sense. it's a shame congress hasn't done it. we can still do it, and i hope we will, but the collins approach sadly is going to deny that and it's going to say frankly, that the priorities currently set for deportation of dangerous people will be swept away but for the specified crimes which she includes in her bill. i might tell you the president's executive order already covers every one of those offenses, every one of those felonies so she's not adding anything to the debate. i know she offered this in good faith and i believe she can be an important part in finding a bipartisan solution to the immigration question. but i urge my colleagues reject the collins bill that comes before us. it was crafted in anger over the president's executive order. it does not protect daca and the deerms and that -- dreamers.

i hope my colleagues will join me in voting against proceeding to that measure and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: majority whip. mr. cornyn: i'd ask unanimous consent that all votes after the first vote be ten minutes in length. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion we the we, the undersigned senators in in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on h.r. 240 making appropriations for the department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2015, signed by 16 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is is it the sense of the senate that debate on h.r. 240 an act making appropriations for the department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending

september 30, 2015 and for other purposes shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber who wish to change their vote, who haven't voted? if not on this vote, the yeas are 68, the nays are 31. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative the motion is agreed to. cloture having been invoked the motion to commit falls as inconsistent with cloture. under the previous order all postcloture time is yielded back, with the exception of ten minutes for the senator from utah mr. lee or his designee. the senate will be in order. mr. lee: madam president. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. lee: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: madam president in november 2014, the president of

the united states issued a series of executive orders effectively granting amnesty to millions of people who are currently in the united states unlawfully. outside of what our laws, laws passed by congress and signed into law by the president of the united states allows for. in other words under article 1 section 8 we as a congress are given power to establish a uniform system of laws governing immigration and naturalization. if our laws allow someone to come in, they may come in. if they don't then those people need to make sure that they go about getting into the country legally and lawfully. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. lee: if and when the president of the united states or anyone else, for that matter, thinks these laws are inadequate, there is a way to change them. the way to change them is to go back to the congress of the united states, go back to the law-making body, go back to that entity recognized in article 1 section 1 of the constitution. the very first substantive line that says all legislative powers

herein granted shall be vested in a congress which shall consist of a senate and a house of representatives. unfortunately, the president of the united states chose not to change the law that way. unfortunately, the president of the united states contradicting his own prior statements chose to take executive action to legalize millions of people currently in the united states legally. -- ill legally. this ultimately is an issue that ought to be of concern to every one of us. it's a issue that's neither republican nor democratic, liberal nor conservative. it is simply an american issue. it is an issue that flows from the rule of law flows from the notion that ours is a system that runs under the rule of law and not under the rule of individuals. now, there is a means by which we as a congress can resist the encroachments of an overreaching chief executive. it is the same means identified by james madison in the federalist papers, and that means involves the use of the power of the purse.

congress, of course, funds the operations of the federal government. the president of the united states cannot do that all on his own. should we choose to do so as congress has chosen to do son so many other occasions when we see something within the government whether implemented legally at the outset or not when we see something we don't like we can choose not to fund that thing. we have over the last few weeks tried to do precisely that in response to this executive action. a month ago the house of representatives passed a bill to keep the department of homeland security funded with the understanding that at midnight tonight that funding stream would expire. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. lee: tent the house of representatives passed that legislation, the house of representatives, the body most accountable to the people made a decision we're going to keep everything else in the department of homeland security funded. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order.

mr. lee: and the house of representatives said we will, however, direct that the department of homeland security not spend any money implementing certain executive orders issued by the president in november, 2014 and previously dealing with executive amnesty. we have revenue ben trying to get on that bill here in the senate for nearly four weeks. unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have refused to allow us to get on to that bill. they have blocked our attempts. they have named in obstruction not allowed us to get on it. why? because they didn't like that appropriation rider that spending restriction. apparently they didn't think we should be exercising that power described by james madison and foreseen by our foul play founding as the last great protection against an overreaching executive. so they refused to allow us to get on to the bill. now, as we're on the verge of getting on the bill, as we're just getting onto the bill, all

of a sudden they say okay, we're okay with doing this as long as we're the only ones who get to offer amendments. as long as we get our amendment, the amendment that strips out all of the spending limitation language in the thousands ph.d. bill, we're -- the house-passed bill we're okay as long as we the get get our amendment but no republican gets his or her amendments. that isn't fair. i want to make clear that those of us who were supporting this have not objected to the running of the time. those of us who are supporting this not have objected to anyone else getting amendments. those of us who are supporting this simply want a vote. we want a vote on something that's even narrower than what was sent over from the house of representatives. in a moment i'll be calling up my amendment number 265 and asking this body to vote on it. what it says we won't allow the department of homeland security to spend any money on implementing the november, 2014

executive amnesty, executive orders. that's what we're trying to do. in the event that this is objected to, then i will be moving to table the procedural mechanism by which other amendments are being blocked. so with that, madam president i implore all of my colleagues to remember themselves as operating within a constitutional framework in which far more than your status as a democrat or as a republican as a liberal or as a conservative, you're here to defend your own power your own authority given by your own people. and with that i encourage all of my colleagues to support this amendment. i ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment number 265. the presiding officer: is there objection? objection is heard. mr. lee: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from -- mr. lee: i move to table the mcconnell amendment 258 for purposes of offering my amendment 265 and i can ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there

a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:vote:

the presiding officer: anyone wishing to change their vote? if not on this vote, the yeas are 34, the nays are 65. the motion is not agreed to. under the previous order amendment numbers 258 257 and 256 are withdrawn. under the previous order there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on amendment number 255 offered by the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell.

who yields time? [inaudible] the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, all time is yielded back and the question occurs on the amendment. is there sufficient numbers? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

president. the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber

wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not,s the ayes are 66, the nays are 33. the amendment is agreed to. under the previous order the clerk are will read the title of the bill for a third time. the clerk: calendar number 5 h.r. 0240 an act making appropriations for the department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2015 and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on passage of h.r. 240 as amended. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: madam president the senate is about to vote on a full-year funding bill --. a senator: the senate's not in order. the presiding officer: the senate shall be in order. mrs. shaheen: the senate is about to vote on a full-year funding bill for the department

of homeland security. all of us in this chamber understand that we need to support the department because they're critical to defending the homeland. if we want top fight isil, we can fight them here at home by passing the bill to fully fund d.h.s. we can keep homeland security on the job, we can keep breaking the ice to keep the economy moving on our lakes and oceans, secure our borders, prevent attacks from tryst terrorists. our enemies are watching. now it's time to defend america, i urge all my colleagues to vote yes on this full funding bill. the presiding officer: the yeas and nays are ordered. the gentleman yields back his time. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators who wish to change their vote or vote? the vote on this, 8 nays, 312

nays -- 68 yeas, 31 nays, the bill as amended is passed. under the previous order there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on the motion to proceed to s. 534. the senate will be in order. ms. collins: madam president i will yield back the time on this side. the presiding officer: all majority time is yielded back. all time is yielded back. ms. collins: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to s. 534 a bill to prohibit funds from being used to carry out certain executive actions and so forth and for other purposes. signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent the mandatory

quorum call has been waived. the request he is: is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to s. 534, a bill to prohibit funds from being used to carry out certain executive actions related to immigration and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to change their vote roar wishing to vote? if not on this voteishing the yeas are 57, the nays are 42. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion -- let me correct that statement. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having not voted in the affirmative, the

motion is not agreed to. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: can we have order, madam president. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. mcconnell: i enter a motion to reconsider the vote. the presiding officer: the motion is entered. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. the presiding officer: is there an objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. isakson: madam president? mr. isakson: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: i rise for a minute to talk about trade between the united states and our trading partners around the world. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order.

mr. isakson: to make the point of my remarks i ask rhetorically for everybody in the auditorium and the senate chamber for a second to answer the question. are you willing to cut american sales by goods and services by over $2 trillion? i think the answer would be a resounding no. secondly are you ready to diminish or lose 39,800,000 jobs -- the presiding officer: the senate is not in order. will the senators please take their conversations out of the chamber. the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: nobody wants to give up $2.3 billion in american business and everybody wants more jobs nor the middle class. but that's exactly what's going to start to happen if we don't pass t.p.a., we don't enter into trade agreements and work to make the three pending trade agreements the united states has workable for our country. yesterday i listened as members of this body came to the floor to talk against trade and talk

against trade promotion authority. for the benefit of our new members, trade promotion authority is our organization in to give the president the prerogative to negotiate trade agreements which come black for final ratification up or down. that's a good way to do business and the world recognize if our president has trade promotion authority he can make a deal and it's only subject to one vote of the united states senate. if we leave it as it is where there is no trade promotion authority he can vote on every limitation not opportunity and make negotiations for the administration and our country impossible. we have three pending agreements before the united states of america, the trade promotion authority first of all for the president, second the african growth and opportunity act which expires september of this year, next is the trade and investment partnership with europe and lastly it's trade promotion agreement with the trans-pacific

agreement with the pacific rim. all three agreements are important for us to negotiate and close the deal on yet without t.p.a. passing we can do none. ambassador froman and the administration is doing an outstanding job representing the united states. i've traveled with him to the african union in africa to work on pit i was talking to him yesterday about the obstacles in the trans-pacific partnership and the trans-atlantic trade and promotion act all which we need to pass and he needs to be able to negotiate but without t.p.a. the united states of america is sitting at the table but they can't make a deal. and the president doesn't have the authority he needs and he says he wants. most of the opposition that i have heard on the floor of the standpoint senate come from the people in the president's own party. the president of the united states in the last two state of the union addresses said it this year he said seven members offed party talked against trade promotion authority. it's time for us to sit around the table and talk about $2.3 trillion in business for our country 39.8 million jobs

in our country and raise and increase those jobs. my state of georgia $1.2 million are directly export-related. the congress of the united states appropriated $706 million over the next six years for the deepening and expansion of the savannah harbor. the panama canal next year opens to the shifts of the 21st century. are we they going somewhere else if we don't do trade promotion authority? we saw last week when they shut down on the longshoreman's strikes. that's the impact we'll have if we don't do trade promotion authority for the president. almost unanimously the members of the republican party are for trade promotion authority and it seems a significant number are against it yet their president is for it. all of us for jobs, all of us are for business and economic activity. it's time we put our differences aside and delineated for the president of the united states the negotiating parameters, the negotiating authority and the

ability we grant to him to make deals in the trans-pacific partnership and the trans-atlantic trade and investment partnership. all three mean jobs not just for my state of georgia but for our country. all three will be good for our national security. people don't tend to fight with people they do business with. the more businesses we share the more exchanges of our currency the better off our country is, the better off our security is and the better off the jobs for those in the middle class. madam president, i thank you for the opportunity to speak on the floor and i encourage all of my members of the senate, republican and democrat alike to dedicate themselves when we come back to expeditiously bringing up trade promotion authority negotiate those differences and give our president the opportunity to create more jobs for georgia for west virginia and for jobs for our country. i yield back the balance of my time. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the

senator from indiana. mr. donnelly: thank you. mr. president, back -- madam president, back in 1973 a young man caught a lucky break that changed his life. that young man was me. and it was my acceptance letter to the university of notre dame and it opened up the gates of opportunity for me. last night the beloved president emeritus of notre dame, father ted hesburg passed away at the age of 97. on his last day father ted said mass in the morning and passed away 12 hours later. he counseled presidents and popes, but he with was first and foremost a priest. one month ministered to the homeless the poor, and those in need. and that is when he was also happiest. we were so lucky to have him touch our lives. and those of us in indiana were fortunate enough to experience him as our friend and neighbor.

nobody who ever walked the streets of south bend could forget father ted driving around in his little ford mustang giving a wave to everybody he saw. our country and the world is a better place because of father ted. he loved his god his country and notre dame, and he ministered to anyone who asked him for help. father hesburg grew up mere syracuse, new york and was ordained and became a priest in 1943. he promptly asked that his first assignment as a priest be as the chaplain on a naval aircraft carrier. the leaders of the holy cross limbous order were not surprised. they knew father ted's patriotism his love of the united states navy, and his devotion to our service members. however, they asked him to stay at notre dame and minister to

the families and service members who were -- service members who were training at that time at vetville at notre dame. as always, father ted smiled, took the assignment, and worked nonstop. and that began a journey that included the presidential medal of freedom the congressional gold medal 16 presidential appointments, and a 150 honorary degrees. but more important to father ted than all of those awards were the millions of souls that he nourished, said mass with, prayed for and guided to a wonderful life. when you look at father ted's amazing accomplishments at notre dame you can't help but see what a stronger academic institution and better and more inclusive place it has become and that he

left behind. father ted broke down the barriers and admitted women to notre dame back in the early 1970's. it changed the place forever and it made notre dame a home for everyone. my wife and daughter both of whom graduated from the university, were direct beneficiaries of his wisdom and his vision. father hesburg stood up to presidents whenever necessary and stood together with martin luther king for civil rights. he ministered to those in poverty and to those in need every chaps he could. father ted never gave a second thought about preaching truth to power. it helped to define who he was. we marked 50 years last july

since he linked arms with martin luther king jr. in soldier field in chicago singing "we shall overcome" when others turned down the invitation to be there. father ted believed in doing what was right not what was easy. i will travel to selma for the 50th anniversary of the start of the marches there next week, and i will take father ted's example with me on that journey. he expected doing what is right and not what is easy or popular from his students as well. he had a big heart and he wanted his students to do their best but a lack of effort was never an acceptable way of doing business with father ted. as a student i remember seeing his light on in his little dorm

room with his iron cot at midnight or 2:00 a.m. and every student there now knew that meant father ted was open for business. students would stop by and seek a comforting word if a parent had just passed away or when worried about how am i ever going to be able to pay the next tuition bill. or when they looked at their grade point and said how am i ever going to be here for other reasons next semester or if they had permanent heart breaks. father ted was there for all of us to talk with. he wanted every student to know they were loved and cared about and special just like the cooks and the gardeners and the professors and the people of notre dame, he went up, shook hands with, smiled at, and gave encouragement to every day. god bless you father ted. i would never be here in the

united states senate without your kindness and your example and there are domers, as notre dame students are known all over the world who know you helped give them the chance to help open doors, to be given opportunities and to have a better life that never would have happened without him. there's a saying on the door of the sacred heart basilica at the university. it says "god, country, notre dame." father hesburg lived that every day. madam president, i yield back. the presiding officer: will the senator withhold his request. mr. donnelly: i will. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: are we in morning business? the presiding officer: we are. mr. rubio: i wanted to speak about the ongoing crisis in venezuela, something that doesn't capture a lot of

attention in the headlines because we have situations in the middle east because of the horrifying reality of what isis is doing just this week kidnapping more christians. as we look at that situation in the middle east we should remind ourselves that there is a sectarian component to this. that extends beyond simply isis's desire to convert the entire region into their version of radical sunni islam. but it also includes driving out all the christians from the middle east and that is why they're specifically being targeted for brutalization and we see that again this week and our heart breaks and it should move us to move even faster in our efforts to destroy them. we can do this. i also know the world's attention is being paid to ukraine where a delicate cease-fire is being violated by russians, both russian regular troops who on occasion make incursions into ukraine and fight side by side with rebel forces against the central government in kiev, but also the

weaponry they continue to harm them with and the heavy shelling that at times comes across the border from russia into the ukraine. these are significant issues we're being confronted with and i understand why our attention is being paid to those things. but there's something happening here in our hemisphere that is not getting enough attention and i hope to use a few moments on the senate to call attention to it and that is the horrifying human rights catastrophe that is venezuela. venezuela is a rich country rich in oil and rich in people. its people are well educated, hardworking, talented. it's the cradle of democracy in latin america and the western hemisphere. but over the last three years especially it has spiraled downwards and out of control. a once rich and prosperous nation has basic shortages of everyday goods from toilet paper to soap. long lines that people have to wait there is no u.s. embargo on venezuela, no economic sanctions on venezuela they can blame on

us or anyone else. it is due simply and entirely to the mismanagement and incompetence of ma diewr row -- maduro the clown that runs that country and the thugs that surround him in his gangster-style government. venezuela prosecute -- portrays thems -- themselves to be a democracy but they are not. there is no freedom of the press. for example the government gets unlimited hours on television to talk about whatever they want. the opposition gets virtually none. newspapers that oppose the government find that they're not allowed to import newspaper the actual paper so they can't print other media outlets have been bought or the owner forced out of the country and been bought and turned over to owners more friendly to the government. the point is that venezuela is not a democracy. it's a democracy in name only. and beyond that, you have a government that's losing control

and for the first time now a few weeks ago or a few months ago authorized the national guard to use deadly force on protesters. so it should not surprise us that earlier this week a young man, a high school student was shot and killed in one of those protests. we should expect to see more of it in the days and weeks to come unfortunately. i hope i'm wrong. and i pray that i'm wrong but i believe that that's where we're headed. because there's no way out of this mess for the government. in fact, their situation is so dire that one of the things that really has allowed them to keep the elites on his side for maduro is the gas subsidy. it's subsidized by the government. i predict over the next few weeks or months the venezuelan government will have to go to the people and say we have to take away the subsidy. when that happens maduro may lose the support of the elites that surrounds him. that is why he's being so careful about announcing it. but they're going to have to do it.

no ifs ands or buts about it. there's reports of coup attempts internally with some of in the military starting to bristle at the heavy-handedness of this government there. the point is venezuela is spiraling out of control and we need to pay attention to this because it's happening in our own hemisphere. it's happening in our own backyard. and it has the ability and the potential not just to dramatically impact the people of venezuela but the countries of the region and even our own. and i just don't think enough attention is being paid to this. while every single day the brutality continues. i called attention to this for the first time last year in february when the first wave of protests happened and we worked diligently to try to achieve sanctions on the individuals responsible for these human rights violations. thank you to my colleagues here, we were able to pass a bill that authorizes the administration to impose sanctions on individuals in venezuela responsible for human rights violations. to date the administration has

imposed visa bans on some of these individuals but they have not taken the next step of economic sanctions on the people responsible for these human rights violations. a few weeks ago i wrote the president a letter asking him please begin to use this tool against those that are violating the human rights of the people of venezuela. he has yet to do so, so i once again renew that call. please impose sanctions on these human rights violators in venezuela. i hope i can use these moments to describe to people what i'm hearing from people inside venezuela and the ex-pat community in florida. they feel nobody is paying attention, they feel like they're abandoned and alone. every day the news leads off with things happening around the world and they're worried about those things too but they feel like no one is speaking out for them. they feel abandoned by the other nations of the region. where are all of the governments of the western hemisphere? where are the presidents of these countries that are neighbors to venezuela?

where is the organization of american states? what's the point of even having that organization if it can't serve as an institute as an institution and a forum for condemning this sort of activity? where are the democracies of latin america and the western hemisphere? why are they not speaking out and condemning what's happening there? it's interesting we sent a couple of guantanamo detainees to uruguay and the uruguayan government says they are asylum seekers, refugees, basically implying they are refugees from american oppression. they have no qualms about speaking out against the united states for putting in jail enemy combatants and terrorists responsible for the murder of americans, responsible for acts of terrorism responsible for supporting the taliban. they have no problem condemning us, claiming that the people we released to them, which we should never have done, are refugees and asylum seekers. but they are silent and say nothing when it comes to what's

happening in venezuela the hypocrisy of it is unbelievable. and i challenge the heads of state of the countries of latin america to speak out. the only problem is they're going to turn back around and say where's your head of state? why isn't your president speaking out about it? the answer is i don't know. i'm grateful that he signed that bill. it's time to put it in effect. it's time to begin to use the tools in those sanctions to go after these individuals. but i wish the white house and the president would more forcefully and more consistently speak out against these human rights violations that are occurring. and so when you think about why the people of venezuela feel abandoned, they look to us. they see america as the beacon of hope. we are supposed to be the premier defender of human rights and freedom and democracy on the planet. and instead from the white house and the president, there is silence. there is silence. we cannot lose that aspect of our foreign policy. i understand that reality has a significant role to play in

foreign policy, the balancing of different considerations. but morality and human rights must always be a key cornerstone of where we stand on issues of global affairs. if we lose that, we lose the moral authority of this nation, we lose our standing as a beacon of hope and freedom to people all over the world. i know that sometimes we read these newspaper articles and these leaders that criticize us, but i hope you understand that even people who talk bad about america, even in places where there might be some resentment about america at its core people admire america. they admire us because they know someone from there who came here and was able to chief things they never could have done in their own homeland. they admire us because every time there's an earthquake americans are the first ones there. every time there's a flood americans are the first ones to respond. every time there's hunger or suffering, it's american charts and the american government first on the scene. they remember that and they admire it and they admire us for

it. they admire our freedoms. they admire our democracy. they admire the fact that i'm able to stand here on the floor today and criticize the president of the united states, and there isn't some police officer outside that door ready to handcuff me and take me to jail. meanwhile in venezuela just this week a member of their legislative branch was ousted, and you know why they kicked him out? so he could lose his legislative immunity and they could arrest him. two weeks ago armed agents stormed the office of a mayor shot -- fired shots in the air to disperse crowds and arrested by force a member of the opposition party of the mayor. this is happening in our own hemisphere and this is happening in the 21st century. it was just two decades ago that the western hemisphere was full of dictators right-wing and left-wing, strong men who controlled and oppressed their people and we paid a terrible price for that in this hemisphere and even in this country. and then there was this opening

of democratic progress in the region. and now it's starting to erode and we're standing by and saying nothing about it. it's like it doesn't even exist. you see it eroding in nicarauga where the sandinistas are back in charge. they won an election and then they used that power to erode democracy. you see it in bolivia you see it in ecuador. you even see hints of it in argentina. and you really see it in venezuela. and so, by the way let me just point one more thing out. today even as i speak to you cuban agents are here -- i say cuban agents. they dress as diplomats and act like diplomats but they are spies. in fact, the chief negotiator for the cubans in these talks they're having with the state democratic sofina vidal was asked to leave by the state

department. they send spies we send diplomats. let's not forget who it is that taught the venezuelan government these tactics of oppression, ways to crack down on society. let's not forget who coached them. let's not forget there are thousands of cuban agents working in the government of venezuela right now. let's not forget that there are thousands of cuban agents infiltrated in the armed forces of the -- not infiltrated. they're openly in the armed forces of venezuela right now. let's not forget that venezuela and ma diewr row and before him chavez outsourced the sovereignty to the cass -- castros. let's not forget who coached them taught them, supported them who provided personnel for them to carry this owvment it is the cubans. a nation that is a global sponsor of terrorism because they harbor fugitives from american justice because they helped north korea evade u.n. sanctions openly and nothing happens. now the state department is

thinking about removing them from the list of sponsors of terrorism. one concession after the other. anyway, on the issue of venezuela, i hope we'll pay more attention to it because there are people right now suffering not just economically but politically and physically at the hands of a brutal regime, and they are looking for america and its leaders to speak clearly that we are on their side, that we will speak out for them, that we will stand for them and we will use the power of this government to go after and punish those who are committing these crimes. with that, mr. president i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president the senate is waiting for house action on the d.h.s. funding issue, and while that is occurring, i ask unanimous consent that the senate stand in recess subject to the call of the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate stands in recess subject to the call of

and do you see that as well as the big hold up as far -- i wouldn't see that as an obstacle to the efforts to try to normalize the relations between the two countries and certainly when it comes to reestablishing diplomatic ties with cds operating on two separate tracks and reestablishing diplomatic ties is the center of the negotiations that are underway

at the state department right now. and at the president has made a commitment to reevaluate the propriety of including cuba on that list. there is -- the way that it's been explained to me as there is a process for reviewing the individual country status and that is run by the state department that they deliver a recommendation to the president. i don't know what the status is of that ongoing review. you can check with the state department about that. i think the president was clear when he talked about this in december that the review could be done in relatively short order but it's also something that the administration takes pretty seriously. so a careful and thorough look at this is warranted and once that review has been completed by the president we will have a decision to announce. >> from both sides we hear from both administration officials and officials from cuba that in

order to open the embassy and in order to get banking they have to be off the terrorist list because no bank will do business with cuba and they can't open up their embassy without banking. one is prohibiting the other. >> i don't know the details of these negotiations, so you might check with the state department on this. i know that there has been an effort to try to allow the establishment in opening an operation of the u.s. diplomatic facility in cuba and the diplomatic facility in the united states and part of these negotiations is trying to remove the obstacles to the successful completion of that goal and to the extent that they need to be unwound i think that is part of the discussion that's underway at the state department as we

speak. >> did you know if the united states is willing to assure the bank that they will not be sanctioned if they do business with the cuban government at the new embassy while still waiting for the terrorist list to be decided? >> i'm not aware of any guidance like that that has been given to the american financial institutions, but you should check with the treasury department about that. >> do you believe that the administration believes that iran is a safe haven for al qaeda and isis and other groups? >> well, kevin, iran as you know is a shiite led country that has their own vigorous differences with al qaeda and sunni extremists. in fact there's been a lot of talk about how iran and iraq have been coordinating with some of their efforts to try to counter those sunni extremists particularly the ones that are part of isil.

so we have lots of concerns about iran and believed that if they conduct business around the globe in including the groups we do have those concerns but they are not related to al qaeda. >> so you don't read some of the documents that were released in the course of the trial underway that has suggested that osama bin laden and the outfits were actually giving safe haven in iran? >> i haven't reviewed those documents. we have a long list of concerns in iran and at the top of the list is the nuclear program but we continue to have supports about the terrorism in the globe if we continue to have concerns about the threats that they lob towards israel on a regular basis, of course our closest ally in the region and we do not approve of the way that iran conduct their relationship with israel. we have a number of concerns about americans who are detained or have gone missing in iran.

these are concerns we raise on a regular basis but we do so on the sidelines of negotiations to try to resolve the top concern which is the ongoing efforts to obtain a nuclear weapon and our efforts to resolve the international community concerns in the nuclear program. >> how would you characterize the iranian threat to the u.s. and the interest of broad? >> again we have a long list of concerns with iran and at the top of that list is the nuclear program. these are concerns held not just by the united states but the broad international community and the principle is that iran for a number of years has tried to surreptitiously acquire a nuclear weapon in the concern that we have is essentially twofold. the first is if iran were to obtain a nuclear weapon that would set off the nuclear arms race. that region of the world is

already volatile and dangerous enough and we don't need to add a nuclear arms race to the mix. the second thing is that iran on a number of occasions has used anti-semitic rhetoric and threatens the nation of israel. that is our closest ally in the region and to think that somebody or a country like iran that directs the threats towards israel but acquired a nuclear weapon would not be good news to say the least. but we also have concerns about iran and the support for terrorist organizations around the globe and we have concerns about iran and the detention of americans and there's at least one that has gone missing in iran that they failed to explain. so they have a long list of concerns that are substantial. that is the one that we are focused on and we are very mindful of the others on each

interaction that we have with the officials. it's the perspective that iran does pose a very serious threat not just to the usb interest abroad. >> the fact that we have a long list of concerns is the issue that we focus on the lot and it is an indication take very seriously the risks that are posed by iran not just the united states but the allies in the broadest broad stability in the region so this is something that consumes a substantial portion of the security teams time and thought. >> i wonder if you can talk about what is next and what's going to be done. >> as you may have seen yesterday i was asked about the report that purported to identify that individual.

i'm not able to confirm or deny those reports by him but i am in the position to restate to you our strong commitment bringing to justice the individuals that were responsible for the murder of american citizens. and there continues to be an active investigation underway right now and we are working closely with our counterparts in the uk who been very close partners in this effort and that those efforts continue. i don't have a lot of light i can share on that investigation, but as it continues and the investigators decided that sharing additional information would be advantageous to their efforts, then they will make the decision whether to discuss it in more detail. >> would you anticipate that samantha power and either or would be interacting with the

prime minister complex. >> i'm not aware of anything planned like that right now. i don't think so. >> would say a of late and interaction? >> i haven't seen the entire itinerary for the day as it were at least in the roster of speakers and when they are going to speak but i don't know of any sort of informal meeting on the sidelines of the convention. >> and also, just a quick 11 of the many comments on the resignation of the un ipc chairman. >> i will have to -- let me follow up with you. we will have a statement on that indicated to you. >> [inaudible] but is the reaction in afghanistan right now

[inaudible] >> i heard a little bit about this. the news coverage of it and the historic moment for the afghan people and we certainly do want to congratulate them in the cricket world cup. i can't say that i necessarily understand all the rules, but i understand they one and the people in afghanistan are excited and i think that it reflects it is a country where they are starting to stabilize the security situation and we have the opportunity to focus on things like in international cricket match. i think it is a sign of at least one sign of some progress that country is making. >> [inaudible] that is some good trivia )-right-paren. >> one of the highest

ranking appointed. [inaudible] >> ican told you that the administrator is somebody that performed admirably under very difficult circumstances. you will recall that he was thrust into the job in the immediate aftermath of the terrible earthquake in haiti and since then he has been dogged in representing the u.s. interests around the globe in trying to meet the needs of people around the globe in terrible circumstances and he is somebody that drew on his own professionalism and leadership and expertise. he was a medical doctor as you know and used back skill and training to a great effect. he certainly is somebody that led the agency at the usaid extremely well and we certainly

are sorry to see him leave the administration that my guess is that at least for all of us in this room it's not the last time we've heard. [inaudible] depending on what the house and senate to do and is there any sort of conversation plan? >> there currently is no plan to make a public statement about this but if we've learned anything about the cliffhanger moment in congress over the last few years it's that the unpredictable can happen and it may necessitate a statement. so stay close and we will keep you posted. >> i will give you the last one and then we will do the week ahead. >> i want to ask about the back-and-forth going on between the white house and the trade issue into a blog post from the

white house in the comments to politico. is that to make sure that she feels the trouble in the trade deal and very concerned i will make a couple observation i didn't see the comments in politico so i can't react to anything that she may say. they have and will continue to work very closely with the senator warren on whether we agree. it seems like a long time ago but just on monday the president appeared at an event at the aarp headquarters to talk with senator warren about the concept of interest rule that he's put in place. this is a rule that as it goes through the process when it is enacted could stand to save a lot of middle-class families a lot of money for their

retirement. and it's a commonsense rule and a rule that is strongly opposed by a lot of wall street interests that i'm sure are lawyering up as we speak to try to fight this in the halls of congress. but it's something about which senator warren feels very strongly in something the president feels very strongly. so i think we can continue to expect the administration to work in pursuit of issues like this and have a direct impact on middle-class economics. but you are asking me about a situation in which there is disagreement about the benefits of opening up access to overseas markets. the president is determined to ensure that whatever kind of agreement is reached if we are able to reach one with countries in the asia-pacific that it clearly be in the best interest of american workers and american businesses and the american middle class. and what we have asked even for people like senator warren

who've expressed at least a little skepticism about the deal we've asked them to try to keep an open mind. right now she's being critical of an agreement that hasn't been reached or signed. and she certainly is somebody who has her own opinion on these issues as she should, but this is the case we are making to democrats and republicans in congress to take a look at the agreement and particularly somebody like senator warren who shares the commitment to middle-class economics. i think the president has earned and is entitled to the benefit of the doubt that once we have an agreement to show the members of congress that if they take a look at where we are negotiating that she and others will get a sense that this is what the president believes this is in the best interest. but we anticipate there are a lot who will not agree with the

administration on this and so far the senator has chosen to align herself with that camp and that is not at all surprising to anybody following american politics in the last few decades. but it is why we insist on trying to work in bipartisan fashion with democrats and republicans to advance the trade promotion authority in the congress. >> does the president have a reaction? what is the take on that? >> the white house continues to believe they play an important role in the administrative process and we value that organizational objectives nonpartisan analysis. so certainly at the white house we congratulated the appointment and look forward to working with him but it's not our practice on the congressional decisions even if it sounds like it.

>> i haven't had a opportunity to talk about that specifically divided complement my colleague on her white and gold outfits today. with that let's go to the week ahead. on monday the president will meet with members of the task force on the policing to discuss recommendations on how to strengthen the community policing as trust him among law-enforcement officers and the communities they serve. on tuesday the president and first lady will deliver remarks at the white house about expanding efforts to help adolescent girls worldwide attend and to stay in school. these efforts will build on the investment in the success we have achieved in the global primary school education by elevating existing programs in the public and private sector partnerships. on wednesday to thursday and friday the president is planning to attend meetings at the white house and then on saturday the president and first lady will travel to selma alabama to commemorate the 50th anniversary

to the montgomery marches and the visit will highlight the president and his administration's overall efforts to mark the 50th anniversary of the signing of the voting rights act of 1965 and we are going to have additional detail about the travel to alabama early next week. so i wish you all a good weekend weekend. the senate is in recess subject to the call of the chair earlier today the senate passing a spending bill from the homeland security department. it passed on a vote of 68-31 and funds dhs until september 30 and does not include the integration executive order language that the president opposed. but the senate earlier today voted to not move forward on a separate bill that would be fun to the presidents integration executive order. meanwhile, the house is working

this afternoon on a bill that would tenderly find the department of homeland security for three weeks if it passes in the house it would need to come back over to the senate for its consideration to the senate now in recess awaiting the action in the u.s. house. at the whitethe white house indicated the president would sign the three week extension for the dhs funding. again the senate is in recess subject to the call of the chair to read we will continue when the senate reconvenes. yesterday the director of the national intelligence james clapper gave the senate armed services committee has assessment of the state of global terror threats. it included the ukraine russia conflict, the war against isis and iran's capabilities and commence negotiations and also said cyber threats are increasing in frequency, scale and sophistication and he called russia's cyber threat greater than previously thought.

senator john mccain chairs the committee. [inaudible conversations]

good morning everybody. we have some nominations and when we get a sufficient number of members who could and brave the snow today to come in me also glad to see the senator from maine who is used to this kind of weather. so anyway, if we get a quorum we will talk about that and we agreed on a letter to the budget committee concerning our reviews

to what the budget committee should give him the defense and hopefully we will circulate that letter and get as many signatures as possible. both senator reid and i have to reached agreement on that letter and i would like as many as possible to sign it. today we received the threats faced by the united states and our allies and i want to welcome james clapper the director of national intelligence and general vincent stuber to the newly confirmed director of the defense intelligence agency thank you for being with us today. the committee recently conducted several hearings with some of the most respected national security leaders to explore the need for strategic thinking to address the threats we face and of course in those hearings these military and foreign policy leaders all agree that the current and national environment is more complex and dangerous than any time in recent memory. on the terrorism front isis

continues to dominate iraq while spreading its target of vicious ideology in its effort to become the dominant islamic extremist group in the world. at the same time the risk of attacks by foreign fighters returning from the battlefield or lone wolf frank inspired by the success only increases the danger in the west and young men from afghanistan, pakistan from africa kyl qaeda and its affiliated groups continue to take advantage of ungoverned spaces to plan attacks against the united states and western interests. simply put we are engaged in a generational fight for civilization against brutal enemies and defeating these enemies requires significant intelligence resources and focus given that the views and a constantly evolving nature of the threat but as we continue to fight against islamic extremists he must notmust not lose sight of other strategic threats we face. as we ponder how to respond to

the invasion and the dismemberment of eastern ukraine, russia's evocations are all the more worrisome in light of the intense focus on building up and modernizing russia's military forces in the geopolitical ambitions that the capabilities are designed to further. in asia the stability and security of the vital and economically significant region is directed by north korea's continued aggression of its nuclear arsenal and development of one range plastic missiles. the greater challenges the dramatic growth in the modernization of its own military capabilities which appeared designed to restrict the u.s. military ability to operate in the western pacific. the charge over there is very interesting and it shows the expansion by china in areas of the south china sea.

and i hope our witnesses might comment on the fact that apparently they are filling in enough of that area to perhaps an employee of henry such as the other capabilities. anyway iran continues to exert more influence through the middle east and africa using proxies in lebanon, serious coming sudan and bahrain to undermine the u.s. strategic interest and the influence and presence in iraq has become one of the key factors and it seems inevitable that patients in asians in the u.s. policy planning in iraq and syria we must also remain focused on the threats of the future and thus maintain the technological superiority against potential adversaries today. this is of most concern in the cyber domains where we see increasingly capable and aggressive activities by the nationstate adversaries in the

areas with few established norms. i appreciate the witness box on each of the major issues as policymakers we look to the intelligence committee to provide timely and accurate information about the nature of the threats we face, the intentions of the adversaries and the likely effect of certain actions we can take. the increasing threats in the defense budget and the intelligence about the plans and intentions of global act or speak and even more paramount. again i want to thank the director clapper and general stewart for testifying today. i look forward to your assessment into nature and scope of the threats we face how the intelligence community for your president approaches these many threats and which of these issues concern you the most. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. let me join you in welcoming the witnesses. as they know very well become from a number of complex national security challenges

from many corners of the globe and our witnesses assessment of the challenges are critical to the work of this committee. last week i traveled to pakistan from afghanistan and iraq and have the opportunity not only to me with the leaders of the country but the u.s. civilians and personnel who are so ably and courageously serving the united states. in iraq our military commanders stressed despite the setbacks extremist fighters have suffered, isis remains capable militarily and continues to consolidate its power in the region. including through the local populations. the coalition airstrikes in the local security forces including the kurdish push murder and the iraq he governments nearly established malicious shia to begin to obtain the ground from isis. concerns remain about whether the security forces will be ready to launch and about the growing influence inside of iraq. i look forward to hearing the

witness of views on iraq and the capabilities of the military and the new government. afghanistan and pakistan to tell them remains resilient despite coming under pressure in both sides of the border. the challenge to the forces will be to keep the counterterrorism pressure on the taliban even as we build the capacity to this special operation forces to ensure that they do not want to become a haven for archive and other terrorists. we would be interested in the witness's views on the taliban front for the 2015 fighting season with the positivity of pakistan supporting reconciliation talks with the taliban and the government of afghanistan and the reports of the growing presence in afghanistan and pakistan. on iran the diplomatic efforts prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons that are ongoing and in the end of march and asked plaintiff which we assess the intent with regards to the nuclear programs i hope the witnesses will provide us an update on the intelligence

community's thinking with regards to the negotiations and our assessment of the activity in the region under the two possible scenarios deal or no deal. in the syria that strikes regained control and expand outward and isis remains a force. the general will begin training the opposition in the coming months and if successful the forces could over time as us the coalition to promote the conditions for a political settlement. just last week at the conference that u.s. and turkey signed a key agreement to allow them to remain once the recruits are identified. i'm interested in the witnesses views on the potential of the training initiative and the challenges we face. in europe the post-cold war international order is under threat and seek to intimidate ukraine and other neighboring countries with the conflicts and increasingly aggressive military

activities. the assessment of the size of the military buildup and the tensions could be of interest to the committee. we face a different but no less complex challenge of the pacific region created the recent cyber attacks by sony is the coercive nature of the regime and demonstrates even though relatively small and weak rogue nation taking advantage of our unparalleled dependence on electronic networks can reach across the oceans and cause extensive damage in the united states-based economic power target through cyberspace. furthermore, while chinese cyber attacks are not as public they are just as problematic and continue to pose a security challenge in the united states. we will be interested to know whether we can expect more and what we can do to make the systems and the nation's more resilient in the future. finally we have a threat close to home and that is sequestration. it's a threat that jeopardizes not only the national security that the public safety, health

and transportation committee education and environmental resources. as we receive testimony today in the current threat threats to the national security we in congress must be mindful of the necessity to find the balance and bipartisan solution that includes the repeal of sequestration. thank you again for appearing today and i look forward to hearing your testimony. >> welcome witnesses. general clapper. >> john mccain, ranking member and members of the committee it is a great pleasure and honor for me to be here with the general. he and i are here to update you in some but some and not all of the pressing into the dense issues facing the nation. i need to note up front there were classified issues we discussed in the hearing on tuesday that we want to be able to describe in this televised hearing. in the interest of time and allowing for questions i would only cover some. the overall comments at the

outset. one on the unpredictable instability is the new normal. ofthe year 2014 for the highest rate of political instability since 1992. the most deaths as a result of state-sponsored mass killings since the early 1990s and the highest number of refugees and internally displaced persons since world war ii. roughly half of the world currently stable countries are at some risk of instability over the next two years. the second overall, it is this pervasive uncertainty makes it all the more harder to predict the future. 2014 and 2015 for a number of events that illustrate this difficulty. the north korean attack of the most serious costly cyber attack against u.s. interests to date the epidemic and the small-scale but the dramatic terrorist attacks in australia, belgium canada, denmark, france and the

united states. again i will start with cyber threats. attacks against us are increasing in frequency scale sophistication and severity of impact. although we must be prepared for the catastrophic large-scale strike from the so-called cyber armageddon, the reality is that we have been living with a constant and expanding barrage of cyber attacks for some time. this insidious trend i see these will continue. cyberpolicy is a very complex set of threats because profit motivated criminals ideologically motivated hackers were extremists and capable nationstates like russia, china, north korea and iran are all potential adversaries who if they choose can do great harm. additionally the method of the attack the systems targeted and the victims are also expanding in the diversity and intensity on a dalia basis.

2014 saul for the first time district of cyber attacks carried out on u.s. soil by the nationstate entities marked first by the attack against the casino operation began this month and the north korean attack against sony in november. while both of the nations have less technical capabilities in comparison to russia and china these destructive attacks demonstrate that iran and north korea are motivated and unpredictable cyber actors. they continue to develop very sophisticated programs. while i can't go into details come it is more severe than we had previously assessed. despite the detailed private-sector reports, the skating public indictments and with respect to the non- nationstate entities from some ideologically motivated cyber actors expressing support for

isil have demonstrated their capabilities by hacking several social media accounts. the so-called cyber caliphate successfully hacked to send, twitter account and youtube page and two weeks ago "newsweek" magazine quicker handle. the most pervasive cyber threat to the u.s. financial sector is from cyber criminals. criminals responsible for cyber intrusions and 2014 in jpmorgan, home depot, target, and some and other u.s. companies. and in the future we will probably see cyber operations changed or manipulate electronic information to compromise its integrity instead of simply deleting or disrupting access to it. in the end of the cyber threats cannot be completely eliminated. we must be vigilant in our efforts to detect manage and defend against it. moving on to tourism in 2013 just over 11500 terrorist

attacks worldwide killed approximately 22,000 people. preliminary data for the first nine months of 2014 reflects nearly 13,000 attacks which killed 31,000 people. when the final accounting is done, 2014 will have been the most lethal year for global terrorism in the 45 years such data has been compiled. about half of all attacks as well as fatalities in 2014 occurred in just three countries to iraq and pakistan and afghanistan. we conducted more and it's a credit where credit is due i'm drawing this from the national consortium of the study of trigger was amid response to trigger some at the university of maryland. the recent attacks in europe emphasized the threat posed by small numbers of extremists, radicalized by the conflict in serious and iraq.

the global media attention and widespread support and extremist circles for these attacks probably will inspire additional extremists to conduct similar attacks. isil al qaeda and al qaeda in the arabian peninsula and most recently al-shabaab are calling on supporters to conduct lone wolf attacks against the united states and other western countries. of the 13 attacks on the west since last may 12 were conducted by individual extremists. since the conflict began more than 20000 foreign fighters have traveled to syria for from more than 90 countries to fight the regime. of that number at least 13,600 of extremists ties. more than 3400 western fighters have gone to serious and iraq, hundreds have returned home to europe. about 180 americans or so have been involved in various stages of traveled to syria and i should point out these are those that attempted to go didn't get

there into those that got there and were killed those that got there and fought and went to another country and some number have come back. a small number returned within the identify any of them engaged in the attacks plotting. nevertheless the homegrown violent extremists continue to pose the most likely threat to the homeland. loan actors or groups who act autonomously well likely gravitate to similar plots that don't require advanced skills come outside training or communication with others. a small but persistent number of terrorist groups remain intent on striking the u.s. and the west. some of whom still see commercial aviation as an appealing target. moving to the middle east, isil is increasing its influence outside of iraq and syria. seeking to expand its self-declared caliphate into the arabian peninsula, north africa and south asia and planning terrorist attacks against western and shia interests.

syria's rise represents the greatest shift in violent extremist landscape since al qaeda affiliates first began forming. and it's the first to assume at least some characteristics of the nationstate. spillover from the conflict is raising the prospect of instability in lebanon, jordan and saudi arabia. in iraq's sectarian conflict in the next areas are growing and if not wanted well undermine the progress against isil. the prime minister has begun to alter the action of sectarian tone in iraq the resistance from the shia political allies and to persist this trust him on the iraq e. leaders will limit progress towards a stable" said political environment. isil's ability to conduct large-scale operations in iraq has been degraded by the coalition airstrikes and the provision of weapons and missions by the u.s. and other allies and is defended the defenses by the iraqi security

forces, the kurdish push murder by the militants and tribal allies not to mention the iranians. however, isil remains as we have seen a formidable and brutal threat. moving to cbi and parts of western syria, the regime data consistent gains in 2014 but will require the years with two reasserts the significant control of the country as a whole. the regime has an advantage over the opposition which is plagued by the unity as well as the manpower and logistical shortfalls. right now they are incapable of militarily ousting and will probably remain so in 2015. he thinks the war is winnable. the conflict with over 202,000 people killed estimated will continue to threaten the stability of its regional neighbors and foster the regional sectarianism and extremism. as little strained the region's

fragile economic balance as millions of refugees continue to flee the conflict. over 52% of the prewar population or about 11.4 million people have been displaced. iran is exerting its influence in syria and tehran has provided robust military support to damascus and baghdad in the form of arms from advisers, funding for intelligence collection from electronic warfare and cyber support and combat support. more broadly they will face many of the same decision points in 2015 as it did in 2014 and foremost as well as the supreme court leader will agree to a nuclear deal. but at the same time to preserve his options on the nuclear capabilities. they emerged so the country has no clear authority and is embroiled in a civil war. external support for both sides by the countries in the region has further stoked the violence.

the groups affiliated with al qaeda are exploiting the permissive security environment using the country to train and plot. the isil beheadings highlighted the growing threat posed by isil and affiliated groups in libya. the evacuation of the embassy has reduced the effectiveness of our counterterrorism efforts. after the president attempted resignation and the unilateral dissolution of the government, the political future and stability are at best uncertain particularly with the escape and perhaps the reassertion of the presidential authorities. they are sentencing increasing the iran influence. they are achieving a lasting solution that allows them to pursue the western integration

that would be difficult to say the least. moscow sees itself indirect confrontation with the west over ukraine and will be very prone to be over reacting to u.s. actions. they are to ensure the separatist control and thomas entity within ukraine. he wants to them to maintain and crimea in his view is simply not negotiable. following the oil price is ukraine related costs on the sanctions have spurred a double double-digit inflation and kept russia's economy towards recession. russia will continue to process the largest firm of ballistic missile force. the weapons modernization plans will focus on strategic warfare and ways to mitigate what they think are our advantages like prompt global strike's.

china leaders are primarily concerned with domestic issues. the communist party's hold on power and economic growth. while china is looking for stable ties with the united states it is more willing to accept bilateral and regional tensions in pursuit of its interest especially on the maritime sovereignty issues. and as you noted the expanding and accelerating buildup of the outpost in the south china sea is to include stationing for the ships and the potential airfields. or they continue the modernization program directly aimed at what they consider to be our strengths it included exercises unprecedented in the scope, scale and complexity to both test modernization progress and improve the warfare capabilities the slowdown of the

chinese economy has reinforced the leaders about internal stability and reinforcing the harsh crackdown on internal dissent. needless to say there are many more threats to the u.s. interests worldwide that we can address many that are covered in detail in the statement for the record and notably the classified version such as afghanistan, north korea and weapons of mass destruction. i think with that i will stop and we will open up for questions. >> in the interest of time, we have a statement for the wreck her and just one statement from director clapper. >> thank you director clapper on the issue of the defense weaponry to ukraine do you beat me that if we give that assistance that it would escalate to attend to escalate

his assistance to the separatists and aggression against ukraine. >> they discussed this recently and what the behavior will be is something of an unknown. i think the intelligence committee view is that if we were to provide legal assistance to ukraine episode of a negative reaction and could potentially further removed the very least of their position that they've not been involved in ukraine and could lead to accelerating or promoting more weaponry higher

sophistication into the separatist areas to support but i hasten to add to this is an intelligence committee assessment and this is not necessarily to suggest opposition to the provision of lethal aid. aid. >> i'm glad you added that because my next question is what more do you think that putin could do? certainly the weaponry he's using now is the most sophisticated. >> he could bring in a lot more if he wanted to. he could bring more volumes of it. >> and do what? >> armed helicopters. >> to achieve what go? >> it is not our assessment that he's bent on capturing or conquering all of ukraine. i believe he wants a whole from

an infrastructure standpoint and entity that can pose to the two in eastern ukraine which is a land bridge and perhaps to a port we do not believe that an attack is eminent. i think they are in the mode of reconstituting and regrouping after the major confrontation. >> i have to tell you that i disagree with you there are already increasing activities and i will predict she will put additional pressure because he wants to establish the land bridge just as some of us predicted what he's doing now and to say that we are worried about provoking him come he isn't going to go. he is going to establish and then he's going to figure out whether he should go to moldova

or not. he's already putting pressure on the baltics. we don't have to have intelligence reports to get back. so this idea that somehow we will provoke vladimir putin he has done everything he wanted to do. tell me what he didn't want to do that he would have done if we have provided these people the ability to defend themselves rather than be slaughtered by the most modern equipment that the russians have. >> i don't think that he will view it happily if the united states provides legal support. >> because more russians might be killed who are killing ukrainians. >> it will be harder for them to hide the fact. >> there is no hiding what he's done.

i'm not in a dispute with you. we have to move on but it's just incredible to be read that he would be provoked to further action when he's achieved every goal he saw along the way and we will see who's right. >> i'm not arguing. the only issue is timing. itthere will be a formal undertaking. spec i agree with you. he's not getting the increase in sanctions or weapons. they are not receiving the defensive weapons. if i were him i would do that too. he has plenty of time. yesterday the secretary of the state said our citizens despite isil and despite the killings that you see and how horrific

they are we are moving and a period with less threat to people in the world than normally less violent deaths today than through the last century. yet just today that their victory of the fbi and others have said that there are threats to 30 states in the nation. what is your view of the threat to the united states and america director? >> as i've said every year this will be the fifth year in my 50 plus years in the intelligence business i don't know what the time that's been more upset by the challenges and crises of the world and i worry a lot about the safety and security of the country for a lot of reasons not the least of which the senator eluded to is the impact the

sequestration is having on the intelligence community. we didn't get a pass so the same rules that apply to the department of defense apply to us while so the combination of the challenges we have around the world and the declining resource base that we have to monitor them is of concern to me. the director was referring to the fact that he has some form of an investigation into the fbi as the system for the intensity of investigation and they will have a form of investigation on the homegrown violent extremists not necessarily direct sympathizers or supporters of isil but in all 50 of the state. >> can i just ask again because he made reference to it if we stick to the sequestration as it is planned that will impair our ability for you to do your job

and defend the nation is that correct plaques. >> yes sir and i said that in the past a little harder for intelligence to make that case as concretely as say the navy and how many ships with built-in how many aircraft it's able to fly. in our case the integrity to use the word that i but i will it's more insidious in method acting when we have a lesser to do what he will eventually did the failure is hard to quantify. but based on my professional judgment having served in this business for a long time i'm very concerned about it and if we revert to sequestration in 2016 the damage to the intelligence community will be quite profound. >> thank you very much director. >> general thank you, both genitals thank you. the chairman has covered very well some of the issues arising out of the russian activities in

ukraine and crimea. is your assessment that putin is carrying out a strategic plan or is some of this opportunistic seizing the moment or is it a combination of both? >> strategic plan and opportunistic. >> i think it became a strategic plan when he up and left almost a year ago the 22nd of february and then i think that he saw an opportunity with the seizure of crimea which has always been in his call and given putin's approach and the way that he looks at russia and what a disaster of the breakup of the

soviet union was and as i said in my statement that the highest objective is controlling the soviet space. so i think on the heels of the seizure of crimea and the establishment of the eastern ukraine and what i believe will be more of a soft approach on direct military action as the chairman in with it to in moldova and certainly there will be pressure brought to bear in the baltics particularly where there are high levels of russian minorities are little different situation since they are nato members which of course moldova ukraine etc. are not. >> we have conducted recently some very small military demonstration in the baltics, 173rd airborne went in and i

think just a day or two ago there was a parade of u.s. military vehicles. what is the reaction to those? >> i think they watched that. it is symbolically important. there is a messaging and the census to that as they are mindful of the fact the baltic nations are nato members and i do think that they distinguish that. >> we have sanctions in place. you indicated in your comments that they have not had an appreciable effect on his strategy. they might affect the economy but they haven't affected his strategy. >> that's right. so far that has not changed his approach. and of course the greater impact on the economy has done to drop in the legal prices. >> do you have any indication

the situation deteriorates further that there will be an impact? >> there could. what pc is they we see is they are very sensitive to opposition and demonstrations in the streets they are very sensitive about the color revolution occurring in russia itself and of course that's another reason why putin reacted to the situation in ukraine because he believed we instigated that as a mother revolution in ukraine right on his doorstep and that posed in his mind a threat in russia. >> just changing gears the iranians have an explosive presence in iraq today and we have forces in the next several days or weeks there are two

possible events. one would be much more aggressive action against the regime or the resolution of the negotiations on the nuclear program. do you have any of you views what might happen with respect to the forces which are not cooperating with us -- >> is the question is there a connection between the agreement -- >> will there be a reaction to the activities that we undertake or the conclusion of the negotiations? >> i don't think the negotiations one way or another will have much bearing on what they do in iraq or anyplace they

are trying to exert their influence manning syria. as best we can tell they've kind of segmented the nuclear negotiations and the potential nuclear agreement from their regional aspirations. >> i have three questions. i'm not experienced at the time to be set with the crisis. >> if i'm here next year i will probably say it again. >> we faced a more complex problem than we've experienced in the lifetime.

do you still stand by that? >> absolutely, senator. >> now there is an assumption when we are talking to people that we on the committee though a lot of answers and one of them should be a very easy answer and i want to get something from you that i can stand on. when we talk about the power in the strength of isis in september 14 we talked about its been an additional some 20,000 since this started i think we would agree they said it was between 20 to 31 fighters that were in iraq and syria and now we know it's gone beyond that. then in august they talked about from 80 to 100,000 created then in november when of the kurdish leaders stated that the military increase to 200,000 fighters.

can you give us an idea number one why it is so difficult to do and number two something we can use to quote you as the source is quite. >> it is unfortunate these numbers get out. one, we don't have what i would call census bureau accuracy over these numbers. they are very hard to come by we have to derive them from a number of different forces. even when we do come out with numbers you have a wide range. so the current estimate we are standing on his in the range between 20 to 32,000 fighters. the difficulty is assessing who is a core fighter who does this full time and who may be a facilitator and do it part-time and all that sort of thing. i will say that this is one

aspect of the airstrikes that have been substantial. they lost at least 3004 whatever reason they wanted to do that and as well what that is driving them to now is construction so the estimate we are going with right now is 20 to 32,000. >> it's a take a while to get into this but i was over in ukraine when they had their elections and they were just deleted both of them from different political parties but they were very pro-western rejoicing in the fact that for the first time in 96 years the communists don't havecommunists don't have a seat in parliament. when that happened to me i thought there's not going to be a problem with us going in with

weapons and obviously the democrats and republicans here agreed with that. we have language in and our authorization bill that we have $75 million where we were in urging the president to use through the european reinsurance initiative for weapons going into assist with our best friend in that area. now i can't figure out why we don't do it. let me just ask the two of you with you recommended? >> i have to ask to ways. this is a policy issue and -- >> i am not sending troops i'm talking about sending lethal weapons. >> i understand what you're asking and that's what i'm answering from to perspective that is a policy issue.

they rearrange the chairs and i have a personal view that is only that that i would favor it but that is a personal perspective that is not representative. >> i appreciate that very much. chair man stewart. >> i am trying to stay out. >> i know you are but we have to get this done. >> we stand by the assessment that it could be delivered quickly enough or change the power on the ground. it would change the military balance of power and it couldn't get there quickly enough to make a difference and -- >> as a military guide guy do guide you buy the argument that we might be provoking negative reaction? >> i see what the president is doing every once in a while when

they talk about we don't want to make the terrorists mad at us. what is your opinion about the statement on provoking the negative reaction from them? >> as important as it placed on ukraine to keep it a broad i think they will up the ante if we do any lethal aid. whether that provokes the president or not it's hard for me to say that the realities are they see this as essential to their foreign-policy and critical to keep ukraine out of nato and they will react accordingly. >> i am sure they felt the same way, general.

i'm sure you felt the same way vladimir putin does and if you were to say we can't get the lethal weapons quickly enough that defies logic. i know how we can transport the weapons we can fly them over there. how do you justify a statement like that? >> the answer was we could and did deliver the lethal aid sufficiently or quickly enough to change the military power on the ground. >> quickly enough, what does that mean? >> we have separate lines that they can resupply a lot faster with heavier weapons than we could deliver. he said it would be a race to see who would arm doesn't second advantage on the ground.

>> i'm sure they have an advantage when they invaded afghanistan and when we have helped people and when we have and what is the consequence very disappointing general. >> thank you mr. chairman and both of you for your testimony. i want to go back to the middle east and what's happening in syria. to what extent is the continued i don't want to say control over syria because i appreciate somebody doesn't have control over the entire country but what is his position and obstacle to the fight against isil and what the thinking about how to change that dynamic? like the last part of the question is a tough one.

he maintains the control because of his control of the economic leverage to the extent they have been and his focus is on what i would call the western spying to damascus that's where the population is handed a major commercial entities to include the ports. so he is surrounded by people who are committed to preserving that because they benefit from it and they are the minority so for them it is an existential struggle and of course the irony is that we are in comment and both a solid and his regime are opposed to infighting isil as we are. so it's a very complex array of

factors. >> to what extent has that affected other countries in the middle east and their willingness to engage with us? >> it's been i think somewhat of a change. it's gradual, but the fact that many of the countries are participating in the coalition that the general john allen has been organizing i do think that the savagery of the isil and the beheadings have had a galvanizing effect on opinions in the middle east region so there is more of a willingness to cooperate and certainly from the standpoint of the intelligence sharing and

partners. >> are you optimistic turkey will become more engaged? >> no i'm not. >> turkey has other priorities interests and they are more focused on what they consider to be the threat in the resistance if you will in turkey. the public opinion polls show they don't see isil as a primary threat they are more focused internally on their economy and of course the consequence of that is the purpose of environment and use of because of their law and the ability of people to travel through turkey en route to syria so 60% of the fighters find their way through turkey. >> to move to iraq, to what extent is iran's presents an

obstacle to the body's ability to make the kind of overtures and engage in the way that he needs to? >> e. is in a very difficult position of having to balance the competing constituencies and clearly they have influence. they are there and helping in the fight against isil and he has issues with his own power base since they were competitors to him. there's still a great reluctance to fully include the sunnis which must have been. there are the walls in the council representatives are extremely important in the deep application switches in a very difficult position.

>> what i'm trying to ask you to respond to and i haven't spent as articulate as i showed is what extent is iran waiting for their efforts to take on isil versus the sunni role in iraq. are they balancing that? >> the fundamental interest of course is to preserve a friendly government in baghdad so that is kind of the underlining policy objective and of course isil posed as a threat to the iranians as well and so they have an interest in sustaining their aggressive combat if he will and assistance in opposing isil. >> my time is up. thank you both.

>> thank you mr. chairman and a gentleman for appearing before us today i do appreciate your service. i would like to go into the discussion with iran the little bit more. the iranian military is arguably one of the most deployed forces in the middle east and probably more than a generation debate into areas such as syria, iraq lebanon, yemen. so iran is effectively reinforcing its influence in the region and it is also defending its allies in ways which afford the ability to engage its adversaries and immediately alter any battlefield momentum. so we have seen a progression of expert witnesses in front of this very panel and many of my

colleagues and of these witnesses have stated that they do the leave the president is failing in this area of setting up a national strategy. his failure to construct the strategy against iran has led to the expanded influence in the middle east. so i would like to hear your assessment on the tools that iran has in his pocket and whether we are effectively engaging iran and what we need to do to gain the national security strategy. i would like to see all the pieces put together please. >> well, senator i can comment on the intelligent aspects of this national security strategy and again it is not my compartment but the way that

iran is exerting its influence i think most prominently in the region is through the organization called of the republican guard corps which is a combination of intelligence and special ops that has extensive partial enterprise businesses and they use that as their instrumentality as they are now in iraq were extending their influence as one of their proxies and of course another one of the proxies is hezbollah which they've had a long clients so bored and it -- subordinate relationship with and they used that manifestation of their spreading influence in the region. from the intelligence perspective, you know, we try hard to keep tabs on those entities as we can from

intelligence. >> is there a way that we can more effectively engage the neighbors in the middle east to push back on iran's influence? >> on the intelligence perspective. they are willing to engage with us particularly in the sunni countries who also have great reservations about the objectives. >> i will yield back my time. >> thank you mr. chairman and both of you for being here. in regards to iraq what do you think are the biggest challenges that the iraq he forces face right now in pushing isis back?

>> in the army they need to reconstitute after the losses in northern iraq last june where about four and a half divisions or so of the force is just kind of melted away so that is the first order of business that is to reconstitute which includes training and hopefully the will to fight. they have challenges with the command and control leadership with logistics so they have a whole range of issues of what needed to be attended to before they would be in that the position to unilaterally retake. >> how long do you think that will take to get them back up to

speed? >> if i can put it in the context they had about 185,000 in the iraq he security force about the three divisions six to nine divisions. all of those are engaged today so they are not getting a continuous training. they are engaged in operations and they are building the three additional divisions. those divisions that you are talking about building from the ground up. so to build from the ground up individual -- >> when are they ready? >> we are probably talking six to nine months best estimate. >> director clapper, here at home when i look at what's going on with isis and see the threat that occur and the threat levels that we had last year if you have to put it in perspective this time last year and this time now and it is an inexact

art significantly increased threats now that we are having less tolast year at the same time about the same. in regards to isis pushing them to get us out of iraq and to remove them from syria, when we get to that point where isil is gone but the threat level come down at home? ..

when you look over to libya, is that the next place or one of the key places they look now as here's open space that failed, here's a place were we can try to go? >> it is probably the most troublesome from the standpoint just because of the conditions in libya. two competing governments fighting with each other. that are in addition isil probably six or eight other terrorist groups that have gathered in libya. so it's a magnet because essentially its unrecovered. unrecovered. >> and when you look at places ungoverned, you know, not too far from the mediterranean right

there, what do you see like you said you don't set all strategy to you review all the intelligence but what these as the best steps we can take in that region right now? general, you, too, and maybe to try to change the course of what's going on? >> from an intelligence perspective we i think clearly need to step up our game from an isr perspective where we can operate. i think there's a lot of merit to partner in with the french who have sorted stake out their claim in the region of north africa. so we have worked with the french, particularly from an intelligence perspective to share with them. they have history and heritage of their access and have committed to deploying troops in that area, boots on the ground which we can supplement. so those are things from an intelligence perspective that we, so as we get a better handle on just what is going on in that

part of the world. >> i see my times that i just just want to ask one very quick question. how are we doing on operation interagency here at home? better than ever before? >> well, that, frankly, is the reason my job was created after 9/11 is promote integration here in this country. i like to think it's better. i was around for a long time before 9/11, so it is better but there's always improvement. we are not as mature on the domestic side and coordinating with state and local tribal, et cetera but i think we've made a lot of progress there and we will continue in its something i pushed very hard. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director clapper, what do you assess this be like response to the introduction of our used trained syrians to move in against isil in syria lacks

india says that assad will attack them? well, as long as assad believes somehow that once he gets up sufficient center of mass, you know enough force, as long as he felt as though this were something to be used only against isil he will probably be okay with it but i think he would have a hard time determining whether it's a threat to isil or a threat to them. so i can see a circumstance where, depending on what information he's getting, and we wonder about that sometimes that he could easily consider that force as a threat to him. >> do you believe that you're receiving good intelligence from

syria from that area in regards to this? >> we have a lot of gaps, intelligence gaps in syria, principally because we are not there. so no i'm not satisfied. we are working at it obviously to come up with more intelligence from syria but that's a tough problem force. >> have you received any intelligence that what i guess du comfort in that the moderates that would be trained by us would, in fact, be fighting isil and not assad? >> i think a more full some response to that would be best in a classified environment but i guess the shortage would be yes. >> and how would you assess russia and iran will be looking at these trained forces? >> well, probably wouldn't like it. i think at this point, you know

russia looks at syria as a client and an ally, someone that they provide support to. so again it would be almost the same perception problem with the russians as it would be with assad. they could probably rationalize if it's focused on isil but if it's perceived as a threat to the region -- regime i think they would react negatively to it. >> and if they would perceive it as a threat, what type of force would they employ then? you said they would act negative -- >> the russians? >> yes. >> no, this is really speculative, hypothetical. i don't think it would necessarily deploy combat forces

to syria. they would probably step up military equipment support which they have been doing. intelligence support. if, in fact, they perceive that what we were doing was a direct threat to assad. >> and if i could shift gears here i'd like to ask you something about cybersecurity. as you know the senate is looking at a bill to authorize greater information sharing. there is some concerns out of their about the entities that we might be sharing that information with. i'd like to ask you how do we balance that? how do we balance the risks between really valuable information sharing and the need not to provide information either to private individuals hackers better out there -- that are out there or to reform government that may be able to pick up information that we give

our colleagues in trying to work with this, that they then could in turn use against us. >> that's exactly the issue. in fact, that's the general dilemma that we have across the board, whether inside or any other dimension. sharing versus security, and that's the same issue here. there is no silver bullet answer here. i do think there though needs to be some form of legislation that will protect from a liability standpoint commercial concerns so that they would more freely it would be in a position to share with the government. this is not something government can do all by itself. or has to be given the pervasiveness of cyber in our society, we must have the partnering of the civilian sector, which means promoting sharing both ways. and you're right, there's always

this concern, always of the trade off between security and sharing. >> thank you sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman. to follow up on that i believe that it's critically important that we move legislation that provides for that sharing so that we have more vigorous defense and indeed, the intelligence committee reported out a bill last summer. i understand that bill has been somewhat renegotiated, reworked and will be moving forward recently soon. i hope that that's one of the congress' highest priority. i don't know how many warnings we have to have. turning to isis, what are the chances that it will wear out its welcome within the areas where it is now trying to govern because of the weight of its brutal and harsh ideology? and against the follow-up question is, do we have any intelligence about what's going on inside mosul in terms of the

citizens and how they feel about this new regime? >> thanks for the question. i think it matters a very important point and that is we're seeing anecdotal evidence of resentment and even resistance in those areas that are controlled by isil because of the brutal approach to enforcing sharia. i think the challenge and we are always in indications of this that isil has because as i mentioned in my oral statement, assuming some of the characteristics of a nation-state, now they're having challenges with the governance. they do not have enough financial wherewithal to provide the services, municipal services that are required to run a city of a million people. >> you mean they're running a deficit? made a wish could shift --

>> that would be good. we are seeing signs of electrical electricity outages shortages of food and commodities. the airstrikes against the refining capability has forced them to go a lot of individual mom-and-pop refining skills. so they're going to have trouble generating the revenue that would be needed to actually run the areas they've captured, and we are seeing anecdotal evidence of the strains and stresses that are putting particularly on the city of mosul and its citizens. >> does that suggest a containment strategy instead of a reinvention strategy? general stewart, you've testified recently about the proportion of troops it takes to root summit out of an urban setting. could you articulate that for us? >> if i recall, we talked about

the ratio of offenses forces to take an urban environment something and in order of 10 to one, offense versus defense. that requires a very skilled forced to take that kind of action. there something to be said about isil wearing out its welcome. it's precisely what turned al-qaeda in iraq before. the brutality, the inability governed, that convinced the tribes that there may be a better option. option. >> and isis is much more brutal and difficult than al-qaeda as i understand it. >> the question is, what is the tipping point? it's hard to determine where the tipping point, where the sunnis in anbar will go. there's a different option and we ought to counter isil pics i think there will be a tipping point at some point. we just don't know where that will be. >> as you just testified, attend

when racial of offenses defense going into select mosul means would have to every large, well-trained force and is just equation whether that's going to be necessary rather than let it fall of its own way. i guess that's the question of timing. >> it is a question of timing. >> quick question on cyber. it concerns mean that all of our discussions about cyber are essentially defensive it would talk about legislation to share information, talking about greater rebutting of these kinds of entries and. should we think, mr. director about developing offensive capability provide a deterrent? it concerns me that now particularly a state actor can act essentially without fear of consequences where's the theory of deterrence their nuclear field stood the test of time for 75 years. should we think about a

deterrent capacity so that people know that if they attack us in any kind of critical way they are going to suffer in return? >> yes, i agree with you. we do, you know, we do have offensive capabilities. can't go into here. i think the issue though is what is the policy what is it that way to achieve cyber? and that is an issue at the policy level where still frankly wrestling with. >> i'm delighted to hear it is being wrestled with and i think energy say this is something we need to consider. and, of course to go back to "dr. strangelove," if you have a deterrent but don't tell anybody about it's not a deterrent. >> that's true. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i want to thank the chairman thank both of you for what you did to protect the country. and i wanted to ask about iran and i know that in your written

testimony you have said, he praises testified, director clapper, before this committee that iran was on track by this year in terms of its icbm program. so since the negotiations have been ongoing on the nuclear program, has iran continued to develop its icbm program? and can you tell me what the status and the goal of the program would be from iran? >> the iranians have continued on the space launch vehicle program and recently put into orbit a satellite and obviously, that come in the work they do on missiles could conceivably could go to work on an intercontinental ballistic missile. and it's going to be hard to determine whether a given missile is launched for the

purposes of a space launch vehicle, a satellite they want to put into space. because if they do that they also acquire proficiency expertise and experience in what could be an icbm. and so it's a hard question to answer because it has a lot to do with intent, but there's no question they have a tactical confidence -- competence. >> do you think of good intent in terms of what they're doing with their missile program? >> no. i mean i think the huge medium-range ballistic missile force they have today that's operational is you know, i think poses a threat to the region now. >> and if they were to get icbm capability that poses a threat in terms of our country and east coast in particular? >> it could. again depends on what they actually do come if they

actually are able, you know, theoretically possible they could attempt to launch one this year. so this is something we just have to watch but again the challenge for us is going to be determining just what their intent is. >> could you help me understand also as a think about iran's activities what types of other activities they are engaging in to establish regional hegemony? >> well, they are shortly trying to, where they can reach out diplomatically. the organization that we watch a lot is the irgc quds force i mentioned previously. their intelligence activities throughout the region that they will look to establish their influence by whatever mechanism they can. >> as i understand it they continue to support assad. they have continued to support groups in the region, including

hezbollah. what other activities, which is to characterize them as one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the world of? >> they are still classified that way, yes. >> thank you. i would like to follow up on an issue that is hitting as settled that i think has international implications, and that is the international drug trafficking that's occurring in my home state of nature we've had a devastating number of people who are dying from heroin overdoses. and so i would certainly like to hear your opinion general stewart, about what is happening in terms of drug trafficking, in particular heroin, and how are the networks that are being used for drug trafficking, i the also being used to fuel terrorism? so general stewart, if you could share that with me and i would

be curious, the southern command and northern command what do they need in terms of fighting heroin and also the drug trafficking that can be used to fuel terrorism as well as? >> i will have to look at the numbers again but it'll think drug trafficking is on the increase throughout our southern borders. i think pakistan and afghanistan, her when the production continues about the norm that we've seen over the last several years. we see no indications that the drug trafficking routes are being used for terrorist activities or hostile actions. and i spoke briefly to the folks down in southern command and i don't recall any request for additional capability to help them with the problem in the south. >> if i could add senator ayotte, i will recall, i think was last year when general kelly, commander of the south,

-- southcom one of the challenges with the drug trafficking is not so much a lack of intelligence. of a lot of intelligence on it. is the lack of resource particularly in the case of the ability to interdict by the coast guard and others. and that since general killey's testimony has been come is being addressed, i've spoken ma discussed that with commandant of the coast guard and they are putting more of his capability deploying more ships and planes in the southern hemisphere. i think i would take mild disagreement here with events that it is a problem -- with

vince. not only across the border but puerto rico is another vulnerability we have. and so we have pretty good intelligence on this. i think the challenge has been, and again sequestration has had impacts, is on the ability to react and interdict. >> i think both of you and i also noticed in your testimony, director clapper, you noted the incredible search of her one related deaths since 2007, so thank you. it's a horrible problem. >> thank you, mr. chairman thank you both for your testimony, both earlier in the week and today. mindful this is not a classified hearing, a few questions. my perception of the level of american and allied intelligence about the extent of the iranian nuclear program is that before november 2013, the beginning of the chipola, the level of

intelligence was good, so if there were gaps and challenges but at least if i go by public reports the level of intelligence that all have together enabled some actions have slowed the iran program. one of the reasons i supported that is my assumption that our intel sources haven't gone away, but the inspections that were allowed required together with existing intel sources would even give us a better level of intel which would, a help us determine if we need it, god forbid to take military action to stop the program and the enable us to our target any military action if god forbid we should need to take it. am i looking at this the right way? >> yes, sir, i think you are. i will tell you that huge, the important aspect of any sort of agreement we might reach with the iranians would be a very

into basis and federal surveillance and inspection capability of iaea. i think that would be requisite to any kind of agreement. we have i think a reasonably capable intelligence capability like i wouldn't want to rely on it only for verification. that, in fact the terms of the agreement were being lived up to. >> director clapper, i agree with the last point you made. as i would look at any final deal if one is reached in analyzing its content and determine whether i support it or not the degree of inspections to me is a key factor because that combined with existing intel is our guarantee of an ability to know if there's going to be a problem and take appropriate action target and appropriate action to eliminate the problem. you indicated in earlier

testimony that your intel suggests that iran is looking at the nuclear negotiation as sort of separate from this whole question of iranian bellicosity and adventurism in the region, these are sort separate items. my sense is that at least one connection between the two and this also their so my analysis of any deal is reached and that is this. any deal is reached would involve sanctions relief, i.e. dollars to iran and they use dollars to carry out adventurism. i think, just from what i've heard, some of the sanctions relief already may have allowed them to invest more heavily in running, invest more heavily in the quds force or other agents that are destabilizing governments outside of the borders. so to at least that extent as we look at any deal, if there is such a deal there could be a connection between the deal and iranian bellicosity outside of the borders. >> perhaps in a classified

department i can go into this a little bit more but the sanctions have had the impacts on financial impacts on the iranians. that in turn has impacted funding for the military and for even the quds force. >> thank you. we have had two meetings in the last three weeks where we have heard from leaders from the region who are engaged in the fight against isil. king abdullah was with us about three weeks ago, and he told those that american ground troops as part of this battle of fisa would not be a good idea, in his view. yesterday we had a meeting with the the near of qatar. he said american ground troops are a bad idea because it would convert the perception of the

battle against isil the u.s. or west against isil, rather than we are engaging in a battle to clean up our own rachel extremists. and we want america's help on that but they both offered us advice that american ground troops would be problematic because it would enable from a propaganda standpoint is being positioned as american or western occupation and that america is a spear against this terror threat here at his report that to you and would be curious to your reactions to those comments from trusted allies. >> i have had similar discussions with the team and -- with the king. he is a staunch opponent of the people in the region have to take this on and have to lead. you know, u.s. the meantime we show up someplace, we are by definition occupiers. he recognizes as did many others

that at some point there will be the need for boots on the ground but hopefully others and not the u.s., because that engenders its own challenges and issues. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator reid and just to follow up on senator kaine's comment, i think we need to reestablish where we are, confirm what are. director clapper, is it still our policy that no options off the table and that iran should not have a nuclear weapon? >> that's my understanding, yes sir. >> that's your understanding. do you have any doubt about it? >> take what the administration said its work, the no options off the table. >> i think that's true. we had a very important hearing

yesterday on nuclear forces and strategic forces. one of the things i came away with was greater concerns than i had before about the proliferation impact, the stability in the region, that could occur from a nuclear-armed iran. i just think that we've got to be careful about that. i do remember that the cia reported in what early 2000 is that -- iran was intent on building a nuclear weapon. that was wrong, was it not? >> well, up until 2003 they were. right now day, and, of course, we believe these printed would be the ultimate decision-maker here. as far as we know he's not made a decision to go for a nuclear weapon. i do think we certainly want to preserve options. across the capabilities it would take to the -- take to field one

the right now they don't have one and have not made that decision to buy i agree with you it would be very profound and very destabilizing if they were to achieve a nuclear weapon. >> it really makes a stay some really tough choices. but i don't think there's any doubt they never relinquished the intention to build a weapon. a cia report was in error and they are closer today and every month that goes by, it seems they get closer. ..

>> from your experience with them isn't it true that they're is more context, even if it's just one or two special forces there with them, not out leading the fight but with the forces that are advancing. >> there is a great sense of comfort when us forces are with our partners to provide

precision command-and-control to help bolster leadership. yes, sir. >> with regard to the momentum that we have aren't there -- i mean we have a large iraqi army

>> just a couple of questions. following up on the rent nuclear capability, since we know they have not dismantled are we just prolonging the inevitable? they we will be able to get up to enrichment and to armament to dispute pretty quickly if they desire unless their is an absolute dismantlement of there capabilities director clapper. >> that is obviously the concern, and that is why the importance of intrusive and comprehensive surveillance and inspection is so critical to make sure that they don't particularly in rich highly enriched -- >> they are not downgrading some of the things that they can or take away the

capabilities. i don't think our agreements -- >> that is yet to be determined. i don't want to talk too much about it -- >> sure. >> -- because the delegates with the states themselves, but that is all in play. >> i am concerned. if i could switch gears to china and basically our partners in the asia-pacific area, especially taiwan our growing uneasy about china's axis area denial strategy which speaks to limiting american power in that region. can you please update us on china's effort to deny american access to the asia-pacific region, sir? >> chinese -- and i can't go into a great amount of detail hear, but the chinese have embarked on extremely impressive military modernization program across

the board and they are modernization program is deliberately designed to counteract or thwart what they feel are our strengths -- strengths which means our bases, c-4 isr and our abilities in space. and they are doing specific things in each one of those realms to deny us 1st potentially surveillance, command-and-control as well as what they view as our primary weapons. our primary strengths. we can certainly go into more detail if you would like, in a classified setting. >> i guess you are not able to speak about there developing capabilities within the last ten years or i understand they are accelerating very vastly. >> they are and they also

are getting more and more into the realm of designing and producing things rather than relying on others notably the russians. >> let's see. i had one more here for you. we talked about, i think, in a closed setting you might be able to talk about it but in generality here as far as isis, they are abilities as far as financial ability to attract the dollars they do not be able to operate the way they can. have we had any success in shutting down that money flow? >> well, they -- again i we will speak in generalities here. they acquired a lot of funding initially some of which was derived from overwriting iraqi banks. that we will dry up. of course the airstrike against the oil has forced

them to go to the sort of mom-and-pop stills. as a consequence of the brutality the donations they receive are tapering off. this says something about an attrition approach, which i think over time -- and the other thing i think is draining resources is the demands they have for governance, particularly in large cities like mosul. >> very quickly the rapid rise when we 1st heard about isis it was three to 5,000. then it seems to leapfrog. were with a paying their soldiers or attracting with better pay? >> the reason they're was mushrooming growth in the initial phases when they did they are there attacks in northern iraq was because -- this is largely a sunni region.

they were very receptive, frankly, to joining up with isil, which i think many viewed as a better protector of themselves and their communities and families than the iraqi government. that is what occasioned the joining up. we are now seeing anecdotal evidence of there having paid money. >> were they playing better? >> they are also having to reduce the amount of money they are paying some of there fighters. >> so that could reduce some of there strength right? if they don't pay them as well. >> we are also seeing anecdotal evidence that they have been driven to conscription, in other words forcing people to join the ranks to sustain there

fighter force particularly as they have taken heavy losses. >> thank you mr. chair. thank you gentlemen for your wonderful service to our country. general stewart you may have noticed the chairman has a soft spot in his heart for marines and is probably treated you in that regard. >> i am delighted about that, too senator. >> i we will make sure he keeps treating you with kid gloves i want to thank you for what you are doing because i think your service particularly providing real accurate threat assessments to not only the congress but the american people and administration is absolutely fundamentally critical if we will get rid of the challenges we face right now as a country. at this committee has had several hearings over the last several weeks about these assessments with some luminaries democrat,

republican, former secretaries of state former four-star generals about what they see as the challenges and strategies. there is consensus that we are living in a very challenging environment. henry kissinger mentioned it was one of the most challenging he has seen in his career which says a lot what i want to touch on is what i see it as a rather disturbing disconnect between some of the testimony that comes from gentleman like yourself from this whole series of hearings that we have had and the disconnect between that and senior administration officials. let me give you a few examples. the president talked about the crisis of september 11 2,001, has passed and went through a list of things that made it sound like we are living in a benign world

environment. the secretary of state talked about living in a time of less daily threats to americans. the recent national security strategy document from the white house lists climate change as one of the top if not the top national security threat relative to say, a rant gaining nuclear weapons or isis. do you agree with these assessments from the senior leadership of the administration that we are living in a less daily threatening, that iran gaining nuclear weapons is less of a threat than climate change? i think it is critical that we level with the american people what exactly are the threats we face as a country right now and i don't think we are getting it from the administration. >> i think our function in

the intelligence community is to portray as accurately as we can what we see as the threats. we probably always occupy the half of the glass that is empty and policy makers and often time military commanders we will occupy the half of the glass that is full. probably the real truth is at the waterline. i think our instinct is to -- i have been criticized for this. having been on the receiving end of virtually every post event critique investigating intelligence failures since september 11, 2,001 we are much more conservative and cautious than others might be about the nature of the world out there. we have a certain institutional responsibility, which we try

to discharge. if others don't see it that way or agreed that is certainly their prerogative. >> so do you agree with those assessments? >> i am not in the mode of -- we don't do policy command and not critiquing those who do make it. >> i don't think that is policy. they are giving threat assessments to the american people that are inaccurate. >> climate change does have national security implications. if you watch what is going on in the arctic now and the impacts on climate change in terms of water availability and this sort of thing it does have national security implications. i probably would not rank it up they're as problem with red number one but it is a serious concern. >> let me just ask general stewart, senator manchin was talking about the increasing

recruitment of isil. what role do you see that they are perceived as continuing to win this continuing to be victorious, continuing to be kind of a team that is gaining ground and not being defeated. in your experience i'm sure if a recruiter thinks he is going to join a team and get killed he probably won't be interested in joining the team. if they seem to be perceived as gaining ground for north africa, now syria iraq, do you think that helps their recruitment efforts? >> very capable propaganda media operation that emphasizes their success in their victories, however small, and that is a basis for attracting those who would move to that ideology. so there success on the battlefield or perceived

success or the way that they present it certainly helps them in gaining recruits for the fight. >> thank you. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you both for being here today. the execution of christians in libya raises questions about the ability of isil to coordinate with other groups what is your assessment of the links between isil and syria and iraq and the groups it enacted in its name outside of those two countries? >> if you are referring to isil other chapters or provinces so-called if that is what you are referring to. >> yes. >> what is the connection there? >> what is your assessment of there ability to coordinate, communicate, engage in terrorist acts

outside of syria and iraq? >> do you mean the homeland or elsewhere in the world? >> your choice but both would be good. >> well, i think they are trying to create both the substance and maybe more importantly the image of this global scale caliphate by establishing chapters, franchises, if you will and places like libya, egypt yemen, and south asia. the extent to which, though they -- this is some monolithic organization where isil is calling the shots in say afghanistan, pakistan i don't see a lot of evidence of this. this is more about pledging

allegiance to the brutality and the savagery of isil but 1st and foremost the issues for these local chapters is local. i think aspirational he they're is a threat that isil poses potentially to the homeland and those they might harbor in their area particularly in iraq and syria who would do us harm. >> i agree with that assessment. we just had a recent case out of brooklyn where we had threats being made. you mentioned yemen. could you just briefly -- >> if i -- >> go ahead. >> if i might comment on it ma'am this is what i was referring to any oral statement -- and this is a

real challenge for all of us and in homeland security or intelligence is the appeal, the rhetorical or spiritual appeal that because of the effective, very highly effective media capabilities that isil has demonstrated and how they are able to appeal to people who think and act then can act on their own at a time and place and circumstance of there choosing. and that is a very worrisome challenge, particularly in this country. not so much the command-and-control and plots as much as inspiring. >> right. so do you have recommendations for us about ways to stem the tide? do you believe our allies and other countries are doing their fair share? particularly i am concerned about the flow of foreign fighters, some from the us from europe into human out of syria. for example what should

turkey be doing to help us more? >> as we discussed before, turkey has its own focus which does not necessarily comport with ours in terms of focusing on isil or al qaeda. they have very permissive laws. it would be good if they would change them and have more stringent controls over who transits through their country. i would volunteer that i think because of the effectiveness of the media campaign and the propaganda campaign that isil mounts that we, the us and we the west we oppose isil need to be, i think much more aggressive and mounting the counter narrative. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> conclude, can i just again take a look at that

chart over they're, general? i no you have seen it as to the expansion of the chinese not filling in areas in the south china sea. that is a rather dramatic change, it seems to me. obviously they would be filling that end in order to place installations they're could you talk a little bit about that before we conclude? >> well, the chinese, of course, have had their exorbitant claims, the so-called nine _-dash line throughout the south china sea. they have been very aggressive about pursuing that. and, of course, this runs afoul of counterclaims that many of the other countries also have in the same area and they too are very concerned about it.

i think that may be a good thing because there strength is going to be if they can act collectively. so with the chinese are doing here of course, in one case, building airfields, and air drawn so that they can launch aircraft in and out to do patrols and surveillance and further exert what they consider there sovereignty over the south china sea. it has been impressive. in the last year year and a half since they have been doing this as they pursued drilling, which has caused conflict with the vietnamese and others. and so this is a worrisome trend because of the tensions it we will create in the south china sea. they have been very aggressive about it. >> you have not only the

capability of building the airfields but obviously weapon systems could also -- >> well, they could. exactly. they are still in the construction phase so what they actually deploy or make it big enough so that they could permanently stationed forces that will be interesting to see what they do. >> well, obviously our attention is on other parts of the world but this is really quite a major step on their part and i thank you for helping us out on that. >> if i may just one question in reaction to the questioning from the senator. we understand there is a public campaign that isil is undertaking. you may not be able to comment in this session them will but are we taking steps to interdict that communication? so that they are not able to

put things up and attract recruits and communicate? >> the problem is they are ubiquitous use of the media. the challenge is how you take down the internet because that is more and more what they are doing. in the day when al qaeda or isil put these things out it was kind of channelized and the kind we kind of watched it and could do that. they have gotten wise to that, and now they make it very difficult because of the universal forms and the way they get things out so ubiquitously very hard to control it. ergo what we must do i believe, is counter the messages. >> thank you. >> i no you are going to have and are having a very busy couple of days. i no you understand we have

our responsibilities to try to inform members in the senate so that we can shape legislation to help you do your job more effectively and efficiently command we thank both of you for being here. this hearing is adjourned. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

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

>> the senate has been in recess as it awaits house action on the homeland security spending bill. the house voting right now on a three-week extension funding the department of homeland security through march 19. this morning in the senate members passed a bill funding the department through september 30, the rest of the fiscal year. the bill does not include funding for the president's immigration executive orders. this morning they voted for passage, 31 republicans casting a no vote. the senate blocked a bill that would have refunded those immigration orders. sixty yes votes were needed. on that bill yesterday senator collins talked about the provisions of her m. legislation. you we we will show you as much

of that as we wait until the senate reconvenes. >> mr. president, three weeks ago i came to the senate floor to speak on an t amendment which i had hoped e would provide a framework that wofiuld accomplish threeunding goals 1st to provide funding for the department perf of homeland security so thatting the people it can perform its vital mission of protecting the people of our country. a 2nd, to put the senate broad on record as opposing the president's extraordinarily broad immigration actionast issue november in 2014. and third to ensure that indivials and 3rd to ensure that chiren individuals who are brought to this country as children and to qualify for treatment underde the june 2012hildhood

executive order on delayedcall action on childhood arrival j the so-called dreamers that senator durbin has just spoken of, could continue to m benefit under that program. i am very pleased that it t looks like we are moving a forward on a bill to fully vot fund the department of homeland security. we had a very strong vote on that yesterday. indeed, since the president i have not heard a single the senator on either side ofuld the aisle say that we should shut down the department of homeland security. each of us recognizes its vital mission and as someone who served on the homeland security committee as the chairman for several years or ranking member for several years and i was on

the committee for a decade, i certainly understand how vital the mission of this department is. i am keenly aware as a member of the intelligence committee of the threats against our country and the threats our country faces from those who would do us harm. at the same time mr. president as members of the executive branch, we have an obligation to speak out and to register our opposition when we believe that the president has exceeded his grant of executive authority under the constitution in a way that would -- in a way that would undermine the separation of powers doctrine.

i want to read you what one scholar on a constitutional scholar has said about the president's executive order and how far the president could and president could and could not go. this is what this constitutional scholar said. congress has said here is the law when it comes to those who are undocumented. what we can do is to carve out the dreamers so that young people who have basically grown up here are americans that we should welcome. but if we start broadening that then essentially i would be ignoring the law in a way that i think would be very difficult to defend legally.

so that is not an option. who was that constitutional scholar? it was the president of the united states president barack obama. he said this in september of 2013. mr. president president obama got it right back then i believe that he was within the scope of his executive authority when he issued the 2012 executive orders that created daca that allowed for the dreamers to stay here. and let me also make clear that i am a supporter of compliments of immigration reform and while i was disappointed that the immigration reform legislation did not become

law when we passed it a few years ago i reject the notion that its failure can serve as justification for the actions taken by the president last november. he simply cannot do by executive fiat what congress has refused to pass regardless of the wisdom of congress' decision. such unilateral action is contrary to how our constitutional system is supposed to work and it risks undermining the separation of powers doctrine which is central to our constitutional framework. and mr. president, that is really what this debate is about.

it is about the proper constitutional constraints on unilateral executive action. it happens to be an executive action that deals with immigration but it could be an executive action on any other issue. that is why it is important that we draw those lines. and indeed, mr. president i would tell you that the legislation that i propose that we would be voting on a sometime is fully consistent with the court ruling in texas which my colleague the senior senator from texas is very familiar with and knows much more about than i do. but it is fully consistent

with that ruling which has let stand the 2012 executive order that states the implementation of the 2014 executive order. there is a difference. now, the senator from illinois i consider to be an excellent senator and a dear friend, and it truly pains me to disagree with his analysis of my amendment. i no that he acts in good faith but they are either missed -- there are other misunderstandings or misinterpretations or just plain disagreements and i would like to go through some of the points that he has made about my amendment. one of the senator from

illinois chief objections to my bill is that it strikes provisions of the november 2014 immigration action that would expand -- that is the key word. it would expand the 2012 daca program to add certain individuals who are not eligible under that program. he talks about expanding the age limit, for example. now, exactly what the criteria are for dreamers under the 2012 executive order and these are criteria that were praised by my friend from illinois and numerous other senators on the democratic side of the aisle when the president issued his executive order.

and i too agree with these criteria. in order to qualify an individual has to have come to the united states under age 16 has to have continually resided in the united states at least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and has to be present on the date of the 2012 -- the june 15, 2012, memorandum. the individual he has -- the individual has to either be in school, has graduated from high school obtained a general education development certificate or has to be an honorably discharged member of the postcard or our military. in addition, the individual has to have a pretty good

record. the person cannot have been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense multiple misdemeanor offenses or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety and cannot be above the age of 30. these are reasonable criteria that the president came up with. frankly i am not involved with the one that allows for multiple misdemeanors which although the executive order says the individual cannot have multiple misdemeanors the form used by dhs says that the individual can have up to three misdemeanors. i personally would require an absolutely clean record. but these are reasonable criteria and these are not

changed by the collinsville in any way. the 2012 executive order stands. so really my friend from illinois argument is focused on the fact that he wants an and expansion of these criteria and to add other categories of individuals and that is what the november 2013 immigration action does. it has nothing to do with the status of the individual who is allowed to stay in this country as a result of the 2012 executive order. my amendment protects the 2012 executive order and those who benefited from it. so we have a sincere

disagreement over what is appropriate to be done by executive action and what needs to be done by legislation. even though i support many of the policies that are in the 2014 executive order i just do not think that the president can unilaterally proclaim those changes. >> with the senator yield for a question? >> if the senators question is brief i would be happy. >> i we will make it very brief. if the senator acknowledges, and i believe she has come up with the president have the authority in 2012 to issue an executive order under daca and to spell out the criteria which includes at the very bottom of your chart the person not be

above the age of 30 why does the senator disagree with this situation? someone who is 29 years old in june of 2012 eligible for daca the executive order. now two and a half years later and the president tried to amend in november 2014 that last line to expand so that those who have aged out would still have a chance because congress has not acted otherwise. why would the senator from main draw that distinction to the president has the authority to write the order of but not to amend disorder? >> mr. president, i am happy to respond to the senator from illinois. the.is that the president's 2014 executive order goes far beyond those who would a job in his words. it adds entirely knew categories of people. in fact, the estimates are

that some 5 million undocumented individuals would be covered by the 2014 executive order. should the president unilaterally be allowed to make that kind of executive order that kind of change in our immigration law? the court has said no and i believe the court is right about that. in fact when these criteria were issued in 2012 the senator from illinois said in a press release as recently as june of last year before the november executive order that this was a smart and lawful approach. so the answer is how do you

draw the line and what is appropriate role of the executive branch vis-à-vis the legislative branch? and i say that as someone who believes and hopes that later this year we will take up a comprehensive immigration bill and i hope to be able to support it again but this is an issue of what is the proper role of congress vis-à-vis the president under our constitutional system. and i was not surprised when the texas court the 2012 executive order blocked the 2014 executive order. now, there is another issue

that the senator from illinois has raised that i think is a really important.to be made. he has said that my bill could bar some of those who received the ability to stay in this country through the 2012 executive order from renewing their status. mr. president that is simply not how i read the executive order, and i think it is really clear. let's look at the 2012 executive order. this is what it says. this is what janet napolitano talked about in exercising prosecutorial discretion. the june 15 2012 daca

executive order grants deferred action for two years. here are the keywords subject to renewal. so there is nothing in my amendment that it prevents prevents children and young adults people up to age 30 from getting a renewal of the different status they have been granted. it says it right there subject to renewal. but let's look further at the data. this was on the website of dhs. according to the data from the us citizenship and immigration services the government has removed more than 148,000 2012 applications as of the 1st

quarter of this year and many of which -- of this fiscal year and many of them were completed before the november 2014 executive order was even issued. so there is nothing in my bill that prevents the renewal of those individuals who received this status. it is very clear, 148000 of them have had their applications renewed. the senator from illinois has said that i would prevent dhs from issuing a memorandum that allowed for the renewal. there is no need for such a memorandum. otherwise these young people

would not have been able already to have gotten a renewal. the senator senator has also said that my bill calls into question the very legality of the 2012 daca order because it is a very similar program to the 2014 executive action. to restate my basic. my bill does not affect the 2012 daca program. it is substantially different from the 2014 executive order. in fact if you read the language of the 2014 executive order it embraces that distinction.

it specifically states that it does not resend or supersede the 2012 daca order. let me say that again. the 2014 executive order specifically states that it does not resend or supersede the executive order that was issued in 2012. instead it says that it seeks to supplement or amend it. >> will the senator yield for a question. >> the senator from texas. >> i would be happy to yield. >> i appreciate the senators leadership on this issue. typical diligence and attention to detail. i think she has shown that the objections to a vote on the amendment is scheduled for sunday or saturday unless moved up are not well

taken, but i would ask the senator from maine is your interpretation of the presence executive action november of 2014 any different from what the president himself said 22 different times when he said he did not have the authority to issue such an executive action. >> mr. president, if i could respond to the senior senator from texas he raises an excellent issue, and i would bring the quotation that is just one of the 22 in which the president has said over and over again that he would like to do more on immigration. he was very disappointed that the house did not take

up the comprehensive immigration bill but that his hands were tied. i believe he even said, i am not a cane. >> with the senator yield. >> the senator from texas. >> mr. president, i would ask the senator from maine you are not alone and the president is not alone in stating your objections to the 2014 order which your amendment would seek to get a vote and to put senators on record for. is the senator aware that there are a number perhaps seven or eight senators on the other side of the aisle who at different times around the november 2014 order said that they were uncomfortable with the president taking this authority himself. in other words, i think the junior senator from maine was one of those who said while you may agree with the

outcome this is not the right way to do it. are you familiar with the fact that there are many of our democratic friends who have expressed similar concerns about the illegality of the presence executive action? >> mr. president, it does not surprise me that there are both democratic senators as well as republican senators who are extremely uncomfortable with what the president did last november because it is so outside of the scope of his authority as president that i think that most of my colleagues in their heart on the other side of the aisle must have qualms and misgivings about what the president did. in fact i would almost guarantee you that if a republican president had

exceeded his executive authority to that degree their would have been an uproar. the so i think this is really important in terms of our protecting the checks and balances that our founding fathers so wisely incorporated into the constitution and i do believe that there are even more senators on the other side who may not have said what they were thinking but really do have qualms about it. even if they agree with the policy. and we need to distinguish between the policy whether or not some members agree with a the policy, some members don't but the question is does the president's frustration with congress' failure to pass immigration reform allow him

to unilaterally write the law? the senator from texas is a former supreme court justice in texas and through the chair i would pose that question. >> the senator from texas. >> i would say to my friend from maine the senator from maine, the constitution is constitution is written in a way that divides government authority between the executive legislative, and the judicial branches. i, of course agree with you that there can be no justification on the part of the president that somehow congress had not acted enough or quickly enough or expansively enough to justify the extension of his authority under the constitution. but if i can ask my friend from maine another question to drill down on her earlier. it seems to me

that the senator from illinois the distinguished minority with he is making some suggestion that really what we are mad at is the people who benefit from this executive action which to my mind could not be further from the truth. we all understand the aspirations of people who want a better way of life and opportunity. isn't it true that, as you have said -- and i we will ask you to repeated perhaps or expand upon it. isn't it true we all take an oath to uphold the constitution, the laws of the united states whether you are the president or senator, we have a sacred obligation to make sure that no branch including the president usurps the authority of another bridge

or branch or violates constitutional limitations. >> mr. president, the senator from texas has a fine legal mind, served on the supreme court in texas, is exactly right. moreover, i would like to read to you what president obama himself said about the very issue that the senator from texas has said about the oath that we held up our hands and took when we were sworn into this body. here is what the president said in july 2011. i swore an oath to a uphold the laws on the books. now, i no some people want me to bypass congress and to change the laws on my own but that is not how our system works. that is not how our democracy functions. that is not how our constitution is read. mr. president president

obama had has it exactly right when he stated that reality. >> the senator from texas. >> the senator has been very patient with me. if i could ask two final questions. given the 22 different public statements the president of the united states has himself said about his lack of authority to do what he did in november of 2014 given the reservations publicly expressed and reported by a number of members on that side of the aisle about what the president has done and given the fact that there are 11 democratic senators who come from states that filed a lawsuit to block the president's executive action can you understand why that the democratic minority would try to block

your amendment which would put all senators on record as to whether they agree with their president when he said that 22 times, whether they agree with the court that issued this preliminary injunction, and whether they agree with their own states that participated in this litigation to block the implementation of this unlawful order? can you think of any reason why they would try to block or defeat your amendment and put all members of the senate on record? >> mr. president to respond to the senator from texas i really hope that won't happen. i have put forth a way forward for this body. i want to ensure that the department of homeland security is fully funded throughout the fiscal year. i want to ensure that we do

not overturn the 2012 daca executive order which is now enough that it does not raise the troubling issue that the senator from texas has so eloquently outlined. but i do believe it is important for us to each take a stand against the president's overreach presidents overreach year. this is important. this matters. it is our job to protect the constitution and to uphold our role. and that is what i am trying to do here accomplish those three goals. and that is what the senator from texas is discussing. >> mr. president, if i can ask the senator from maine one final question. >> the senator from texas.

>> she has been patient with me but we are trying to drill down here so all the members understand exactly what the amendment does and does not do. and we have talked about the fact that not only other people on record saying that the president over reached. eleven democratic senators who come from states that have filed suit claiming irreparable damage to there states who will have an opportunity to vote for the amendment hopefully hear soon but i want to ask the senator there is one part of what the president's executive order does that has -- jimmy stands out to me stands out above and beyond the constitutional issues and that is the ability of people who committed domestic violence child exportation, sexual abuse and child molestation