waste, turning it into chemicals, polymers and other materials will create new job opportunities in rural america. the opportunity to work with conservation and specific with partnerships that are being formed in large watershed areas of significance to this country will also allow us to adapt and mitigate the climate whether it's in the chesapeake bay or the great lakes or everglades, the upper mississippi river basin, the gulf coast. so combined with the new farm bill and the new opportunities it creates, these climate hubs i think will equip us to make sure

that the 51% of the landmass in the united states is protected against changing climates to oust to maintain the economic opportunity that agriculture creates in this economy. oftentimes under appreciated and under realized that it is a significant factor and, frankly, it will allow us to continue to be what i like to refer to as food secure nation. the united states is blessed because we basically create and grow just about everything we need to survive as a people. hardly any other country in the world can say that. so we want to make sure we continue to be in that strong position. so with that, glad to answer questions. >> is this something new the government is doing or are these activities that is being combined into one central -- >> a combination of both. it's taking existing avenues of research service, our forest service and charging them with any responsibility. to basically take a look at precisely what risks are

currently being recognize and want the folder to agriculture and forestry in each region of attention. the reason we have seven of these major hubs is because each region does things a little bit fully in terms of agriculture anand forestry. h.r. face with slightly different circumstances. warm weather in the northeast may be a different consequence than in the southeast, for example. so they were basically take existing structures, add additional responsibly are sent to the presence climate action plan. do this assessment and then identify technologies and practical science-based guidance that will say to farmers, for those enforcing areas, into the government, this is how you need to manage. these are the steps you need to take to utilize water more effectively. these are see technology about technologies you might use to respond to less water or too much water. this is what you can do in terms of forest restoration. been using the new programs being established in this far but that don't get a lot of

attention, focus is oftentimes on subsidies and snap program, but in between time -- but in between that is new market opportunities, original food systems, et cetera. creates a golden opportunity to revitalize and restructure the rural economy. so these climate action hubs, climate hubs are really part of the presence climate action plan and it is directed to us to actually act, not with the congress, no not wait for laws o be passed but to do our own. >> is there a cost to this? >> we currently $129 that is dedicated of our research budget to climate. this will add on top of that. it's difficult to assess precisely how much money will be spent because it depends on what the risks are and how significant they are and what conservation programs will be used. but i can tell you that it will be a significant investment made in each region of the country because of the importance of them. when you 5% of the gross domestic product and 60 million people employed or depend on this, 51% of the demand last, yu better be paying attention to

it. [inaudible] >> well first of all i think it's important to do what we're talking about here. what we have essentially done, what the congress has essentially done is they basically said, look, those people who qualify for food stamps under the snap program whooping cough i because they will requalify for low income heating assistance, they will have a slightly higher bar to cross before they qualify. in the event of that site higher bar basically will mean that someone may lose their coverage, then it is up to us at usda to ensure that we fill in the gaps, that we do a good job of making sure folks know how to apply in a normal process of we are in a position to cover as many people as possible. i'm very thankful that we are dealing with that kind of reaction to the s.n.a.p. program as opposed to the $40 billion

cut that was proposed in the house which would've taken two to 3 million people off of the program and we wouldn't have beehadthe opportunity bring thoe people into the program. this is a program that impacts senior citizens, people with disabilities, and working men and women and their children. 92% of snap beneficiaries are in those four categories. and the bill also allows us to do a more greater job and working with states to get folks were able-bodied were looking for work, want to work, giving them a better opportunity to get work. in the past states have administered this program. they have a work force development program over here. they had human services office over here, but they never talk to each other. we are going to now be encouraged to get them to talk so that the job opportunities will be linked to the people looking for opportunities. i think that's probably the best way of reducing the snowballs in the most effectively because it doesn't harm people. so we are going to do with this

the right way. we are going to continue to use this program for the people who are entitled, who it was meant for. >> mr. secretary, is what you're saying on the s.n.a.p. production that you be able to absorb this and cover most or virtue all the people who are still receiving? >> i think we will be able to cover quite a few of them. i don't want to say today we can cover most because i don't know decisiveldecisivel y how many folks will lose their benefits completely. but what i can say is those who lose their benefits because they no longer qualify under the exception, or exemption or program, now may still be up to qualify under the normal way of applying force now. we want to make sure that those people don't fall through the cracks. because they need help. significant% of those people are in the categories i've identified and those who aren't, they don't stay on the s.n.a.p. program for very long. so it's important for us to continue to administer this

program as effectively as we can. >> isn't accurate to say the number one job is to teach people how to adjust to climate change within the agricultural forestry or livestock line of work? is that the ultimate goal? >> the ultimate goal is to understand precisely what the risks are, to be able to do a good job of forecasting with those risks might be a reality. [inaudible] >> right. or, you know, a significant infestation of tests is climates are either warmer than anticipated or something along those lines. and then be able to equip -- yes, and then be able to equip those folks who are in that region are impacted by the risk to be able to either adapt and shift to a different crop that they produce or use a different see technology, whatever they might to eliminate the risk, or

if the risk is not something that can be eliminated, how we mitigate the impact of it. and then to be able to accumulate all that information and that one repository at the hub so that folks were researching, looking at ways to perfect work that we're doing will be able to access that information. and each region of the country will have its own separate analysis which is important. >> the land-grant universities have large agricultural educational systems. they do all this work themselves already, don't they? is there anything -- >> it's not duplicative. it's focused. it is using our resources at ars, which is our internal research service, in partnership. it will allow us to fund additional research, allow us to go deeper. land-grant universities are often pooled based on the level of expertise. they may be a land grant university in california but scott specialty crop understand but you also have dairy,

livestock interest in california. this regional hub in oregon working with the davis county, california, operation will basically focus on the entire range. and oftentimes forestry is not considered and lest you have a significant number of financial force or -- but you virtually have force in every state and jeff private forces that need to be maintained. so this is really not duplicative. this is really focusing. it's very consistent with the presidents instruction, which is we've got to make this country more resilient. we have to make it be able to adapt and medicate because if we don't, our economy will be impacted. those 69 people found depending on agriculture and forestry, they want to make sure that they continue to have a job because we are continuing to produce and create new products. >> i was just going to say, california being such a critical

farming have come onto any immediate steps that you can take to help alleviate the problem out there? >> we have taken steps this week and will continue to take steps. yesterday we announced a 20 million-dollar resource directed to the most heavily stricken area, drought stricken areas. that will provide farmers and ranchers and there in the opportunity to a better job of utilizing scarce water resources. it will do, allow them to look at their water storage facilities, upgrade them. it will allow them to take a look at other possible opportunities so that is the in place. today, we develop a smart water program where $14 million of federal resources is being applied. these hubs will come one of them will be located in davis, california, and that will be focus on specialty crop and the impact of drought. we will continue once the farm bill is signed by the president, this disaster assistance that will allow us now to provide

assistance to dairymen and to livestock operators to provide them resources that they didn't have that i couldn't provide. that's what this bill is so important to have gotten there now. so those are our three or four concrete steps that we have taken. other eight cities are ways in which they can provide help and assistance. and are ruled develop and folks are looking at the impact come with agricultural suffered from it is written in fact an effect on small towns that are dependent on agriculture in part. so we're taking a look and begin sure are ruled develop programs are ready, willing and able to provide help and assistance. >> are you seeing farms go under now because of the effects of climate change? is this something that is focus on a future threat? >> i can tell you without any hesitancy that because we didn't have a good assessment and didn't have good forecasting and didn't have disaster assistance program, that some of the

livestock producers in the dakotas, for example, just couldn't make it. when that snow storm hit, it didn't wipe out just a few animals. it wiped out entire operations. nobody anticipated and expected that severe a storm that early. that's one impact. i can tell you that the folks who live in the western part of the united states who have been dependent on timber and forestry are deeply concerned about the impact of the pine bark beetle and disease. we have roughly 45 million acres of diseased trees because the pine bark beetle was not killed during harsh winters as in the past. that's having an impact. that's making forest fire's significant more intense, and that's creating not just a fire hazard but flooding hazards following a fire. so there are ramifications today that impact operators.

[inaudible] >> severe weather patterns, the effect of climate change. >> when you take a look at the intensity of the storms that we have seen recently and the frequency of them, the length of drought combined with the snowstorms and the subzero weather that we've experienced, the combination of all those factors convinces me that the climate is changing and it's going to of its impact and will have its impact and is having its impact on agriculture and forestry. if we are not proactive as the president has directed we will find ourselves five, 10, 15, 20 years down the road wishing we've done what we're doing today. wishing we had assessed the risk which we identify the vulnerable is an wishing we had clear programs and responses to those vulnerabilities to tampa and the impact of the impact. >> agribusiness has a big stake in stability of agriculture. is there any thought being given to having a partnership formed between government and agribusiness throughout other

kinds of research? >> i would say two things. first of all the president instructed internally within the federal government for us to work in a much more collaborative way. that's what he instructed us to put a drought resiliency task force together, which is the light is now to respond more aggressively to the california drought situation. that's integral. the climate hubs will come as part of their mission, be partnering with the private sector, the nonprofit sector and land-grant universities. they will assist us in identifying technologies, biotechnologies, could be c-tech healthy, it could be stewardship or conservation practices that are identified through research. they will assist us in getting the message out to producers that you ought to think about doing x. instead of y. so there will be a tight partnership and there's something can build on our part. we will review these internally

each year and we will have a significant review every five years to make sure that they are on mission and doing what we are asking them to do. we are very cities about this. we will dedicate a lot of people hours to this and a lot of resources because it's important. >> in terms of the program here, and this may be required to require a crystal ball on your part, but could this change the face of agriculture as we know it? >> i think it could. i think it opens up new opportunities and i think, frankly what changes the face of agriculture in the immediate term is this new farm bill. when i made reference to manufacturing of products from this opens up a whole new vista of economic opportunity that is non-existent before. is for that makes an investment in both of those things. so i'm excited about that. i have been in plants that have taken crop residue and turned it

into a bottle coca-cola is using to produce their water products. i've seen in ohio the other day, i saw a 3-d printing machine produce a school that she is by brain surgeons in brain surgery. it was made -- skull. it was made from crops. the great thing about this it could bring manufacturing into the rural communities. we're seeing a rebirth of manufacture the last couple of years. it's great. a lot of it is focused in urban and suburban areas. now have a component opportunity here with the resources of this farm bill and the direction of this farm bill to go out in rural areas and bring manufacturing back. that's a huge opportunity. a lot of people don't realize this but if you take a look at the people who produce most of what we grow, it's about 1 million farmers. of that number, 70% require off farm income to keep the far. in other words, they're having a hard time just on farming alone. it's one of the reasons why where i travel, the affordable

care act thing, doesn't get as much grief because people now see this as an opportunity to maybe not have to have themselves and the spouse working off farm jobs because most of the time it's for health insurance. bringing a manufacturing opportunity into a community like that creates a chance for that farmer to substantially expand its market opportunity, or her opportunity. at higher value added opportunities, not commodity prices but an ingredient prices. and it creates an opportunity for a son or a daughter, or a spouse, if they wish, to work in a manufacturing job that is a much higher paying job and was being treated in a lot of world committees today. this farm bill is extraordinarily important and, therefore, joined the folks who have been on crop insurance which is important and on s.n.a.p. which is important, but there's a whole lot in between the folks are missing and it's a whole lot in between that

creates enormous opportunity. >> mr. secretary, you said you were happy with the farm bill, and yet twice you repeated, we are not going to wait for congress, we're not going to wait for a test. why'd you need the need to diss the congress and the legislative congress twice for the farm bill? u-visas -- you seem to be sending out a conflicting message. >> the president instructed us to work very closely with congress to get a farm bill. he understood how important was to rule america into all america. i will say that we have a lot to do with the passage of this bill because the president's direction. we worked with congress but as the president said it is an opportunity work with congress we will work with congress. and we did. we've been waiting a while for congress to act on climate. fair enough. multiple reasons why they haven't. but in the meantime, we will take action because 51% of the

landmass of the united states is a lot of land. it's over 1.2 billion acres of land to be exact. and it's important to be really focused on vacation or our farmers and those who ranch and those who have forests are given every tool to be able to respond to adverse weather, which we are seeing. and there is a negative economic impact if we don't do this. i don't think it's a conflict at all. if we're trying to work with congress we can, if we can't we won't. if they won't we will continue to act. that's what i think the american public wants us to do. >> what legislative action in particular do you think would be helpful here? >> well, i'm just going, you know, i don't know all of my sister agencies wish list but i will tell you this but one thing i would like to see is work on infrastructure. our ability to respond to climate, our ability to maximize

our agricultural economy and our forestry depends to a certain extent on our ability to grow and raise things, which with reservoirs and lock and dam systems and rail systems and airports that are improved, we can actually potential to grow more and we can actually get product to market more quickly. that would be something that i would hope congress would do. this is not in a climate area, but agriculture space with a series work shortage which is while we want to make sure immigration reform happens and we will work with congress to help make that happen. in fact, we already have my offer usda as a way of dealing with agricultural workers. so there's a huge wish list here, but if it were up to me, i'd like to see some kind of mechanism to invest in infrastructure because we need it. and i like to say security and safety of workforce which is going to require congressional reform. >> you mentioned crop insurance. a lot of critics of this bill

say this is another missed opportunity. there's a lot of waste in this bill. to our crops, special interest, there was a wasted opportunity for reform, and in particular the talk about the sugar industry. when will that opportunity ever calm? doesn't not cost american consumers money to support these industries when they don't need to be supported? >> the president was very clear when he campaigned in 2006-2007, 2008 that he wanted to see an end to direct payments. this was a system which was very difficult to explain to ordinary folks when we were basically as a government spending money and sending checks to producers when crop prices were at an all time high. when corn was selling for $8 a bushel, soybeans were $15 a bushel, we were sending $4 billion of direct payments out all across the country. this bill and direct payments. that is a significant reform. i can remember speaking to the

cotton growers my first speech as secretary of agriculture, i was bold enough to suggest we need to get rid of direct payments. i can tell you how much criticism and concern was expressed that that can't happen. they were to depend on direct payment. that's gone and that's good. crop insurance. we raise about $62 billion of product every year. that's a huge risk, and the reality is that if we didn't partner with farmers -- by the way, farmers pay premiums for crop insurance but if we didn't partner with farmers, not a lot of farmers would be able to afford crop insurance because the premiums would be dramatically higher than they are today. which means that in the face of the california drought, in the face of livestock disaster in the dakotas, in the face of what happened in hurricane sandy in upstate new york, in the face of the drought of 2012 that devastated the midwest, as a government we would've been confronted with the requirement

and demand by congress for a disaster bill that would have been substantially more expensive. actually i'll give g8 a chart that shows you -- i'll give jay a chart that shows you in the '80s and '90s when we didn't have this kind of system we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars, hundreds of those of dollars on disaster. today, it's at an all time low in terms of what we're actually spending in terms of government subsidies and assistance. so there has been reform. there's a reason for the crop insurance program. and i might point out that this administration we negotiated the standard reassurance agreement with the insurance companies saving 6 billion which was on top of a 23 billion that sequestered and this farm bill has saved from agriculture. that's a total of $30 billion. i'm happy talk to folks at what it support to crop insurance. that there is reform in this bill and i think it's a good balance. [inaudible]

>> well, i don't, i wouldn't say it's a sacred cow. i think a lot of folks are asking questions about sugar and those are legitimate questions that should be asked, and at the end of the day, it's not easy to put a farm bill together. it requires a coalition. and i think the congress did the very best job they could under very difficult circumstances. given the fact that this was the bill, unlike any other farm bill, where wasn't about adding additional money. it was about subtraction. and this attracted between sequestered and the bill 23 billion. we added another 6 billion crop insurance savings. that's $30 billion. that's a good start. thank you all. >> thank you, mr. secretary. >> all right. well, thank you for doing what secretary vilsack had to say. we'll go back to regular order.

>> since we are going to be allowed in invading today with us and democrats, can you just tell us what the president's message is to them? are the things he's hoping to hear back from them? >> well, i think the message the president has for senate democrats is very similar to the message he had for house democrats yesterday. it's the message he has been delivering two members of congress and others around the country about looking for ways that we can work together to expand opportunity and make sure that hard work is rewarded, the folks who take responsibility for themselves and their family are given access to opportunity. that's the sort of overall approach the president's taking to the work we can do this year, both with congress but also with governors and state legislators and mayors.

and in partnership with the private sector. you've seen examples of this already play out in the last days and weeks. so that's what he will be talking about. he will also be dogma as he did with house democrats the ways they can advance priorities that they share. he, the president, and senate democrats. legislatively because congress. but i think that goes to the point that secretary vilsack just spoke about in response to a question, this reinforces that the president's proposal is not an either or proposition. it's not either we do everything through congress or he does everything he can to the use of his executive authority. he believes he will do everything he can on both tracks, and were congress is willing to cooperate, as congress was, in the farm bill and the budget bill and the omnibus, then we can get some stuff done on behalf of the mac and people that's good,

bipartisan, effective and expand opportunity and rewards hard work. where congress won't act, or where the president has unique power because of his office to act in ways that congress couldn't even if it wanted to, the president will take advantage of that unique authority that he has. and you have seen that in the way he gathered commitments from the private sector to address the long-term unemployment problem. the skills of some with colleges, universities that we had here at the white house earlier this year. those are the kinds approaches the president is going to take. and it's not because congress won't act at all. is because there are opportunities available to him to advance an agenda that helps the american people. [inaudible] >> we have been very clear about

the fact that getting trade agreements with our asian partners and european partners, our priorities for the president. and the topic that is frankly discuss. again, i can't predict what will be discussed in this particular meeting, but we've been clear for a long time now about the need for us -- in the example of asia, this is the fastest-growing region in the world. it's the region of the world represents the greatest amount of economic opportunity. it's a region of the world that if we do not maintain our competitive advantage and, we will feed that competitive edge to china. we need to act to make sure that those markets are open to american exports, and that by opening those markets to a market exports we are creating good paying american jobs here

at home. so that's something we have to do. >> this is a question didn't come up in a meeting with senator reed after -- >> the fallacy of reporting on that, the president speaks to send to read all the time. the white house basis and read all the time. that meeting was about to i think senator reed spoke about the subject matter in that meeting but that meeting was with senator bennet, yeah, these are conversations we have all the time. as i said last week, anybody who was surprised that senator reid held the views he expressed on trade hasn't been covering senator reid and doesn't know senator reid. so we believe that it's important to continue to make the case and to work towards ensuring that we can get trade agreements that protect american workers, protect the environment and defense the american economy through a growth and export. >> senator begich said he

doesn't want president obama to come campaign for him. i'm wondering if that's a sentiment that the white house has been hearing from other democrats and what kind of campaign travel we can expect? >> i don't have a preview of the president scheduled for the year but i can tell you the president will as he already has been actively involved in assisting democrats up for reelection or running for office in the senate and the house, as you would expect. the fact is that's because these candidates and these gentlemen share -- on a vast number of issues when it comes to taking steps to expand opportunity and reward hard work, invest in an economy so that it grows not just now but in the future. so he will be doing everything he can to assist democrats as he already has. [inaudible] >> well, i'm not sure about that. i think there's a question about

-- i would just say that the president is assisting democrats in ways that asking too and, obviously, ways you can as president spent along those lines, he had a meeting monday, why should we see this as an effort to craft a strategy for the midterms? >> well, i think again the president met with senator reid and senator bennet. the meetings with the senate, congress and the house caucus are about the president and their priorities moving forward in 2014. those are priorities that can be acted on in congress. there are two things out there that offer a real opportunity for congress to demonstrate that it cares about expanding opportunity for the american people, creating jobs and rewarding hard work. that's extending emergency unemployment insurance and raising the minimum wage. those are two things that i am

sure the president will as he has with democrats already discussed today, and that present an opportunity for congress to actually have put the american people and the middle class. so we help, we obviously hope to see the action. >> the syrians missed another deadline turning over chemical weapons. are you worried about this? are they in danger of failing? >> i think we made very clear that the assad regime has the responsiblresponsibility to live commitment it has. and those governments in nations that were instrument in bringing about the agreement by the syrian regime to give up its weapons for destruction need to fulfill their obligations. and i would note that russia has said it expects the assad regime

to deliver a substantial portion of its chemical weapons stockpile in the relatively near future. and we believe that's very important. russia has a lot at stake here. russia has state a lot of credibility in the role that russia played in helping bring about this agreement. remember, syria never acknowledged. in fact, refuted suggestions that it had a chemical weapons stockpile and effect the world knew it had one of the largest chemical weapons stockpiles. and now it has acknowledged that that stockpile exists and agreed to dispose of it. and russia played an important role with the united states in helping bring about that agreement, and all of our partners on this matter are going to continue to insist that the assad regime fulfill its obligations. >> president obama has referred

to president clinton as a secretary of explaining stuff. and president clinton will be over at that retreats as well today. is he there to help the party explain stuff in this midterm election your? >> you would have to ask president clinton about what his remarks might contain. i think he is obviously remains a prominent figure within the party, and i'm sure that members look forward to hearing from him. >> i know you've been asked about this before but it's sort of, isn't stretching things a bit to expect to not read into these meetings that there are some midterm election planning going on? >> weight, i thought the insistence i was talking about what the nature of me between whites and read and the prison was going to be and then it turns out it wasn't about that at all. so both can't be true. i think obviously the president -- [inaudible] midterm -- >> he's the head of his party.

of course, it's on his mind, but it is far from fully thing on his mind. what is principally on his mind is the opportunity available to us and available to him to advance an agenda that expands opportunity and reward hard work. that says if you're out there, working hard on behalf of yourself and your family, doing right by your community, you should be rewarded for the. you should have access to opportunity. and that's what the agenda the president laid out in the state of unioof the union address env. and that's what he intends to act on, with congress and using the powers available to them when congress won't act. >> does the president want to hear from some these democrats in the senate who have been making some the statements like senator begich? there have been others, senator landrieu would like to see keystone passed right away. is is a bit of a listening session as well? >> again, i think as others have noted the president has been

having conversations with members quite a lot in recent days and weeks in the run up to the state of being addressed and aftermath of the state of the union address. the fulcrum on which that timeline is balance is the state of the union address which wasn't an election speech. it was a policy agenda speech. and that is what his principal talking about with members of congress. that's what he did last night. that's what he will do this afternoon. and he will continue to do that because that's what's on his mind. and which is not to take away from the fact that, of course, he will still be playing a cynical control in assisting democrats come election time. but right now he is focused principally on ways to move this agenda forward, and i think we have seen it in a wide variety of ways in recent days and weeks. and the opportunity house on friday to sign the fargo is a

way of reminding folks that this is not an either or proposition this is find areas where congress is willing to work in bipartisan ways, act on them, deliver on that possibly, that potential with congress and the news every other power you have as president to advance the same agenda. that's what he is doing. >> a discussion on the cbo report and the effects of the affordable care act. at the house budget committee today, you're probably aware of this, douglas elmendorf, head of cbo, ridgely said that the affordable care act creates a disincentive for people to work. he was asked about that later on. clarify that and said it's less of an incentive to work. getting back to the discussion, i know the fact checkers and so forth have lined up and saying that are not jobs being cut as a result of the affordable care act, but what about that component that there might be a disincentive for work? >> here's what i think.

first of all i want to commend the many news organizations that are very forthright manner issued a correction to the initial headlines that misrepresented on a factual basis what the cbo is reporting. those headlines continue to be spouted by republicans and some networks as fact but they are just false. as you heard investment today that you just cited. that is not what the report said. the report says that in addition to substantially cutting the deficit, in addition to spurring job creation and economic growth in the midterm, in addition to ensuring millions of americans the affordable care act in later years will provide freedom, choice and opportunity to americans that they did not previously have. it will allow people who are locked in jobs because they desperately needed health insurance and couldn't get it any other way to have the peace

of mind it being able to get affordable, quality health insurance through the exchange is instead. and to start a business perhaps or to sta stay at home and taker kids instead of having to work. i think secretary vilsack has talked about rural families. so this is something that he sees all over the country, and in agriculture areas where the income from the farm is not enough to sustain income that would allow them to purchase insurance so that one, you know, a member of the family has to go work simply to get health insurance. that means that has consequences. that means that person can't find a different job or start a business. that means that father or mother can't stay home with the kids. so it is remarkable to me, and this has been pretty well, and in the wake of the report, that the republican party i used to herald freedom of choice and opportunity, they used to call for specifically an end to job loss, created by the need for

health care and health insurance, is now finding in this report which is overwhelmed with positive when it comes to their affordable care act, a political, you know, slogan that happens to be factually challenged. i think everybody has learned a lot in the last 24 hours about what report i success versus what it was said to have reported. i just wish all news organizations would get to the facts. john? >> a couple quick follow. steve's question about the syria chemical weapons issues, i think the question was is the white house concerned that that agreement is falling apart as it was absolutely not. we are not concerned it's falling apart. we're concerned -- we are ensuring and making our views known that syria must abide by its commitments. and that is a view that i believe that they must. i believe the regime must. we have heard from the russian

government that it is their expectation that the assad regime will be delivering a substantial portion of its chemical weapons, supplies and equipment in the relative and your future. we certainly expect and hope that that's the case. i noted that russia obviously has a great deal at stake here when it comes to syria's -- syria fulfilling its responsibility. >> on the issue of trade, you eloquently spoke about the need for the trade agreements with asia. how important is it for the white house for this to happen soon? can you afford to wait until after the midterm election as some are suggesting? >> well, look, i don't have the privilege of scheduling. all i know is the president -- [inaudible] spent i say how important is it to get this done in a short timeframe? are you willing to wait until the end of the year? >> again, i don't think i get to

decide. or the white house gets to decide. i think that what the president is committed to is making the case about why these trade agreement are good for the economy, good for american workers, why these trade agreements will protect american workers and the environment. y. especially when it comes to the tpp and asia, this is about, ma this has huge imprecations for our economic competitiveness in the 21st century. and we're going to steadily make that case. i can't predict the legislative challenge. what i can say with great clarity is what the president position is. understanding that there is a diversity of opinion on this matter in both parties, and that's why it's important to focus on the facts, more specifically at the agreement, talk to members about the upside of moving forward and then continuing that effort.

>> is the president making his case that this needs to be done soon? or is he saying, hey, whenever you get around to it, that's fine? easy making the case this is an urgent party, something that needs to be done on a quick timeline, or the timeline doesn't matter? >> well, i would say two things. i've never known congress to act quickly on most anything. so i would hesitate to suggest that we could get congress to act urgently on anything the we have an urgent need for unemployment insurance to be extended. ..

>> i disagree with that. perhaps that is what he is referring to. we saw congress take a political approach, a very political approach that then precipitated july in the consideration of the pipeline. what is happening and what has been happening is a price that that has been connected according to the rulebook, according to established procedure by previous administrations of the public parties. we have reached the point where there has been environmental impact statement issued by the state