polly generational, and there are digital divides. and availability and low cost of technology which will decrease over time. we are all in it together. it is like a brain. it is an incredible series of actions, the greatest human accomplishment potentially. nothing greater. it is precious. it is not solely the internet that the collaborations it produces, the decentralization, the capacity to learn don't understand, to see things

can't comprehend, the comprehend, the extent to which this is a bottom-up driven process and the extent to which nationstates should be able to regulate the police is a debate you should be thinking about and i should be thinking about in gt and private industry should be thinking about command they do. the part of that debate. engage it. deeper, stronger, more powerful. i will hopefully leave you with some questions. if you have done nothing wrong and have nothing to fear, should you be concerned about what i've talked about today? should you be concerned about prison programs in the

snowden revelations? would it bother you not for you to see, not only for your family to see, but for everyone. offer your government to say. and that stretches deep and wide. that includes medical data and various other metrics that you can use. would you want your one-to-one communications, stuff you think is private to be one too many? that is essentially what we are doing. by giving your data to the crowd, giving your services to use, you are turning one-to-one communications and the one to many.

in order to find the needle in the haystack they need access to the health haystack. you and i are part of the haystack. here part of that brain map that we looked at earlier. these are important questions for mayor generation commit your time, time, your power to agree with them to change it. thank you very much. [applause] >> we got about five minutes.

>> microphones alive. >> first of all, thank you very much for interesting lecture. my question would be, since the government is trying to our wants to enforce strong dealer to have stronger regulative policies upon the citizens for there own gain over companies to get access to more information, in this case, who would hold the government accountable for all the information they would have access to in order to protect national security? >> in the 1st instance, we, the people -- you can stay there are sit down.

it is really up to you. it is, has always been through processes in a liberal democracy through democratic channels. you elect officials comeau we elected officials to my elected officials. they are held to account, and they hold people to account turn. what i would question is whether the existing legislation, you look into existing legislation whether is capable or has caught up with the existing technology , and within societal and technological trends on whether or not we need to revisit that legislation and never much more informed debate. i think it is probably the latter. i just don't think the legislation is capable. the amount of data you can pull off the internet and all sorts of different surfaces, i have barelyi

have barely touch the surface. it is incredible, all inspiringly incredible. anyone of us, is detailed. you would be amazed. and i don't think the national, supranational, or international law has really thought about it, not in the in-depth way that we need to. >> thank you. yeah, sure. >> how are we a democratic country. our government knows everything that we do. if they are watching us or can monitor. so how can we classify ourselves as democratic and go around preaching to other countries how they need to be democratic when they know

every single thing that every citizen can do. >> a good cop provocative question. one that i would like to see you put your senators, representatives, so on. that is how you hold them to account. almost an orwellian nightmare. everything is monitored. you lose your civil liberties and freedoms. i am not -- the trouble is, is, it is not only your own government is capable of doing this.

switch on your webcam and see what your doing, they can. the government has been happening to do this. ever question. i think it's gone too far. it is a debate. >> thank you for coming to speak with us. building off of this question. the duty of citizens of the united states or is the government of the united states to be responsible for our own cyber security. his shoulders should the following?

>> good question. is conceived, but a fantastic question. ms. conceived not because your wrong in any way, shape, or form, because the internet is borderless. the conception of cyberspace can't reflect nationstates. it can reflect physical boundaries. it is not a geographical entity. to think of it in terms of protecting national cyberspace is a misnomer. it is nonsense. they are seen so many. the list goes on and on. they are not capable of policing in that sense. it

is not like defending national borders where you seen any across the way and luncheonette. it is very much a mix of defense event offense of cyber operations to try to defend our space. this is where you get into establishing rules of the game between nationstates that includes russia, includes china to stop espionage against one another. you don't go after critical national infrastructure, healthcare systems, try to take flights over the year. you know, certain respects. that needs to be established for cyberspace. because it is bounded in geographical conception. >> sheet.

>> this is sad. it's terrible. the danger public life, private life being out there pauses. any good news? have you had any positive response from the people you talk to? >> i absolutely believe it. i hope so. all doom and gloom. far from it.

he had the alphabet and in the printing press. it is precious. it is a great tool comeau 11 of the great things we have. it is just, we need to wreak cast are thinking a little bit. i don't have my cell phone in my pocket, but if i did i could communicate with anybody instantaneously. my parents, grandparents never had it. that is hope for itself. from a practical.of view we just need to think about where our private boundaries are, how far governments should be able to regulate

whether it is the chinese, russians, the united states, and partly depends and a political. these are not easy things to solve. there are debates which gone down in brazil. be part of the conversation. taking a part of online discussions. many, many groups that deal with issues. have the conversation. don't think that you are being sidelined. >> and we will break away from the last few minutes of this program and take you live now to newark, new jersey.newark, new jersey. president obama about to make remarks about criminal justice. >> thank you so much. thank you, everybody. [applause] thank you so much. thank you very much.

good afternoon, everybody. it is good to be in newark. [applause] let me 1st of all think your chancellor, nancy, for hosting us here today. there she is. your mayor is here. [applause] your senator is in the house. there he is right there. there congressman. you know,. [laughter] over the course of this year i have been talking to people all across the country about reforming our criminal justice system to be fair, to be smart, to be more effective.

i have met with police chiefs, beat cops copper is nurse, corrections officers, families of fallen police officers, and families of children who were killed a gun violence. i have met with men and women battling drug abuse and rehab coaches and folks working on knew solutions for treatment. and i have to tell you that from all of these conversations i have at times the spirit about the magnitude of the problem, asked myself how we break the cycle that has young children somehow on that pipeline where they end up incarcerated.

and yet what is interesting is, i have been helpful as well during the course of this hearing. because what i have seen is that there are people across the board, folks who work inside the criminal justice system, folks who were affected by carl justice system for saying, they're has got to be a better way to do this. andthis. and they are not just asking questions about how we make the system smarter and more effective, but are showing us how it is done and actually implementing it. this afternoon i spent with the mayor and senator booker getting a firsthand look at how newark is helping to lead the way. and as a partner and my brother's keeper initiative, the mayor and the senator and congressman and others are working in public

private partnership to focus on disrupting the pipeline from underfunded schools to overcrowded jails. here in newark, when it comes to rehabilitating prisoners and reintegrating former inmates into society, you have that organizations that are doing extraordinary work. and that is why i wanted to focus you today. because places like integrity house, the work that is being done in our federal radio program through the district court and our us attorney's office , they are accomplishing extraordinary things command when you meet folks who are taking a step to break addiction and overcome great odds command you see what they have already accomplished and

what more they will accomplish in the future, you cannot help but feel hopeful about the future. now, right now there are 2.2 million americans behind bars. 2.2 million. we incarcerate people at a rate that is unequaled around the world. we account for 5 percent of the worlds population, 25 percent of its inmates. they are disproportionately black and latino. as one of corey's republican colleagues from texas, no bleeding heart liberal likes to.out, almost all of these individuals will eventually be released. more than 600,000 inmates released each year. around 70 million americans have some sort of criminal record. that is almost one in five.

almost one in three americans of working age. now, a lot of times that record disqualifies you from being a full participant in our society. even if you have already paid your debt to society. it means millions of americans have difficulty even getting their foot in the door to try to get a job , much less actually hang onto that job. that is bad for not only those individuals but our economy. is that for the communities that desperately need more role models who are gainfully employed. so we have got to make sure americans who pay their debt to society can earn there 2nd chance.

and as i said before, we spent the day seeing people who are doing just that, counselors, parole officers, small business owners are giving folks 2nd chance. federal judges who are not only being smart about sentencing but are also helping to the extent that they are going in there own pockets just to help somebody who is transitioning out get the right) job interview. i've spoken to men and women who are part of programs like new jersey step here at rutgers newark. you are getting prisoners the 2nd chance to start taking college courses before their release so that they can reenter society with marketable skills. and ii have had a chance, as i said, to speak with folks who are working hard to get back on track. and i just want to highlight a couple of them.

i hope you guys are not embarrassed if your here because i am proud of which are doing. arrested for drug related abuse charge in 2013, serve six months in prison and yesterday a member of integrity house, treatment center that i visited earlier this afternoon determined to become a productive citizen and is getting the counseling and support that he needs to achieve his goals, enderle's family is within every step of the way, so we are proud of darrell. [applause] i don't know if he is here. ashley sinclair, ashley is here today.today. i know that. there you are. stand up, ashley. [applause] ashley spent most of her 21 years on the streets. and involving crime. eventually she decided she wanted something better for herself and joined a program

called project hope. she impress everyone with her work ethic earning her place in the newark department of sanitation, and today instead of getting in trouble on the streets she has earned a paycheck. the streets. so we are proud to have her. [applause] we want more success stories like these. it is good for everyone. it means less crime, less recidivism, less money spent on incarceration, less wasted taxpayer money, police aren't having to arrest the same folks over and over again. young people are seeing in their community people who are working. that in turn creates economies in those communities that are legal and not just illegal which creates redevelopment for everybody.

and now businesses have more customers with means they are hiring more and you get the site. that is why today we are taking to knew actions to create more success stories like this. these are actions that i can take as president through my executive authorities. number one, myone, my administration is announcing new grants to help returning citizen sees the 2nd chance their education and job training and housing and legal health insurance and services. so -- [applause] five cities are announcing commitments of there own to help folks reentering society to train for high-tech jobs, and we will be partnering with them and others to try to make sure that they go work that we saw here today we can start expanding. point number one company more money in the system.

let me say it is nowhere near what we need. but it gives us more ability to create more programs that serve as an example of best practices so that it can be duplicated around the country. point number two, i am taking action to ban the box. [applause] [applause] for the most competitive jobs a federal agencies. the federal government is a big employer come as you know. like a lot of big employers on many job applications is a box that asks if you have a criminal record. if you answer yes, a lot of times you are not getting a call back. we will do our part to change this. the federal government

should not use criminal history to screen out applicants before we even look at the qualifications. they cannot dismiss people out of hand simply because of a mistake that they made in the past. and i have to say that although this is something that i can do on executive basis, this is an area where cory booker working with one of his republican colleagues, ron johnson, working to try to pass federal legislation, a band the box bill working its way through the senate. i believe congress should pass legislation that builds on today's announcement. and keep in mind, some really good, some really good, really successful companies are already doing this. walmart, target, home depot had already taken action on there own. nineteen states have done the same.

so my hope is that with the federal government also taking action must getting legislation passed, this becomes a basic principle across our society. it is relevant to find out whether somebody is a criminal record. we are not suggesting to ignore it. we are suggesting that when it comes to the application give folks a chance to get to the door. given the chance. get in they're so that they can make the case. [applause] this is not just the only step that we can take. just two weeks ago corrie, the democrats and republicans moved through the senate a bipartisan criminal justice reform bill thisthis is a bill that would reduce mandatory manoj are nonviolent offenders, invest in law enforcement, reward prisoners with time off if they complete programs that make it less likely that they will commit

crimes in the future, and there is a similar bill working its way through the house. i urgently encourage both the senate and house to pass these bills. it will not completely change the system overnight, but it will lock in some basic principles that we understand will make us a fairer and safer society long-term command i am proud of the work that those legislators are doing. i am especially proud because it is not typical that democrats and republicans get together on useful legislation. let's face it. but this is an area where we have seen strong, bipartisan work, and i am encouraged by that. there are so many americans who desperately want a 2nd chance. i already mentioned darrell and ashley.

i will call out one other person. to quan is looking very sharp today. [applause] now, he was arrested for his 1st drug charge when he was 17. at 27 he27 he received a ten year federal sentence for drug distribution. in his own words, when he got out of his homeless, had no real legitimate employment history, and it would be easy to write him off. more importantly,. more importantly, it would have been easy for them to write himself off or at least to say there is nothing else i know. this is the path i have to follow, going back to the drug trade that unfortunately he had been raised in. but something happened inside of him.

he had a motivation to say i'm going to change. .. i just think everybody needs to understand what happened here. so we, with the help of our u.s.

attorney, paul fisher, paul, stand up. [cheers and applause] the justice department, the federal district court judge, the probation officer, they all set up a system in which he has a community encouraging him to move forward. if he doesn't have the right suit for a job application, they are helping them do that. if he doesn't have enough money to eat that week, they are seeing if they can scrape something together. if he's interested in going back to school, what happened was that these folks helped to scrape together school fees for him, including through the second chance of dollars that would generate through the

justice department. and as dequon just told me, he said, look, i'm not saying everything is easy, you've got to want it your self. but because of the investment of these people who are calling him and bring him in every couple of weeks, and kevin, his probation officer, is problem solving with them on an ongoing basis. dequon found a job in medical transportation. then he pursued his emt certification. today he is an emt in ethics county -- essex county. [applause] >> and instead of -- instead of peddling drugs that it's showing lives, he's saving lives. he's making the community bett better.

and i just want to highlight this story because your you've got a situation where are officers of the court, judges, probation officers, u.s. attorneys, pastors, community leaders, business leaders are all coming together saying, what's the problem we are trying to solve? the problem return to solve is not just to keep on catching people and putting them back in jail. the problem we're trying to solve here is giving people a foundation through which they can become productive citizens. and the judge was mentioning how, when she saw dequon are some of the other folks who have gone through this program graduate, that's the best thing that happened to her as a judge.

because she understands that's the goal. the goal is to prevent crime. the goal is to make sure that folks are fairly punished when they break the law. but the ultimate goal is to make sure that folks are law-abiding, self-sufficient good of citizens. and everything we do should be designed towards that goal. and if we're doing a good job they are -- [applause] -- then cry will go down and it will stay down. [applause] that's our goal. where everybody has a chance to contribute. and that's what these outstanding folks that i met with you today are committed to. that's what mayor barack and cory booker and don payne, jr.

and others are committed to. that's what i'm committed to. this is not easy. and as i've said before, we can't have the criminal justice system carrying the entire load of solving all of society's ills. we are a lot better off if we catch dequon we need is five, or 12, or 18 then when he is 37. we are a lot better off we are investing in economic development and housing and jobs and adequate funding for schools and making college more affordable on the front end. but dequon story, like the story of so many people in this auditorium can tell, is that it's not too late. there are people who have gone through tough times.

they have made mistakes. but with a little bit of help, they can get on the right path. [applause] and that's what we have to invest in. that's what we have to believe. that's what we have to promote. that's why i'm so proud of what newark is doing and that's what i'll everybody learns. thank you so much, everybody. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. thank you. [applause] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> a busy day for president obama wrapping up remarks here in newark, new jersey, on the the american criminal justice system. earlier the president was at the white house re-signed a budget you passed by congress last week. that deal raises the debt ceiling until march 27 thing. here it is. >> well, last week, democrats and republicans came together to set up a responsible, long-term budget process, and what we now see is a budget that reflects our values, that grows our economy, creates jobs, keeps america safe. it's going to strengthen the middle class by investing in critical areas like education and job training and basic research. it keeps us safe by investing in our national security and making sure that our troops get what they need in order to keep us

safe and perform all the outstanding duties that they do around the world. it protects our seniors by avoiding harmful cuts to medicare and social security. and it's paid for in a responsible, balanced way, in part, for example, by making sure that large hedge funds and private equity firms pay what they owe in taxes just like everybody else. and by locking in two years of funding, it should finally free us from the cycle of shutdown threats and last-minute fixes. it allows us to, therefore, plan for the future. so i very much appreciate the work that the democratic and republican leaders did to get this to my desk. i think it is a signal of how washington should work. and my hope is now that they build on this agreement with spending bills that also invest

in america's priorities without getting sidetracked by a whole bunch of ideological issues that have nothing to do with our budget. so this is just the first step between now and the middle of december, before the christmas break. the appropriators are going to have to do their job. they're going to have to come up with spending bills. but this provides them the guidepost and the baseline with which to do that. and i'm confident that they can get it done on time. and there's no better christmas present for the american people because this will allow the kind of stability and will allow the economy to grow. at a time when you've got great weakness in economies around the world, this puts us on a responsible path and it makes sure that the american people are the beneficiaries. so i very much appreciate the work. let's keep it going. with that i'm going to sign it. and i want to thank, in

particular, the staffs of both democratic and republican leaders in both the house and the senate because they worked overtime to get this done. i want to thank my own staff, in particular, katie fallon and brian deese, who are standing in the back. they gave up a bunch of lost weekends to make this happen, but they did an outstanding job. and we're very proud of them. thank you very much, everybody. >> both chambers of congress in session this week. the house week. the house returned to day. you're working on a number of bills including several on intelligence sharing between state and local officials. tomorrow they will begin debating a long-term transportation and highway funding measure. measure. current funding a sixpack did to expire on the 20. -- december 20. you can follow the house live on c-span and the senate right here

on c-span2 in the return to washington tomorrow. they will start debate and water quality protection bill. they have a vote scheduled to advanced that measure for 2:30 p.m. eastern. we will have it on c-span2. later today the house veterans' affairs committee holding a hearing on the alleged misuse of funds over the va's program to relocate workers. we have that here in starting live at 7:30 p.m. eastern also here on c-span2. >> all persons having business before the honorable the supreme court of the united states draw near and give their attention. spent this week and c-span's "landmark cases" we'll discuss the historic supreme court case of schenck v. the united states. in 1917 the united states entered world war i, patriotism was high, and some forms of criticism of the government were a federal offense. charles chick who was general secretary of the philadelphia

socialist party handed out in their leaflets against the draft. >> this is the fire that was produced by charles schenck in 1917. 15,000 copies of this were produced and the point was to encourage men who are liable for the draft not to register. the language is particularly fiery. 80 quite a conscription was slavery and calls on every citizen of the united states to resist the conscription laws. >> he was arrested, tried and found guilty under the recently enacted espionage act. he appealed and the case went directly to the supreme court. find out how the court ruled, weighing the issues of clear and present danger and freedom of speech. that's coming up on the next "landmark cases" live tonight at 9 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span3 and c-span radio.

for background on each case while you watch order your copy of the "landmark cases" companion books. it is available for $8.95 plus shipping at c-span.org/landmarkcases. >> earlier today "defense one" held its annual summit on defense and national security issues. in this portion we are from white house deputy national security advisor ben rhodes director of national intelligence james clapper and chairman of the house armed services committee mac thornberry. this is one hour and a half. >> welcome everyone. good morning i should say. good morning. welcome to the third annual "defense one" summer. i'm excited for so many reasons. this is our third time, hopefully third time is the charm. you know, when we first launched "defense one" our tagline was this was about the new era of defense. the future of defense.

we really focus on trying to define what that meant coming out of the big four years, out of iraq, afghanistan. and we decide to talk about the limits of power, military power. because it seemed like the u.s. was kind of started to go into a lot of different directions at once. i think a dean was established then we at secretary hagel at the time but said the military would not have a limit. we have to, the military has to be able to answer the call of the president, whatever you will be at anytime. so by the second year of our defense summit we had general dempsey who had written for i think the back of the qdr is one letter message. the u.s. needed to do a better job of defining the purpose of the military. a little different than the boundaries. we exported that last year as well, what should this military be decided to do. and where should it go. well, dish i really wanted to blow things up a lot bigger. clearly, the u.s. is at a stage where it doesn't say no to

anything. the u.s. is the global leader. i remember back in the '90s at least when we hear a lot about should these be the global police? i think it is the i think it is absolutely is, and those days are gone. a new conversation we hope to do is about the age of everything. meaning from kabul to chattanooga, the u.s. is involved in global security, from hunting down individual terrorists in far off places to figure out how to check down vladimir putin in the grandest of geopolitics chess game of old, to cyber counterintelligence threats, all the way to law enforcement. there's really no end to it. and i think behind the scenes i think the american public doesn't get a good appreciation, a good view of how much these groups all work together at the interagency level, in government, but all of you do, but a lot of our audience does. we and what we really hear about are things like syria strategy, an announcement of how many

troops in iraq or the islands in china or the opm hack. a lot of disjointed threats coming out of the united states but all part of the symmetrix. metric. matrix, whatever. so with that in mind i really look forward to getting things kicked off with jim sciutto and ben rhodes, the deputy national security advisor who can start at the white house level, work or wait until to have a great day of conversation. hopefully make a little bit of news and come off from this day better informed, better educated and maybe even welfare. we will have a good time. so without further ado let's bring them out and get things started. thank you and welcome to the "defense one" summit ♪ [applause] >> thank you, thank you, trampling, for joining us today. i can begin with the good news that we have already dissected the mets loss last so they can talk about sacred issues.

and full disclosure i was out of the game and took a 3 a.m. train back from new york. they were tears on the train, i'll admit to that as well. but that's behind us now. >> may be behind you. >> so you thankfully give us some news last week with the announcement about 50 special forces, special operators going to syria. at last count russians have several hundred on the ground. the iranians 2000 or so. hezbollah combat that income that's thousands more. in that picture, what do 50 u.s. special operating on the ground, what difference do they make for u.s. objectives in syria? >> so, jim, when we have been looking at the strategy as it went over the last year or so, we've looked at what works and what has not worked. what has worked is when we have the ability to strengthen a

partner who is in the fight on the ground in syria. we've done that in different ways. in kobani we're not able to just drop weapons but also develop relationships with people on the ground that allowed us to provide them with close air support as it went on the offense against isil. what was not working, for instance, was taking oppositionists out of the country, trying to trade him out of the fight and then send them back in. this contingent of special operators will be very much in the light of how do we help facilitate the success of partners on the ground. so they are not going to be out fighting side-by-side with forces inside of syria. they are going to be able to work with them to facilitate their operations, to provide them with advice. we are also going to be doing as we announced a couple weeks ago more direct equipping the forces on the ground. so they are intended to be a force multiplier that will allow for those who were on the front lines of fight against isil to be better coordinated, better

equipped and hopefully have better results in taking back territory. >> will they be on the front lines? >> no. what we've done in a lot of these partnered operations in both iraq and syria is, you know, they are obviously in dangerous places we don't have any illusions about that but that nation is not one of combat where they're going out into the fight but rather they are stating some space back and doing facilitation advice for those ground forces that are in the fight against isil. >> the things we saw though, i did some reporting on this raid in northern iraq two weeks ago where master sergeant wheeler was killed. that was assist nation. they were not meant to be in the firefight, but wheeler and i believe one of his unit mates, the kurds were overwhelmed inside the compound they took the decision on the ground to go in and he was shot and he died.

it didn't start as a combat mission but it ended up in combat and is committed made a decision on the ground. like any other definition of the word, that's a combat role, isn't it? >> well, look, jim, the nation, but they are sent to do is not to go out and be engaged in combat, beyond combat patrols. however, look, these are dangerous places. and in any case someone may make the call that they have to engage an enemy. that's true of people who are going out and accompanied on a raid like that even if there's some space back. that's true of a force protection mission associate with our facilities that we are operating in iraq. the distinction, jim, is their mission is not one of combat. several years ago we had guys were out on patrol. their job was to engage the enemy as necessary.

these troops, not just the special operators in syria and, frankly, all the troops that are going to deployed in iraq and syria have a different mission which is advise and assist spent by more these are great agency. this is not 100,000 troops kicking down doors. let's be fair. this is not force protection behind the wire database if you come under attack. they would drop at night from helicopters into a protected compound, and under the umbrella of assist, they insisted of their kurdish partners in a firefight. i mean, if the commander, and we know delta force operators, they are not going to sit back and get their guys, guys they've trained, they know well, they're going to get into a firefight as that committed made that decision. they may not have started in the tightest box of a combat role but that is surely a combat, whatever you want to call it. it may not be the starting

nation but that was part of their job that day. and if you're going to have 50 guys on the ground in syria it seems to me this is something the american people have to be prepared for. >> well again, not to put too fine a point on it, but the fact of the matter is the norm for these operators is not going to be going out on raids, right? that's not their mission. this decision was not rooted in we need a capacity to essentially had guys who can go on a series of targeted rates. that said, again we have great confidence in our special operators, and they will make judgment calls. and if they make a judgment that they are under some type of threat that requires them to engage -- >> they or their partner's? >> that was a determination that was made in that particular raid. but again, i think -- the thing that did not understand is the purpose of this nation, just like the purpose of our presence in iraq, is not to have constant rate capacity in the country.

it's to facilitate the operations of the other partners. when we say facilitate that doesn't always mean going out with him on a raid. so what took place in northern iraq, that was more the exception than the rule. it was the session because they determination was made there were significant numbers of hostages held and it was worth the risk. so this is the nature of this conflict we're in, which is it's not large u.s. ground forces who are responsible for the security of the country, responsible for reclaiming territory from isil. it is very focus u.s. capabilities. some of that is ground capabilities, some of that is their capabilities, some of that is intelligence sharing that has as its purpose helping partners on the ground be more successful in taking back territory from isil. >> in syria could this be one of their missions there? mike bibby called into a similar role with kurdish forces if they go into rate a compound, et cetera?

>> look, i'm obviously not going to rule anything out. we that special operations raids in syria to try to rescue hostages. that is not their principal function in being deployed. the principal function again is helping to organize, facilitate and provide advice to those forces that are on the offense against isil, and we seem to have success in northern syria, parts of eastern syria. and to have those troops in the fight. and, frankly, they are the ones who are going to have much more substantial numbers in terms of capacity. we have seen them i didn't have success. when there are people who are well organized and have the will to fight against isil, using the capacity to take that ground. what they really benefit from, again, is director support from us, equipment from us come and decreasing relationship where we can provide them with advice. >> could be part of the function on the ground in syria spent it's not that i don't want to rule out the notion that if

mayors come and we've been willing to undertake limited operations as it relates to hostage rescue or substantial leadership target. but that's not what they're being deployed to do speed and i'll be this out of this, when the president said repeatedly he would not have ground combat troops in syria at initial in iraq, he didn't make this distinction. he was very clear and expansive in his seeming to rule it out. did the president go back on his will? >> no. book, what he's doing is he changing the nature of how the united states engages in these countries, in these complex where the limiting principle that he absolutely is sticking to is the notion that we're not going to take back ownership of security in iraq and syria, for that matter in afghanistan. but we need to find ways to use arour very unique capabilities o support these other partners on the ground. and so look, he's not going to be rigidly bound by every, you

know, by the limiting principle that we will never have anybody going to syria. if we have an interest that can be advanced by having this type of presence, he's willing to make that call. but it's very different than, you know, some people i think have almost equally to this as if it's a full-scale return to the iraq war or something here. the fact of the matter is the scale and nature of your submission is basically different. >> let's talk about iraq for a moment. is of the u.s. concern that russia is going to take a military role in iraq? military action. >> no. defective about is if you look at what russia is doing inside of syria, it's not principally focused on isil at all. it focused on helping to prop up assad and focused on a range of opposition groups who threaten assad.

so they showed their cards through what they are doing. and what they're doing would lead them to be focus on a very specific geographic area that is the remaining enclave that is protected and governed eydie assad regime. and then -- governed by the assad regime. forget about iraq proper. >> there's also a little bit, we have to admit of poking the u.s. in the eye or perceived poking the u.s. in the eyes. what's your answer to the criticism that rush is boxing to use out in syria, and iran is doing the same in iraq? that they are filling, if not a complete vacuum, at least a partial vacuum left by diminished u.s. participation? >> we think that is not borne out by any reasonable analysis of what's taking place. ..

should not come as a surprise to people so the notion that these countries are operating in places where they have interest, again should not, should not take people by surprise in a think if you look at it they are in pressure and places where they have interests. and frankly to some extent the one shared answers that we all have is isil and the need to roll them back and that's what

keeps the president's focus. he doesn't see this as some tit-for-tat on the global stage to prove who has a certain set of capabilities in the middle east. the fact is everybody knows the united states is far superior to russia militarily it has far more extensive operations taking place across the region, has far deeper relations with the countries in the region most of them are deeply upset whether russian engagement, so if anything we think russia has purchased itself even greater isolation and greater budgetary needs at a time when their economy is slow and is not made a move that is going to be to their long-term strategic benefit. >> there are since certain elements speaking to administration officials and others about knock yourself out russia is part of the u.s. response. if you will guys want to get

involved in this quagmire that's buying but in an editorial a couple of weeks ago positing a theory and a fact that they can't both be true. is it possible that russia is getting itself into a mess but at the same time can you speak to diplomats from the region who see diminished u.s. and funds. they complain about it and some of them are worried about it. is it possible that both are true and let's not create this idea that putin is the master strategist necessarily but it's not mutually exclusive that you have actors whether perfect or imperfect moving to spaces that were occupied by the u.s.. >> well but the question is what is in the u.s. interest? i will be blunt here. u.s. influence is measured by the united states doing everything that other countries would like us to do in their neighborhoods, that should not be the measure of our influence. the fact of the matter is united states could spend every last

resource we have in the middle east. there could be a justification for that. there could be a justification for us to take complete ownership of events in syria, events and summoned -- yemen and events in iraq. the question is does that make sense in an age of everything in the president's judgment is it doesn't. we have corren just any be protected. we need to have counterterrorism capability can prevent attacking united states and our allies. we need to protect the security and sovereignty of our key allies and partners in that region. where does they have a long-standing commitment to the free flow of commerce there but the notion that we are going to do social engineering on the ground and we are going to rebuild countries from the ground up i think we have seen in iraq if you spend a trillion dollars in iraq over a decade with 150,000 u.s. troops serving there, and iraq is in the situation is that it is today what leads you to believe that there is some resource allocation from the united states that is going to put

syria back together in the near future? that's a recipe for us going down rabbit hole after rabbit hole when in fact if you look at the world we have a huge interest in the asia-pacific. that is where the economic and opportunities coming. we have emerging interest in other regions and we now -- cannot see the rest of the world because we are so focused on demonstrating some degree of influence in the least. that makes no sense. >> i want to get to china trust me but you have tried other approaches in this region. you decapitated the libyan regime and an effect walked away and that's a mess and stay disengaged in syria and you currently have that population emptying itself into europe and people are dead. you can hearken back to 2003, that decision but what do you, what does the presidency in the region today in a place like libya or syria or iraq frankly that he's happy with as a result of his policies and strategies? >> one thing is that we don't

have 150,000 troops there and are not taking casualties and are not spending $10 billion a month. >> not 100,000. they are on their way back. >> the fact of the matter is that your question suggests a degree of u.s. agencies in that region that is not borne out by history so the reason that there's a conflict is it's not the united states. there's a brutal dictator in syria. the question is what can we do to address that situation? as a humanitarian challenge what can we do to protect their core assets? when you look at what the president is focused on we have to sort out in this region what are the things we really care about that we have to put resources against? counterterrorism, the security and stability of our allies, we do put more resources into the humanitarian challenge than any country in the world but we also have to understand we are not going to be able to quote

unquote fix these places that are going through seismic transformations and if you look at what is the present happy about one of the things we are focused on overtime is how do we develop that bedard shared capability with our partners, our golf partner so they are better able to deal with the type of asymmetric threats taking place in the region. the security cooperation we have with israel, those are the types of things that we are invested in because if you just take the most unstable court country in any stable day that can't be the metric of u.n. policy. that's frankly what is going to be the situation in the middle east for many years to come. >> with limited time i want to get to two other places, the ukraine and south china sea but let's look at china who is very much in the news. the u.s. has flown over the man-made island and lucky enough to be on -- when not happen and they have sailed 12 miles. are there going to be more

demonstrations that the u.s. does not recognize as international waters or rather sovereign waters? >> yeah absolutely. i think there'll be more demonstrations of our commitment to freedom of navigation. that's our interest there. it's not to say that one country is appropriate claim and another doesn't. it's to demonstrate that we will uphold the principle of freedom of navigation. >> how does that issue resolved itself though because the chinese response as you well know to the sale by if it were has been -- and i know the goal is to turn that around. realistically you don't see china tearing up the silent so what is the goal? is the goal to keep them from deploying say military aircraft from airstrips are putting in more artillery pieces? >> the goal is to have frankly a multilateral diplomatic framework to resolve these issues. one so that you have the code of conduct to train china and asian countries to avoid inadvertent

escalation to have dialogue and two that you move these disputes over territory into international forums that can resolve maritime claims. as a part of that frankly the u.s. presence in the region is a stabilizing presence. you talk about vacuums, i think if the u.s. were not able to project power in the way that we do in the asia-pacific that could create a vacuum where again there's a suggestion that international law is not going to be upheld. that nations can bully other nations so i think again we have a responsibility to demonstrate poorer military, to the partnerships we have in the region and frankly military-to-military engagement we have with the chinese which is progressive in this administration that we are going to be there but the way these situations can be resolved, it has to be done in a peaceful means. >> is a president can set about further explanation of? there has been talk with

attorneys are challenging u.s. navy ships and we know how those things can progress in a dangerous direction. >> and that is absolutely the balancing act here which is that again we have to demonstrate a commitment to international principles. we have to demonstrate again that in this part of the world we are not just going to have situations where a bigger nation can bully a smaller nation on an issue like a territorial claim. on the other hand you don't want to provoke conflict yourself so i think when you look at what we do it's very deliberate and very measured and frankly very transparent in terms of us demonstrating why we are doing what we are doing. you also need to keep the dialogue and so with the chinese for instance at the same time that we have been very focused on building our network of partnerships and alliances and we have been very focused on increasing our military-to-military engagement with the chinese. frankly if you talk to the countries in the region they

very much want us there but they also very much want us to a good relationship with china. >> the goldilocks theory. the final question on ukraine. has the u.s. in the european allies in effect conceded crimea to russia? >> no, if you look at the basis of the isolation of russia, the pressure on russia's sanctions from the g8 it's rooted in the annexation of crimea. the fact of the matter is so much of the attention through the last year or more has been on eastern ukraine because that is where you have frankly at times a very -- a war. there's an opportunity in the next several months to fully implement the diplomatic process initiated in a way that can resolve that and that would be i think a very important step forward towards restoring ukraine and sovereignty at least

in eastern ukraine and stabilize the situation but again russia has built itself into a corner, beginning with its efforts in crimea which by the way earl going to add tens of billions of dollars of additional burden on russia at a time when they are squeezed. >> that's a frequent sequestration refrain that the cost is rising on russia and the drop in oil prices doesn't help that it's not affecting a change in russian behavior and policy and frankly i can't remember the last time the last time i heard a u.s. official mentioned the word crimea. they talk about eastern ukraine but crimea is the lost cousins whole thing. >> well we have been very clear that there are costs that can be imposed and then there is decision make in, in moscow. it takes time to absorb. part of the age of everything is it's a age of patients.

the fact of the matter is you have to have the patience frankly to fix your strategy because if we did and we wouldn't be able to apply the pressure on russia. it's taken a lot of effort in europe at a time when people's attentions are shifting to other places. russia has to absorb over time the fact that the aggressive provocative behavior in its neighborhood or beyond is going to bring with it a cost, and that ultimately affects behavior over period of time, not the new cycle of the day but rather the lifetime events that are going to determine what is the security of ukraine and what is the future of the middle east. >> i was going to ask you a speed round of mets signing questions but since we are out of time we have to leave it there. >> things, i appreciate it. [applause] ♪ >> now please welcome to the

stage director of national intelligence james clapper and executive editor of defense one. [applause] >> hello. thank you. welcome director, have a seat on the couch. you can lie down if you would like. tell everyone your secrets. welcome and we'll get right to it with their limited time. i hope -- it sounded like they had a good talk. you know i was telling the director beforehand that i would like the summit to do a little bit of high and low with her conversations and we can talk strategies but i'm well aware that many of you are not social security professionals and part of the government workforce would like to hear a little bit about what's going on on with their jobs as well as the

direction of the country so i know i have heard you say and others that you don't like the question of what is the number one threat out there in the world so i will ask you to look more internally. what is your number one challenge right now? as the senior manager of u.s. intelligence community that's -- what's the most forefront undermine? >> is hard to pick one i guess. i think of it in two categories. one, the obvious challenges of the external threat, threats. the lie in honor used on the hill every year now for five years, i just add a year, that in my half-century plus in one capacity or another in intelligence command i don't remember a time that we have been beset by a greater number and diversity of challenges and threats and crises around the world and we are now. so we have all of those concerns and then sort of with respect to

the enterprise i think probably her greatest concern there is the budget to uncertainty that we have had over the last three or four years. hopefully this framework that has been worked out will eventually in an appropriation before december 11, but we have had to dust off our contingency plans for furloughs, which is extremely disruptive to say the least. >> explain a little bit more, what does it mean on the military side to say they fly less training hours or they have less training readiness? >> the civilian workforce, some people when we went through this in 2135 the community gets a

pass on that's not the case at all. we in 13, when we shut down and furloughed a lot of people, the vast majority of civilian employees in the intelligence community were affected by that unlike the military. >> you just said there's a wide friday of challenges out there and i would like to ask about some of them. if you can do news of this morning is still about this russian airliner that went down and what we'd know and don't know. was it mechanical or what does the intelligence community no? >> well we don't have any direct evidence of any terrorist involvement yet. i still in a tweet claims responsibility for it and there is a very aggressive isil chapter in the sinai but we really don't know. i think once the black boxes

have been analyzed and recovered then perhaps we will no more. >> does isis have the ability to shoot down an airliner? >> i'm sorry? >> does isis have the ability to shoot down an airliner? >> it's unlikely that i wouldn't rule it out. >> turning now i guess towards follow-up on this area announcement a serious strategy, a lot of places now where i think the way the war is being fought, the war is changing it seems like we are just going to hear more about it. there will be more of these types of ways like we saw a couple of weeks ago. if this counterterrorism fight the big counterterrorism not just isis in iraq and syria but across the world, to live in the world of intelligence in covert ops and the special intelligence community how can you start to say more about it?

you yourself said you want a better understanding from intelligence and we have heard that from the commanders too. where were we get to the place where americans know in what can they no? >> that's a great question when we struggle with frankly. it's clear that for a number of reasons we need to be more transparent and have tried to be we have deeply classified a lot of documents mostly having to do with governance and oversight in the intelligence community. i was down in austin texas with john brennan when they rolled out 2500 daily brief items from the kennedy and johnson administration and there will be more of that. we have recently promulgated a principle of transparency for the intelligence community. interestingly enough we must be in the sweet spot because i have

taken flak both from civil liberties and privacy advocates who said we didn't go far enough and i'm hearing from lots of members of the community and formers who say we shouldn't be doing this at all. so it appears to me we are doing the right thing here. the problem of course for transparency in general is that for us is a double-edged sword so yes it's a good thing to try to be forthcoming as we can be without compromising our sources, methods and tradecraft and it's a fact that our adversaries go to -- when we are transparent and this is particularly true with the terrorists who have because the revelations over the last couple of years have gone to school on that and are about more communications security conscious than they used to be and we are having as a consequence difficulty, more

difficulty than we have been tracking it. so somehow we have to thread that the needle between more transparency and at the same time protecting our equities. i think it's worth some risk to our equities if it serves to regain the faith and trust and confidence of the american people and their elected representatives. >> that's a hell of a bargain for operators and workers and to have to incur that risk. does it have to come from you or can it come directly from you as a top-down order or does it have to come from the president or is there something that the isp. >> the administration is committed to more transparency and as are we. as far as coming down from me i

think actually leaders recognize that and they are out and about a lot more speaking in public. john brennan just sponsored at gw the third in a series of seminars that cia sponsors on ethos of intelligence and so i think everyone recognizes collectively and we discussed this among the leadership the need to try to be more open and transparent. >> staying in the region man, when i look across the conflicts from syria and iraq and yemen even, give us a sense of your level of comfort that the u.s. knows all it needs to know in these regions and what i mean is

there seems to be an area at least from a journalistic standpoint words just so hard to penetrate for westerners and there's a lot of reliance on sources in the region. it must be the same in your world as well. >> it is. i would never say that i'm comfortable with our level of knowledge on anything. the very nature of intelligence is in dealing with uncertainty, and in the end what we tried to do and why do we do intelligence is to try to reduce and rarely eliminated but at least reduce uncertainty for decision-makers whether you are sitting in the oval office or in a foxhole. and so given the increasing use, the increasing awareness of our capabilities both by

nationstates and nomination state entities, that makes our job a lot harder. just as a journalist you look upon the middle east as somewhat opaque and so do we. we have some of our challenges and that's why i have been an advocate in the five years i've been in this job to maintain as robust an intelligence capability as we possibly can. a variety of capabilities which we can bring to bear depending on what the local challenge is. >> the like a commander you never have enough troops and you never have that enough of intelligence but are you dependent on informants in the saudi's and others to know what you have to no? >> i don't know that we are too dependent on them. we are dependent on them and that i think partnering with foreign partners is more intense

and is a more robust level than i can recall to my time in intelligence. now, reasons for that are obvious. of course that's a mutual recognition of the threat. but i wouldn't say we are too dependent. that's somewhat of a subjective judgment, but we are reliant on partners and we are trying to place greater reliance on them and in fact being more transparent with them as well. >> you have described a partnership, i mean we have gone through the cycle of the iran deal and a heated debate here in washington in the states were a lot of that was portrayed that the u.s. was fracturing its relationships with israel and others in the region. is that true at your level in the intelligence community? >> actually not.

the relationship with the israeli intelligence community is closer and stronger than i can recall. i have been dealing with israeli intelligence in one capacity or another for about 30 years and we have never been as close and i don't recall in era where we have shared more with them and they with us than we are now. so at least at the intelligence level, there hasn't been much air space between us. >> i'm glad you say that just because i think there is a disconnect sometimes between the high-level political headlines versus the national security news, defense news and intelligence news and be hear that from secretaries in the chairman as well. >> exactly and that's one of the reasons why a consistent

competence and intelligence relationship our intelligence foreign partners can often withstand the vicissitudes of policy change. if you have that foundation, that these level of intelligence partnership, that will sustain you a lot even though there may be policy differences. >> if we are going to see more of these raids, explain again why they are worth the risk? is the intelligence worth it --. >> i think there is a judgment made about raids and what is the objective obviously and whether it's to capture someone or to free up a kidnapped hostage or

in the case of the recent one free up some partners who were pretty much headed for a terrible demise. so those are operational policy judgments that are made and it has supported those operational judgments. >> okay shifting north from syria into ukraine and into moscow let's talk about russia for a minute. you are one of the earlier folks sounding the warning about russia to come. is this a bit of a comeuppance for you to see what's happening holding back in no way do not ukraine but -- not just ukraine but moving into syria? >> well if you mean anticipating i don't think that at all. i do think the character of

russia has changed mainly driven by its leader putin who has i think a vision of the great russia that actually not so much a throwback to the communist era as much as a throwback to the czar area -- era ended very mindful of russia, what he thinks is russia's role in the world and certainly the intervention in ukraine is a manifestation of that. i thought he was rather opportunistic when president yanukovich left rather suddenly, son opportunity to write what he considered a terrible injustice to mother russia which is the loss of crimea so he took it back. i do think it's a little different context for the russians in its intervention in

syria. we can impute all kinds of motives and why he has done that i do think though that i wonder whether he has a strategy for an offramp and whether or not he will avoid another afghanistan quagmire. >> he has -- that's the criticism of the obama administration. as the president have an exit strategy for syria under region? do you buy into the talk that putin is overstretched and this is a horrible miscalculation in syria or he is the grandmaster and it's obama your boss i guess who is the one that is woefully leading from behind and is getting outgained? >> i like to repeat times like this where i'm in the engine

room shoveling intelligence call. we arrange the furniture on the decks. it's whatever it is that we have to support, we will. >> thank you private first class clapper. [laughter] so leave your boss out a bit. leave your boss out a bit. >> that's a great question. i wonder if his ego might not get in the way in syria when confronted. the russians are partying countering challenges i will say in syria and i think his first impulse would be to pour more

people, more equipment into syria. i think he considers himself the man on a white horse and is going to rescue syria before the region and show the importance in the world is a great power. >> do you expect him to send more troops? >> they certainly have the capacity and i think they will probably be drawn into sending more advisers than they have in the past. one of the interesting things about this -- unlike their presence in the ukraine which course they have never acknowledge, in this case

i think that's another motive is to show off the results of the aggressive modernization, military modernization programs that the russians have embarked on even with their economic challenges. >> i wish we had a picture of him on the horse behind us to go with that. one step at a time. so let's go to china for our remainder here. again on the defense side we would hear in the last couple of years that the u.s. was underestimating the pace by which china was building up and rolling out these technical advances. is that right, is there a sense that the u.s. is a little behind the curve when it comes to signing military moves? >> i think we have pretty good insight and we are watching this

and certainly we are aware of the chinese intent to modernize their forces. they again have gone to school on us. >> meaning? >> while they have watched, going back to desert storm and other capabilities that we have exhibited, they i think felt that they needed to compete and what they have done is very impressive across-the-board and virtually every dimension. they have very aggressive military modernization programs. but i think the intelligence community really didn't give it too much because we have already had extensive resources committed to asia and particularly china for some time

>> we have heard agents were flown out of beijing recently and was cyber back and forth. is that still the case? agents pulling out of beijing? >> no. no. >> okay we will shut that back then. >> don't believe you -- everything you read in the media. [laughter] >> good to know. i will leave that to the intelligence reporters. i want to ask about cyber and what they know and as you said they're going to school and what they do now. is that an agreement to stop cyber theft with each other? is turned living up to that agreement? >> i think we would have to say the jury is out on that and we obviously are going to watch what they do to see if they do

in fact live up to it. china is a large bureaucracy like us so we will have to see how this guidance flows down through the ranks and of course there is the challenge to a certain extent that the chinese have as much hacking and pummeling of information that they do is government sanctioned or government controlled. >> there are reports and independent studies and independent researcher saying there regarding tracking the same none government sources out of china that are still -- >> like i say we will have to watch this. it would not be appropriate for me to comment at this point publicly. >> oh, come on.

do you know who's behind the opm had? >> we have a pretty fair idea. [laughter] spina getting so close. good. back to the workforce, it's been a while since we have heard about the shift from title x to title l or the other way around. we were supposed to be hearing and a lot of that is talking about drone operations and somehow finding more transparency for operational control. is this discussion still going on in the administration? or is it forgotten about? >> there is a lot i can say about this given my capacity but i will just say this whole discussion is prompted by the interest and support are being

more transparent. that's all i can say about it. >> at least that's still something that is a consideration at the mistreated level and it's not just a talking point that went away. >> i am sure it is. >> to bring about, i said in my introductory remarks. the purpose of our summit is to expand how the understanding of how national security works and the focus is not just overseas but domestically and in the rise of mouth terrorists inspired homegrown threats versus terrorist directed. how much do we know about that and do we have members? are there 100 or 400 isis and america? do you have any staff? >> the main stat is the number of americans, app -- actually a

couple of statistics. the main one that i track is the number of foreign fighters, people that leave the united states are attempts to leave to get to syria who fight and are either killed or go to another country or come back here. we do try to track those figures and the total of all the categories is around i think 250 or 260. the number is gradually growing over time. similar to that which are harder to track are those who self-radicalized or are presently did -- by visit this case -- sophisticated slick

propaganda that isil operates. that's a little harder to track, almost implies knowing what's going on in someone's mind in what is the tipping point when they become a radical? >> when we hear about in the news does the specific concern match the hype or is it on the level? >> we hear isis and america. >> on a scale of drugs in america in automobile accidents in america, gun violence in america, there is a tendency to i think amplified homegrown, so-called homegrown terrorism because there is a very come i think a graphic aspect to it that seems to have impact. >> we will close with our last

couple of minutes on a little bit of where we begin with. go back to the intelligence workforce that you talked about in the top and recruiting. do you sense this divide in america that we see happen so often when it comes to either should we fight or should we not fight? to be on upright -- site of privacy or on the side of intelligence? do you think stoughton is a a hero or is he a traitor? how does that show up when it comes to recruiting for the global war on terrorism? >> we really haven't seen overall i will say we seem to be attracting, beginning to attract people who want to be part of the intelligence community. in my dotage that i have achieved spending a lot more

time mentoring and engaging with college students in this sort of thing and i think generally speaking are recruiting posture is pretty healthy. that's not to say we haven't had on an anecdotal basis some attrition and skill sets you'd rather not have. a lot of that has to do with the disparity in compensation with what the government can offer versus compensation in the civilian sector so that is appearing. >> in what skills are they competing? >> and what? unfortunately the technical skills particularly in cyber that's an obvious challenge not so much recruiting people. we have a lot of great young military people. the issue is retention. >> our last thought, are you hopeful and are you going to

stay on until the end? how much do we have left in the clapper raingear? >> well you serve at the pleasure of -- my plan is to stay to the end. i think it's about 446 days. [laughter] >> would the is counting? one less of those now so thank you for coming in director clapper. [applause] please welcome the chairman of the u.s. house armed services committee representative mac thornberry and defense one -- molly o'toole. [applause] >> all right. thank you for joining us. here of course with congressman

mac thornberry. he doesn't really need much of an introduction to chairman of the house armed services committee. we will dive in, between my speaking to quickly and you're -- we can come to a happy medium incorporated cover a lot of ground. i want to talk about friday's announcement at the white house about the deployment of u.s. special operators to syria, your response to use some phrases long overdue, absent a larger strategy, may be too little too late. while the president runs out the clock. i want to dig into this. we have heard a lot of criticism particular coming out of congress that the president lacks strategy in overall national security strategy in particular when it comes to the war against islamic state. what specific recommendations do you have for the white house? what should be done differently in the isis by to much of that strategy look like? >> the thing that crossed my mind when the announcement was

made was a talk that churchill gave him i think about 35 and basically the point he made was, when measures could have been taken that would have made a difference they weren't. .. >>

>> that i think the outline to one of the things that he said we need to prioritize its over isis and they're not doing bad now but they're focused on protecting aside and even in secretary clinton talked about a safe haven in the north to help with refugees and with resupplied. that is harder now that you have the russians flying around by the eric still a lot of folks in both parties put things that make sense. the other key thing is rules of engagement. >> between us and the

russians or the syrian government? >> and roughly one-third of what we fly door drop ordnance because of restrictions are placed on pilots so if we have these folks who could go about with those that they train what will the restrictions be? the play that the administration wants to retire we will send more of those but where the rules to support people off the ground? do they have the coordination? the rules of engagement for whatever methods we make to completely undercut doe a

lot of lawmakers have raised criticism since the save criticism on either side could be there is more monday morning quarterbacking. so with those restrictions to prevent casualties were to use some extent we don't have the eyes of the ground so they could call a more strategic strike saudi you balance those for a reason? >> that just reinforces the point as time goes:and this brass gets murkier there is to review work options and without adequate intelligence with that

unintended damage. the rest of the story without taking action in you could be effectual. one of the key points made recently is the effectual campaign began phthisis is used as a recruiting tool for them lay a seminar at west point, 97 percent of the people survey say we're losing the war against isis. but this incremental behind from approach is not working but i readily of knowledge a more aggressive approach has a downside. as that continues to get worse. >> also one of the responses

that we should not take action for action in sake. >> this is true. it gets back to the basic point of the strategy. 535 people in congress will not come up with a strategy only a commander in chief can do that. but we need to have a strategy. maybe not a way forward that shows the ultimate success for those that can gain confidence of one other thing this weekend there is a great piece in the atlantic detailing the history of our involvement with isis so to learn how we

got here the mistakes but we have made if we have that path for word. >> talk about the leadership to a large extent coming from the white house. that is the response when you ask from the top leaders what they was specifically do differently regarding this strategy so i want to you talk about that what is congress's role tuz said national security priorities as the war against the islamic states as they call for congress to debate and ostracize so do believe congress has abdicated its responsibility to declare and authorize a war?

when it comes to national security to receive that now? >> the answer i believe it is yes and if i could back up there are two basic responsibilities if you look article one section 80 has a number of responsibilities and puts on congress's shoulders how to regulate the hour troops also the oversight you talk about i a couple of lely agree we should debate on the authorization for military force against rises that she stretches that way beyond any meaning of the word so congress is negligent and

part of the reason by the way there is a fear of how that will come out and part of the recent how that will come out so do we cut off funds but the reason there is that concern is we don't have a clear strategy if i am a member of congress to send troops to die but you are not giving me a strategy on the mission. why should they do that? that makes it personal use the data with people you know, who serve in the military. we should still have the vote for other reason we do not have the vote was the lack of confidence and if we

do the commander in chief will have been approached. >> coming from the white house on friday to ask the appointment of special operators was authorized in 2001 but it is interesting that has been authorized. >> the beaning could stretch so far. and twice in the past five years the house has voted to up the opposition for military force the senate has not followed but the house has doe also making the point well the russia's parliament with the u.s. congress is the big week on the hill with the budget agreement to be signed as soon as today set up by november 5th with the

defense authorization bill if they will vote to override your take a different path to introduce that legislation. what that certainty for the pentagon and what does that three what to do not they were not confronted with this constant budgetary brinksmanship? holding gave military hostage to waste the time and energy for a fiscal clef with knu relieved to begin to know? >> it provides stability for defense funding for a two-year period and it is desperately needed the rap the pentagon to plan how the budget or on the armed

services committee to build the military that junior stability so we don't have to have months and months of debate about the right number for defense is important. it is $5 billion below what the president asked for and the congress budget. if that was cut 21% a modest increase does not repair that damage but might damage - - but the stability from the two year deal is more important but that enables

us to do our job to build of military but then to continue the reform efforts aren't acquisition due to oversight with a policy issues and the budget agreement what are the areas? what are the concerns as people used the phrase hair cut but that is a pretty big hair cut. >> that is real money. we are working with the appropriators to be on the same page where the $5 billion will come from. there is one category of $5 billion will come from. there is one category of adjustments for example, fuel costs continue to be lower-than-expected so you

can reduce the fuel account a a little bit and a number of programs to spend as much as they thought they were for a variety of reasons. so without costing capabilities in there is the capability and is into the meat with these adjustments with there will be a substantial amount of capability cut because of a $5 billion. >> moving forward with that budgetary impasse is

important to get off the record to have a final say? >> there are pros and cons for either. it is the order of the house to have the veto override vote this thursday. i don't know if we are for certain what that would be but so that makes it become law says you have to separate bill to deal with the $5 billion the readjust talking about. then to make it easier for people to support it goes to the senate with a possibility sanders will add stuff to elected we cannot open a back up so procedurally we have to deal with that.

with the rules committee we can prevent that in the house. we'll be ready for both options this week. and it is the building blocks of acquisition reform so that needs to happen. >> and with those that are contained i know that is not likely but they will change moving forward. what is the feedback you have gotten? . .

as the program goes. but there's so much more work to do, and we have always said this will be an incremental process, and we're already -- we had a hearing last week in our committee about next steps for acquisition, and there will be steps after next year, too. so we're focused on building on that, conscious of the fact that we have to