invested trillion dollars and a million manhours of labor. we should continue to work on it and taking us off for second we missed a great opportunity in 2006 when the maliki government needs as the most and we did not push for reconciliation. i think at this point in time when the iraqi government needs us that a part of our strategy has got to be and our support for them has got to be honest honest-to-goodness reconciliation that is not going to walk away. >> thank you and i will try to answer my last question best. secretary kerry previously testified that the u.s. would be resupplying the peshmerga going to baghdad so not undermined the central government. has this arrangement prevented the kurdish peshmerga from getting what they need to

effectively fight isis and how will the central government in baghdad supplied military equipment directed to the kurds? >> at it prevent the transfer of equipment when i was ambassador. i don't have the statistics but the kurds believe that it has. they cite only 25 of hundreds of m. rapp armored vehicles that have been provided to them and there are some pretty good reasons why we are careful in what we give them. the point is they are fighting. they are the allies of baghdad and a lot of these weapon systems and are not a threat to baghdad but they are a threat to isis. >> we will go to tom amory of minnesota. >> thank you mr. chairman i will try to be brief. i apologize for going back and forth. there seems to be a bunch of things going out of the same time. i don't want to cover old ground but i'm afraid i might touch on it a little bit.

my understand first we are here because the president has requested renewed authorization for military force and it seems everything that i have read in everything that i have been listening to including your testimony everybody agrees that isil must be defeated. there seems to be absolutely no disagreement. i heard today and i think this is for you dr. brennan if you would and the others can expand on it, you must first start by stopping the military manifestations and we have had reference to you have to cut off the revenue sources. you have got to -- i just wrote another one down listening to testimony. we have the ability to interrupt or interfere with internet social media and the like. i'd love to know to the extent this new authorization of military force is that something the administration is planning on doing on every level

and how are we going to know what the strategy is. i will tell you i agree with my colleague mr. zeldin from new york. i would offer the executive should have all the authority that he needs to make sure that whatever the situation is as fluid as it maybe may be you can deploy whatever resources are necessary to take the action that is necessary to win not just hold something at bay. i guess i will add this for the ambassador. i thought i heard you say earlier that we have never ventured into our country is never ventured into combating such a complex ideology and all that came to mind with fascism and marxism and i would just ask you to help me with that. you have that background so dr. brennan could you fill us in what needs to be done? >> the first thing we need to do

was and that person is doing this correctly this is an iraq first issue. how do you defeat isis in iraq? ugoda the finances which are much more complex than they were earlier and they have their own revenue stream. the internet social media and attack the ideology. >> continue the airstrikes? >> enhance airstrikes and i think we need to do more than we have been doing but that will require back to my point boots on the ground armed forces with those for leaving elements but to be able to reach back and pull the resources from the u.s. government. one of the things on the aumf the present was going to use our unique capabilities and i read that as meaning in air and i have to tell you u.s. capabilities whether it be special forces conventional

forces or army or marine because it's not that one individually put out there. it's the joint capacity that brings the battlefield and if we are going to make certain our allies are going to be successful we have to be up there with them. to my question dr. brennan because we are so limited on time is congress is going to authorize the additional military force that the executive as asking for why wouldn't the congress authorized authorize the executive to take whatever action with whatever unique resources are available because this is such an immediate and dangerous threats not just to this country but the entire globe. why wouldn't the authorization be that broad? >> i personally think it should be that broad. again the president can restrict what he chooses to do but i think this aumf is going to continue and i think what we shouldn't do is limit the next president based upon what this

president may would not want to do. >> last question mr. ambassador and i'm sorry if you are pinched but that is what i would expect is the answer. common sense would tell me not necessarily the experience because i don't have viewers that the only limitation and i'm going to ask if this is accurate or if you would disagree with this. the only limitation if there was one would be the amount of time that certainly has to come back to congress for authorization and discussion of what the strategy has been and where it's been. would that be the only -- >> i would be perfect -- perfectly acceptable. >> how long? >> i would go beyond the three years, maybe four years so the president has time to look at it and revise a strategy and make the changes he needs. >> thank you and my time has expired. >> mr. allen grayson of florida. >> thank you. section 2 c. of the president strapped authorization for the

use of military force reads as follows. the authority granted in subsection it does not operates the use of u.s. armed forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations. ambassador jeffrey what does and during main? >> my answer would be a somewhat sarcastic one whatever the executive at the time defines it as about the real problem with that. >> dr. brennan. >> i have problems with that also. not only because i don't know what it means. the lawyers are fighting over the meaning of this but more importantly if you are looking at committing forces for something that is vital or of important interest to the united states and you get in the middle middle of battle and all of a sudden are you on offense are you on defense? what happens if the neighbors cause problems? wars never end the way they were

envisioned so that would be a terrible mistake to put in the aumf. >> dr. rand. >> it specifies an open and invest and specifies lack of clarity in a particular objective at hand. >> dr. rand is two weeks and during? >> i would leave that to the lawyers to determine. >> so your answers you don't know. how about two months? >> again i think it would depend on the particular objective and not having a particular military objective in mind. >> so you don't really know what it means. is that a fair statement? >> enduring in my mind means open-ended. >> irate section 5 of the draft authorization for the use of military force reads as follows. in this joint resolution of the term associated forces me to individuals and organizations fighting for on behalf of or alongside isil or any closely related successful -- successor

hostilities. ambassador jeffrey what does alongside isil main? >> i didn't draft this thing. >> nor did i. >> nor did u. but i would have put that in there if i had been drafting it in the reason is i think he went back to 2001 and of course this is the authorization we are still using for this campaign and these things for example we have had a debate over whether isis is really in elements of al qaeda. it certainly was when i knew it as a qaeda in iraq in 2102012 and the semantic arguments confuse us and confuse our people on the ground in trying to deal with these folks. you will know it when you see it if it's isis or an ally of vices. >> what about the free syrian army? are they fighting along side iso?

>> often they are fighting against isil and i slow danced them in particular. >> it's hard to tell the scorecard is not? can you tell me what alongside isil means? >> i really couldn't and the commission uses the phrase radical islamist organizations and i think wording like that includes all of those 52 groups that adhere to this ideology that threaten united states. we are putting ourselves in boxes and i'm trying to understand what that means and what the limits are who we are dealing with. it's very confusing. >> dr. rand. >> first of all i believe it's a function of the fact that this is an unclassified document so it's not going to specify a classified setting. second as i said in the testimony the nature of the

alliance is isil is changing and those we are targeting their military experts know who is a derivative or associate or ally of vices at any given moment. >> why are you so confident about? it seems to me it's a matter of terminology not ascertainable fact. >> based on my public service. i've seen some of the methodologies. >> here's the 64 billion-dollar question for you ambassador jeffrey and if we have time for a few others. if you three experts can't tell us what these mean what does that tell us ambassador jeffrey? >> it's very difficult to be using a tool basically designed to declare war on something like were on a nation-state which has a fixed definition against a group that has allies and other things.

do we not fight it? we have to fight it. are we having a hard time defining it? you bet. >> dr. brennan. >> i agree with the ambassador and the issue made to be looking at is trying to broaden terminology and understand it is an organization group that adhere to this ideology and make a broad enough that once it pops up in a different country that is doing the same thing. the president has the authority. >> dr. brennan i think you just described a blank check which i'm not willing to give to the president or anybody else but thank you for your time. >> we go now to mr. -- >> when a president issued in september the white house said the authority to act based on the 2001 and 2002 aumf and so the media's reporting he is asking congress for authority but by their own view he is

act -- asking congress to restrict and limit the authority both and i agree these are terms that are nebulous but having some prohibition on the use of ground forces in having a time limit and i agree with the witnesses i don't think that's an effective way to fight an enemy. i think you need to determine the enemy determine the strategy and bring all force to bear or be willing to do that and obviously the commander-in-chief needs to make these decisions so i'm trying to figure out what is motivating this and i think it's because if you look at the way things are going, if you look at the strategy that's in place or lack of strategy this is not going to succeed. i think everybody understands that so i think the president is looking to give congress its imprimatur on his strategies that he can point the finger at us and say what these guys limited me on this. we all thought this was a good idea and right now these -- congress is urging him to do

different and he gave an interview where where he said look terrorism the news makes a big deal about it. it's like a big-city mayor and you have to do with criminal so i'm thinking like giuliani when he is to get these guys at the squeegees. who's that really how you are seeing as i'm skeptical of the motivation for doing this now. let me ask you this dr. brennan because i think this kind of informs where we are going. it's the problem that group of violent extremists that happen to go by the name of vices or whatever you want to call them or is this a global jihad that presents national security implications and threatens our national security and our allies not just in this part of syria or that part of iraq but in countries across the globe? >> i think it's useful to look at this not as a terrorist organization but it is a global phenomenon that we are seeing.

i think you can also look at it as a global insurgency where you have sister organizations sprouting up all over the world in and supportive the same ideology even though they may not have direct linkage or control. again if i may use loosely the analogy for the 20 century while we have marxist revolutions all over the world. maybe they did work with each other that they supported each other in different ways. >> dr. rand mentioned a lot of the sunni tribes in iraq certainly when i was serving there they are really not jihadist. they are sunni arabs and if they think that an aqi was better than the deal they had with the central government and they were out to do that and if they think it's a shiite government that's going to push them further so i guess my question is if you look at the administration's policy

there's a clear attempt to have a major burr person with iran and if you look at yemen and asaad i know we have been two different machinations bear there but the administration is content to leave aside their and so if you are just the average sunni-arab wanting to figure out should you work with the americans and whatever forces we may be supporting or should you work with some of the sunni jihadist groups if they see us as a facilitating shiite domination of the region is not going to push some of the sunni arabs who are not necessarily jihadist into the arms of the more radical sunni groups? ambassador? >> absolutely which is why we can't pick a side in the sunni-shia struggle anymore than we can pick a side in the christian muslim struggle in the balkans. we have to have a set of values

and friends who will accept them and go after a buddy who is violating them whether they are coming out of mosul or coming out of damascus. >> of you have for example isis fighters threatening the outer baghdad belts and you have shiite lishan groups which we have considered to be terrorists when we were in iraq supported by iran's quds force summit said there's an alliance with the u.s. trade we are supporting some of the isis forces in other parts of iraq and we are essentially relying on the iranian backed forces to keep isis out of baghdad. is that sustainable strategy? >> in the long run know that there is a saying you slave the world closest to the sled. when isis is moving forward we should be working with anybody that can stop and not move forward anymore. now we have to figure out how the going get them. >> the ranking member of the middle east subcommittee. >> thank you mr. chairman and

thanks to the witnesses for your willingness to comment states are all these questions. i would like to associate myself with many of my colleagues comments on the tragic death of kayla mueller and assure the committee is a strong voice in this aumf. i request -- we deserve to have a robust debate in congress over the use of our military in order to make sure our mission is clear and to ensure past mistakes are not repeated. i would like to follow up with the last two members. both my florida colleagues at seven i want to start by asking ambassador jeffrey in this discussion about whether ground troops are needed to combat isis we talk a lot about the president leading our partners in the region take the lead. the question is what would be the impact of having jordanian

troops on the ground wexler with the united states role be in getting back to the site you had a little while ago what our role serving aside those troops in something less than an enduring or could our role be described as anything less than an enduring an offensive role? >> i think again i didn't draft the thing that the draft is probably want to blinken during an offensive because we have an enduring presence in middle east. we have had combat troops in kuwait for over a decade since i was there in the mid-90s so it isn't the question of enduring. it gets too could we use to returning troops? absolute that there are lots of political problems and frankly we have never seen arab troops on the offensive in any of our earlier wars not in iraq and

with a few exceptions not in afghanistan and in kuwait. there are huge taboos about that in the arab world. some of them might be broken for some countries. >> do you think they have been? do you think in light of recent events we wouldn't face those same political barriers? >> if i were biting the president i would say be very careful about that because the main guy you of these allies is their political support which plays well here and what they are doing in their own societies to deal with this violent islamic manifestation. if they start taking a lot of casualties in ground combat against isis and they will, but that the kurds, five to 600 kilobits going to be hard for them to sustain and as i mentioned in my opening remarks these are countries that are very weak states. they have lots of problems internally. >> do you think and dr. brennan

and dr. rand do you think given the concerns ambassador jeffrey just laid out it's realistic to believe that the ground war could be fought by those troops without u.s. troops? >> i think u.s. groups -- troops and with the peshmerga and even with the iraqi military as we push into anbar province and especially as we start moving into the key cities and most importantly mosul it they would be critically important to have our troops with them. exactly what that composition of troops is depends on the situation at the time and the commander's analysis but if congress is going to look at this and believe that this is something we are fighting for and we need to give the commanders on the ground flexibility. >> let me ask you something else else. this aumf only deals with 2002

aumf. it doesn't touch the 2001 aumf so the real question i think a lot of us have is congressman desantis said earlier if the argument is that everything we are doing now we can't pursue pursuant to the 2001 aumf then should we assume that whatever the limitations are that ultimately might be included in this aumf, however broad the limitations are that ultimately we could wind up doing anything we want pursuant to the existing 2001 aumf anyway? >> i believe the intention is -- >> i'm not talking about the intention. i'm asking whether you can rely upon the 2001 aumf to conduct whatever operations regardless? >> isis is a different threat than al qaeda. >> so you think you know and

ambassador do you think as? >> the present has done everything up to now and may 2000 airstrikes drying on that and it's a very broad thing that i actually like you but i'm having to give you an honest answer and yeah that's a problem. >> thank you. >> we go to mr. ted yoho. >> thank you mr. chairman and gentlemen we appreciate you being here. dr. brennan he said son's carter presidency the u.s. have been the guarantors of peace in the region and i look at israel and palestine syria with 220,000 dead plus and we know the situation in afghanistan iraq libya yemen lebanon jordan is a bright spot and let us not forget iran. how do you assess we have done since the carter administration? >> i think our success rate has not been high. >> okay and i heard our

president the other day say if the failed policy like cuba has not worked after 50 years of has to change. i agree with that statement. i'm not going to go into the cuban debacle right now. our whole process in the middle east has to change because where devices come from? dr. brennan you go ahead. >> originally came from al qaeda in iraq to isi and later into isis. >> we go back to what the president is saying here that we are going to degrade and defeat isis. i remember the statements in the iraq war, mission accomplished but we weren't done. i remember this president saying al qaeda is on the run and the gb team they are gone. the question i have for all three of you is what is a definitive definition of defeat of isil because isil is an

ideology. we are not fighting a nation-state. it's like fighting a tumor that metastasizes and we are going after the metastasis. we are not going after the root cause so i would like to hear definition of defeat a definitive one of than i would like to hear what you're root cause is of why there is an isis and why there was an al qaeda and i have one other question. an you would go first. >> it's a good point its and it's the major flaw of this draft. the draft doesn't tell coming you give us back to the present and it doesn't authorize the president to do anything more than use the armed forces against isil. it doesn't doesn't say they feed although that is one of the things he says is his goal so there is no goal. one of the reasons we are debating about how long this should be or what troops and what enduring means as there is

no goal. my goal is to defeat isis to destroy its terrain and iraq and syria. that is what should be amiss. that is the military mission and we can do it if possible with our allies. potentially we will have to use their own forces but if that's the vital mission that is what the president should be asked to do by you. >> i think you're absolutely right in if we don't define what isil is that the radical islamic jihad is group you can defeat it. it's like let's build a house and i will give you a bunch of 2 x 4's and material and what is the plan? i don't know just build a house and that's what i see here. i know that's a simple analogy or a bad analogy but i see us wanting to commit but not really wanting to commit. it's like you are not playing to win, you are playing not to lose. if we are not going to go in there with a very specific strategy this is a bad idea.

dr. brennan what is your opinion? >> i agree with that and i think what we need to do to defeat iraq and syria were isis is to understand that some level at the border between iraq and syria we have to look at the entire organization. i agree iraq first but we need to think about how we attack the entire rotation make sure we no longer controlled territory. that's a military objective but it means we have to move into syria also. >> which is attacking a sovereign state. we are attacking mad and that opens up another can of worms. dr. rand. >> i would disagree with my colleagues. >> did you say disagree? >> again there is preliminary evidence that is working. this is what the president is recommending as a way to defeat that so this combination of limited airstrikes.

with the coalition partners on the ground has killed 7000 isis fighters. >> , and they have grown out of that though? every time you kill one you get 10 or 20 more that join the cause so are we winning? >> and it does help the iraqi forces the kurds and the iraqi serb forces retake key strategic area so in my mind they strategy should be assessed based on how well it's working and so far there is significant evidence this combination of limited force and partners is working. >> i appreciate your time to time out of time. thank you mr. chairman. >> i thank the member from florida. while we appreciate the time of oliver witnesses today and this is the start of a very important conversation so i think as we deal with this growing threat from isis and as we deal with the presidents request we thank you again. we are going to submit additional questions to our

panel. appreciate your response and we stand adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

and a member of the house foreign affairs committee dana werbach or was her guest on "washington journal." he discussed the presidents request for a new congressional authorization of force against isis and ukraine's conflict with russia. this is 40 minutes. >> host: we are joined with her guest california republican congressman dana rohrabacher chairman of the house subcommittee on emerging threats and isis a threat that's been emerging for some time. what is your reaction to the language the president sent over an effort to seek more powers for congress? >> guest: i haven't had a chance to read it yet so i had to give you a specific decision

on the language. it's going to have to have some very tough language or definable terms that would give me comfort that the president is not going to use this as an excuse to put large numbers of combat troops regimens were divisions and troops into that area again. >> host: we have been fighting isis for six months now. what changes with this debate that is happening in congress? does anything change with what's happening over there? >> guest: yeah i think first of all there are many people willing to get totally out of that region which is what you have heard some callers say but we do know that we have got to support those people in those elements in the region who are

opposed to offer a different alternative to the islamic people who live there in the middle east and i think that isil has really crystallize that, that we have to offer an alternative. that doesn't mean that we should come pick up the sword and fight their fight for them. we should be behind the all sec sec's and abdullah in jordan and the others in the united arab emirates and elsewhere who are willing to conduct the fight. we should get behind them and if we can draw others into that coalition. so we don't have to send american combat troops but we should be supporting them with backup their support etc.. >> host: so who are the best boots on the ground right now? one of our callers and our first segment was advocating for more support for the kurdish

peshmerga fighters. >> guest: exactly. >> host: do you think they are our best option right now? >> guest: the jordanians and king abdulah is providing great leadership as his big crown prince of abu dhabi at his general sec president alice ccna chip. we have got people there. we should be focused on what we can do to help those people debate this evil force. isil you have to remember you can see it now. it seems like it's something new that has emerged. this is nothing more than radical islam make fanaticism and the words of cores which our president doesn't seem to be able to either. islamic terrorists that is what they are. they have been around for over 10 or 15 years and this is the same group they may not be the

same organization that the same group of people who slaughtered 3000 americans on 9/11. we make mistakes when we are not giving wholehearted support to those people in the region to fight the fight themselves. >> host: if he wants to talk to congressman dana rohrabacher republicans (202)748-8001 democrats (202)748-8000 and as the viewers are calling and i want to ask about your recent trip to northern iraq and what your experience was. >> guest: i was in erbil which is in the kurdish region and the fact is i believe we should recognize the kurds as an independent country. we are now much of the problems the middle east and from the

fact that we have british colonialists, these imperialists of 150 years ago who were responsible for drawing a lot of these lines. a lot of these countries were not countries. they were just a creation of some british imperialists. the kurds deserve their own country. they are a national entity. we have been trying to bend over backwards and placate groups of people who are not necessarily our friends. we are trying to accommodate people who don't know if they are our friends are not thinking we are going to win their friendship. it hasn't worked especially in a crisis where there is a lot of pressure. stick with your friends find out who they are, give them as much support as you can and forget about baghdad. let's deal with the kurds. >> that includes military aid to the kurds? >> guest: absolutely. >> host: what about across the

border in syria? that is a place where you have expressed concern in the past. >> guest: our president seems to get it mixed up as to who our friends are. from day one he hasn't been able to use the word islamic terrorists -- indicate there's a mindset there that might give him the wrong directions as who to support in here not to support. for example when there were demonstrations earlier on in his presidency they called it the arab spring. he was very supportive and then guess what, in iran when he should've been supportive of the democratic elements he supported those people struggling against the mullah regime and the radicals there. i think the president has got some judgment problems based on

his own perceptions of who is the good guy in the back guide and we should be doing what we can and we should determine that, all of us who are our friends and get behind them. our president couldn't mobilize us to get solidly behind president alice sese and provide him spare parts for helicopters at a time when we know egypt is just teetering on going down the radical letting these radicals take over. we lose egypt the whole middle east is gone. our president has only been getting half-hearted support to the non-fanatics and egypt. >> host: chatting with some of our viewers robert is up next and harrison arkansas. good morning robert. >> caller: yes congressman we gave wholehearted support in her back and i will remind you of the transportation ministry there put in by an elected

official. he is has been known for running death squads. he is pro-iranian indices shiite and that is what you seem to be leaving out of this. i would like to know give me the names of those syrian moderates that you are so -- on arming. >> guest: i never use the word martyr. you use the word moderate. what we are talking about are people who are friendly to the interests of the united states and are not engaged in fanatic islamic terrorism. there are a lot of forces there that may not be considered democratic or moderate that we could get behind to defeat this enemy which threatens our security as well as the security of every person in that area

that is not a fanatic muslim who won't join their team. for example and this is more controversial, i don't see any reason why we shouldn't be trying to enlist assad. he is an army, he has an air force. they will never come if we try to help aside and try to enlist him to see if we can be working with him his armies never going to join forces with the radicals to attack western interests there so at the very least these other people we are trying to help, what's happening? we induct giving our weapons to the enemy, to the bad guys so there are a lot of things we could be doing and by the way let me just note i am not saying, when i come down on the president where i think are his shortcomings in dealing with radical islam and make the right kinds of decisions that will position us towards overcoming

this challenge, i do not say that the republicans should be crowing because i agree with those callers who say we have to remember it was george w. bush and his invasion of iraq that got us into this situation so deeply in the first place. >> host: on the side for a second ecm is a as a legitimate leader as a rational actor in this process? >> guest: i see that he has power. he has an army he is military. during world war ii we helped joseph stalin for pete's sakes. right now radical islam threatens the same group as they say. this is really the same group that brought down the towers of new york and murdered 3000 americans. these are radical fanatic islamists and we need to make sure that we can work with those people who will help us defeat that which is our primary enemy.

>> host: alice up next in tampa florida, wind for republicans. you are up next with dana rohrabacher. >> caller: thank you congressman. my biggest concern is if we are sending troops in there that we haven't even taken care of the troops when it the first time. we have been waiting for va claim in the president is in charge of the va and i talked to jeff miller and the veterans affairs committee and with bipartisan support has done a lot to push these issues. i have concerns that they are not taking care of us now and they're not building hospitals and they haven't built hospitals in 25 years. we are not getting our benefits and i would like to hear your comments on that. >> guest: i think you are rightfully worried. i will just have to say in this

administration we know there was a cover-up of the condition of the actual incompetence that was going on and a lack of efficiency that was going on in our va hospitals. this administration oversaw a covering up of that inadequacy of their doing their job at the va. i think veterans we do need to take care for veterans and we need to make sure will look we have to make sure we understand that the republicans understand it was george w. bush and his father herbert walker bush, the bushes who sent all of these americans over there. i think that was one of the great mistakes our country has ever made and now we have to make sure those brave americans who stepped up to the orders from those republican for president are taking care of.

so anyway i think you are worried about that and have every reason to worry especially spending our money sending more troops there. i search i don't believe in major deployments in the gulf anymore. >> host: let's head out to fort collins colorado charles on the line for independents. good morning. >> caller: hi representative rohrabacher. i agree we need to support the forces over there, the peshmerga and people like that that are our friends to create a stable middle east. one thing in this issue we have to keep in mind is that radical islam is an ideal and why are they basing how should i say this they are coming after us. one of the biggest rallying cries for al qaeda was we had a base in saudi arabia the holy

lands of the muslims. that was how bin laden recruited thousands of these radical islamists. we also have to address in this guantánamo bay is another big rallying cry. the biggest rallying cry whatsoever is our supporting israel and not going toward a two-state solution. >> guest: let me just say that i don't care about trying to answer their battle cry and their organizational cry. these are a bunch of sadomasochistic murderers using their religion as an excuse or perhaps as a motive and a recruiting tool for them to conduct themselves as animals.

let me just say we should not be doing, having policy based on what is going to prevent people from attacking us in the islamic world. we should do it make sense for us to make sure those people in the islamic world who are muslims and are willing to work and i believe 90% of the muslim people certainly don't go along with these radicals but the radical islamic terrorists are motivated by their religion and they are trying to radicalize all of their fellow muslims and the worst thing we could do is make this a muslim versus christian battle because right now we have many muslims -- the northern alliance that defeated the taliban for example in afghanistan. they are all muslims. we should've been backing them all along and by the way in

afghanistan our government was basically backing the taliban during the 90s and when we should've been supporting those people who ultimately became the northern alliance. and then we ended up having to send troops into afghanistan to do their fighting. we didn't have to do that either. i was all for making sure we provide those people like the northern alliance the air support they need or the weapons they need to be able to defeat these radical islamic fanatics. but for us then which is what george w. did ended up putting an american combat units to do the fighting for these people i think that is when things go haywire. they put their people in jeopardy and we have more veterans we have to take care of because they're putting their

lives on the line rather than having those local people do the job they're supposed to do. >> host: james is up next orlando florida on the line for democrats. >> caller: good morning. listen i only have a couple of comments to make and the first thing this representative said i did not read the speech. i don't know what's in the papers. now he had back from yesterday until this morning but he hasn't read it. he was probably trying to get his plane tickets to go home because he only has five more days. >> guest: how do you know what i was doing yesterday? those types of personal insults are necessary. the fact is i plan to study this what the president has suggested then yes i was busy doing work

in washington yesterday. you don't have to insult people who work here thinking that we don't care as much as you do. i find my colleagues they care a lot about their job. they are good people and i have got my disagreements with them believe me. i am an outspoken guy and you just heard me criticize the republican party and i'm a republican. but i don't doubt that people are trying to do what they think is right. i think in many areas we disagree. you don't have to try to insult me. >> host: this aumf expected to go through the foreign affairs committee in the house. would it come to your subcommittee first? >> guest: they would not come to my subcommittee that my committee. i'm on the foreign affairs committee. >> host: but your subcommittee that you chair. >> guest: no it would not.

it would go directly to the full committee. >> host: what is your expectation that this was introduced yesterday when a final vote might happen on this. is the month, two weeks? >> guest: oh no i would imagine a matter of weeks or even sooner. as i say i don't have a read on this particular -- that the president has made an offer and i don't have a read on it yet. >> host: but the debate, the back-and-forth are you expecting it to go on? >> guest: yeah and i want to take a look to make sure there are real limitations on the type of military forces that we can put into that region again. i do not want to see the major deployment of tens of thousands of american troops go back into that part of the world again. that is wrong. it doesn't work so i will look

at what the president is asking us to do. >> host: what about a specific time limit? we have been reporting and the language ended a three-year time limit by congress. is that something you would be okay with? >> guest: it sounds okay to me but i want to see to what extent what are the limitations is putting on actual the climate of large numbers of american troops before i give them three years to do anything that he wants? no i don't think i would do that. >> host: costa mesa california, ken is waiting. good morning ken. >> caller: yes, good morning and good morning representative rohrabacher. this is ken and we have met before and i hope we can change gears here a little bit. when we are looking at isis in general as being the problem that they are it seems to me like all i hear about have

identity problems. why can we do something about offering them a better deal maybe creating some sort of a level of red cross or something where they could be given an identity to support people and help people who become homeless and injured and arming them and if they will turn their weapon and and be part of the cure instead of part of the pain. >> guest: you think maybe we should offer the ssn hitler's armies for ways for people to feel better about themselves and not have to wear their uniforms with? anyone who has gotten involved with that organization knows they are murdering people. they're putting guns to back of heads burning people alive in order to terrorize you and me.

this isn't some psychological esteem problem that we are going to solve with psychology. we are going to have to defeat these people and we need to work with those people who won't kill them so they don't kill us. >> host: are aligned for democrats debbie. >> caller: good morning, how are you doing? inoa here this gentleman sit here and say president obama won't called these muslims radical muslims. >> guest: no muslim terrorists. >> caller: what do you call when they blacks drove firebombs in churches and kill innocent children. why don't you call christians radicals? >> guest: actually the senator has used that phrase. i lived in north carolina when i was growing up in the 50s and i'm fully aware that we have

people who thought of themselves as christians who were carrying crosses and burning crosses who were brutalizing and terrorizing america's black population. i agree there are a lot of people who deserve the criticism that you have just me but it's not me. >> host: want to ask about a different region of the world this week this morning. we just found out that a cease-fire deal has been announced with president putin of russia announcing a cease-fire in ukraine expected to go into effect on sunday. this comes in a week in which the white house has been debating sending lethal aid to the craning government in that conflict. your thoughts on that peace deal and whether the u.s. should send lethal aid? >> guest: we should not send lethal aid. in the ukraine where they have had 8000 deaths so far maybe a

thousand 500 to been killed so far in this conflict we start sending in large amounts of military equipment yeah we will succeed in having 30 to 40,000 people there. this is not a black-and-white, this, this isn't the terrorists we are talking about who are clearly an evil force. this is a situation where a geopolitical struggle was going on and ukraine is caught between europe and russia and it all started by the way which people don't want to admit when basically there was the violent overthrow of an elected prime minister yanukovich in ukraine and it snowballed from there. so it's not as open and shut a

case right now. i'm very happy that the european leaders are reaching out and trying to find a compromise with putin and with those people in ukraine who are totally flabbergasted when their prime minister who they have elected was overthrown and it appears that some of our western european allies were working in cooperation with those who overthrew the government. >> host: since last the last time you were on this program there was a vote that happen in congress that i wanted to ask you about. house resolution 758 from december was a resolution strongly condemning the actions of the russian federation on president vladimir putin. you were one of 10 members of congress to vote no on that resolution. why? >> guest: i think the charges

against putin were greatly exaggerated. he certainly -- certainly has many flaws but this is not a black-and-white situation. as i say the whole thing in ukraine started when i believe our european allies were involved with elements in ukraine to overthrow a democratically-elected prime minister and we have got to realize that. this isn't putin committing an act of aggression. things got confusing and then there was a conflict and our goal should be to end the conflict and by compromise. >> host: the same question i asked you about bashar al-assad. is putin a rational actor? when we have these true steels can we trust him to be a rational actor on the world stage? >> guest: by the way the 8500

people who have lost their lives during this, the biggest number of people who have lost their lives for people who are in these towns and villages that it declared that they don't want to be under kea under the group in kiev that overthrew the democratically-elected government and there has been indiscriminate shelling of a lot of these cities resulting in large numbers of civilian casualties. and so again it's not one side is all good and one side is all bad here. i'm certainly not suggesting that putin should have sent his own troops in which he apparently has but listen i think we should be a piece -- peacekeeper there. we have to figure out who is our primary enemy now. it used to be the soviet union.

when you have a group of people in charge of that government who wanted to superimpose a marxist-leninist atheist dictatorship on other countries in the world and we are willing to use force and support various insurgencies around the world who accomplish that. we under ronald reagan's leadership eliminated that threat and we did it in a way where we didn't come toward with russia. right now our threat isn't the soviet union. the soviet union is gone. putin is not brezhnev. we should be trying to say how do we defeat these radical islamic terrorists and who would be a good ally for us in that endeavor? they are his enemy too analysts and we worked with stalin to defeat hitler. we have to find out who our primary enemy is focus on on it in less putin and others to help us defeat that enemy. >> host: we have 15 minutes or so left with congressman

rohrabacher republican of california the chair the emerging threats subcommittee on the house foreign relations committee. call her good morning. >> caller: good morning. i have so many thoughts in my head is difficult to get them all out but one of the things i'm concerned about is the dysfunction of our military. the issue isn't the actual boots on the ground people. it's the mismanagement or whatever it is possibly the political correctness of it all that handicaps or military and just getting the job done. so why don't we make a group of people and there are so many veterans highly-skilled people that want to take care of isis them loose and let them do the job and be done with the political correctness. >> guest: i certainly believe that if americans a good friend of mine is the founder of blackwater and when he tried to

make sure he was offering that type of alternative he has been targeted and vilified as if he is a bad guy when he is really one of the wonderful heroes. he's not an unsung hero. he is a hero where the people have turned against him and he has gotten nothing but abuse for trying to do some good things in the defense of our country. i'm afraid although i agree with you that we should try to let some of our military people operate on their own and work with these various governments i don't see any reason why people can't go there and volunteer to help the kurds for example. i have been in a few situations like that myself so i think that is an american approach. in our history we had letters of

marquee that we send our own citizens out to fight the good fight against enemies of our country. >> host: let's head to north carolina will honor republican line. good morning. >> caller: good morning. my question is how do we defeat isis? it's not a country or state that we are fighting. it's an idea. these people are radical. they are just out of the norm and if we go in there and -- 200,000 people would have we going to do with them? >> guest: let me say this and is a republican you have heard me criticizing george w. bush. we should not have gone into iraq and of undercover efforts in afghanistan. herbert walker bush i believe even the first gulf war you will find that could've been averted.

for some reason the bushes felt compelled to get rid of saddam hussein and it was getting rid of saddam hussein a very bad man man, getting rid of him but just unleashed this evil and a much greater territory that threaten so many more people than the evilness of saddam hussein within iraq. so i think that, let me compliment the president. that is i do think there is an adequate use of special forces now and we are utilizing the air support and we could be doing that much more effectively. the president at least has we have drone strikes and i think that's great to find out some leader that is organizing these terrorist efforts and murdering

hundreds if not thousands of people. let's target their leader and go in with the drone and get him. i think the president has that kind of strategy which i agree with but i don't agree with this president as he has not been able to wholeheartedly organize a coalition that would actually defeat radical islamic terrorism because he has got a problem with identifying who the good guys and the bad guys are. >> host: pennsylvania's next on the line for republicans. lawrence is waiting. good morning lawrence. >> guest: congressman rohrabacher i want to compliment you on your intelligence, your independence and your courage. i don't agree with everything you say particularly with the war but your stance on medical marijuana was truly spectacular. i really want to thank you for that. >> guest: while it was my amendment that he is referring to. it was my amendment which finally succeeded in passing on

the appropriations for justice appropriations bill that basically stated that if a state legalizes the medical use of marijuana the federal government will not step in and supersede state law. criminal law should be local and state and not the federal government and they should be left up to the states. one thing let me just note, the gentleman talking earlier about the care for our veterans. medical marijuana i believe has some properties and by making it illegal we are not even able to research to find out what these properties are that could really be helping people. and i believe medical marijuana has some things that could be very useful in helping our

veterans. i know in one case and i know very well his son signed up right after 9/11 and when they came back one of them had been in an explosion under his vehicle and he was having seizures everyday. this fellow told me he said look he couldn't do anything in everyday seizure after seizure you take into the bam they weren't doing anything for him. finally a va doctor pull them off to the side and said meet me in my office to off-campus and he said you need medical marijuana for your son. this guy gave them a prescription. they use medical marijuana and now this brave veteran who was going to seizure after seizure whose life was ruined now he doesn't have seizures anymore. this guy told me my son doesn't have the seizures since he started doing that. why are we ever and leicester we try to make it legal for veterans administration people

if they doctor thinks it's going to work to utilize that. at least now -- >> host: what happened with that measure? >> guest: they voted it down. my friends and the guys i love here voted that down to not let the va use medical marijuana to try to help these guys and we sent overseas. but we did get passed. i got 50 republicans who helped me pass a law that says if the state says it's okay the state approves it for medical marijuana that the federal government wanted her being. maybe we are going to get some support from republicans on the states rights. >> host: sounds like an issue you are going to reintroduce? >> guest: oh yes-o-meter going to reintroduce leading the veterans administration use it if that's what the doctors law. if we believe in states rights we believe in a doctor patient relationship we really believe in individual responsibility

rather than having the government control or personal lives which republicans are always talking about winning to make sure medical marijuana is not taken away from people who might be able to use it to help overcome their suffering. >> host: preston idaho is the next on our line for republicans. good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> host: you are on with congressman rohrabacher. >> caller: pardon me? >> host: you are on the air go ahead. >> caller: okay yeah. i have a question about the tragedy this whole world is in right now and of course the middle east. but the kurds are more willing they would run them all the way to iran.

during the iraqi war we should have called that country kurdistan. >> guest: i agree with that in inherent in our administration cannot get behind or totally behind the guys who are our friends who help us defeat this evil force. with the kurds they want to placate the people in baghdad who are not necessarily our friends. in fact i don't think they are our friends. they are allied with the mullah regime in iran but to placate them we are having to say our military has to go through baghdad. that's ridiculous. we have had a president who has been unwilling basically to help those people in iran itself. we should be helping groups of people who absolutely will be

our friend and whether king abdulah and general asseesi. i need to mention this about the kurds. this administration supported a peace conference about iraq in london about a month ago. >> host: this was one of the kurdish representatives one? >> guest: the kurds weren't even abided. here we are we have insulted and betrayed this president insulted and betrayed the ones who are doing the most fighting and the most reliable in the middle east in this president seems to have done that a lot to our friends. >> host: jack from plattsburgh pennsylvania fined for democrats you are on with congressman rohrabacher. >> caller: hello sir you keep referring to islamic terrorists. if you lived in 1920 and the ku klux klan was lynching and

burning people would you refer to them as christian? >> guest: yeah i would. now only i would but i have then you missed the earlier call. i lived in north carolina in the 1950s and it was very clear that you have a terrorist group in the united states who are claiming to be dedicated christians who are out terrorizing the black people in this country. they excuse themselves with bibles and crosses all the time. they were christian terrorist, fanatic christian terrorist they were. >> host: dana rohrabacher is a republican from california the chairman of the emerging threats subcommittee on the foreign affairs committee. always appreciate your time.

>> the film is based in many ways on the work of deborah willis reflections in black her groundbreaking book about black photographers but was very much aware that there was kind of other narrative that was going on as well in which black people were constructed post-slavery and even before the end of slavery as something other than human.

and it was part of the marketing for the memorabilia and stereotypes that now would be considered déclassé but in many ways they are haunting us in terms of the way in which we might see ourselves come in terms of the way we might see others. >> the political landscape is change with the 114 congress. not only are there 43 new republicans and 50 new democrats in the house and 12 new republicans and one new democrat in the senate there is also 108 women in congress including the first african-american republican in the house of the first woman veteran in the senate. keep track of the members of congress using congressional chronicle on c-span.org. the congressional chronicle page has lots of useful information including voting results and statistics about each session of congress.

newcomers, best access on c-span c-span2, c-span radio and c-span.board. c-span.org. .. the head of the national counterterrorism center testified before the senate intelligence committee about local threats and ongoing counterterrorism efforts. the intelligence committee is chaired by north carolina senator richard burr. this is an our and a half. >>

[inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon we're going to get started. nick, we have invited you here today in an open session with some of the news outlets said that this would never have been the one 2.0 it is an open session. to provide the senate and the american people with an update on the current threat of terrorism. the committee remains concerned about the evolving nature of the threat and

with the nature of the threat. this is the first of what i hope is a number of open hearings but that gives us an opportunity to better inform the public of its current efforts and challenges. here's what we do. or how we do it but more importantly how the american people should understand why it is important to them. given the nature of the of material i want to remind everyone to use extreme caution to protect sources and methods this is though wonderful venue i reserve the right to immediately suspend any questions or comments that may be sensitive in nature that

could have classified information. including said aumf with iraq and syria as we take of the issues that want to make sure the public understand the serious and incredible threats that many of these groups present to the security of united states and our allies. in addition to the threat itself lay hope you discuss the leaks and encryption and other challenges to report terrorist attacks. i'm afraid your job is getting harder at a time when we can least afford it. i have spent more than 10 years of the house senate intelligence committee and

has watched closely since the 11. but al qaeda in 2001 was estimated with 1,000 members the of group was geographically contained in there were infrequent by today's standards today we face groups like the islamic state of iraq which is described as a terrorist army with memberships in the tens of thousands to face a safe haven and are confronted by a host of different plots almost daily. we have evacuated and the season in libya a endearment and terrorist groups are more creative a threatening citizens and allied's with

nonmetallic i edie's in a massive truck bombs. the master the use of the internet so she already have access to western countries one of the biggest lessons we have learned from september 11th is we cannot give terrorist a sanctuary to plan the tax is to have the largest territory ever held by terrorist groups. those with the time in space they need it is also provided them with the access that could be used to support external operations. we know about the threat that we face prior to 9/11.

i hope it'll make the same mistake again. once again i faq in die welcome you invite -- and i turned over to the vice-chairman. >> director rasmussen let me say i have been reading a number of your files on the threats and i think your agency is doing a very good job. just the way it ought to be. today provides an opportunity as a chairman has said to discuss in unclassified terms a terrorist threat to the united states in the rest of the world. it is important to it is

providing the necessary context of united states government is facing. of these threats affect if we authorize the use of force against isil to counterterrorism efforts and then to read in -- for those necessary to keep the country safe. i believe the terrorist threat is as diverse as any time in history. more so than any other terrorist organization with the radicalize followers around the world to inspire a tax and the homeland.

>> click add to a qap but they're more invisible. they're taking over the city and a pregnant the children have been beheaded the christian and sacrificed the army that has been shot down in cold blood it is all been on television so americans have come to the threat that isil is. the guidance to potential terrorist is clear. to come to syria of iraq to fight. up against 100 americans who travel to syria or who have attempted to.

those who will return home. but at 3,400 are from western europe including the waiver countries from the united states. '' we don't know is how many people are inside the united states and of social media who are inspired to carry out their own attacks. while in the end covered areas of pakistan as it has been in many years of chitin is the arabian peninsula, peninsula, 8qhp into ways of threat.

remember a qhp was behind the attacks of "charlie hebdo" with the undetectable bond into our country on four occasions beginning christmas day 2009 with the underwear bomber. they do have a bomb that kid goes to the magnetometer and they have published a step-by-step directions how to build the bomb in the latest inspire magazine. our efforts to confront aqap r significantly diminished with the removal of the president of yemen. but the yemeni government is a strong counterterrorism partner that we no longer have. closing our embassy was the right choice.

and then to rome and kill. maybe even in civil war. for the territory of a safe haven. but on june 1st and then recall flies the will expire with solo roles. if these authorities expire the intelligence community will lose key tools to identify terrorist groups even to protect the homeland includes the many data program as well as fbi

investigations and other important authorities saw and look forward to your test of'' -- testimony and i thank you for the excellent work you are doing. >> it is my intent once the testimony has been received hopefully that has been for every bed a. >> i submitted them much longer statement looking at said that -- a threat picture as we see a. and then to counter the threat. as noted the threat

environment is the al blige to re of terrorist actors. across africa or asia increasing in to united states. in the really did dayspring engen has brought about terrorism changes in the landscape. and then also altering the threat to also experiencing a new level of specialization within the landscape. there is entering into an era where the leadership of terrorist groups matters less than it did previously. where the affiliation and identity is more fluid. it is more focused on of wider range.

but with the personal connections now even in this dynamic i still believe it is possible to differentiate the threat we are facing with the threat where major adversaries are located. as to the the picture we are careful not to painted with the single broad brush. in the united states and in the west the threat of catastrophic attack to be significantly reduced to some of the most dangerous groups that we face. sustaining that pressure is the key element in those key places around the world.

with the more complex threats of the homeland. and then to have the greater and more frequent threat they have these numbers of individuals. >> but since may of last year but were conducted by the individual extremists. bed the majority of these attacks with a random act of violence in the media after 9/11 going forward we believe individuals and smaller networks will try to build momentum from the media coverage set to generate.

>> with the smaller scale attack still can cause amazingly tragic hero and suffering and clearly generate fear among the local population. in did know where every seeking to minimize the impact. with those lower-level attacks should not add any way suggest an even to target western aviation mitigating of us read to aviation fed also remains true for threats that her cohesive like al qaeda was with the affiliate's and allies.

with the efforts to place pressure has met with some success. clear patient with their desires. el contrast to that threat and our allies have partners , in africa and asia are facing a different threat. some of the most interest groups with the era of the uprising which egypt, syria and yemen. others are very active with insurgencies. with iraq or syria. they're all trying to displace weak governments with territorial gains. in other countries with a population in displacement affecting millions of people on a huge scale with places

like iraq or nigeria or afghanistan. some terrorist groups contribute to the proliferation of sunii indicia of violence. terrorists are carrying about more attacks were frequently in donna much greater scale. there have been hundreds of attacks that have caused thousands of deaths and just last month the role focused its attention on paris at the same time the attack caused local population that are taking place on a significantly larger scale. despite the fact i have tried to differentiate betrayed the threat environment of the middle east in and southeast asia

what draws those together is the flow of fighters to syria from western countries. within 3,402 events a broad effort working very closely with the rest of the known is a suspected terrorist house then if the data environment. the effort has created the viable form with the known and suspected terrorist with stakeholders of the law-enforcement community counterterrorism moon the watchless community. is also directly help to resolve inconclusive

information and most importantly and upgrade status for new orders suspected terrorist. also to foreign fighters and have connections to those in the homeland so they can be watched listed. my office is a use a unique access to allied range of the enforcement information. it includes our own data holding as well as other organizations. to prevent individuals from traveling in the first place their diminishing the appeal with the department of justice and department of komen security with the fbi we have tools to counter violent extremism across the country. we have tried to tailor these tools particularly in the updated context and we

have received a significant amount and there is the signal from where this across the country. but the nature of today's threat as we discussed in the beginning it is challenging our ability to identify and disrupt terrorist plots at a time where we're losing capability. today then a terrorist related communications is intermingled with what is not related to our work for not separate the easily identified streams. intelligence is important for reface challenges to get information and it ended is difficult to operate in places like syria or libya and iran terrorist groups are watchful they to be infiltrated by human sources. due to leaks terrorists sees

how we conduct surveillance and the scope and scale of the efforts they alter the ways that they communicate which is a decrease of collections. so with the committee staff specific examples that have greater security measures. and those of us stopped communicating in ways they have before. some companies that are formally recognizing the important public service now oppose the efforts. these challenges all of this place is the huge premium on integration and sherry.

fisker is the best chia's to identify actors that are having the biggest tax. with a key part years around the world with information and cherry to a level very rarely see is development. seventh of for a fighter problem of increasing concern. i will stop there for now and then look forward to more questions. >> we would go to five minute questions. mr. director i will go right to the issue with the fisa

provisions is to expire the first of june. what is the impact of the ability to discover? >> as reinstated the important capabilities the ability and to what the adversaries are doing. into the homeland in to build up the picture of the network to operate so fundamentally as important part of the work. >> the administration

announced the creation of a cyberthreat center that day have to be modeled after the national counter proliferation and center the struggle under management. and tell some of the lingering manage with challenges not the least of which is the inability to fully higher. with the open vacancies by the end of the year. >> had believe i can. and i am happy to report over the last fivers six months have taken significant strides forward. from outside of the intelligence community to

bring new blood into the center but they are detailed but as you know, it is part of the lifeblood from the fbi to see a our defense department where every member of the community. we had this discussion and one year ago i would give you more cautious response did they have the fbi or cia to the levels they need to be. >> but is not declining. the number of threats streams you are facing is

the principal advisor to counterterrorism are you concerned the impact on our security? >> in my statement i talk to tell the diverse array of terrorist actors around the globe and clearly that puts the increasing pressure to react in us a different places. >> as a talk about the closed session. where the terrorism threat is growing. we have to have been approached that is aimed at u.s. interest to see if there are ways that over time can develop strong third partnerships in

particular regions of rigo o the burden ourselves. unfortunately well you're doing that long-term work with our partners we have to deal with every day a constant flow of new terrorism related threats. so trying to keep up with those threats at the same time you build a your network of partners around the world. long-term trying to manage day-to-day is a challenge i will admit. >> i think last year with the worldwide threat hearing the group was is put up their agent could really be effective to luncheon attack and as i read your written remarks particularly on page

eight to talk about too highly capable offshoots and while he loves jihad which is one that really have not heard of before that is the question and an second have to drink the threats to their homeland? which should we be the most wary of? >> i will try to bite that off. free did point in the statement this year that's the offshoot of a group we have long known about. but one of the offshoots from the internal fights is

a group of the battalion with individuals with links to al qaeda with the internal feuding will look at that as a pretty significant threat to our interest in intercross of north africa potentially to the homeland it is more potential than actual but they certainly have taken note id western europe in overtime i am concerned about the groups like this in north africa to project into europe. of course, i consider a tax that could happen in europe that would have significant u.s. interest as we have a presence in most european capitals for greater take for granted that americans would not be a part of any attack that took place.

as we have talked before the group is of loose number of affiliated in the tribal areas of pakistan worried about their ability to potentially not only engaged in fighting with syria but also looking for opportunities against u.s. interest in western interests or even the whole land. there's not much more i can say about that in this session but it is among the highest priorities to understand this network with more specificity. >> is a queue ap still number one? i am talking about the homeland. >> i try to avoid that as

soon as you say that others will say you're never three was not be getting the right attention. even though what we see more frequently are low-level attacks conducted by a individuals we are still fixated on the 8qap efforts with an aviation attack that the attempt to propagate the recipe to put explosives on the airplane is the continued effort to mount the external operations and that is all very much at the top of the counterterrorism priory list from a collection perspective in destruction perspective so that is where isil rises to the forefront to have the luxury to downgrade efforts

against another threat stream of actors really had at the top of our list. >> mr. chairman you have done a good job to the al counter terror challenges. we have seen the threats move from al qaeda in afghanistan to insurgents in iraq in the arabian peninsula. they're very real threats. the question becomes how to refocus waterways to deal with these threats rather than use approaches that waste time or resources? behalf to focus on what works. -- collection and phone records widely debated has been described from the

president is information that could readily have been obtained in a timely manner as public orders. like a veteran of the cia reported this document. first come if congress passes legislation ending paul collection with intelligence agencies still be able to collect the information that you and they need to protect our country against terrorist operations? >> i look in terms to make sure we're in a position to preserve the capability that the bulk collection gave us that is why i support to transition that to preserve

it without requiring the federal government to hold the records it had previously. >> you are proposing we end the cold collection program but that they can still keep the record keeping practices ? >> i am comfortable with that to preserve our capability. >> very good. landers standing is there are some questions about whether the office of national intelligence has offered you with the full classified version of the committee's report on the use of torture. have they? >> select member will -- number of my officers have. >> have you seen it? >> portions of it.

>> have to ask for a copy of the report? >> i have not personally asked. i asked that i be allowed access to perform the role at the tail meant when wrasse to participate in the threat assessments. >> there are additional details in the classified version that our relevant so i hope you ask for a copy of review which. is helpful to have on record that if congress passes legislation ending a whole collection the u.s. and other intelligence agencies can go forward to do your important work to do with the threat setter very real and i'm interested to work with you and i hope you'll ask for a copy of the report >> mr. ross was in good to

see you again. thank you for your service. the brief comment to senator widen to have a spirited debate i do think there are challenges that have been discussed before of privacy and security related in that is the subject of other conversations. i want to raise one other area of testimony i think last year in april when repressed punished by the actions of boko haram in nigeria with 300 girls didn't 200 tercel missing

still sending troops and advisers to their region to have people displaced in day coalition arrives for a force. could you give the and assessment of whether these countries have a capability the jury has postponed their elections can they take on this threat with their atrocities letter pushed off the from page because of isil in the others in but that poses immediately? >> i think you're onto

something with the question with the regional partners. no question that nigeria faces significant challenges on its own against boko haram even the most stable environment they face those challenges as the committee knows right here -- right now in the middle of the transition to testee been further to mount a coherent response. one solution is to get a regional partners were involved. and they are increasingly stepping up to that ()ç challenge with limited resources but with a shared sense of threat. we are in a position to enable the of partners to have is an approach to do what we can't fear of rising

and assisting to provide intelligence where appropriate in that could increase their effectiveness certainly the time has been turned but remains to be seen if the parties can turn the tide i cannot want to do get out ahead of that to predict but we do not have the largest resources so we do what we can but we may have to reevaluate overtime with regional partners. >> day see any evidence of boko haram reaching out to other groups? >> exactly increased intercommunicate sinn between them and other groups is even with isil all

of that adds to the picture of the interconnected terrorist network to share personal and expertise in a way that serves as a multiplier in that is a disturbing trend. >> this is an area we need to keep our eyes on as well. there are huge challenges. >> in response to the questions that the senator raised, you indicated you and the director have assessed to transfer to the communication company would not impede in any way with the necessary tracking and usage of that to reach the information that you want. but since then has not been done and we have not laid

out a procedure of how we will do that of how it will be collected with the much shorter period of time, how could be be so certain it would die it degrades your ability to access that information? >> i cannot see anything with complete certainty but with the provisions as we understood them we believe the legislation would maintain that central capability. >> that's legislation calls for the shoreham period time there are instances is we have to go deeper to determine the connections in the network that we need to assess. >> i agree. >> then how can you say that

ending bill collection will leave you short-handed? >> i cannot predict exactly what requirements we have. >> in how are you read a conclusion? >> we are not sure exactly how this will work so we cannot guarantee it will give the same access. >> again i will get this in terms of capability that is a that was provided that the essential capability. >> i am burden here because as director if follow it in the footsteps of two previous directors who were lawyers in the live to the architecture in ways that i have not. so i am less in a direct opposition to speak show they work in the same way my

predecessors were. >> that is why i raised the question to the answer that he took that as a definitive yes in the director thinks it is fine and so why would we ever question it? there are many opinions with the different agencies of this is the right thing to do. >> a understand. that is why rely on my experts who have assured me that this preservation gives us what we need with the give-and-take on provisions i would be happy to talk about it further in closed session. >> five understand. and we should do that because there are major questions that need to be resolved. three regency or somewhere

in the community what is the appeal to the thousands of westerners the fall prey to the appeal of which they are all aware of? . . the same ideology perhaps from certain countries in the middle east but coming from western europe and coming from america is civilized and cultured society and civilized might not be the right word but obviously you know what i mean are you looking at bad and is there a way for us to counter the social media saying th