i hasten to add, of course, negotiations have been part of any winding down of combat hostilities and that's the case here. this is a case of exploring the option to see what sort of reaction we might get from the taliban. but a couple points i would make here is that i don't think anyone harbors any illusions about these five taliban members and what they might do if they were transferred. part and parcel, this discussion would be their transfer to a third country such as qatar, and then the conditions under which they would be surveilled and monitored. i also want to add that under the provisions of the national defense authorization act, the secretary of defense has to

certify his view on whether or not anyone can be transferred with respect to their recidivism. i can tell you from personal encounters with secretary panetta, he treats that authority with the gravity that it deserves. so this is something i think the administration will do very deliberately. >> i appreciate that, and i appreciate what the secretary had to say about his responsibilities the other day, and i know that he takes these very seriously. but i want people to understand very clearly, these individuals were designated by the administration in 2010 to be high risk. nothing has changed about that assessment, and the notion that we can monitor them or seizuurv them, we've tried that in the past with the evil in guantanamo in the past.

for what i understand is goodwill from the taliban, i think this is unacceptable risk. unless we're going to get them to lay down their arms, i don't know why we would do this to our military men and women and to our allies, so i appreciate what you're saying, i just see this as a huge risk in terms of safety for our troops and our allies. i wanted to ask you briefly about iran. i know that you've gotten many, many questions, both of you, about iran. i just want to clarify a couple of issues. does the iranian regime continue to support hezbollah? what kind of threats has hezbollah posed to iran and israel? is hezbollah in the afghanistan strip? and what role is iran playing in iraq? >> i didn't quite write down all those questions. >> basically, do they continue to support hezbollah? >> yes, they do. there is a very close

relationship between particularly the irgc, the republican guide course, which is the organization responsible for war around the world. >> is hezbollah not a terrorist group that threatens our close ally, israel? >> yes. >> does iran continue to support hamas in the gaza strip? >> indirectly, yes. >> are they not a threat also to israel and also the peace process? >> hamas? >> yes. >> yes. >> general burgess, is iran supporting the insurgents in afghanistan? >> yes, ma'am. >> and what type of role are they playing in afghanistan? >> well, they have provided arms, they have been caught -- i mean, we have found them running arms in afghanistan, so they are working what we would call a

duel track strategy as they work not only to work against u.s. and coalition desires in there, but while at the same time they want to put forward the government of afghanistan, so they're walking a very fine line. >> but they're clearly supporting our enemies and trying to kill our soldiers? >> yes, ma'am. >> and in iraq, what role are they playing right now, now that we've withdrawn, and how would describe their role there? >> i would describe their role in much the same way as i did in afghanistan, as a very duel track. iran does not want a strong iraq on their border, but at the same time, they also want to, you know, encourage us out of there totally. so, again, they're walking both sides of the fence. >> so, again, they're working contrary to a stable iraq and they're also working contrary to

our national security interests? >> i would not disagree with that statement. >> they would like to have a cooperative shiite-dominated government in iraq, which they have, but that's not to say the iraqi government, particularly president malachi, is necessarily the complete satellite of iran. he has his issues with the iranians as well. >> but clearly their efforts are teaching sectarian violence? >> absolutely. the three principal shiite militant groups that iran has supported in the past, some of which were directly responsible for attacks on u.s. forces. of course, the issue is whether they will turn their ire against the iraqi government or simply become part of the political

process remains to be seen. >> and when you throw on top of it, of course, their efforts to acquire nuclear weapons, no question they're a grave threat to our national security and to that of our allies. >> that's true. iran is a big problem. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator ayotte. senator blumenthal. >> thank you, and i appreciate your being here this morning. focusing on the road bombs or ieds. the senate considers the role of pakistan in providing ingredients used to make those roadside bombs a grave threat to this nation. in fact, in the 2012 defense authorization act, the $700

million in aid to pakistan is frozen until they, and i'm quoting, demonstrate significant efforts toward implementation of a strategy to counter improvised explosive devices. i've seen nothing to indicate they are making that kind of significant effort. am i misinformed? could you shed some light on that issue? >> sir, i would tell you that, yes, ied usage in afghanistan is up by 15%, and most of the precursors and components for those ieds while they are assembled in afghanistan come through pakistan. >> and that could not be happening if pakistan were making significant efforts to stem the flow of immonium

calcium nitrate for those bombs, am i right? >> that's correct, they have two major companies producing this material that are loecated in pakistan. there is an extensive network from pakistan to afghanistan to move these materials. >> we know where those plants are, do we not? >> yes, sir, we do. >> and, in fact, the congressional allegation that i joined as recently as august met with at least one of the owners of those plants who indicated that their production is ongoing and the pakistanis have the wherewithall to stop the flow of those ingredients into afghanistan, do they not, sir? >> well, that's a good question, sir, is how much the pakistani government controls anything in the fata regions, which border afghanistan. but it's clear they could probably do more than they have to this point. >> so they really, again, to

come to the bottom line here, they really made no significant effort so far. >> not that i'm aware of, no, sir. >> turning to another area of inquiry, could you shed some light on the talks that are in progress, if there are such talks, as mr. karzai has acknowledged in the past few days there are, apparently, involving the three parties, the taliban, united states and afghanistan? >> yes, sir, there have been. i don't think either general burgess or i are the authorities on the negotiations with the taliban. i'm sure the special representative for afghanistan and pakistan, mike grossman, is

far better informed of that, but i'm sure there have been dialogue. i know -- i'm sure president karzai, these directly through intermediaries has been discussing reconciliation issues with the taliban. >> but you're aware that such talks are ongoing? >> yes, sir, i believe they are. >> what would be the need, then, for releasing these currently incarcerated taliban insurgents if those talks are ongoing at the moment? >> sir, this is a part of confidence building, i think that started as kind of a separate track, and there are some reciprocity considerations which i prefer to talk about in closed session. >> i appreciate that. i would just say i would see no need for that kind of release

if, in fact, the talks are ongoing, and if, in fact, our adversaries have a self-interest in talking. i personally would question the need for any such release apart from the security issues that have been raised by my colleague from new hampshire, senator ayotte and others previously. let me ask you, if i may, a general question, and i understand you may be reluctant to go into details in this setting, but if you could characterize whether there are differences in the threat assessment from our intelligence about the iranian nuclear capability and the potential response to israeli intervention there and the israeli intelligence assessment if you

understand my question, which calls for a sort of general answer. i'm not asking for the details. >> if your question is, to make sure i understand it, do we and the israelis largely agree? and the answer is yes. >> you agree, general burgess? >> yes, sir, i do, and we've been in these discussions for many years. i personally have been involved in them in both my previous life and in this life, and, sir, generally speaking, our assessments track with each other. they comport. thank you. and let me ask a final question and you may not think it's directly relevant to the questions you've had so far. but we have been in discussions as recently as a couple days ago with secretary panetta and general dempsey about the

overall budget of the department of defense and the platforms that exist. in terms of platforms for intelligence gathering, are there particular areas where you think the expenditure of resources poses a threat? in other words, to put it more simply, where diminished funding impede or imperilled intelligence gathering by the united states? >> well, sir, we're going through our own cuts in the intelligence community since a large portion of the national intelligence program is embedded in the dod budget, so we were given the same reduction targets on a proportionate basis. so we are in the mode for the first time in

cutting intelligence resources. we've been on a steady upward slope for the whole decade. and that's going to come to a halt, and so we will have less capability than we've had in the last ten years. that said, i've been through this before. when i served as director of dia in the early '90s and we had to read the peace dividend and we did some fine cutting, and the intelligence committee didn't do it very well. so we tried to profit from that experience and place stock in those capabilities that make us resilient and agile so we can respond as we need to wherever hot spots or crisis occur in the world. so as a department of defense, for example, pivots to the far east of the pacific, we will do

that as well, and obviously a major he cequity for us in the intelligence community is support from the military. where we are effective, i think, to get to your question is, for example, as we draw down in iraq, obviously we are going to have a much reduced footprint across the board to include intelligence. that will affect our -- the infidelity of the intelligence we previously had on iraq. i anticipate, when we draw down in afghanistan and intelligence resources are drawn down proportionately, that we will also not have the infidelity that we have today. so in that context, yes, we'll lose some capability, but what i

tried to push as a result of my experience 20 years ago is those capabilities that enable global coverage to include for denied areas, such as russia and china, and enable us to adapt and be resilient depending on what the crisis of the day is. >> thank you very much. again, thank you both for answering my questions and for being so forthcoming to our committee. thank you. >> thank you very much. senator blumenthal. senator brown. >> thank you very much. i won't repeat the points made by my colleagues, and i agree with what they said, but i want to emphasize how important it is that israel has everything it needs from us to close any intelligence capability acts it has with respect to iran. do both of you agree with that recommendation or suggestion? >> yes, sir, and i think both of us have been proponents or

sharing intelligence with israelis. i'll be going there next week to engage with israeli intelligence officials to discuss that very point. >> great, thank you. and director, also, just to add on a little bit more, my colleagues have already mentioned syria and how the people are enduring serious attacks from assad. earlier this week, the head of al-qaeda released a video calling on all muslims in the country surrounding syria to join in the assad regime. given that the president and officials say it's not a matter of if but when we fail and fall, are we prepared for the possibility of a failed state where al-qaeda enjoys a safe harbor and refuge from which to coordinate attacks? i

i.e., what's the plan if syria falls? >> that's a great question, because who would succeed, what would succeed assad is a mystery. we certainly don't know -- i don't -- what would ensue. as a quote that i read in my -- my oral remarks here at the outset of the testimony quoting the roman historian tacitus where he said the best day after the rome emperor is the first day, and after that it kind of goes downhill. there is no identifiable group that would succeed him, so there would be kind of a vacuum, i think, that would lend itself to extremists operating in syria, which is particularly troublesome in light of the large network of chemical warfare, cw, storage facilities

and other related facilities in syria. >> i agree, and now i have fears that iraq is moving toward syria and -- >> certain organizations are in fill tragt the opposition groups, sometimes unbeknownst to those opposition groups. >> i know there was contact made about information gathering. can you tell me what they're doing to prevent breakdowns like there were at ft. hood? >> i'm not sure what you're -- >> key reforms have yet to be completed, particularly in the area of information sharing, which continues, i think, to put our nation at risk for

home-grown terrorism and insider threats. are you getting all the information you need from u.s. agencies to adequately address our threats, do you think? >> i'll put it this way. i think we've come a long way in the last ten years about information sharing. i think it's a great focus for me, for the officer of director intelligence, sharing vertically across the agencies -- or who zontly and vertically. there's been a lot of work done towards that. it's an emphasis area for me, and i do think we've made great improvement. of course be, at the time, we've had episodes like wikileaks which reminds us to balance the sharing and security. so we also have that fine line

to draw between those two. so i believe there's always. >> thank you very much, senator brown. senator udall? >> mr. chairman, i would like to yield to mr. mansion. i know he's got a scheduling complicate, but i'd like to keep my face in the q. >> we're just flip flopping. i'm finishing up a book regarding. it's just bakely the coming job wars is going to be the big war we have for this job. citizens, 5 billion over the age of 15, 3 billion seeking a problem of some sort.

only 142 billion jobs in the world today. so we can see the mammoth problem. do you consider the impact of the stability of the population and how that. >> absolutely, sir. i haven't read the book, but i'll get it. the point, even more basic than is if you propose what the world supply of food and water is going to be in the face of the growing population. we can project the population of the earth is going to be in the face of declining resources. and yes, we do account for that in doing any kind of assessments. an indelible assessment of that was arab spring because of the conditions that actually still

exist. the population bulge of high numbers of young, unemployed peop people, rising economic difficulties and deprivation, the lack of political freedom and expression, and of course one of our major insights into this is social media, which has become a major bell ringer for lots of people. the answer to your question is, we do consider that in assessing the potential for disruption. >> thank you. and general, following up on that, when i read this book and i was thinking, our involvement now and the money we have spent in afghanistan, knowing that when we leave, they have no economy, they've had no economy -- the only economy they have is knowing the unrest, instability, terrorism or the ability to foster terrorism will be the same, and i have a very, very hard time understanding why we're still there and not -- i

know i talked to everybody and i just feel very strong about this. what i will say is this, sir. north korea and iran have possession of u.s. drones. they crashed in december and malachi tried to reverse them so they would have them at their disposal. how did we not request a design of construction after we lost those jobs so they could not be copied skpp used back against us. >> general burgess, this will be for you. what does the deaa appointment kim jong-unmean and the six-party talks going on? >> as we watch the succession,

it's unfolding like we thought it would. it's actually moving as has been designated, and at this time, we see more than that at the present time. >> concerning ool k-- al-qaeda, al shabaab. people are coming from the united states to join al shabaab, and i'm asking you what we should do to define this threat? >> i would keep separate al-qaeda and al shabaab. i think al-qaeda san organization under siege and is in decline. al shabaab is under pressure by

both the in to neegss a-- insurgents and under the gun. al shabaab has largely been folk you had on issues within the horn of africa rather than pressing out into our threats. we train and then fight. >> and to both of you all, on tuesday, general dempsey testified that the military government and egypt is a ware they stand to lose 1 billion 8 from the united states, and we've been a solid partner. according to press reports, the same government general dempsey spoke of is losing power to

anti-american factions. some of these factions are a campaign to end the u.s. aid to egypt. based on your intelligence assessments, will we be able to rely of a future egyptian government to uphold the 1999 peace treacy with israel. >> that's i will the continuation of the transitional, particularly when they write the constitution and what the constitution may or may not said about the treaty with israel. i think under any circumstance -- i can't foresee a circumstance with staff, transitions were hands off in

june, they won't say for sure. let me just thank both of you with this outstanding kmersz from colorado. >> thank you, senator mansion. senator graham. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you both for service to our country. i think it was mentioned that the intelligence budget is sort of wrapped up in the department of defense budget. secretary panetta said if we did sequestration. if we took another 500 on top of the 487 planned, it would be fascinating, it would be ir expense i believe to the defense side. >> yes. >> then would you agree with me that if americans ever needed a smarter network, it's now. they don't want you to dine, in

i if i had. >> the positions that would move or pick and choose where every single program within intelligence would have to make a proportional hit. so we were responsible for helping a lot of employees, plus it would rock every system i had -- it would result in -- sir, i would have a hard time saying that as the director of national intelligence that i could face a group like this and say i have any degree of