chained c.p.i. really is is like being in a boat with a chain and ball around your ankle and they throw you in the water and you start to sink. that's exactly what chained c.p.i. is in social security. numerous government programs, including social security benefits and income thresholds for tax brackets are indexed for inflation. that's what c.p.i. is all about. every year seniors wait to see with their inflation adjustment will be in social security and in medicare to see whether they'll get as much money as they got last year or less. the formula being proposed would be a big cut for america's senior citizens who earned their benefits. marge a person born in 1935 who retired to full benefits at age 65 in the year 2000 and they

paid into their social security their entire working life, according to the social security administration, people in that position under the current formula have an average onthly benefit of $1,435, or about $17,220 per year. under the cost-of-living adjustment for 2012, that benefit would rise a bit to $1,986 a month this year, or about $23,832 a year. but under the chained c.p.i. proposal, that sum would be less. it would be about $1,880 a month, or $22,2560 a year. that's a cut over -- $22,560 a year. that's a cut over 5%. more, if you go further into future years. in other words, it gets worse

and worse. the other problem is that the people who rely most on their social security benefits, people who are older, people who have illness, are the ones that sadly the chained c.p.i. does the worst job of accommodating. in fact, the group that gets the biggest fica tax hike is families making between $30,000 and $40,000 a year, dead center in our middle class. their increase would be almost six times worse. it would affect them six times more than those who are in the millionaire tax brackets. that's because millionaires are already in the top tax bracket so they're not being pushed by the formula into higher marginal rates because of changing bracket thresholds. isn't that convenient? so because senior citizens spend more of their income on health care and housing, two areas where the formula is

flawed, and their true cost is underrepresented, the chained c.p.i. proposal hurts seniors more. beyond the benefit inflation formula, we should not be supporting a plan that uses social security to pay for deficits it didn't create. the social security trust fund is sound without anything being done. it would function well into 2038, and even after that time with no changes, we could pay 80% of the benefits that people have earned. now, one of the reasons that social security looks over a longtime horizon is because of economic downturns, when people get thrown out of work, they're not contributing into the social security trust fund, the answer to social security is to put people back to work. we have 12.5 million people out of work in this country and that would create a temporary

blip. we could fix that problem because social security is an efficient and effective program. but we shouldn't be using the american people's annuity for retirement that they earned and mix it up with the regular budget. it's two different things. about 98% of social security benefits go out in the form of benefit checks, which the beneficiaries spend on whatever they value most. most of them the vast majority on food. but less than 2% of social security today is put on administrative expenses. the program is very efficiently run, and no private pension plan, no 401-k that took so much of the people's money away, no private annuity can claim that kind of efficient operation. cuts in promised social security benefits, whether they occur because of the chained c.p.i. or high retirement age will shift costs onto already

struggling american families and our senior citizens. frankly, i don't support that. i applaud that the chained c.p.i. proposal that was in the white house budget had a provision to protect the very oldest and disabled persons who receive sublamental security income and low-income veterans. but let me put on the record these groups represent less than half of the seniors who have earned social security benefits. the formula doesn't really take care of others who are impacted by this proposed c.p.i. change. frankly, this is not the time to cut earned benefits of millions of senior americans who are already struggling financially, and i can tell you the lowest income citizens in this country are women over the age of 85. and i would never vote to take a penny away from them. this formula should be there in a form that allows them to live

in dignity. we've been unwilling as a congress to close tax loopholes for the billionaires and millionaires of our country, a congress unable to prosecute wall street bankers for the damage they did, but it appears people will take money away from seniors who earned and work for social security benefits that are critical to their livelihoods and which they depend upon. you know, i have a story to tell. last weekend i was doing grocery shopping for our family back home, and i saw an older gentleman -- i was thinking about what i was going to say here in congress. he was in the supermarket. he had his cart. he was all bent over. he was trudging along aisle after aisle and he had quite a bit of trouble to raise his neck to look at what the prices were. he seemed to be going around. i notice he wasn't putting a whole lot in his cart but he was putting some things there watching every penny. when i got finished with my shopping i saw him out in the parking lot.

i thought, is he going to his car? he pushed his shopping cart, he put all his groceries in two backpacks. i saw him pushing his grocery cart across the parking lot way to the corner by the sidewalk and i realized what he was doing, he wasn't going to any car. he didn't have a car. what he was doing is he was putting his groceries in the backpack to put on his back and then in his condition walk to wherever his home or wherever he was residing. and i looked at that and i thought, you know, i have to go back to congress and tell that story because that's exactly the kind of person that the chained c.p.i. would impact the most. these senior citizens shouldn't have to have this congress debating about their benefits because they get scared all across our country. we should never do anything that upsets our seniors who are

dealing with so many issues in their lives that each of us someday will have to deal with, and i find it sad, really, that this issue of social security has been included in the budget debate that we are about to get into. social security is separate. it has its own trust fund. it is sound. it has a formula that works. the best thing we can do for future generations is to get everybody back to work so that the fica trust fund works 50 years down the road. but right now we shouldn't be worrying our seniors. we shouldn't be asking them to take cuts in senior meals. the people who go for senior meals are senior citizens who actually need better nutrition. i've gone to many senior sites. one image that remains in my mind at one site in my own district is a very thin senior woman who is probably 85 years old and the senior center

served a small sandwich for lunch. they served a little bit of warm corn. they had a little bit of pudding. there was an apple and there was a can of milk on the tray. and that woman ate everything but half her sandwich and she took that half of the sandwich she didn't eat and she wrapped it up and she put it up into her worn purse and she left that senior center and walked home. those are the seniors that we have to see here and care about. and i'm just glad that -- very grateful to the citizens of my region they have sent me here, and i urge my colleagues to support -- to oppose any social security cuts for current or future beneficiaries in any deficit reduction package, especially that contain in the chained c.p.i. proposal. my vote will always be to give our seniors freedom from worry, freedom from the chains of the

c.p.i. proposal that would pull them down if they're thrown overboard. the american people would not want to do what is being proposed in this chained c.p.i. to the senior citizens of our country if they really understood what it means. $100 to a senior in a monthly check is penny by penny by penny. we have a program in the department of agriculture where in the summer months our seniors can go to some fruit stands around our country and they get a little coupon and they can buy fruits and vegetables. and the owner of this one fruit stand in ohio said to me, you know, congresswoman, i never realized among seniors how much they had to sacrifice. they can't buy things that normal families buy. i said, tell me more, and the farmer said, you know, i had a woman in here last week who stared and stared at a container of raspberries and the price on the raspberries at that stand was $4.

that senior woman had not eaten raspberries in 25 years because she couldn't afford them. and that farmer said, you know, when i saw her coupons, i told her, ma'am, i will cut the price in half. and her total bill came up to i think he said it was like $10.96, and he was going to give her the four pennies back and he said, you know what, how about if i give you green beans to put in your sack for the extra four cents? and that's exactly what happened at that one transaction. multiply that by thousands of seniors across this country and get a sense of what they face. i can tell you in ohio, and i'm sure it's everywhere, the largest increase in the number of people coming into our food banks across this country are senior citizens. you can say why is that. well, you know, if they had a bank account, if they were able to save a little bit, it doesn't pay anything in

interest now after the crash of 2008, so they're not making anything off any savings that they might have. a lot of them if their kids are unemployed they've let them move in with them. and so grandma and grandpa are the ones holding millions of families across this country together until their kids and grandkids can get back on their feet again. i think what the seniors are doing, because prices are rising, prices haven't gone down, they're going into these food banks and they're getting a bag of groceries to help them stretch the meager dollars that they have. so as we move into this deficit debate and into the budget debate, i want my colleagues to think about the citizens that they represent and how vital that social security check is and to do nothing to those who have not asked for any reduction. they can't afford any reduction. there are so many other places

in this economy where we can go in order to try to balance the budget. we should not do it on the backs of our senior citizens. so i would say free our seniors from the c.p.i. oppose any proposals to change the formula that would cut their benefits. e already tax those who have significant assets if they earn over a certain amount on social security with other income. we don't need to harm the millions of americans who just get by month after month. i thank my colleagues for listening. i yield back my remaining time and i ask the members of this congress to oppose the chained c.p.i., to stand with our senior citizens, to give them the dignity in their retirement years that they have earned. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back her time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, for 30 minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the privilege to address you here on the floor

of the house of representatives and take up the topic that has come to the forefront of the american discussion and do so again and that is that on the night of november 6, as people across america watched the election returns come in, there were many republicans, people on my side of the aisle, that watched with -- i say shock and disappointment as the great predictions that mitt romney would be the next president of the united states, fell by the wayside in swing state after swing state from the east coast, by the time it got west of the mississippi, it was clear the presidential election. and many of the predictors on polling and politics and the decision of the american voters had predicted that mitt romney would be president, that republicans would win the majority in the united states senate, that there would be a three-way majority between the house, the senate and the presidency and we could put

america back on the right track. i hoped for that, mr. speaker. i prayed for that. i worked for it, but i watched as though as the election results came to be untrue as we lost some seats here in the house and lost some seats in the senate and, of course, the president was re-elected that night and the plans of probably half, very close to half of the american people had to be changed and altered because we planned to put free enterprise back in place, we planned to repeal obamacare, we planned to do some other things, but one of the things we didn't really plan so much to do was take up the immigration issue in the 113th congress. . even though ip gracious was hardly a blip. and if it was debated, it was debated in iowa loo likely debated in iowa the first and longest. as i tune my ear to these

issues, i didn't notice it was a paramournt topic or a plank in barack obama barack obama and mitt romney. the polls closed and the results are clear and the morning then of the 7th of november, some self-apointed experts decided oh, who, they probably didn't sleep very well and were wrong in their predictions and how would they describe they were so wrong in their bold predictions. 60 and more republican seats in the senate and how would they describe they were so wrong? it didn't take long after the sun came up or even before they came up, they were going to tell the american people that the election loss -- and i wouldn't characterize as a loss but failure to achieve the goals we have set, but the president

maintained his seat in the white house. but that election loss, as they characterized it came about because mitt romney said two words, self deport. and that explains it all almost as logicically as the video explains the violence in benghazi. it wasn't because mitt romney said those two words and we didn't get the hispanic/latino ss vote. 31% that mcgain achieved down to 27% to the exit polls that mitt romney achieved. wasn't the modern day low for the hispanic vote. it went to bob dole and that was at 22%. and as they began to spin the narrative and it was all about i will gracious and many of the advocates had for a long time. these were the promoters and i

will put it in quotes comprehensive immigration reform, closed quote, and that's the language that emerged during george bush's administration when they advocated the modern-day amnesty that much of it was written off the 1986 amnesty act. their argument was mitt romney would have been president if he had a better outreach to the hispanic vote. first i realized that the open borders people have had the agenda to suspend the rule of law and grant amnesty and path to citizenship to people who came here i will lely. but it always was their agenda and pretty convenient excuse to analyze failed election results. now we must pass comprehensive

reform or the party will become irrelevant in the future and we will never win another national election. in fact, president obama came before republican house members about a month ago and said that. he said we would never win another national election if we don't pass comprehensive immigration reform and this is the hardest to accept as being delivered with a serious look on his face, although there had to be a snicker in his mind, he said, i'm trying to help you. the president said he is trying to help us by advocating for an amnesty plan, comprehensive immigration reform and that's going to fix the problem of falling short and winning the presidential election last november 6. there are a few facts that should be known, mr. speaker. and according to my steam of staff as they sat there on blackberries, bralk received

eight million fewer votes than he did in 2008 and mitt romney, one million fewer votes than john mccain did. there are nine million people stayed at home. and why were they not energized and why didn't bralk energize them and mitt romney. we need to know the answers to begin this discussion. another one would be how important is the immigration issue to people in this country. not important enough that the presidential candidates would make a campaign on it. so it wasn't on the radar screen of the presidential candidates who have the most extensive and expensive polling of anybody in the country. so why was that an issue? and then the exit polls and the polling that especially goes into the hispanic community and republicans lost a larger share

of the asian vote than they did the hispanic vote, but what was the list of priorities that they had and was immigration at the top? no, it was fifth or sixth along the line like everybody else. we are all human beings and all deserving of respect. and we are created in god's image, but people think the same way regardless of their race or ethnicity. they worry about jobs and the economy and want stafe streets, good education, they want opportunity. they should want lower taxes and less government intrusion, but that same poll yielded a bit of a surprising result to the advocates who had spun the yarn the morning after the election that the constituency we were losing was naturally republicans because those we know are good family people, they are good faith people, good entrepreneurs and can start a business with less and make it go very, very well with that work ethic.

that's what we see in front of us. if you ask the question in the perspective of a good, effective and thorough objective poll, you'll find out that hispanics are about 2-1 in favor of larger, more government involvement, more government services, which results in higher taxes. well, that's the other party that advertises we need more government services. they do that because they are in the business of expanding the dependency class in america. they want, mr. speaker, more americans to be dependent upon government, even if we have to borrow the money from the chinese and the saudis to provide these services, quote, closed quote, because it empowers their electoral base and empowers them in this congress. we are on the other side of this issue, republicans are. we want to expand personal responsibility. we want to expand all of the human potential that we possibly can. we want this american vigor to

be unleashed and grow this economy and our gross domestic product. they are two competing ideologies. one is keyes and borrow money and ask them to spend it and it would stimulate the economy. the other side is the austrian economic side that believes that you need production on our economy for it to grow and less mrs. emerson: fa cyst on the consumption -- less on the emphasis side and will contribute and the economy will grow. that is a competing philosophy between democrats and republicans. and republicans want to empower the individual and to empower the individual, you have to respect and appreciate and encourage this free enterprise economy that has built the united states. if, mr. speaker, if you take a

naturalization test and there are a series of flash cards, stack of them that you can get from citizenship immigration services so an illegal immigrant can be natural liesed to become an american citizen. and they will -- and they will -- these flash cards will have on them questions like, who's the father of our country. nap it over and george washington. who emancipated the slaves, abraham lincoln. what's the economic system of the united states of america. flip the flash card over and it says free enterprise capitalism. this isn't a secret. we want people to be on liberty and not be dependent on government at the expense of other people and at the expense of borrowing money from foreign

countries to drive us into debt and $16.8 trillion of national debt. the effort to expand the political base erodes the rule of law and free enterprise and puts america in debt so that the babies that were born in united $53,000 more than each. that's what we have and there is a country we need to pull back from the brink of bankruptcy. we are moving in that direction under good strategic leadership in the house. we have a budget that we have approved that balances and too long for me. i don't want to wait that long, in 10 years. but meanwhile the president's budget balances almost never and raises taxes and pushes us deeper into debt. how do we bring out the greatness of america? the greatness of america was described by ronald reagan when

he talked about the shining city on the hill. ronald reagan never spoke about that being the shining city on the hill as being our destiny. he spoke about it as the america that we were and presumably the america that we are. i will argue that our job is to refurbish the pillars of american exceptionalism and strengthen us and know what they are. many of them are in the bill of rights. freedom of speech is a pillar of american exceptionalism i'm exercising on the this moment. freedom of speech, religion, the press, assembly, the right to keep and bear arms and face your accuser in a court of law and be tried by a jury of your peers, the right to property, the right to see the enumerated powers that are exclusively to the united states of congress, those other powers go to the states or the people respectively. those are some of the pillars. mentioned free enterprise

capitalism, but wrapped up within this constitution that i carry in my jacket pocket is the supreme law of the land is our constitution and we would not be america if we didn't have all of these pillars that i have described and also have the rule of law. now why would thinking people that are elected to come to this united states congress and make good valued judgments and good policy judgments, why would they be so willing and some of them eager to sacrifice the rule of law in an effort to reach out and ask for a vote? why would someone vote for someone who is willing to sacrifice the rule of law? it defies my logic explanation. but amnesty is a sacrifice of the rule of law. and once you grant it, it's almost impossible to restore it.

i got to wondering -- >> i remembered 1986 when ronald reagan signed the amnesty law in 1986. i was operating my construction company that was 11 years old at the time, raising three young sons and struggling through the farm crisis in the 1980's and wyoming watching the news and seeing this debate take place that we have up to one million that are in the united states illegally and most of them came across the southern border and stayed and there was such a big problem that we needed to address it, 800,000 to one million that were here illegally. so ronald reagan, i think under great persuasive pressure from some of the cabinet members around him conceded that he would sign that 1986 amnesty act. and when he did that, my frustration level went over the top.

i believe in spite of all of the pressure that was brought on ronald reagan as president, he would see clearly that you can't sacrifice the rule of law in order to solve a problem that came about of not enforcing the law and that the promise of enforcement in the future was not going to be upheld adequately to compensate for the amnesty they were granting in that bill. now the promise was this. every employer was going to have to give an i-9 form and i called it name, rank, serial number but i remember my fear that the i.n.s., immigration and naturalization services at the time would come into my office and audit me and make sure i had every i-9 form and make sure i didn't miss it with anyone. we religiously followed the new 1986 amnesty act requirements

that there would be i-9 forms and expected there would be enforcement and penalties for employers that violated it because the promise was the federal government enforced by the justice department, would be there to audit employers and enforce the rule of law. that was the full-blown promise that came with ronald reagan's signature on the amnesty act of 1986. i don't have any doubt that ronald reagan intended to follow through on the enforcement of the amnesty act. i still got some of those records in my dusty files back there somewhere and many other employers were concerned that they would not be able to follow the letter of the law. it didn't work out that way and didn't show up in office after office and company after company. because of document fraud and because of the misestimation of

the numbers, the 800,000 to a million became three million ople that got amnesty in 1986. what did we learn from that, mr. speaker? those who fail to learn from history tend to repete it. -- repeat it. i have a letter from the attorney general at that time and charged with enforcing the immigration law that was passed and amnesty in 1986. this was an op-ed published in "human events" in 2006, and among his dialogue here is this -- and i'll read some of this in the record, mr. speaker, but i think it's worth our attention. this is the attorney general writing of the reagan -- ronald reagan's amnesty act. quoting from the article, legal immigrants who could establish that they had resided in america continuously for five years would be granted temporary residence status which could be upgraded to

permanent residency after 18 months and after another five years to citizenship. it wasn't automatic. they had to pay application fees. they had to learn to speak english. they had to understand american civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible. mr. speaker, this language is almost very the language that was plugged -- verbatim the language that was plugged into the -- i will be happy to yield for an announcement. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed s. 716, an act to modify the requirements under the stock act regarding online access to certain financial disclosure statements

and related forms in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may proceed. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. i had to pause for a minute there. concerned that might be the amnesty act coming over from the united states senate, but i am relieved to know it might be a few more days. picking up where i left off and had made the point and read into this record, mr. speaker, the language that was used in the 1986 amnesty act, is almost identical to the language that was copied and pasted in the 2006 amnesty act that they called comprehensive immigration reform because they knew the word amnesty would sink the bill then. now they know that comprehensive immigration word is code words for amnesty. the american people figured that out in short order. i'll continue with the op-ed written by the attorney general in 2006.

he said, as i remarked, if this sounds familiar, it's because they're pretty much the same provisions in the comprehensive immigration reform act in 1996 which supporters claim it's not amnesty. it does not change the overriding act that the 1986 law and senate language both include amnesty. the difference is president reagan called it what it was. we had an honest man in the white house who called it what it was. the lesson, i continue from general meese, the lesson from the 1986 act said amnesty did not solve the problem. there was extensive document fraud. the number of people applying for amnesty far exceeded the projections and there was a failure of political will to enforce new laws against employers. it was after a brief slowdown illegal immigration returned to high levels and continued

unabated, forming the nucleus of today's large population of illegal aliens. now, so here we are -- this article is 2006. 0 years later having much the same -- 20 years later having much the same debate. mr. speaker, we are having the same debate we had in 2006, which was, according to general meese, the same debate we had in 1986. he continues, what would president reagan do? we often ask that. actually i'd like to wear a wristband, what would ronald reagan do. what would president reagan do? for one thing, he would not repeat the mistakes of the past, including those of his own administration. he knew that secure borders are vital and would now insist on meeting that priority first. he would seek to strengthen the enforcement of existing immigration laws. he would employ new tools, like biometric technology for identification and camera sensors and satellites to monitor the border that make

enforcement and verification less onerous and more effective. that a ds like things number of us have been advocating. and i skip down, so give those here illegally to correct their status by returning to their country of origin and getting in line with everyone else. now, mr. speaker, it's appalling to me to think that the advocates -- i understand the other side of the aisle. i understand the political motivation of the other people on the other side of the aisle, expand the dey class, expand -- dependency class, i understand those motives. they are not good motives. they undermine american exceptionalism, but i understand them. on our side of the aisle, i don't understand, and i think it's because a lot of our own people don't have this figured out. they're looking for someone else to lead them and they're looking for perhaps an easy

way. but every proposal that has been brought forward here out of let's say the gang of eight or the secret gang in the house , seems to have with it instantaneous legalization of 11 million, 12 million, 13 million, 20 million people, all of them, except those who have been convicted of or perhaps charged with a felony, those who have been convicted of three serious misdemeanors, that goes right back to the language of the 1986 amnesty act, those with convictions of a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible, according to general meese. so nothing has changed here except we have a lot more republicans that think instantaneous legalization, and they argue it's not a path to citizenship. i happen to have this little quote from one of the gang of eight where he made this point which is -- he says that a green card is not a path to

citizenship, and the reason they have to say that is because the path to the green card is a path to citizenship if the green card is a path to citizenship. there's been an awful lot of misinformation that's been put out here unexamined by the american public that has forgotten perhaps the 2006 amnesty act or the 1986 amnesty act. and i see the gentleman from california who was engaged in the reagan administration and know ronald reagan as well as anybody in this united states congress is here on this floor and i'd be happy to yield so much time he may consume, even if he consumes it all, but i look it's about four to five minutes left, but i yield to the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher. mr. rohrabacher: thank you. those reading the congressional record, those people who are watching this presentation on c-span or our colleagues who are in their offices watching from their offices should take note of the courage and the hard work that congressman king

has put into this issue. and it is not because congressman king, or those of us who have worked with him on this issue, have any apple no, sirity toward anyone -- animosity toward anyone else. congressman king is a strong christian and knows that hatred and animosity is not a great thing. what is congressman king's motive, why does he put up with this, why does he work so hard? because he loves the united states of america. that's our job. we were elected by the people of the united states to watch out for them and to watch out for their families. that doesn't mean we don't like people in other countries. it doesn't mean that we don't like -- or have some animosity toward someone who's come here from another country. and even those who come here illegally. but our first loyalty and our first consideration and our heart felt support has to be for those people who are

americans, whether they were born here or whether they came here as legal immigrants and are now part of our american family, there's nothing wrong with supporting your family. that doesn't mean you're being selfish by not selling your car or giving away your children's birthright to some other person down the block. no. you should be taking care of your family, and we americans are a family that's made up of every race, every religion and every ethnic group. and the people who are the real racists in this whole debate are the ones who want to first of all tie illegal immigration with legal immigration. the fact is that those -- they say, look, this and that, the fact is when you want to put those same groups together, that is not what this debate is all about. mr. king and i know full well

that what's happening here today is an effort to take, not people who come to our country legally, not to change their status legally, that's not my effort and mr. king's effort. but what's going on is to take 11 million to 20 million people who are in our country illegally, whose presence oftentimes is a threat to the well-being of those people that have elected us to watch out for their interests, meaning the american people in our country, that the only issues that -- what are we going to do with those 11 million to 20 million people? and if we continue to take away from those american citizens, those seniors or those kids in school, we have very limited dollars right now and we have 22 million people who are out of work and we continue to take away from them and give

benefits and jobs to people who come here illegally, who are not part of our family, we can expect even more and more people to come here until it is a disaster, which it already has been a disaster for many middle-income and lower-income americans, it will be a disaster. what we're trying to do is help secure the well-being of our people. done out i think it's of love. it's not -- you don't basically give away everything to somebody who is down the street when your own family needs some food, that's not being selfish. i have recently been through some hardship in my family in terms of medical hardship. and i've been able to visit and see what our hospitals are

like. our hospital system in the united states and our health care system is stretched to the breaking point. we're stretched to the breaking point, and we cannot avoid if we tried to take care of our -- all of the people in the world that come here, liley or not, if someone -- legally or not, if someone comes here illegally, we cannot afford to take care of their health needs without actually hurting our own people. that's what these -- this whole debate's about. we want -- i was down in el salvador, congressman king, i was in el salvador about three years ago and i will never forget my wife and i were sitting at the airport and about 20 minutes there was a direct flight between l.a.x., los angeles, and el salvador and back and we were waiting to go back to l.a.x., 20 minutes

before we take off out come the wheelchairs. and seniors are wheeled into that plane. obviously all -- none of them were americans. salvadorian ell -- el salvadorans. people can't tell me they are not consuming enormous amounts of health care dollars that should be taking care of our own people. that doesn't mean i have animosity towards that. i wish the people of el salvador well. ok, it is we need to make sure that we are watching out -- the fundamental issue today is whose side are you on? who's watching out for the people of the united states? i would ask all of us to join congressman king in making sure that the american people are not damaged by this irresponsibility that we have towards people from another country who come here

illegally. mr. king: thanking the gentleman from california for coming to the floor and asking unanimous consent to introduce he op-ed into the record and i'd yield back the balance of my time subject to that approval. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. king: mr. speaker, i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.

>> a total number of the house stands at 433, 232 republicans and 221 democrats and two vacancies. watch the house live tomorrow when they return. a senate vote today agreed to move forward with debate on gun control legislation. at his briefing, speaker john boehner said he would sent any passed bill to the hearing but not directly to the house floor. s comments were under 15 minutes. >> the president released his budget today and the way he was talking i was hopeful. but hope is again, become

disappointment. the president calls this his compromised budget. his bottom line is this, my way or the highway. if that is the case i'm not very optimistic. the president and i weren't able to reach an agreement last year because every offer he made was skewed in favor of higher taxes. this plan is no exception. his opening offer last year -- last fall was $1.6 trillion in new revenues and his final offer was $1.3 trillion. this budget would mean the total of $1.7 in new revenues. that is not a compromise, that is a step backwards. you can't portray a budget as a compromise when it ignores the spending problem here in washington. the house and senate budget committees have looked at the numbers and found this plan reduces the deficit around $100

billion in the next 10 years. it is not serious. rather than cutting spending, nearlyan increases it by $1 trillion. i will repeat, it increases spending by $964 billion over current law. again, i don't think that is a serious effort in addressing washington's spending problem. the president's budget calls for more tax revenue. again, it is not serious and it will cost our economy more jobs. worst of all, this budget never balances. never, ever, ever comes to balance. we spent more money than we've taken in for 55 of the last 60 years. no business in america can survive like that, no household can survive like that and our

government can't survive if we continue to spend money we don't have. all this budget does is preserve the status quo. it's time to look at the cost drivers and stop the spending in washington. i'm encouraged that the safety net programs are unsustainable but only offered modest reforms. they are modest. there's nothing close to what we need in order to preserve the programs and put us on a path to balance the budget. still it is a step back from what he agreed to over a year and half ago. there is no reason why we can't make incremental progress where we agree. that is why the president's approach is disappointing. it was the president who said "when democrats and republicans agree on something it should be pretty easy to get it done. let's agree what we all agree

upon." those are the president's words. now he wants to hold these modest reforms for hostage for another round of tax increases. there is no way to compromise, there is no way to move the country forward and, frankly, it is no way to lead. >> it was called a shocking attack on seniors. are republicans going to run against democrats for trying to slow the growth of entitlement spending? >> i've made it clear that i disagree with what the chairman said. he and i have had a conversation about it. i expect -- this is the least we must do to begin to solve the problems in social security. >> will you call republicans next year not to attack democrats? >> i talked to the chairman and we had a conversation.

we'll leave it at that. how is ow that the -- the senate moving on the gun measure will you commit to something? >> i've made it clear if the senate passes a bill, the house will review it. the judiciary committee has had the energy committee has had meetings. if the senate passes a bill i will send it to a judiciary committee for an open hearing. that's why we are the committee structure in the house. i think regular order is appropriate way to move the bill. >> are you not bringing it to the floor for a vote? >> i've never been for a blanket make a commitment -- i do know what the product is. i expect the house will act on legislation in the coming

months. but i want this to go through regular order. i want the judiciary committee to take the time and look at whatever the senate does produce, assuming they produce something and make their determination. >> what do you say to the families who are calling for an up and down vote regardless if you agree with it or not. does that have an affect on it at all? outur hearts and prayers go to the families of the victims. i expect the house will act in some way, shape, or form. to make a blanket commitment without knowing what the under lying bill is i think it would be irresponsible on my part. if they produce a bill, we will review it and take it from there. >> do you think things have

changed? the mindset has changed about guns? >> it the issue of guns -- they've been an issue for the 22 years i've been in congress. e thing we have to remember, laws are only as good as our citizens willingness to obey them. law-abiding citizens do obey them. criminals don't. in addition to that, we've got a system of laws that are not enforced today. i would think that before we begin to add more rules and regulations on law-abiding citizens that we would expect the law enforcement personnel and the department of justice to enforce the current law, which they are not doing. >> mr. speaker, back in december when the president made his last offer. you said it was unbalanced. yesterday, he put it back on the table.

is your last offer to the president still on the table and would you be willing to make it public to judge how close it was? >> i think there are plenty of reporting on what the offer was. >> so the -- >> the president knows what needs to be done. he knows we can't continue to spend money we don't have. this year the federal government will bring in more revenue than any history of the country. we will still have a trillion-dollar budget problem. we programs that are not sustainable in the current form. there needs to be modifications and we need to get serious about it. i've never with drawn it. i'm not sure where it is. you probably reported on it.

>> what do you think is a more mportant issue that has -- [unintelligible] immigration or gun control? >> those are the only two options? >> between those two. >> there's a lot of important issues the american people want us to address. i would argue one of the biggest challenges facing us is our long-term structural debt problem that is going to imprison our kids and our grandkids. it is hurting the economy today, hurting the ability to get jobs, keeping the wages down. it was never a rule to begin with. certainly, my prerogative or my intention is to always pass

republican rong support. >> would you put immigration before the committee of jurisdiction? >> there's a number of committees that are working on this issue now. how we will consider it, there has been no decisions. whether we'll go first or the senate will go first, it is hard to gage at this point. there's a lot of work being put into this and i'm urging members on both sides of the aisle to come together and address, what i think is a big issue in our country. >> when do you expect you'll see a plan from the group? are they briefing you regularly and when do you expect that to happen? > when they tell me they are ready. >> on the debt ceiling, how do you see it playing out?

you want it todo play out? >> the house is going to move a bill to give the treasury the ability to make interest payments, to make social security payments, in some particular fashion. our ur goal here is to put spending on a sustainable path. it isn't to default on our debt. the goal is to cut spending. i've made clear that until we get spending cuts and reforms that put us on a path to balance the budget in the next 10 years we're going to have fights. >> are you willing to have it turn out in 2011 again, to get to that level of suspense? >> i spent two and half years

focused on this one issue in a big way. i think most you have understand my point to get this government to deal honestly with the spending problem. i've watched this government kick the can down the road and kick the can down the road. i swore to myself they would not do it and i'm not. briefing hner earlier. nancy pelosi had a briefing as well. >> tomorrow marks the 100th day of the 113th congress. i believe for the first 100 days he republicans deserve an f, f for failing america's families. no jobs, obstruction, manufactured crisis. consider the republican report

card. it begins with an initiative on growth of jobs. the republicans have been lock debate on proposals. maybe some of you were at the press conference yesterday when mr. highwayer made the american initiative was a legislative proposals, many made by the newest members of congress, members of the freshman class. bringing jobs home and investing in innovation and having solutions for small businesses and the middle-class. yesterday was also equal payday. today, members are lining up to sign the discharge petition for the pay equity act. we know that it is officially called the paycheck fairness act

introduced by a congressman who has been relentless on this issue for fair pay for women. we believe as does she leads us to when women our nation prospers. members are lined up there now to sign the discharge petition. this year is the 50th anniversary of when president kennedy signed equal pay act. so we want to see how far we have come, how much farther we have to go. also today we are seeing a fuller information about the president's budget. it's a balanced approach to create jobs and responsibly reduce the deficit. it's a compromise measure. as with all compromise measures, there are some things in there that everybody doesn't love, but it is a budget for job creation,

infrastructure, surface transportation and other jobs initiatives. it's about young people, education in training, early childhood through lifetime learning. nothing brings more money to the federal treasurey then the education of the american people from early childhood education to lifetime learning and everything in between. k-12, higher ed, post grad, lifetime learning and that's what this bill, this budget is about. as i said, education and training from early childhood to lifetime learning ensures all 4-year-olds have access to quality preschool, fully funds pell grants, support state efforts to tackle college costs and reorganizes system initiatives to make this all more effective. and it's lifts the sequester, limits s.g.r. g.r. being the -- by

eliminating s.g.r., protecting seniors' access to doctors on medicare. very important issue for our seniors. republican budget by contrast continues to destroy jobs, stalls our economic recovery and ends the medicare guarantee. we're calling upon speaker boehner to appoint conferies. house and senate passed budgets. let's go to conference and do it in a transparent way to the public can see choices there. americans want us to work together to solve problems. this is a way we can do that. lift a sequester, find common ground to create jobs, grow the economy and build a strong, thriving middle class. passage there but we need to appoint conferies in order not to obstruct that path to economic growth. good news today is the senate n. a strong, bipartisan vote,

68-31, voted to move forward on gun violence prevention legislation addressing background checks, as you know, gun trafficking and proposals for school safety. that's all a good thing. it is about guns and budget. guns and budget. you don't know this when when many of us were in college it was guns and butter. now it's guns and budget. that's in front of us now. with that i mr. bush leesed to take any questions you may have. -- i will be pleased to take any questions you have. yes? >> the reason why action needs to be taken now, can you explain how the legislation in the senate would have prevented newtown? >> when you see newtown, it's important to note that about 4,000 people have died by gun violence since newtown. newtown, no question about it, just tore at the hearts of the

american people and challenged our conscience to do everything in our power to prevent gun violence. the legislation that is moving forward in the senate and hopefully we have something similar and we will have something similar in the house is about background checks, which i think would have been very important. the -- ending gun trafficking to keep guns out of hands of people draw purchases all of that and initiatives for school safety. if you just want to focus on one thing, initiatives for school safety might have protected those children a lot better. how can we ever not act upon killing of 20 little children around 6 years old each? and so we want to prevent

similar situations or end gun violence in our country by having responsible, responsible background checks, responsible gun ownership, and precautions taken to prevent it from happening again. but again, it's a tall order. and there will be other aspects of ending violence in our communities that relate to mental health issues and the rest but we must -- we must reduce the number of guns in the hands of people who would use them in a way that they shouldn't. >> president obama's budget, due release yesterday, includes hundreds of billions of dollars of cuts to medicare as well as c.p.i., two things that angered a lot of the most liberal members of your caucus. representatives protesting the white house, so upset about these type of cuts. as leader of the house democratic caucus, where do you stand on c.p.i. and billions of cuts to medicare the president

proposed? >> as soon as this press conference is over, depending on how long it takes at 3:00, house democrats will be meeting to hear from experts on the subject of changed c.p.i. and subsequent meetings from the white house on other aspects of the budget. but the c.p.i. issue is one that is that has caused a great deal of discussion, and we will be hearing from two versions of one opposing changed c.p.i. the other saying it forly done, protecting very poor and elderly, there might be a way to go forward. i myself believe whatever we talk about in terms of prolonging life of social security should be considered in its own place. whatever we're doing, it's about extending the life and strength of social security. it's not about balancing the budget. so that is some of the concerns that some of our members have, why is this in this bill? i salute the president for his

budget. it's great. focuses on jobs. it focuses on the future. it offer sms compromises and it insists on rev lieu. remains to be seen if republican colleagues want to go forward in a balanced way or just want to have it their own way. but we do have to know what we're talking about when we make statements about cuts in medicare and what is that and what is the impact of changed c.p.i. what i do know about in the president's budget for the lowest income seniors and people with disabilities, they would not be affected. means tested veterans' pensions as well as montgomery, g.i. bill active duty, whether the post g.i. bill benefits won't be affected. supplemental nutrition program, snap, food stamps and child nutrition programs will not be affected. pell grants will not be

affected. so it goes on and on to that effect. again t. has to be weighed against compared to what and how else can we reach balance. i think coming out of the meeting we will be better equipped to really foe what the impact is of changed c.p.i., pros and cons of it. but i think there's more of an interest in viewing it as, if at all, just in terms of social security stability rather then balancing the budget. >> we talked about universal background check could possibly lead to federal registry on a gun. does that sound concern on his part? >> i don't see that's certainly not so in the president -- excuse me, in the senate bill. the principles we have put forward on the house side, which you have probably seen, we don't

have a gun registry there. >> perhaps to fight against or for or whatnot -- >> we want a bill, boldest common denominator we can pass that reduces gun violence in our country. and we're waiting to see where the senate moves, have many amendments. don't know if that will be one of them. i hope when it comes to the house, we can have a vote. the american people deserve a vote. the american people want a vote in overwhelming numbers. some of the things in the senate bill are supported in overwhelming numbers. repeat the phrase. so we will see. but there's nothing to get to your first point that said this will lead to that, no. not necessarily. >> speaker boehner said on guns before we add more rules and

regulations, our law enforcement personnel and d.o.j. should enforce the current law, which they're not doing. do you have reaction to that statement? >> it saddens me because obviously, we should enforce the laws that we have. there's no question about that. many have said that over and over again. the most recent supreme court decision on guns recognizes that here is a role to be played to regulate, if that's the word, guns. the heller decision relating to the district of columbia. but that is not enough. that is not enough. don't know how can show our faces to these families or even look ourselves in the mirror if we don't take something more serious. as i said to you over and over, any one of us as members of congress, democrat, republican, anybody, would stand in front of an assault on our children to

protect them. protect them from ending attack. we should have the political courage to stand out there to protect them from gun violence as well. and more needs to be done in a reasoned way we can reach the boldest common denominator, consensus and start there and go from there. >> madam leader, i wanted to ask you what you thought about the n.r.a.'s power and what is their status like these days? we saw they railroad not able to have a strong -- were not able to have aa strong effect blocking today's procedural vote but they have been successful, 14 assault weapon bans or ban on capacity clips. i'm wondering what you think about where they are. >> we have not seen the vote on any amendments on the senate floor yet. i believe the senator feinstein is determined to put forth an assault weapon ban and others may be putting forth a high

capacity magazine ban. it takes 60 votes to get an amendment heard my understanding is. i thought we go through that today. i guess on every amendment you need 60-vote threshold so that will be difficult. what do you mean by n.r.a.? if you're talking about the mber shft of the n.r.a. -- well, i don't -- members of the n.r.a., with whom many of us re, many are in agreement on many subjects, including first the second amendment, the respecting the rights of gun owners and hunters and the rest, many of the n.r.a. members support background checks. you know statistics, you have seen the pulse. so the membership seems to be way ahead of the leadership of the n.r.a. on these issues. remains to be seen at the end of the day whether they can stand

in the way of a vote to reduce gun violence in our country. i hope they do not. the gun owners of america, hat's a whole other story. their advocacy, radical position that's they take may have an impact on the positions the n.r.a. takes. i'm not an expert on the dynamic of anti-gun safety leadership and these organizations. but i respect the concerns that members have about how they will be affected being gun owners, being hunters, using guns for recreational use. that's why i was pleased to appoint time thompson to the head of our task force. he's a vietnam war vet, wounded vietnam war investment person who used assault weapons in combat and knows they should be banned. but nonetheless, was that a place where all of congress can

come to agreement? i don't know. but he certainly is a gun owner and hunter and brings that perspective to the table to lead our efforts to find common ground. we will see what the impact is. i don't want to predict it will be successful because i hope and pray it is not and as you have heard me say over and over, president lincoln said, public sentiment is everything and it's the public, including members of the n.r.a., understand that more needs to be done. i think we will be successful. one more? yes. >> part of today's briefing with nancy pelosi. here's a look at the primetime schedules on the c-span network. starting 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, treasury secretary jack lew testifies on the president's 2014 request. remarks from vermont senator patrick leahy and texas senator john cornyn on gun control issues and ways to reduce gun

violence. on c-span3, confirmation hearing for epa nominee jenna mccarthy. and earlier today national intelligence director james clapper discussed recent budget cuts, security threats and why he feels the u.s. is less safe. he was joined at this hearing about cia director john brennan and f.b.i. director robert mueller, head by the house intelligence committee. it's an hour and 45 minutes. >> bring the committee to order. we will get our opening statements under way to get to

our distinguished panelists and statements. i want to welcome national intelligence director james clapper, cia director john brennan. director of defense intelligence agency, michael flynn and director of the f.b.i., robert mueller. for the yearly open hearing before the house intelligence committee. as a reminder to all members, we're in open session and we should be careful not to discuss classified matters. whether he have a closed session immediately following this session to address sensitive matters. late our t to congrat committee yesterday, 18-2 vote on the cyber security information sharing bill we thought was a great start this morning because of changes made in the bill received the endorsement of tech net, largest high-tech association, association with the largest number of high-tech committees came in this morning. we're pleased with that and

looking forward to moving forward so our intelligence service s can share bad stuff with the good guys. purpose is to allow american people to hear from those responsible for providing the intelligence to protect the united states and for america to see firsthand the oversight conducted by their elected representatives. as always, we live in dangerous times. nuclear north korea continues its bellicose behavior, threatening american allies in the region. hopes to distract attention if its expanding nuclear ambitions. commend u.s. every thes to show support for allies and display strong leadership in the region. in syria, bashar al assad responded to protests of murderous violence and after two years of chaos and 70,000 dead, the country is caught in a bloody civil twhar plays out under the shadow of chemical weapons. chaos places the entire la vant at risk and without a change in course provides a new safe haven

for al qaeda to plan future attacks. at this time while controlling some of the world's most deadliest weapons. islamic radicals still seek to exploit weak states or regions in their quest to enact an evil vision of society opposed to the principles of our civilization. we experience a daily onslaught of russian and chinese cyber attacks, iranian and north korean growing capabilities. attack that's steal americans' technological innovation and enknewty. keys to military and economic success as a nation are at risk. in afghanistan we spent 12 years fighting those who have fought us first and face the ultimate test of our national will. do we have the conviction to cement our hard-fought gains and achieve a lasting victory or will we walk away before the job is done? challenges are many. we face many of them in an increasing constrained fiscal environment. the sequester is an outcome nobody wanted, and i share

director clapper's concerns about its potential impacts and risks to intelligence. i find particularly disturbing reports the department of defense wishes to impose furlough policyp ott intelligence community. those reports are true, it would be mindless and irresponsible giving the level of threat and uncertainty we find around the world. i support director clappers' steps to mitigate the effects of the sequester such as freezing new hires, delaying contract awards where possible and cutting back lowest priority spending and avoiding furloughs. enactment of fiscal year '13 defense appropriations bill will be helpful as cuts will be applied to current spending priorities. we have been assured the i.c. can meet its core missions despite the sequester. still, white house and congress must avoid another sequester. this must not become the new normal for budgeting purposes. speak now before the people responsible for managing our intelligence community and giving policymakers the information needed to do our

jobs. these intelligence professionals can only do their jobs when policymakers do theirs first. we must set a clear policy goal and objective to keep this country safe. when the threats are numerous and constraints are many, we have the dutedwroy explain a coherent national security strategy to protect the united states. from both sides of the aisle we see rising tide of isolationism, whether we are discussing provoked fears about the use of drones or how to help the syrian crisis, we hear that people are weary of war. we hear people are fearful of the more u.s. interventions in the world. people are skeptical of the efficacy and morality of american power. america as faced such worries before. and we must lead america out of this challenging time and inspire renewed confidence that a thoughtfully engaged america can continue to be a force for good in the world. we must speak clearly to both our friends and our enemies so no one doubts where we stand. we must mean what we say.

when america announces a policy against a foreign regime, america must act to affect wait the outcome, not stand by and hoping the outcome arises organically. we must not simply watch events unfold. the hope events turn out in peaceful and positive way is to ignore history and to avoid responsibility for the cost and consequences of inaction. after a decade of the war against islammist extremism, americans may understandably worry about the costs of action. but ignoring threats will not avoid those costs. the bill for inaction will always come due. i have never known americans to back down from a righteous challenge. call on america's leaders and america, do not abandon the world. let's not turn our backs on those looking for american leadership. let's continue stooned as the rock of freedom and prosperity in the world. i will turn to ranking member for any remarks he would wish to make. >> mr. chairman, want to thank you for your leadership. we did have our cyber bill,

which is so important to the protection of our citizens and our companies and your bipartisan approach to how you run the committee makes a difference. i know everyone is treated with respect and all people and members point of view is heard. i appreciate it. thank you, and congratulations on your leadership. first i would like to acknowledge leaders of our intelligence committee, including general clapper, cia director john brennan, director michael flynn, f.b.i. director robert mueller. we have a lot of hearings and committees. but the group in front of me right now today is one of the best leadership groups i have seen in this government. i want to thank you for your service and your leadership. all starts at the top and you have to have good people to do the job and i appreciate your service every year during worldwide threats we look back at the previous year and look towards the future. 2012 wasn't like 2011. 2011 was an unusual year for

high-profile intelligence victories. successful rate on bin laden was culmination of over a decade of painstaking intelligence work. although there may be no oscar-nominated movies about the intelligence successes in 2012, make no mistake every day is an intelligence success. men and women of the intelligence community are working to keep us safe 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. these federal employees work nights, weekends, holidays in some of the remote and dangerous locations around the world to defend our nation. there are no movies made of these daily successes because these tireless professionals are preventing the attack that dominate headlines and inspire big-screen movies. they know their successes often require anonymity and we know they work to serve not for glory. we know this and deeply appreciate all of the work of quiet professionals. intelligence committee made the commitment to give the officials resources capability and authorities we need to protect the united states. intelligence committee did misgrave and sometimes deadly challenges as we saw in libya.

i believe the intelligence community is ready to handle the threats we face in 2013, and i believe this intelligence committee is ready to make sure they have the tools, guidance and appropriate oversight to do so. as we head into 2013, there's a lot of unrest around the world. the i.c. must continue to focus in its analytical capabilities in the middle east as that region continues its violent transformations. we must remain vigilant on iran, whose antagonism grows and grows capacity as so does capacity to do harm to us and allies. iran cannot be trusted and we cannot allow it to create a nuclear weapon. nuclear capabilities threatens our safety as well as israel and the rest of the middle east. we must also continue to keep up with events in yemen, where al qaeda and arabian peninsula is still plotting to kill americans and disrupt our way of life. in syria, we must continue to know all we can about this horrendous situation and find ways to gain influence and supporters in the post assad

syria. fall of the assad regime will not end the crisis. the common enemy that unites the various opposition groups will one day fall and old divisions will mix with the glut of weapons to make for a volatile situation. we must think ahead a. void making mistakes of the past and never fall back into the trap of thinking military solutions alone can solve complex problems. africa, too, is becoming breeding ground for terrorists. although we must take care of to keep threats in perspective and not take action that's can transform regional struggles into movements against the west. our eyes must turn more towards asia and we need to bill our capacity to understand many languages and cultures as well as government and militaries. north korea is moving pret again its determination to destabilize the region with overblown and irresponsible and dangerous actions. destabilizing potential of north korea and its willingness to export proliferation cannot be underestimated. but we also know their pattern of ramping up tensions to

extract concessions. we need to break this cycle. china needs to be involved. pakistan is going through another round of internal con vo lucians with vast complications for the region and u.s. china and russia continue efforts at economic espionage and continue to modernize militaries. china and russia went through important leadership transitions in 2012 as well. we must look for broad movements and anticipate the triggers of conflict. while ideology yeeds to competition for national resources, be they food, water or rare earth materials as the next motivator for international conflict. the threats we will face are grave, constant and evolving. prample, cyber, what many were calling a cyber cold war have now turned hot. countries like iran are continuously attacking our economic infrastructure while china and russia steals trade secrets by infiltrating networks of our countries. spending billions to respond to the attacks that is rightfully looking to the boston to do what it has always done, defend against attacks from foreign governments.

intelligence community is on the front line of defense and we must continue to do so. we in congress need to do our part as well. in 2012 house passed cyber intelligence sharing and protection act, which would give the government the authority to share cyber threat intelligence with industry and would have allowed industry to place cyber 911 call to government. yesterday the intelligence committee passed the bill out of markup by a vote of 18-2. markup adopted many amendments that vastly improved our bill to make it mow protective of privacy. these efforts were a culmination of over a year work with industry devoted to privacy and civil liberties. this must become law. beyond sispa, we in the legislative realm also need to do everything we can to ensure we have a deep bench of cyber security professionals and innovators by investing in early education, science, technology and engineering and math, stem education. and our best and brightest to go into public service out of school starting for example by increasing opportunities for

government internships. our prosperity and national security depend and our schools. if they fall behind, we fall behind. we all realize this is a tremendous set of priorities and you have a tremendous burden. it's all being made that much more challenging by sequestration. people forget when they talk about sequestration, it was designed to be bad. the across-the-board cuts designed to be ill-advised and painful that the mere possibility was to force both sides to come together on a broader budget deal. that was a threat and now it's reality. now we're facing deep and indiscriminate cuts with no regard to priority or good sense. these need toim pact social programs and cuts investments and stem the very educational subject that are critical and crucial for inovation, economic growth in the very fields russians and chinese are heavily investing in. sequestration sacrifices our national security. intelligence authorization act very narrowly spells out what the intelligence community can do to provide oversight. the flip side is under sequestration, each of these narrowly define programs get the

same cut. it doesn't matter the program or timeliness or overall cost, it's throwing baby out with the bath water. take sprace programs. indiscriminately cut it by 9% to turn off a satellite long before its life is complete. and costs $15 million to operate maintain it and cutting into nearly costs effectively means you cannot operate or maintain the platform. 90% reduction would lead to 100% loss of capability. and once you stop maintaining satellite that turns off, you cannot turn it back on. if one day -- i'm getting close -- if you one day want to get these capabilities back, say a country is testing nuclear weapons, you will have to replace the satellite for the full cost. to borrow an old phrase, we're being penny wise and pound foolish. abandonning the car on the side of the highway so we don't pay for gas. there's a way to trim budgets, intelligence act for fy 2011,

.12 and .13 without affecting our mission and dedicated professionals. look forward to hearing from you and hopefully our public will learn from what we're doing in his > thank you. >> general rogers, and members of the committee, we're here today to present the 2013 worldwide threat assessment. these remark, unclassified and another one reflect the judgments of the intelligence community. on behalf of all of us and the men and women of the community we appreciate your strong support. it is our privilege and honor to serve in these positions and lead them. i will discuss our solemn duty

to protect them. i have serious reservations about conducting open hearings, especially on the question and answer sessions. i think it is important to keep the american public informed, i think it can be done by unclassified opening statements and statements for the record. we're ready to answer any and all of your questions in closed sessions. while our statements for the record and your opening statements can be reviewed in advance, our answers cannot. in our attempts to revealing classified information can sometimes lead to misinterpretations. it is a hazard we've encountered while discussing sensitive details. so when we ask to discuss certain matters in closed sessions, it is to protect our intelligence source and methods, and to be sensitive with the

partnership we have with your partners. they and our adversaryings watch and listen to these hearings as well as i've learned the hard way. the topic is foremost on all of our minds is sequestration. i raise it in this hearing because the affects of sequestration afternoonably fie -- hreats that i will amplify the threats that i will discuss later. the engagements with the media on this issue have been restrained. let me be blunt for you and the american people. sequestration forces the intelligence commupety to reduce all activities and functions without regard to the impact on our mission. in my judgment, sequestration jeopardizes our nation's safety and security and this will increase over time.

the national intelligence program is spread over six departments and two independent agencies. ch of it is cared in the d.o.d. budget. we appreciate the committee's support in trying to fix this problem. these restrictive rules compound the damage and restrict the ability to take these cuts in a rational way. to the size of the sequestration size, $4 billion will directly compel us to do less with less. some examples by way of illustration and not exhaustion. it will increase the risk of strategic surprise. this includes, for example,

furloughing thousands of f.b.i. em employees, our cyber efforts will be impacted, we will reduce global coverage an could miss early signs of a threat, we will release contractors, we'll delay major systems and deacquisitions . virtually all of the 39 major systems across the intelligence community will be wounded. we'll have to renegotiate contracts, which will n the long rung will cost us more. since we're already halfway through the fiscal year, the mandated across the board cuts are about 13% because we're forced to take them in seven months. this magnifies the impact these cuts will have on the intelligence community.

our approach is that the mission comes first. the two highest priorities is to protect our most valuable andurce, our civilian force two to support overseas operations. our civilian work force works 24/7 around the world. ey are the ones that help to -- the i.c. leadership is committed to minimizing the number of furloughs if required, not only because of the direct impact of our mission but because of the severe impact on the moral of the people who do it. we're not arguing about taking our share of budget reductions. we must mansion this budget crisis and sustain our vital missions. but to accept and mansion the risk we're incurring. to fore, a plan to a plan

mitigate some of the egregious cuts and in this i'm asking for your support and other oversight mmittees the for expedited commission. i've seen this movie before. we were looking to repeat the dividend by the end of the cold war. we closed many c.i.a. stations, reduced and cut an latests, neglected basic infrastructure needs and let our facilities decay. most damagely we badly distorted the work force. that was reversed in the wake of 9/11. we have rebuilt the intelligence community into what we have

today. if you're not careful we're risk another damaging spiral. we're going to do all we can to revent repeating this cycle. unlike other cuts by the sequestration like shorter hour for parks, it will be almost invisible until we have an intelligence failure. let me turn to a brief top view of global threats and challenges. my almost 50 years of intelligence i have i cannot of atime when we have this type of threats around the world. this shows how much the environment is changing. threats are more interconnected a viral. events that at first seemed irrelevant then send offer

disruptions that affect international interests. war includes a software. -- soft war. i like to turn to a few of the issues we've identified. our statement leads with cyber, of course. congratulations to the committee for the passage of your bill. as more and more state and nstate actors gain cyber expertise the reach globally cannot billion overstated. he shift in human geographyy have huge national security implications. countries important to u.s. interest are living with extreme water and food stress that can destabilize governments and trigger conflicts. criminal or terrorist elements

can exploit these weaknesses to conduct activity and recruitment and training. the threat from al qaeda and an attack on the united states may diminished but the movement is still there. they are still determined to attack western interests. the terror has brought a strike n threats to u.s. interests. along with ungoing unrest in yria provide opportunity for opportunists and groups. in these parts of the world they can take advantage of the stresses and a high disproportion of unemployed frustrated young males who recent our power, wealth, and culture. the mass destruction is another

treat to u.s. interests. we continue to monitor the development and use around the world. north korea has been an example of this. they announced in february they conducted its third nuclear test and last year, about this time displayed what appearance to be missile.bile backistic we believe that kim jounge young has taken accidents to build his missile but it remains untested. it demonstrated its long-range missile technology. these are accompanied with public rhetoric towards the united states and south korea. we continue to carefully monitor developments in participation of north korea's next step.

iran continues to develop iranian and weaponization and ballistic missiles, which can it aw, if they decide to draw missile weapons. tehran has the scientific capacity to produce nuclear weapons. so the central issue is its political will to do so. such a decision will reside with a supreme leader and at this point we don't know if they build nuclear weapons. we're tracking the stockpiles of chemical warfare agents, which is part of a dispersed program. its advanced chemical weapons as the ability to inflict mass casualties. the violence through conventional means is not working and is willing to use chemical weapons against its own

people. groups in syria could also gain access to such materials. looking at geographic threats around the world. some areas in north africa are making progress in democracyic rule. they are spreading influence and to undermine the united states and our alleys. tehran has a worsening facing outlook and a fall of syria would be a huge strategic loss for iran. in i iraq, tensions are rising. to this point, al qaeda in iraq have not mustered the strength to overwhelm iraqi forces and they are exporting oil at the ighest level in two decades.

after two years in syria the erosion of the regime's capabilities are slowing. the opposition is slowly but surely gaining the upper hand. assad's days are numbered, we just don't know the exact number. the regem's violence has led to casualties estimated at 70,000 deaths. the violence and economic 3.6 cation also led to million syrians being displaced and receive few jees who fled syria, which adds pressure to jordan, turkey, and iraq. elections that was scheduled for this month probably will pushed to the fall. it onger they are delayed

will raise the frustration in the streets. the fighting in somalia, the collapse of government in northern mali. maly's security hinges on france being able to determine terrorists networks in the egion. west african countries, deployed thousands of troops to help stabilize northern mali. chad is the nation's biggest contribute and are working closely with the french. oving to asia, the taliban has diminished in certain areas of afghanistan but is still resilient. the coalition draw down would have an impact on afghanistan's economy, which is likely to

decline after 2014. pakistan has not instituted much needed tax reforms and the country faces no real prospects for economic growth. the armed forces continue their operations in the tribal areas, which have been safe havens for a qaeda and the taliban. in china last month, they have a new president. his country is supplementing their military capabilities to support its claims in the south and east china seas. russia will continue to resist putting more international pressure on syria or iran. they will display great sensitivity about missile defense. closer to home, latin america and caribbean face natural disasters and drug-related

violence and trafficking. in venezuela, they have named an acting president and the election is slated for three days from now. he is expected to win. in some given the magnitude of global responsibilities insightful and comprehensive intelligence has never been more important or more urgent. i have trouble reconciling this with sequestration. with that we stand ready to address your questions. >> thank you. we'll get to the questions. i appreciate your comments on closed versus open. disapointed you took a moment to talk about it here after our conversations. but each of the organizations before us today is a statute statuteryly created entity on behalf of the american people. most of the work we do in this

committee is sensitive and highly classified. if we're going to maintain public trust and not breed public mistrust it is extremely important they have the opportunity to have a public interaction with the agencies they support, not only with their hearts but with their wallets. as the executive branch as a consumer of intelligence for they policy decisions so is the united states congress. i will hope you look at this as an opportunity to showcase the agencies. we'll challenge some of your findings but it is a good opportunity to have an open dialogue about secret business that protects the united states. always a balance, i think it is an important balance. i will note for the record that you were dragged kicking and screaking today. >> that's accurate. >> thank you to all the members of the panel for being here.

my question, is going to pertain to north korea. what can you tell us about what the objectives are of the north korean government and kim jounge unin the government -- jong-un and what is the role in the government and what role we would like it to play? >> let me start and others can jump in. as far as the objectives of the new leader, i think his primary object i have is to consolidate -- affirm his power. much of the rhetoric -- almost all of the rhetoric of late is designed for an internal and external audience. but i think first and foremost, it is to show he is firmly in

control the north korea. i'm going say i don't think he has much of an end game other than to somehow elicit recognition from the word and specifically the united states. north korea's a rival and seen on the scene as a nuclear power. that entitles him to negotiation and accommodation. presumably for aid. you asked about china, i think robably if anyone has real leverage over the north koreans it is china. china is under new leadership. the indications that we have are that china is itself rather frustrated with the behavior and

rhetoric of kim jong-un. john, do you want to add to that? >> i agree. one thing i want to add, kim jong-un has not been in power for that long and we don't have a track record for him like we had with his father and grandfather. this is where the intelligence community needs to be able to maintain a clear focus on what is going on in the regional there. again, looking at china and the issue of north korea, i think china has the bestish glue the area as steablet as well. they probably have more influence over kim jong-un and this anybody else. >> i was around in the intelligence business in 1968, i was in the business then. i was at headquarters in 1976

during the tree cutting incident, which resulted in the murder of two american soldiers. i can recall in those two cases that i thought the tensions was greater than today. at we have today is a lot of historicalut i think context might be helpful. >> do you believe that japan -- do you think the u.s. will stand by them? are they secure in our position, is the question i'm asking. >> i believe they do. we've had expressions along ose lines that i think our three allies are united in their concern about the potential of threat posed by north korea.

dialogue k the u.s. and corddy nation created is as good as i've ever seen it. >> how do you view the position of the president in south korea? >> i think going into this, is trust and it is attempt to engage with north korea. obviously, i think the calculus might be changing, i don't know but i think it is. maybe it is because of good behavior. i think she was looking for her opportunities beyond the industrial centers that they have closed down. that generates $100 million in revenue for north korea, which they need. i think she is in the mode of

being weary and cautious and certainly, the public opinion polls in south korea support that stance. >> thank you very much. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning to the panel. you were brought screaming to a session, after being here for a few years, i can't find the difference between a closed and open hearing. by the time we go out cnn is reporting it. i agree with your assessment before 9/11. we saw the situation and had seen the fractures in the intelligence community.

our assets were lost, deteriorated and acentury is that were responsible for intelligence gathering and nalyzing and coming up with -- had come into a kind of -- standing on their own, they were not sharing information and we had problems. believe in 2004, your agency was created to bring in the information gathering and to ensure our intelligence community would continue to coorp operate and do a better job. beginning it was very hard because we had the defense people and the military reluctant to give up some of its power. you had other agencies that were reluctant to give up some of their assets. i did not see it -- i did not see a great cooperation. it is eight years later and this

is the first time i've been in this committee. what is your assessment today -- i like your assessment today of how your agency has overcome some of the problems before 9/11. now, with sequestration causing deterioration, how do you think the agency will be able to ensure we do not go back to the pre-9/11 days of intelligence gathering? >> thank you for the question. you're quite right in the historical revolution of position that was established that i now occupy. that found its way into the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act. it has been my goal, my objective, i guess if i pick the one word for what i've been trying to do in this position is

promote integration across the community. i think we made a lot of strides that way. when i say integration as both horizontally, if i can use that metaphor across the pipes of the agencies, as well as vertically. this is another new dimension for the agency. in terms of federal, state, local, private sector sharing the integration as well. i try to push that. a judgment like that is how successful that has been and others have to make that call. i think we've made great strides. one of the advantages in having this position is the current situation we're in with funding and budget challenges we're facing. i think it is a strength for the

intelligence community to have a single person and staff who can look across objectively and lead corporate process on an objective basis on what we're to take cuts and where to invest. fortunately or unfortunately, depend on your point of view, we've had a lot of practice at that in the last two or three years. i will ask others to comment on their views, you know, the position. >> i would say that the general has done a sure bush job in doing what he said, -- sure beneficiary -- job in doing what he said. i will tell you to a large

extent the work is attributeable to the person who fills that seat. and general clearp has done a terrific job in bringing us together horizontally and doe mostically. thank you, sir. d.r.a.'s all, from -- in ive, we are ly locations over the world. it is derived from the his statement and it says that we will be a nation made more secure by fully integrated intelligence community. i will tell you from, you know, the last 10 years if aye seen anything, we have tactical units

in the military that have been fully integrated by officers, intelligence professionals from the c.i.a., the f.b.i. we've worked closely over the last decade, the level of relationships, the maturing on how we share information but also how we have speeded up the process how we share with our coalition partners out there on the battlefields but also some of the other areas in terms of the strikes we're facing. from my perspective, we have really moved in the right direction. i think that there is still more to do but i'm very upbeat about the direction we have taken. >> i will add this. information sharing has never been better. but as the general said, we need to be constantly improving in the intelligence community.

there is probably room for improvement going forward but the rashing up of the different departments, it is much better >> him think with his guidance, we are going to continue to enhance the efforts. >> i yield back. thank you for the time. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for being here. thank you for your service to our country. to the men and women who work for you, i am in all of the patriotism, the professionalism , efficiency, selfishness -- selflessness of which i have had the opportunity to travel. american people have no idea of

the sacrifices that are being made. through your leadership, we are able to do that. i want to pass that on. i want to focus on syria for a little bit. there has been discussion on if assad of false, a lot of people think is when assad defaults, what is your assessment assessment of what we are doing to address the possible if not likely advent of further fighting between these rebel groups, and what they may mean? >> thank you for your treatment. we appreciate it. the men and women of the intelligence community do appreciate when you visit and take interest in what they do. we all appreciate that very much. our most likely scenario that we see is even after assad falls, it is probably more fractional was ion.on -- fractionalizat

for some. , there would be continued intersectoral , whichtion and fighting would be localized. there are literally hundreds of these militia groups that are fighting us on a local basis, in the north and east of the country. they are gaining more control of the area. i think that from an intelligence perspective, that is what we see. theren after he falls, is a current presence in the north, about 65% of the 22.5ation of syria, about

million people are sunni. we expect sunni arabs as well. >> there is a lot of speculation as to how assad is actually funding all of this, and what his reserve levels are, and where he goes from here. what do you assesses the current level of financial support provided to the assad regime by the iranians, ?ezbollah, the russians this is the only way he can survive, isn't it? >> we don't have detailed insight into exactly how he is drawing his finances. he has his own private reserves. there are business interest that probably help support him. -- because ofave sanctions and all of that. they are attempting to provide

advisory and material support far more than cash for the syrians. of thedo see signs deteriorating infrastructure, the economy of courses deteriorating as you would expect. this directly affects about 20% those population, he -- that have fled. this is starting to show signs of strain within the regime military. we do see signs of either delayed or short paid to their army, which heightens their desertion rate. >> it seems that they are lose -- using an awful lot of arms in this fight. they seem to be supplied by the russians. >> they had arms to start with.

they had huge hardware, whether it is missiles, vehicles, tanks, aircraft, and of course all kinds of small arms. the place was awash in weapons to start with. many of which have fallen into the hands of the opposition. >> thank you. >> thank you so much esther sherman. i thank you all for .articipating in this hearing i think it is of such great benefit to the american people. i have some questions for you, director brendan, about drones. , youur confirmation suggested that the american -- disclose when drones fly -- when .rones kill civilians

you suggested that the drum operation should at some point at least be transferred from intelligence to the military. i am wondering if you have taken any steps or if you plan to immediately take actions to increase transparency about drones strikes, to make any move of that program. you also state that the idea of establishing a special court to review potential targets was worthy of discussion. i wondered if any discussion had begun on this issue? , when i was in my confirmation hit the -- hearing, i was asked about policies that the administration was pursuing. right now i am director of the cia. by comets at that time were reflective of my position at the white house. as well my comments about the

counterterrorism program overall. amould say right now that i at the helm of the cia, and will carry out the policy guidance as directed by the administration. i will continue to focus our efforts on making sure that terrorists are not able to carry out murderous attacks against our citizens. >> i wonder if you can comment on this. tuesday, apache newspapers publish an article saying that a significant number of individuals killed in drone strikes attack -- in pakistan the not leaders, and article states that hundreds of suspected low-level militants were killed in strikes. i wondered if you were -- if you could address concerns that we do not always know who we are targeting. and claims that the scope of the attacks is much wider than have

been suggested. >> there are a lot of things that are inaccurate in my mind, and misrepresent the facts. i'm not going to talk about any specific activities or operations in any part of the world. , i'm going toity make sure that we can do what we can to work with with our partners overseas to take these off the battlefield. is there anyway you can define, distinguish between targeted strikes and signature strikes by drones? >> i would refer to the comments that were made by a number of officials, publicly in speeches. i'm not going to engage in a discussion on that. .> let me add

the senateyou also, intelligence committee on former cia interrogation practices is under review within the administration and the agency. comments were originally due back to the committee on february 15. delayedy has been indefinitely. the new york" times" said dave any person to take this on it would be you. , and that the institution would benefit from the eventual declassification and release of the study. what is the current status of the review of the report, and can you discuss the importance as the leader of the cia of its release?

important report that was issued by the center of committee intelligence. i have spoken with both the chairman and the vice chairman of the committee. telling them that i am in the process of the reviewing of the documents. we will be getting back to them shortly. documented000 pages that has millions millions of pages behind in terms of what was reviewed. it is my obligation as the director of the cia to make sure that our response back to them is going to be thorough and as accurate as possible, and will convey my views of what that 's pastportrays about cia practices, what we have learned , and also to identify things that i'm -- i might think the committee might have not

accurately represented. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. thank you mr. chairman. you were in the white house. this white house seems to have a strategy that they want to andtiated peace in syria, i guess just let assad step down. you think that is a good policy or plan for syria? .> i am an intelligence officer myecognize that responsibility as an intelligence officer is to provide policymakers with the best intelligence possible so that they can formulate policy that will secure national interest. that is what my interest is going to be. i will not, on if i agree or

disagree with any all is he. >> -- on any policy. >> ok. what is your opinion on he is just going to step down. >> as he mentioned in his opening statement, there is pressure that is being applied on him. he is being that she is getting support from outside entities. that pressure is going to continue. is timepolicy about it for assad to go. the bloodshed is taking place in syria continues. the implication to reach him as a whole is profound. they -- the sooner that we can bring -- bring security to that .ountry, it is in our interest i am concerned about the fracturing of the country that is allowing certain groups to

gain strength. they have agendas inside of syria, especially outside, that are contrary to national security interest. >> i am the question wrong. am asking the question wrong. what percent of a chance you think assad would step down? his days are numbered. it is a question of when that pressure is going to be sufficient on him. they either he is going to voluntarily step down, or he will meet his fate as a result of pressure that is being applied on him from inside the country. >> the perspective is that he believes he has got the upper hand and that he is winning. he is also said that he was born in syria, and that he will die there. he appears to be, to the extent

that we have done any nothological analysis, does seem to be interested in this point of leaving or voluntarily stepping down. >> thank you. ,> also in syria, it seems like i don't know, there -- there are so many different factions of the rebels over there. what do you think the chances ,re of the moderate rebels being able to protect any interest that they would have in the new government if assad -- or if he is thrown out, over the well-financed trained that doesxtremists, include al qaeda? --the al qaeda extension of

from a rock -- iraq, is punching above its rack -- it's rate. in 13 of a presence the 14 provinces in syria. they are organizing themselves where they can to perform municipal services, to include in some cases the imposition of sharia law. there are increasing indications though that the moderate islamists are getting wise to this and are not comfortable with it. that they -- there are indications of divisiveness between the sunni opposition groups. how the well play out, it is hard to say. a something that we are watching carefully.

-- that is something that we are watching carefully. >> i yield back. on your newations post. i have two questions. a combination of intel and policy question. i'm interested in in your thoughts in either dimension. what are they concluding from the fact that qaddafi had no nuclear weapons, and that he is dead and buried, that north korea does, that kim jong-il is is young and reckless, inexperience, but none the less in control of this country? what do you think the iranians are determining from this? tothere anything we can do make sure they do not draw the

wrong conclusion? and, you may have seen an op-ed n "the washington post." iraq opposes any arms transfers to either side in syria. do you buy it? or do you believe that malik he allowingwillingly flights of arms to supply the assad regime? >> i will start. i ran is a much different type of country. typean is a much different of country. they saw how the international community came together against the qaddafi government. they are watching in north korea as far as what international community has done as far as sanctions and pressure on the

north korean government, since it has not the filled its responsibilities as a sovereign state. iran has its own aspirations. it sees itself as the extension of the persian empire. it is pursuing its programs, including the nuclear front, and a manner that is inconsistent with its obligations. i think there has been a determined effort on the part -- international community to let the iranian government know that there are certain things that we will not allow. int happened in libya, and north korea, there is a new circumstance of conditions that apply to iran that they understand full well what the implications of continuing down the path. >> your second question. i did see it. i did think that if you'll bear

with me, i would rather answer that more carefully in a closed session. >> let me ask a different question then. turning to pakistan and afghanistan, what is the -- motivation of that network? how do you assess their trajectory? are they growing in power? what do you think makes them fight? >> let me ask others to join in. the network is probably the most the talibanp of there is. there is debate as to what extent they pay full allegiance generally they do. they are quite anti-western. they are -- they have the reputation of the most violent

types of attacks. i saw him particularly, the united states, of late, they have lost a couple of their key leaders. restraintthink somewhat there historical aggressiveness. their motivation is uncompromised. member of thee taliban, but they have a long history of a taught me in that area. it goes against the border of pakistan and afghanistan. we have opposing views of international intervention in that region. but, in addition now, because of the coalition troops that are there, they are fighting along with the taliban, and they are among the most lethal and the most violent groups in the area there.

is thatre looking at as the taliban moves forward, are they going to stay with them? or separate as far as political agendas question mark >> thank you. -- clinical agendas? ?- political agendas >> thank you. maybe some of this we can get into in closed sessions as to specifics. i would like you to kind of give an assessment from your perspective of the different agencies that fall under you. how would you grade the intelligence communities -- , doing a's job thorough job, if you give a grade of what has been done so far. plus or a minus.

in the media aftermath of the raid, we established a joint as soon as to us -- ,e received media from the raid to triage it, and that was a community effort, and to go through it as quickly as we could to determine if there were any immediate threats that were -- or threat plotting. the executive agent of the documents is the cia. he continued to look at the material, as well as organizations established by the then commander, and gerald protagoras -- general petraeus. , almost in aents

academic research context, to read out any further findings from these documents that might bear on a threat. with atly met with representative from the combating services center at the united states military academy at west point about looking -- what we can do to move ahead on these classifying -- on declassifying these documents, since there was about 17 documents that were released to thisely organization. i do think there is a good call, a good reason for us to declassify. we cannot justify current operations to current

intelligence operations or research methods, make this available more widely for academic research. >> i would like to make myself available. i would like to see some of this raw intelligence if possible. that may answer some of my questions in terms of if somebody can walk me through it , exact and what it is and what you have been doing with it. >> there were at least 400 intelligence reports that were ,ssued in the initial aftermath immediately after the raid. i do not know what that number is since then. twice i think you know what i'm getting at. there has been some rumors in the press that the administration is using these documents to basically, instead of connect the dots that al qaeda is continuing to flourish around the globe, it has been used to disconnect the dots. want to put that to bed.

i have great confidence in you and all of the agencies, and i think it is our job to make sure that we put these rumors to rest out in the public. >> i have not heard that. i certainly can arrange a group inc. -- a briefing on how these -- onnts and how these how these documents have been managed. >> i would appreciate that. thehe director mentioned effort from central command. one of the things i can assure everybody is that the secondary exploitation if you will, the second phase of the we're doing -- that iss being being shared on military channels. for any lessons learned, anything that we can take away from that, from our africa command, our european command, other military organizations

around the world. i don't have the number off the top of my head. i know there have been hundreds of additional reports that have been subsequently published that has allowed us to understand what we have been facing for some time. i would add that as the director said earlier, we are a learning organization. we absolutely take a kinds of information we are getting out of this to continue to learn and adapt. >> thank you predict if i may, i'm going to -- -- thank you. i yield back. thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you, and for your service to our nation, as well as your appearance today at

the hearing. what this committee considered yesterday was a cyber bill. i want to direct my question to you, regarding cyber attacks and what you think, what we could do to make sure those attacks are thwarted. in the intelligence community is to provide the intelligence across the board. -- i will say both the fbi and the department of defense specifically the dod all have a role to play in providing affirmation to policymakers. i also, i completely agree with the underlying tenet of the bill that you passed yesterday, which

recognizes the important -- the importance of partnership with the government. we cannot do it all, and we do need the help of the assistance of the civil sector. all i would say to answer your question. >> if each of you could just talk a little bit about the greatest cyber threat from your perspective, is it foreign government's -- governments quest mark is a terrorist? -- governments? >> there are two dimension. what is a capability. the other is intense. from a capability standpoint, in terms of the ability to wreak damage to the country, we are more concerned with the potential of the nationstate.

obviously, we have called this out publicly before, rushing china are the most capable -- brush and china are the most capable. and china are the most capable. other threats though from other countries who don't have that capability, but might have more ,ntent are of concern to us which we do watch. that tells off to hackers, ,riminals, organized crime which probably represents a lesser capability, but a more aggressive intent. let me stop and ask if others

picking up on where general clapper started, i believe the greatest threat comes now from nation states hostile to us. i would add iran. and that we have seen expansion of the use of tools such as denial of service attacks. but there are other tools out there being developed that would, as opposed to tying up data or delaying the transmission of data, wipe out data. >> do you think the government is currently or -- organized appropriately to address these threats? >> i think we are reaching that to a certainare extent where we were in the wake of september 11. we have to work closely together to address it.

we each have a role to play. in the past when it was the counterterrorism threat the other substantial partner had to be state and local law enforcement's. cyber it is the private sector. the necessity of assuring swiftly that there is information exchanged between the private sector and our agencies and vice versa. >> one thing about the cyber diverse. it is so not only from the different types of actors engaged, nationstates and organized criminals and hacktivists, but the distributed denial of service attacks where the external websites of banks are brought down. there are also more concerning types of threats as far as being able to get malware into systems for data deletion

purposes. concerns about different types of fishing -- phishing, looking at industrial infrastructure and trying to bring down the systems which has critical impact on the country. in addition we have the ipr threat, intellectual property rights going on on a daily basis. there are so many things going on. but these capabilities are across the board. onwho has responsibility these attacks and the integrated response? >> it depends on what is the aspect. when you look at the cyber threat, there are vulnerabilities and mitigation steps. the intelligence community is doing whatever we can to assess the threat and get intelligence so we can provide to those departments and agencies responsible for addressing vulnerabilities that exist in the networks out there and also

take the week -- we mitigation steps necessary. all of us are working together, depending on what element. that is why we have additional authorities in the government that will and now us -- allow us to engage in the private sector. >> i would just, my quick answer is nationstates for sure. one of the other things, and i think this legislation was pushed out yesterday and will go a long way. one of the things i am very concerned about, that we do to our, is adding acquisition programs in the defense department. the theft of our defense industrial base is one of my something that keeps me up at night. i want to ensure that as we

provide the best intelligence we can on the types of weapons systems are defense department needs, we want to make sure we outmatch our adversaries as much as we can. that is one of the areas i definitely remain concerned about. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you for being here this morning. thatar publicly statements al qaeda is on the rise, coming back, or about to be defeated. and yet we see their affiliates continue to flourish. you had the issue with iraq and the very poor secret they are affiliated. across that part of the world. can you talk to us about your thoughts? can we in fact have a strategic defeat of al qaeda and what would that look like if that were the case? >> first, i would just say that

this is an ideology that we face and we have been very clear about the finding that ideology. i believe that this loosely affiliated organization, franchises, the way we have ascribed it in the past -- we look forward and look at what we are facing now outside of afghanistan pakistan theater of operations and some of these other areas that director clapper highlighted in his opening testimony, you have to be very concerned about the interdependence, if you will, the interconnectedness of some of these different groups, these , these looser groups that are out there. . wannabibe them as a.q ees.

and how they receive things like funding or become involved or interested in the training activities that we know are in fact occurring in places across north africa or in the sahel area u of africa. we have to be concerned about how the organizations work together and how connected they are. we pay close attention to that and our insight today is far better than it was just a few years ago and our ability to have an impact is actually pretty good. but we need to stay on top of it. especially showing we really truly understand the ideology that we face. >> general clapper gave his comments. onyou give us your thoughts the strength of that organization in syria? would that be the predominant post-assad group?

i can go into detail in closed session on their numbers in relation to the rest of the opposition if that is what you mean. the numbers themselves are not indicative of the real influence. just one thing i would offer. you are working very closely with in the intelligence community. how we would define it, to use a military term, how we define the order of battle. --t is the organization's what are the organizations that make up this friday of -- variety of organizations, what they look like, their composition. we are working through that in the intelligence community so we have a better idea as we move down the road with operations

in syria. >> let me switch gears. can you give the american people assurance that perpetrators of the benghazi killings, that we have a full court press to find ?hem and bring justice to them >> that is certainly the case. we have had individuals on the ground building up relationships with counterparts in the libyan interior service. i have been there twice myself. to workoing all we can with the libyan government to identify these individuals who were responsible and bring them to justice. -- theyay that there have been responsive. the investigations are ongoing. is a law enforcement

effort as opposed to our efforts against al qaeda. ? more law-enforcement approach >> i would not say any any of them are law enforcement. we are a component, but there are other agencies that are working together to make certain that the individuals are brought to justice. each of these cases we do not preclude any possible outcome. we happen to have the capability, whether it be forensic or putting together investigations, to put the investigations together for whatever purpose whether it be prosecution or some other use. >> the department of defense is the suspects, the perpetrators. the general can speak to this in

more detail in closed session. >> i just wanted an acknowledgment of the american people. thank you. mr. chairman. >> mr. thompson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank you all for being here today. i'm sorry i was late. i am told you have not talked about the question i want to ask, or at least have not talked about it in the way i would like to talk about it. that is north korea. can you give us some idea why they are -- why there is so much to spare the amongst those in the intelligence community as to what is going on over there and what capabilities they have? you will hear from one individual a near crisis and the next individual uncertainty. onthere any common thought what is happening? >> well, i think maybe

individuals out there have their opinions. institutionally, organizationally there is agreement. also i have to say that north korea of course is now and always has been one of the if not the toughest intelligence targets. as john brennan pointed out earlier we do not have a big .rack record on the new leader there is not much history there. he did not have the grooming. . only around two or three years, unlike his father who had 10 or 15 years of grooming prior to his ascension to the senior leadership role. , asar as what is happening theere discussing earlier

main objective here for kim solidify hiso leadership and position. a lot of what he is doing is for internal domestic consumption as well as external consumption. i think even he realizes the extreme condition north korea is in with its economy. in fact, we are seeing indications that some portions , ashe korean people's army it is called, as they do every year, are being taken away from military duties to attend to their agricultural responsibilities. their harvest last year was six percent lower than the previous year. a lot of the donor aid of their going to get will not be forthcoming because of their belligerent rhetoric and aggressive actions they have taken. i think we can go into more detail if you would like in

closed session, but we have reasonably good inside into what is going on. not to say it is perfect. we do not have good detail on kind of the inner sanctum and what is his long-term objective. i am not sure he has one other than to boost his position. >> what capabilities do they have as far as reaching strategic places where either americans live or work? >> well, they have obviously done three nuclear underground tests. they have displayed although never tested what they claim to be an intercontinental ballistic missile. displayed it in parades. deployed launchers. the vehicles, but not the missiles themselves.

an area we watch very, very carefully as to what their real capability is. andink i would stop there go into more detail in closed session. >> i would like to do that. thank you. no further questions. andhank you, mr. chair welcome, mr. brennan, to the committee. i thank all of you for being here. it is really an honor to be able to meet with the intelligence community all over the world, and we thank them for their work. my question is regarding iran and obtaining nuclear weapons. i would like to ask questions about that but before i would like to ask a question of director brennan. when the white house conducted armed drone strikes in north africa, particularly in eastern onya, prior to our attack the mission in benghazi, did the white house notify the state

department of armed drone strikes before they were made? >> armed drone strikes in libya? of such andng would defer to the white house to address your question. >> where there any armed drone strikes in northern africa made by the white house? >> the white house does not have a drone of responsibility whatever. >> did they have any directive toward having armed drone strikes in north africa? >> again, i do not know what it is you are referring to but i would defer to the white house on whatever happened at that time. >> the vehicles that were .lying over were unarmed >> were there any armed drone strikes that were made in north nine/11?ior to >> in libya? >> i'm asking in north africa.

were any armed drone strikes made by the united states in north africa prior to 9/11? do not know what you could be referencing. >> i'm wondering if the state department was aware or the military was aware or these eia was aware. and if we are not going to talk about it we are not going to talk about it, but that is a question i would like to know. going back to the -- going back to iran, what is our red line regarding the iranian nuclear program? i would ask director brennan. ?hat is our red line >> that is clearly a policy question. one of the things the intelligence community is trying areake sure policymakers fully development -- informed about developments inside iran. >> but regarding the nuclear weapon program and our intelligence capabilities, again, we have a wonderful

intelligence community but we were not aware of the bombing in 1993 of the world trade center tower. 11 were not aware before 9/ occurred in 2001. we were not aware of a arab spring developments and were not aware of the attack on the mission in benghazi. how can we have confidence that we will know when iran has amassed the capability of developing a nuclear weapon? i ask that because the president said last month that it would take approximately a year for iran to development a nuclear -- develop a nuclear weapon once they have made the decision. last week we know the current negotiations have gone without any breakthrough or any development, and so i am very concerned about our intelligence capability of knowing with a high degree of certainty when iran has either made the

decision to develop nuclear weapons or has obtained nuclear weapons. >> this is a subject much better talked about in closed session. >> i would look forward to that and appreciate that. could you comment on what is happening -- we talk a lot about uranium development with iran's nuclear development but they are also building a heavy reactor. what is the status of their heavy water reactor? again, this would be a subject for closed session. >> i look forward to that. i yield back. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all for being here. i read last week that the last

tank left europe in march. there is no doubt the threat has dramatically changed. i will talk a little bit about changes taking place. a major drawdown in afghanistan to be completed. can any of you speak to the challenges that presents to intelligence collection as a result of our drawdown in and in 2014? >> as the other components of our presence there, the military and the diplomatic, in turn affects the impact -- footprint we will have residual he in afghanistan, that has not been fully decided yet. some of that will depend on the going onf negotiations between our government and the afghan government. ar intent to maintain sustained sufficient intelligence presence there so

we can certainly monitor any terrorist activity that would potentially pose a threat to the homeland. >> great. maybe we can talk in closed session. i am interested in how we will converse that with a much smaller footprint. to accomplish what we need to a comp list. >> we can talk about it in a closed session. i would say in general it is not going to be as robust as it is today simply because we will not have the presence of as -- in as many locales. weever it is negotiated, as do now. >> appreciate that. changing subjects, we spent a lot of time time talking about cyber attacks. can any of you speak to the fact that we knew have -- we now have either engaged in those activities and see diminished activity in old-school intelligence and espionage

efforts, trying to recruit folks to give information to the bad guys -- has that declined? >> that is something we could discuss in closed session, sure. i will make a point that quite obviously there is a substantial increase in cyber espionage across the board. and has been remarked upon indicated a number of ways. >> thank you. last question. we talked a lot about north korea. can you give me the intelligence community's view of what is going on in the north korean population? what do we know about how people are reacting to this more broadly? we talked about the army and what it is doing. what intelligence to we have about the impact of american policy and food aid and if that might create pressure on the regime? thehe control exerted over korean -- north korean

population is amazing. it is orwellian. capacity toot of endure hardship in north korea. cult approach in north korea. there always has been, with kim il and kimd kim jong- il-sung before him. one of the indicators for me personally about the state of conditions in north korea is the number of north koreans finding your way to vote with their feet, who leave north korea. i served there as director of intelligence in korea for two years. you might see one or two defectors a year. that was a big deal.

now it is a pretty steady stream of defectors. that has regime tremendous control over its people's activities and movements, i think that is a tremendous indicator of the real state of affairs in north korea. >> thank you very much. i yield back. >> i will follow up on his question. mr. director, could you talk about counterintelligence threat -- are nationstates conducting against u.s. businesses and interest in the united states? >> nary a week goes by that we are not finding some indication of espionage in one form or another from the principal nationstates we have problems with. that is still a substantial problem and we have substantial percentages of our national

security resources allocated to counterintelligence, the more , not cyberrsonal counterintelligence. >> there are as many spies in the united states targeting the united states -- it would exceed the size of that footprint during the cold war -- is that accurate? >> i would have to look at that particular analysis. i have not seen. the other aspect i would add is ,he traditional presence is well substantial, far more effective because it can be combined with a cyber initiative as well to maximize and leverage their kid elegies -- their capabilities they did not have before. >> can you talk briefly on

economic espionage cases in the past? we had great runs on stopping some huge thefts or interceding after the fact. can you give us a flavor of some of those cases? >> we had one out of hawaii where there was successful prosecution of individuals stealing substantial secrets related to the development of our defense capabilities. we had a case recently in chicago. i would have to get you the statistics. they get publicity incident by incident and really what we should do is do a better job of rolling them up and giving the committee a full picture of the activity we have had over the last two years. >> it is important for the public to understand there is an aggressive posture against human intelligence and economic espionage being conducted in the united states. you mentioned the case in

chicago. there was a case in indianapolis, in new jersey. it is fairly aggressive and the .umbers of catches have gone up >> yes. absolutely. that is notpect necessarily a result of september 11, the relationships addressing this particular phenomenon have grown substantially. we work closely with the agency and others. , what leaves our shores is picked up by others in the community instead of dropping off the radar screen. we are, i believe, far more effective than we have been in the past. >> director brennan, i was confused by your arcs. did you say -- your remarks. ddc iran believes it is in a different lace the north korea -- didn't you say iran believes it is in a different place than north korea or --?

>> north korea has already tested and detonated nuclear devices. iran is in pursuit of the nuclear weapons capability. they see themselves at a different point than the north koreans. but clearly they have ambitions in the middle east region that go back millennia and they are trying to build upon their past. they are looking at what is going on but put themselves in a different lace than the north koreans. >> what do you make of them putting in more sophisticated centrifuges in their public announcement? what are they trying to tell the international community when they do that? >> it just demonstrates they have not been dissuaded from continuing on this path to more sophisticated centrifuges. it is an indication of their

determination but also the seriousness of the situation. >> what would be your assessment of the time between weaponization and being able to -- detonation and weaponization of a nuclear device? any sense of that? i know the president said a year. i'm curious if the intelligence community has a different assessment. we have heard different assessments from allied partners and intelligence services. i think the president's statements are anchored and intelligence analysis provided to him. they are assessments we have made that comport with the president's statements. >> assessments we see do not necessarily comport with that. they be in classified setting we can explore that. they have nothat been dissuaded. do you see any mistakes that we made in the north korea march

to a detonation that we could avoid in iran? something different we can do? capability-wise? >> mr. chairman i would refer to my intelligence position, which is that i need to make sure the president and this committee and others have the best intelligence possible about what the iranians are doing. sot is where intelligence is important, to make sure the right decisions are made so we do not get past the point where we would not like to go. >> if you disagree with the assessment on capabilities the timeframe you would have no problem telling the white house the the differences? >> absolutely not. whether or not it is a dash to weaponry or physical material, there are many components of that. we can clear this up in closed session. >> i look forward to that. [captioning performed bynational captioning institute] [captions copyright naal