humans -- yemens future is uncertain. iran has provided support to the who these -- to the houthis four years. --for year.s. moscow sees itself in direct confrontation with the west over ukraine and will be very prone to react over u.s. actions. putin's goals are to keep the u.s. -- to keep ukraine out of nato. he wants moscow to retain leverage over kiev, and crimea, in his view, is not negotiable. russian dominance over the foreign -- over the former

soviet space is russia's highest foreign-policy goal. western sanctions as well as energy problems have tipped russia's economy toward recession. china's leaders are primarily concerned with the mastic issues. the communist party's hold on power, stability, and economic growth. even though it is looking for stable ties with the united states, it is more likely to accept tensions in pursuit of its interest. especially maritime issues. china is expanding and accelerating the buildup of its outposts in the south china sea to include stationing for their

ships and potential airfields. more broadly, to continue an aggressive military modernization program directly aimed at what they consider to be our strengths. their military training program last year included exercises unprecedented in scope scale and complexity to test modernization process -- modernization progress. they are pursuing an ambitious reform agenda. the slowdown of the chinese economy is reinforcing a harsh crackdown on internal dissent. needless to say, there are many more threats to u.s. interests worldwide that we can address. such as afghanistan, north korea, and weapons of mass destruction.

i think with that, i will stop and will open to your question. >> mr. chairman, in the interest of time, we have a statement for the record. >> thank you. director clapper, on the issue of defensive weaponry to ukraine. do you think that if we give that assistance it will provoke putin to escalate his assistance to the " separatists" in their aggression against ukraine? >> predicting what putin will do or what his behavior will be is something of an unknown. i think the intelligence community's view is that if we were to provide legal

assistance, this would evoke a negative reaction from the russians. it could potentially further remove the fig leaf of their position and could lead to accelerating or promoting more weaponry and higher sophistication into the separatist areas. i hasten to add that this is an intelligence community assessment and it is not necessarily to suggest opposition to provision of legal aid. >> my next question is, what more do you think that putin could do? go to kiev? certainly the weaponry he is using now is his most sophisticated weaponry.

>> he could bring in a lot more if you wanted to. more volume. >> to do what? >> for example, armed helicopters. >> to achieve what goal? >> it is not our assessment that he is spent on capturing all of ukraine. -- he is bent on capturing all of ukraine. he wants an entity composed of the two old lost -- of the 2 oblasts in eastern ukraine. we do not believe that an attack on marion pull -- on mariopol is imminent. >> well, i have to tell you that

i disagree with you. they are already increasing activities around mariopol. i would predict he will put more pressure on their as he wants to establish a land bridge. just as some of us have predicted -- had predicted what he is doing now. he is not going to go to kiev, he will establish a land bridge to crimea and decide whether to go to moldova or not. he is artie putting intense pressure on the baltics. -- he is already putting intense pressure on the baltics. he has done everything he wanted to do. you tell me what he wanted to do that he wouldn't have done if we had provided these people with the ability to defend themselves.

clapper: i don't think that he will view it happily if the united states provides legal support. mccain: because more russians might be killed who are now in crimea killing ukrainians. clapper: that's right. it will be harder for him to hide that fact. mccain: everybody knows what he has done. i am not in open dispute with you. we have to move on. but it is just incredible to believe that he would be provoked to further action when he has achieved every goal that he saw along the way -- that he sought along the way. clapper: i think that they will wait until the spring before they attack mariopol.

mccain: he is not getting any increase in sanctions. the ukrainians aren't receiving defensive weapons. he has plenty of time. yesterday, the secretary of state said that our world today is despite isil and the horrific killings, we are actually living in a. with less daily threat to americans and people in the world -- living in a period with less daily threat to americans and people in the world. and yet, just today the director of the fbi and others said that there are threats to 30 states in this nation. what is your view of the threat to the united states america?

clapper: this will be the fifth year in my 50 years of the intelligence business that i have never seen as many threats around the world. i am worried about the safety and security of this country for many reasons. not the least of which is the impact that sequestration is having on the intelligence community. we didn't get a pass. the same rules that apply to the department of defense apply to us as well. the common nation of the challenges around the world and the declining resource base that we have to monitor them is of concern to me. director komi was referring to the fact that he now has some form of investigation.

the fbi has a tiered system based on the intensity of investigation. homegrown extremists, not the surly sympathizers of a specific group, are in all 50 states. mccain: sequestration, as it is planned, will damage our ability to protect this nation? clapper: it is a little bit harder for intelligence to make that case as opposed to the navy or the aircraft. -- or the air force. in our case, it is more insidious, in that predicting when lesser ability will create

a failure is harder to quantify. but based on my judgment, i am very concerned. and if we revert to sequestration in 2016, the damage to the intelligence community will be quite profound. mccain: thank you director. >> the chairman has covered very well some of the issues in ukraine and crimea. is your assessment that putin is carrying out a strategic plan, or is some of this opportunistic? or is it a combination of both? clapper: i think it became a strategic plan when yanukovych

left almost a year ago. i think he saw an opportunity particularly with the seizure of crimea. given putin's approach and the way he looks at the way the soviet union was. his highest foreign-policy objective is controlling the soviet -- the former soviet space. i think on the heels of the seizure of crimea and the establishment of some sort of arrangement in eastern ukraine and what i believe will be a softer approach -- maybe not direct military action but, as the chairman alluded to, moldova

and pressure in the baltics particularly where there are high levels of russian minorities. it is a different situation with the baltics as they are nato members which moldova and ukraine are not. >> we have conducted recently some very small military demonstrations in the baltics. what hundred 73 --173rd airborne went in. what is the russian reaction to those? clapper: i think they watched that. it is symbolically important. they are mindful of the fact that the baltic met -- the baltic nations are nato members. >> we have elaborate sanctions in place.

you indicated in your comments that they have not affected his strategy. clapper: that is exactly right. so far it they have not changed his approach. reed: do you have any indication that as this situation to cherry rates further, there will be an impact on his strategy -- as this situation deteriorates further, there will be an impact on his strategy? director clapper: they are very sensitive about a revolution occurring in russia itself. that is another reason why putin

reacted to the situation in ukraine, because he believed we instigated that as another color revolution. ukraine is right on his doorstep and that, in turn, posed an accidental threat -- annex a stencil threat to russia --an existential threat to russia. senator reed: in the next few days or weeks, there are two possible triggering events. one would be more aggressive action against assad regime in syria. another would be the resolution of a deal on the ukrainian -- on the iranian nuclear program. iranian forces are now --

director clapper: is your question that is there a connection between the nuclear -- senator reed: the conclusion of the negotiations. director clapper: i don't think the negotiations will have much bearing on what they do in iraq or any place they are trying to exert their influence, meeting syria or yemen. as best we can tell, the radiance -- the iranians have segmented the nuclear agreement from their regional aspirations. >> i have three questions. director clapper, i know what

your answer is after hearing your opening statement. but when you said that you haven't experienced a time when we were facing more crises around the globe, do you still stand by that? director clapper: yes sir. senator inhofe: mr. stewart, you say that we face more diverse and complex problems then we have faced in our lifetimes. do you still stand by that? stewart: yes sir. senator inhofe: there is a sense that us on the committee do not know a lot of answers that we should know. when we talk about the power in terms of the strength and numbers in isis, it has been an

additional 20,000 since this started. in august, they talked about from 80 to 100,000. in november, one of the kurdish leaders claimed the isis military grew to 200,000 fighters. can you give us an idea? director clapper: for my view, it is unfortunate that these numbers get out. we don't have census bureau door to door accuracy over these numbers. they are very hard to come by. we have to derive them

inferentially from a number of sources. when we do cannot out with numbers, you will have a wide range -- when we do come out with numbers, you will have a wide range. the current estimate is between 20 and 30,000. the difficulty is assessing who is a core fighter and does this full-time versus part-time. one effect of the airstrikes has been substantial attrition. they lost 3000 fighters in kobani. what that is driving them to now, is that we are seeing evidence of conscription. the estimate we are seeing now is 20,000-32,000. senator inhofe: i was over in

ukraine when they had their elections. they were related. they were from very different parties but both pro-western. they were rejoicing that for the first time in 96 years, the communists don't have one seat in parliament. after that, i thought that we didn't have any problem of going in with weapons. we have language in our last defense authorization bill that we have $75 million that we were encouraging the president to use for weapons going into to assist our best friend in that area. i can't figure out why we don't do it.

would you recommend it? director clapper: i think i have to answer two ways here. this is a policy issue. senator inhofe: i'm not talking about troops, but lethal weapon. director clapper: from indigent -- from an intelligence perspective, that is a policy issue. i have a personal view, and it is only that. i would favorite, -- i would favor it, but that is a personal perspective. general stewart: i am trying to stay out of the personal. we stand by the assessment that

lethal aid could be delivered quickly enough or change the military balance on the ground. it would not change the military balance of power and it couldn't get there quickly enough to make a difference. senator inhofe: as a military guy, do you buy this argument that we may be provoking retaliation from putin. i see what the president is doing every once in a while, and they say that we don't want to make the terrorists mad at us. what is your opinion about this statement on provoking a negative reaction to -- reaction from putin? general stewart: i think it is important enough to moscow that

they will up the ante if we take any action. the realities are, they see this as central to their foreign-policy. they see it as critical to keep ukraine out of nato and out of the western sphere of influence. senator mccain: i'm sure that hitler felt the same way that vladimir putin does. they say we can't get lethal weapons there quickly enough? that defies logic. we can put them on aircraft and fly them over there. how do you justify a statement like that? general stewart: the statement was we couldn't deliver the aid quickly enough to change the

military balance of power on the ground. senator mccain: quickly enough? what does that mean? general stewart: russia and the separatists have lines that they can resupplied much faster than we can deliver, so it would be a race to see who can arm. and with their lines, they would have a significant advantage on the ground. senator mccain: i'm sure they had a significant advantage when they invaded afghanistan. very disappointing general. senator sheehan: i want to go back to the middle east and to what is happening in syria. to what extent has excised --

has aside continued control over syria -- has assad continued to have control over the country. what is the thinking about how to change the dynamic? director clapper: he maintains the control because of his control over the economic levers to the extent that they have them. his focus is on the area from aleppo to damascus. that is where most of the population is and the major commercial entities. he is surrounded by people that are committed to preserving that

because they benefit from it. they are the minority. the aloe lights are only -- the alawites are only 10%. the reality is thata assad is fighting isil as we are. it is a complex array of factors. senator sheehan: to what extent has that affected other arab countries in the middle east and their willingness to engage? director clapper: it has been somewhat of a change. it is gradual, but the fact that many of these countries are participating in the coalition.

i do think the brutal savagery of isil with the beheadings and the immolation of the pilot have had a galvanizing effect on opinion in the middle east region. i think there is more of a willingness to cooperate. certainly from the standpoint of intelligence sharing. senator sheehan: are you optimistic that turkey will become more engaged? director clapper: no. i think turkey has other priorities and interests. they are more focused on what they consider to be a threat with the kurdish resistance in turkey. public opinion polls show in turkey that they don't see isil as a primary threat.

the consequence of that is a permissive environment because of their laws and the ability of people to travel through turkey en route to syria. somewhere around 60% of those fighters get syria through turkey. senator sheehan: to a rack --to iraq. what is a rants presence in iraq -- is irans presence in iraq? director clapper: the iranians are there and helping with the fight against isil.

there is still great reluctance to fully include the sunnis which must happen. there are laws that are extremely important to sunnis. senator sheehan: what i am trying to ask you to respond to is, to what extent is iran weighing their efforts to take on isil versus the sunni's role in iraq. director clapper: the fundamental interest of the iranians is to preserve a shia or shia-friendly government in

baghdad. isil poses a threat to the iranians as well, so they have an interest there in sustaining their aggressive combat and assistance. and opposing isil. >> thank you gentlemen for appearing before us today. i would like to go into discussion with iran a little bit more. the iranian military is arguably one of the most deployed forces in the middle east. they have been into areas such as syria iraq, lebanon

bahrain, yemen. iran is effectively increasing its beer of influence in the region and it is also defending its allies in ways which afford iran the ability to alter battlefield momentum. we have seen a progression of expert witnesses in front of this very panel, and many of my colleagues and these witnesses have stated that they do believe that the president is failing in this area of setting a national strategy. his failure to construct a comprehensive strategy against iran has led to iran's expanded influence in the middle east. i would like to hear your assessment, director clapper, on

the tools that iran has and whether we are effectively engaging them, what we need to do to gain a national security strategy. director clapper: i can comment on the intelligence aspects of this. national security strategy is not my department. the way that iran is exerting its influence in the region is through their organization called the iranian republican guard corps quds force. it is a commendation of intelligence and special ops. -- a combination of intelligence and special ops. they use that to expand their influence.

another one of their proxies is hezbollah which they have been a long client hypes up -- client-subordinate relationship with. certainly from an intelligence perspective, we try hard to keep tabs on those entities. senator ernst: is there a way that we can more effectively engage our neighbors in the middle east to push back on iran's influence? director clapper: from an intelligence perspective, we do engage with our intelligence counterparts in all these countries -- those that are willing to engage with us. particularly the sony -- particularly the sunni

countries, which do harbor reservations about iranian objectives. >> thank you both for being here. in regards to iraq, what do you think are the biggest challenges that the iraqi forces face right now in pushing isis back from ozone -- from mosul and tikrit. director clapper: obviously, the iraqis security forces, particularly the army, need to reconstitute after losses in northern iraq last june where about 4.5 divisions of iraqi forces just melted away. that includes training and

hopefully building the will to fight. they have some challenges with command and control as well as leadership and logistics. they have a whole range of issues that need to be attended to before they are in a position to unilaterally retake places like moz oh -- like mosul. general stuart: last fall, they had -- they are holding three additional divisions -- they are building three additional divisions from the ground up. >> when are they ready?

general stwewart: we are talking probably 6-9 months. senator donnelly: when we see are the credit -- when we see the threats that occur at home if you were to put it in perspective, now versus this time last year do we have significantly increased threats now as opposed to last year? director clapper: probably about the same. senator donnelly: in regards to isis our push is to get them out of a rack -- out of iraq. when they are gone, does that threat level come down at home? director clapper: i think it

would at least reduce the threat some, but if the caliphate is extended to other locations which is what isil is trying to do, then we will have that to contend with. there will be some reduction in the threat because if isil were defeated in iraq and syria, at least you have done away with a substantial safe haven. senator donnelly: when you look to libya is that one of the key places they look at now as a place where they can try to grow? director clapper: that is probably the most troublesome just because of the conditions there.

two competing governments fighting with each other. in addition to isil, there are probably six or eight other terrorist groups that have gathered in libya. it is a magnet. ; senator donnelly: when you look at a place that is ungoverned right on the mediterranean, what do you see as the best steps that you can take in that region to try to change the course of what is going on? director clapper: from an intelligence perspective, we need to step up our game. i think there is a lot of merit to partnering with the french

who have sort of stake out their claim in the sahel region of north africa. they have history and heritage there as well as access and have committed to deploying troops in that area which we can supplement. those are things, from an intelligence perspective, that may allow us to get a better handle on what is going on in that part of the world. senator donnelly: how are we doing on interagency cooperation here at home? better than ever before? director clapper: that is the reason my job was created after 9/11. to promote integration here in this country. i would like to think that it is better. i was around before 9/11, so it is better, but there is always

improvement. we are not as mature on the domestic side but i think we have made a lot of progress there. senator donnelly: thank you. >> director clapper, what do you assess as a side -- assess as as ssad's -- director clapper: as long as a side -- as long as assad felt that this was something to be used only against isil, he would

probably be ok with it. but he would probably have a hard time determining whether it was a threat to isil or just him -- or to him. he could easily consider that force as a threat. >> do you believe you are receiving good intelligence? director clapper: we have a lot of intelligence gaps in syria principally because we are not there. we are working at it to come up with more intelligence from syria, but that is a tough problem. senator fischer: have you received any intelligence that

the moderates trained by us would be fighting isil and not assad. director clapper: i guess the short answer would be yes. senator fischer: how would you assess that russia and iran would be looking at these trained forces? director clapper: they probably wouldn't like it. i think, at this point russia looks at syria as a client and an ally. someone that they provide support to. it would be almost the same perception problem with the russians as it would be with assad. they could probably rationalize it was focused on isil, but if

it was perceived as a threat to the regime, i think they would react negatively. senator fischer: if they would perceive it as a threat, what kind of force would they employ? senator -- director clapper: i don't think that they would necessarily deploying combat forces to syria. they would probably step up military equipment support which they have been doing. that is if they perceive that what we are doing is a direct threat to assad. senator fischer: i would like to ask you something about cyber security. the senator is -- the senate is looking at a bill to authorize greater information sharing.

there are concerns out there about some of the entities we would be sharing that information with. how do we balance the risks between valuable information sharing and the need not to provide information either to private individuals, hackers that are out there, or to a foreign government that may be able to pick up information that we give our colleagues. director clapper: that is exactly the issue. that is the general dilemma that we have across the board whether cyber or any other dimension. sharing versus security. there is no silver bullet answer. i do think that there needs to be some form of legislation that

will protect, from a liability standpoint, commercial concerns so that they can be more freely in a position to share with the government. this is not something that the government can do by itself given the pervasiveness of cyber in our society. we must partner with our civilian sector which means promoting sharing both ways. but you are right, there is always this trade-off between security and sharing. senator fischer: thank you sir. senator king: i think it is very important that we put through legislation on that. i understand that the bill put through last summer has been reworked and it will be moving forward reasonably soon.

i hope that is one of the congress's highest priorities. turning to isis, what are the chances that it will wear out its welcome within the areas that is now trying to govern because of the weight of its brutal and harsh ideology? do we have any intelligence about what is going on inside mosul in terms of the citizens and how they feel about this new regime? director clapper: i think that is an important point, and we are seeing anecdotal evidence of resentment and even resistance in areas controlled by isil because of their brutal approach to enforcing sharia.

i think the challenge, and we are artie seeing indications of this -- and we are already seeing indications of this, that isil has, is that they don't have the financial wherewithal to provide municipal services. >> you mean they are running a deficit? director clapper: we are seeing signs of electricity outages shortages of food and commodities. the airstrikes against their refining capabilities has forced them to go to a lot of individual, mom and pop stills. they are having problems getting the revenue to run the areas

they have captured. we are getting anecdotal evidence of the strains is putting particularly on the city of mosul. senator kaine: -- senator king: could you articulate that for us? general stewart: we talked about the ratio of forces needed to take an urban environment, about 10-1 offense versus defense. there is something to be said about isil wearing out its welcome. it is precisely what turned al qaeda in iraq before that convinced the tribes that there

may be a better option. >> and isis is much more brutal and difficult than al qaeda as i understand. general stewart: the question is, where is the tipping point? i think there will be a tipping point at some time, we just don't know when. >> you just testified, a 10 to one ratio means you need a well-trained force. the question is whether will be necessary or whether it can fall on its own weight. senator king: a quick question on cyber. it concerns me that all of our questions on cyber are mostly defensive. we are talking about rebutting

these kinds of intrusions. should we think about developing an offense of capability to provide a deterrent. it concerns me that now, particularly a state actor, can act without fear of consequences. whereas the theory of deterrence in our nuclear field stood the test of time for 75 years. should we think about a deterrent capacity so that people know if they attack us in any critical way, they will suffer in return? director clapper: yes, i agree. we do have offense of capabilities that i can't go into here. i think the issue is, what is the policy, what is it that would achieve cyber deterrence? that is an issue that, at the policy level, we are still wrestling with.

senator king: to go back to dr. strangelove, if you have a deterrent and don't tell people about it, it is not a deterrent. >> i want to thank both of you for what you do to protect the country. i wanted to ask about iran. in your written testimony, you have said that iran was on track , by this year, in terms of its icbm program. has i run continued to -- has iran continue to develop its icbm program? and what is the status? director clapper: the iranians

have continued on their space launch vehicle program. they recently put into orbit a satellite. any work they do on missiles could conceivably go towards work on icbm. it will be hard to determine whether a given missile is launched for the purposes of a space launch vehicle, because it they do that they also acquire proficiency, expertise, and experience in what could be an icbm. so it is a hard question to answer because it has a lot to do with intent. but there is no question that they have the technical competence.

i think the huge, medium-range ballistic missile force that is operational today poses a threat to the region now. senator ayotte: and if they were to get icbm capability, that obviously poses a threat in terms of our country. director clapper: it could, it depends on what they actually do if they are actually able. it is possible they attempt to launch one this year. the challenge is determining intent. senator ayotte: can you help me determine what other types of activities they are engaging in to establish regional hegemony? director clapper: they are certainly trying to reach out

diplomatically. the organization that we watch a lot is the irgc quds force. they will look to establish their influence by whatever mechanism they can. senator ayotte: as i understand it, they continue to support assad. they have continued to support groups including has below -- including hezbollah. would you still consider them one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism? director clapper: they are still classified that way. senator ayotte: i would like to follow up on an issue with international implications, and that is of international drug trafficking. in my home state of new

hampshire, we have had a devastating amount of people dying from heroin overdoses. i would like to hear your opinion, general stewart, about what is happening in terms of drug trafficking, and in particular heroine, and how the networks are using -- are being used to fuel terrorism. what do southern and northern command need in terms of fighting drug trafficking? general stewart: i-8 will have to look at the numbers again -- i will have to look at the numbers again, but i don't think drug trafficking is increasing through our southern borders. pakistan and afghanistan continue at about the norm of

the last few years. we see no indications that drug trafficking routes are being used for terrorist activities. i spoke recently to the folks at southern command, and i don't recall any request for additional capability. director clapper: i think it was last year when the commander of south command testified that one of the challenges with drug trafficking is not so much a lack of intelligence. we have a lot of intelligence on it. it is the lack of resources particularly the ability to interdict by the coast guard and others. that is being addressed.

they are putting more to abilities into the coast guard in the southern hemisphere. i think i would take mild disagreement here with general stewart that it is a problem not only across the border, but puerto rico is another vulnerability that we have. we have pretty good intelligence on this. the challenge has been -- again, sequestration has had impacts. senator ayotte: i noticed in your testimony that you noticed the incredible surge of heroine

related deaths 2007 deaths since 2007. senator kaine: my perception of the level of american and allied intelligence about the extent of the iranian nuclear program is that before november 2013, the level of intelligence was good. there were gaps in challenges, -- gaps and challenges, but there were actions that slowed the program. our intel sources haven't got away -- haven't gone away, but the inspections would give us an even better level of intel which

would help us determine if we needed to take military action and enable us to better target any military action. director clapper: the important aspect of any sort of agreement we might reach with the iranians would be a very invasive and thorough surveillance and inspection capability on the part of iaea. i think that will be requisite to any kind of agreement. we have, i think, a reasonably capable intelligence capability, but i wouldn't want to rely on it only for verification. senator kaine: i agree with the

last point you made. i would look at any final deal in analyzing its content and determining whether i supported it. the degree of inspections is how we guarantee to know if there is a problem. you indicated that your intel suggests iran is looking at the negotiation as separate from the whole question of iranian bellicosity. my sense is there is at least one connection between the two. this bears on my analysis of any deal. he needed if reached would involve sanctions relief to iran. --from what i have heard, some of

the sanctions relief may have allowed them to invest more heavily in agents that are destabilizing governments outside of their own borders. as we look at any deal, if there is such a deal, there could be a connection between the deal and iranian bill cassidy. -- bellicosity. >> the sanctions have had financial impacts on the iranians. that in turn has impacted funding for their military and t he quds force.

we have had meetings. king abdulla said grown troops would not be a good idea in his view. yesterday, we spoke to the emir of qatar. he said american troops are a bad idea because it would convert the perception to the west against isil rather than a battle to clean up extremists. the want america pass help. the -- america's help. they said grown troops would be problematic because this would be positioned as an american occupation. america is the point of the spirit. i would be curious about your

reactions to those comments. >> i have had similar discussions with the king. he is a proponent, and articulate one, for the people in the region taking it on and having to lead. anytime we show up someplace, we are by definition occupiers. he recognizes as do others, there will be the need for boots on the ground. hopefully others and not the u.s.. that in genders own challenges and issues. >> thank you. >> thank you senator reid. just a follow-up on senator kaine's comment, we need to reestablish where we are. director clapper is it still our policy that no options are

off the table and iran should not have a nuclear weapon? >> that is my understanding, yes sir. >> that is your understanding. do you have any doubt about it? >> take with the administration has said at its word that no options are off the table. >> we had a hearing yesterday on nuclear forces instituted forces. one of the things i came away with was greater concerns than i had before about the proliferation impact. stability in the region. that could occur from a nuclear armed iran. i think we have to be careful about that. the cia reported iran was not intend on building a nuclear

weapon. that was wrong? >> up until 2003, they were. right now we believe the supreme leader would be the ultimate decision-maker here. as far as we know, he has not made a decision to go for a nuclear weapon. i do think we want to preserve options. across the capabilities it would take. right now, they do not have one. they have not made that decision. i agree it would be profoundly destabilizing if they were to achieve a nuclear weapon. >> it makes us face tough choices. they never relinquished the intention to build a weapon.

the cia report was an error. it seems they get closer every month that goes by. general store it, i had the honor to be briefed by you -- stewart, i had the honor to be briefed by you in iraq. you gave a remarkable briefing. how the marines worked with the tribal leaders. after great commitment by the marines and other forces. i am not for any major massive american troop leadership in iraq. i do think, and i want you to give us your best judgment. even a few embedded forces with the iraqis, with the ability to

communicate to aircraft bringing in smart bombs, assisting them, that doesn't courage them? the iranian forces fight better under those circumstances than if they do not have the confidence that even a small american presence brings? >> senator, let me answer the question this way. senator cornyn -- senator kaine raised a great point. the best propaganda victory we could give i still --isil is a fight between the west and islam. being able to provide isr precision fire, some command and control will certainly help. >> all right.

i will agree with that. i'm asking you from your experience with them, isn't it true that there is more confidence even if it is just one or two special forces, not eating the right but with the forces that are advancing? >> there is a great sense of comfort when u.s. forces are with our partners to provide precision, command-and-control to help bolster leadership. >> with regard to the momentum we have there, a large iraqi army -- is my time up? my time is up, mr. chairman. thank you.

can't some of those divisions some of those usenits, be utilized to blunt the momentum isis has achieved and give confidence in the iraqi forces that they can retake the territory? sooner is better than later? >> they have blunted the iso advance. the best we can guess, isis has lost territory over the last couple of months. it is not just iraqi security forces. the kurdish forces involved. they are making a difference. i would not categories it as significant, but they are causing isil to lose territory. >> we have been training them for a decade. doing it another six-nine months of training?

i thought we were training the iraqi army for nearly a decade. >> when we talk about 6-9 months, it is to deal with urban fighting, which is different and complex and requires skill and precision. >> thank you. your leadership and commitment. >> it also has to deal with the collapse of the iraqi army. >> thank you. just a couple of questions i have. following up on the iran nuclear capabilities that they may have, as we know they have not dismantled, they might have downgraded some of their enriched uranium or we just prolonging the inevitable? we are going to get to enrichment and armament speed soon. unless there is an absolute dismantlement.

>> that is the concern. that is why the importance of intrusive and comprehensive surveillance and inspection is so critical. to make sure they do not. enrich highly enriched uranium. >> they are not downgrading some of the things they can or taking away the capabilities. >> that is to be determined. i don't want to talk too much about it. there is a delicate state of play within the negotiations themselves. that is all in play as part of the negotiations. >> if i can switch gears to china. our partners in the asia-pacific area, especially taiwan. they are growing uneasy about china's strategy which seeks to

limit american power. can you update us on china's efforts? >> i can go into a great deal of detail, but the chinese are embarked on an impressive military modernization program across the board. their program is deliberately designed to counteract or thwart what they feel are our strengths. carrier aviation. bases. our abilities in space. they are doing specific things in each one of those realms to deny us first potentially surveillance, command and control, as well as what they you are primary weapons.

-- view as our primary strengths. i can go into more detail if you like in a classified setting. >> you have spoke about their developing capabilities. i understand they are accelerating very fast. you said they are impressive. >> they are and they are getting more into the realm of indigenously designing and producing things rather than write a line -- relying on others like the russians. >> one more for you. we talked about in a closed setting, you might be able to talk about it. as far as isis, there financial ability to attract the dollars they do. are we having any success in

trading done that money flow? >> again, i'm speaking in generalities. they acquire a lot of funding initially. some arrived from overrunning iraqi banks. that is going to dry up. the airstrikes against the oil has made -- as a consequence of the brutality, the donations they have received are tapering off. this is something about an attrition approach which over time -- the other thing draining resources is the demands they have for governments. particularly in cities like most all. -- mosul. >> when we first heard about

isis where they paying their soldiers were tracking because of better pay? >> there was mushrooming growth. when they did their attacks in northern iraq, that was because largely it is a sunni region. they were very receptive to joining up with isil which many reviewed as a better protector of themselves and their communities and families than the iraqi government. we are now seeing antidotal evidence that they are also having to reduce the amount of money they are paying some of their fighters.

>> that could reduce some of their strength. >> that and what we are also seeing again. anecdotal evidence that they have been driven to subscription. forcing people to join their ranks. to sustain their fighter force. you can early have taken heavy losses. -- particularly as they have taken heavy losses. >> thank you for your wonderful service to our country. general stewart, the chairman has a soft spot for marines. >> i am delighted about that senator. >> i will make sure he keeps treating you with kid gloves. i want to thank you gentlemen for what you are doing. i think your service provides a real accurate threat

assessments not only to congress but the american people. it is fundamentally critical if we are going to get a hold of the challenges we face now as a country. this committee has had several hearings about these assessments with luminaries. democrats, republicans. former secretaries of state. former four-star generals and written about what they see as the challenges and strategies we need. there is consensus we are living in a challenging environment. henry kissinger said it was one of the most challenging he has seen in his career, which says a lot. what i want to touch on is a disconnect between some of the testimony from just one -- gentlemen like yourselves and

senior administration officials. let me give you a few examples. the president talked about the crisis of 9/11. when through a list of things that made it sound like we are living in a benign world environment. the secretary of state talked about quote living in a time of less daily threats to americans and people of the world. the recent national security strategy document lists climate change as one of the top if not the top security threat. relative to say, iran gaining nuclear weapons. isis. do you agree with these assessments from the senior leadership? that we are living in a less daily threatening, iran gaining nuclear weapons is less a threat

than climate change? i think it is critical we level with the american people. what are the threats we face? i don't think we get it from the administration. >> i think our function in the intelligence community is to portray as accurately as we can what we see as the threats. we probably always occupy the half of the class that is empty. policymakers and often times military commanders will occupy the half of the glass that is full. the real truth is at the waterline. our instinct is to perhaps -- i have been criticized for this -- worst-case the situation.

having been on the receiving end of virtually every critique investigating intelligence failures since 9/11, we are much more conservative and cautious than others might be about the nature of the world out there. but i think we have a certain institutional responsibility which we try to discharge. if others do not see it that way, that is their prerogative. about the nature of the world out there. but i think we have a>> do agree with those assessments? >> we don't do policy. i'm not critiquing those who make it. >> i don't think that is policy. they are giving threat assessments. >> climate change, for example. it does have national security implications. if you watch what is going on in the arctic, the impacts on climate change in terms of water

availability and this kinds of thing, it does have national security implications. i probably would not rank it as threat number one, but it is a serious concern. >> let me ask a general stuart. -- stewart. we were talking about the increasing recruitment of i so. sil. what this do you see them as a team that is winning or gaining ground. if a recruit thinks he is going to get killed, he was probably not interested. but if they seem to be perceived as gaining ground. north africa, syria, iraq. a recruitdo you think that helps in their recruitment efforts? >> a capable propaganda media

operation that emphasizes their success. their victories however small. that is a basis for attracting those who would moved to that ideology. their success on the battlefield or perceived success, the way they are presented, certainly helps them gain recruits for the fight. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you both for being here today. the execution of coptic christians in libya by terrorists affiliated with isil raises questions about their ability to coordinate with other groups. what is your assessment of this? >> if you are referring to isil

's other chapters or provinces so-called. if that is what you are referring to? what is the connection there? >> what is your assessment of their abutting to coordinate and communicate. engage in terrorist acts outside of syria and iraq. >> do you mean the homeland or elsewhere in the world? >> both would be good. >> what they are trying to do is create the substance and maybe more importantly bethe image of a global caliphate by establishing chapters, franchises if you will, in places like libya, egypt yemen and so they sure. the extent -- and south asia.

the extent to which this is a monolithic organization where isil and its leader is calling the shots i don't see a lot of evidence of this. i think this is more about pledging allegiance to the brutality and savagery of isil. first and foremost issues for the local chapters is local. aspirational he, there is a threat that they pose potentially to the homeland. those that they might harbor, particularly in iraq and syria, who would do us harm. >> i agree with that assessment.

we just had a recent case out of brooklyn where we had threats being made. you mentioned yemen. >> if i might comment on that, this is what i was referring to in my statement about -- this is a real challenge for all of us, whether homeland security or intelligence. the appeal, the rhetorical or spiritual appeal. because of the effective media capabilities that isil has demonstrated and how they are able to appeal to people who can act on their own at a time and place and circumstance of their choosing. that is a very where some challenge. -- worry some challenge. it is not so much in them command and controlling plots as much as inspiring them. >> you have recommendations for

us about how to stem that tied? -- tide? do you believe our allies are doing their share? i am concerned about the flow of foreign fighters from the u.s. europe, into yemen out of syria. what should turkey be doing to help us more? >> as we discussed before, turkey has its own focus which does not necessarily comport with ours in terms of isil or al qaeda. they have permissive laws. it would be good if they would change them. more stringent controls over who transits through their country. i would volunteer that because of the effectiveness of the media campaign or propaganda

campaign we the u.s. and west, we who oppose is need to be more aggressiveil in mounting the counter narrative. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> we conclude -- that i take a look at that chart over there? in general, i know you have seen it. as to the expansion of the chinese. the south china sea. that is a rather dramatic change. obviously, they would be filling that in to place installations there. could you talk a little bit about that before we conclude? >> the chinese had extorted and

-- exorbitant claims through the south china sea. they have been aggressive about pursuing that. this runs afoul of counterclaims that many of the other countries also have in the same area. they too are concerned. any sense, that may be a good thing. their strength is going to be if they can act collectively. what the chinese are doing here, in one case, building airfields so that they can launch aircraft to do patrols and surveillance. further exerted what they consider their sovereignty over the south china sea. it has been impressive in the last year or year and a half since they have been doing this.

as they pursued drilling. which has caused conflict with the vietnamese. this is a worrisome trend of the chinese because of the tensions it is going to create in the south china sea. they have been very aggressive about it. >> you have not only the kit bodhi be to build an airfield but weapon systems -- capability to build an airfield but also weapon systems. >> it will be interesting to see what they do. >> our attention is on other parts of the world. this is really quite a major step on their part. i thank you for helping us out on it. >> one question and react -- in

reaction. we understand there is a huge campaign isolate is undertaking to attract recruits. you may not be able to comment in this setting. are we taking steps to interdict that communication? so they are not able to put things up and attract recruits? communicate? >> the problem there is they are using the media ubiquity seeitously. the problem is, how do you take down the internet. in the day, it was channelized. they have gotten wise to that and they make it difficult. because the universal forms and the way they get things out so ubiquitously.

very hard to control. what we must do is counter the messages. >> thank you. >> i know you are going to have a busy couple of days. i know you understand we have our responsibilities to try to inform members and the senate so we can shape legislation to help you do to your job. we thank you for being here. the hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> what you have to say to communities of color? when you can get away with perjury before the senate? why are you above the law?

y z your agency above the law, sir -- why is your agency above the law, sir? why can you like to the senate? surveillance of the entire globe. in violation of statutes of the u.s. constitution. why are you above the law? why is the nsa above the law? violating even the -- that the patriot act intended to authorize in 2001? why won't you do your job?

>> thursday, house members worked on amendments to the k-12 build. off the house floor negotiations continued on a bill to keep the department of homeland security funding. the house is to vote on a stopgap measure to keep employees on a job. we will have live coverage here on c-span.

>> the political landscape has changed with the 1/14 congress. not only are there 43 new republicans and 15 new democrats in the house. and 12 new republicans in the senate. there are also women including the first african-american woman in the house. the congressional page has lots of useful information. new congress best access. c-span2. c-span.org. >> coming up, senate judiciary committee considers the nomination of loretta lynch. and then another chance to see the testimony of james clapper. later, sarah palin speaking at

the conservative political action conference. >> coming up on the next washington journal, two hours of your calls and comments. you can join the conversation every morning at 7:00 a.m. in eastern. on friday, the justice department unveils the portrait of eric holder. president obama will be among the speakers. we will bring you the event starting at 5:00 p.m. eastern. here are some of the featured programs for the weekend. on c-span2's book tv, saturday night at 10:00 p.m., alan reskinned -- ryskind talks about

the coming his party in hollywood. and a conversation with a harvard law professor and author. her books include "the tyranny of the majority." . and at 6:00 p.m., a discussion about the burning of columbia, south carolina. following the surrender of the city to a union general in 1865. sunday at 2:00, an interview with a former consultant the nixon white house on the pentagon papers. a classified study on vietnam which he copied and give to the new york times. let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us. e-mail us. send us a tweet.

join the conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. on thursday, the senate judiciary committee voted's 12-8 to approve the domination of the reddit lynch to be the next attorney general of the u.s. -- the nomination of loretta lynch to be the next attorney general of the u.s. >> can we start with nine people? >> yes. >> good morning, everybody. i appreciate my colleagues' w illingnes to start a little early. we have a lot on today's agenda and i want to make sure everyone

knows how i want to proceed. i have had this discussion with the minority member, senator leahy. our stats have discussed it as well. we are ready to go according to what i will now say. i would make sure everyone has the opportunity to speak. when you have your turn, i hope you will speak on everything you want to say. hopefully you will do this one time. i don't want to cut anyone off.

senator leahy did not do that when he was chairman. if you could do your very best to keep your remarks around five minutes each. that would make sure everyone has the opportunity to speak. in a minute, i will turn to the ranking member for his remarks. from there, we would go back and forth from each side. i'm going to defer to my colleagues. when i finish my remarks, and we turn to the legislation and take up any amendments, debate those amendments, after we consider the amendments, i would set that bill to the side and take up amendments on the second bill. after we dispense with all the amendments on both bills we

will take up the entire agenda in a series of votes. first, we would vote on the bills. then on the lynch nomination. finally on the other nominations on the agenda. just to make sure everyone understands, in order to make sure we get through the entire agenda, and that is my desire when it is your turn to speak, please take that opportunity to a any items on the agenda. i call on my friend, senator leahy. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you have discussed the procedure ahead of me. the same way you and i would discuss it act when i was chairman.

one of the things we did squeak, the judiciary committee held a powerful hearing outlining the importance of passing legislation. to help eradicate the scourge of human trafficking in this country. i commend you, mr. chairman and senator feinstein for holding the hearing. both sides of the aisle made clear the commitment to passing meaningful legislation. helping existing victims of trafficking and those in the future who are all too often falling trafficking to -- pray to human trafficking. so often, they are forced into trafficking. we heard from a brave trafficking survivor about her experience of being walking pray after leaving home. the senators supported my bill.

the bipartisan legislation was overwhelmingly supported by members of the committee just six months ago. there is no good reason why it should not -- i understand republicans on the committee now have concerns about the antidiscrimination provision. they would not agree to include the bill. i hope there is a way to come to agreement on this important antidiscrimination language. senator collins and i insist our bill be considered. what is brought up for consideration. i support efforts to combat trafficking and protect all victims. i will work with the authors of other trafficking bills and senator collins to make sure our provision receives a vote by the senate.

today, we are going to be voting finally. finally on the nomination of loretta lynch to serve as the next attorney general following an unprecedented delay by my friends in the republican party. i have been here 40 years. no attorney general has ever had to wait this long. her nomination is listed for the second time. loretta lynch is a superb prosecutor. she has prosecuted terrorist cases. people in the government and out of the government. she is a prosecutor's prosecutor. she has earned the respect of democrats and republicans. those who testified, who had

complaints, asked everybody who testified whether called by republicans or democrats, if there is anybody here who would oppose, raise your hand. her father is here today. i want you to know how proud i am. one of the throws i had was meeting you. i admire you for that. numerous lawyers and statements from individuals and organizations supported her nomination. for both republicans and democrats. not a single witness who

testified opposed it. she testified before the committee for nearly eight hours. she responded to nearly 900 written questions. none of the men who presented her -- preceded her were forced to go through the questions. unprecedented. she answered them. the committee should approve her nomination today. so the full senate can confirm her without delay. i hope the senators will base their vote on her record of service and not use this as a process to curry favor for the next campaign. the top law enforcement officer deserves no less. she is superb. the committee also is turning in the nomination of michelle lee to serve as director of the patent office. she has strong bipartisan

support. i hope the confirmation will be taken up swiftly. >> let me repeat. he reminded me, i want to get through the entire -- before i call on senator hatch and feinstein, i was hoping we could keep our remarks to five minutes. if you can address anything that is on the agenda that you want to address. >> i might be slightly, i want to offer a few comments. one to the judicial branch and want to the sector of branch. my decision on both begins on the principle that the constitution gives to the president the power to appoint and the senate the power to check that. i want to support -- expresses

enthusiastic support. she has a 30 year legal record. she has established a record of excellence before and behind the bench in both the federal court. in the public and private sectors. during the last 12 years the judge has participated in more than 900 cases that resulted in a written opinion. she is respected throughout the utah legal community. the american bar association gave her its highest rating. a nominee must be at the top of the legal profession. next, i turned to the nomination of loretta lynch. her record spans 30 years including two decades as a prosecutor and two unanimous

confirmations by the senate. i will support the fencing her nomination because her record shows he is well-qualified and does not include anything sufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of confirmation. the case against her nomination essentially ignores her professional career and focuses on about six hours she spent a for the committee. -- before the committee. i do not believe that is the proper way to evaluate a nominee's fitness. i have been around this block many times. senators have different views about how to participate in a confirmation hearing and how to evaluate a nominee's answers. there have been senators who ask questions designed to elicit non-answers from the nominees so

they can oppose the nominee. for providing non-answers. i reject insinuations about the nomination. some democrats to do eight -- insinuate voting against this would be a double standard saying race or gender would be the real reason. i hope my sides -- friends on that side can do better than such an offensive and false innuendo. it has been suggested by some on the republican side that voting for the lynch nomination chose a senator does not take his oath of office seriously. it could be argued that ignoring a nominee's career gives short shrift to the role of advice and consent. a letter from some house members claim a vote for the lynch

nomination should fairly be considered a vote in favor of the president's lawlessness. that is ridiculous on its face. no senator has opposed the president's actions more than i have in this committee. on the senate floor. in the courts and media. any venue i could find. i have concluded that miss lynch's full record shows she is qualified to serve as attorney general. and does not include anything sufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of confirmation. if confirmed, ms. lynch faces a daunting task. it has been politicized, come from eyes. it has been weakenedd and

corrupted. she will have a daunting task to restore the integrity of the attorney general's office and department of justice. there is many reasons to think she will be more independent than the current attorney general. for example, she is committed to me that she will abide by the injunction issued by a federal district court to halt the recent executive actions of the president. i will do everything i can to help her restore the rule of our nation in the integrity of the justice department. >> thank you, senator hatch. >> you want us to speak on the bill? >> would you please? i can't make you do it. >> see wants to say nice things.

>> let me begin by saying i regret the vote on her nomination will likely not be unanimous by this committee. if anyone deserves a unanimous vote, i believe she does. she has the character experience, and determination to be a strong independent attorney general. which is what most of us believe is required for this position. not a single negative inc. has emerged throughout the course of this hearing. -- thing has emerged throughout the course of this hearing. the civilian panel was asked a question by senator leahy. would any of you not vote for her? no one raised a hand. she was eight -- a career prosecutor for nearly a decade.

she has run one of the, the largest u.s. attorney's office in the country. close to los angeles. cover and brooklyn, queens, and long island. her record is first rate. the eastern district of you work -- new york has led the nation in terrorism convictions. she continues that tradition. she oversaw prosecutions and important cases. the six individuals conspiring who as part of an al qaeda plot plans to bomb the new york subway system. four of them, including russell taught it to attack jfk airport. just yesterday, her office announced three individuals have been charged with attempting and conspiring to provide materials to isil.those

planning to fly to syria, as everyone knows, were arrested the day before yesterday. her answers to problems of national security i believe demonstrated she really has the ability to be a first rate u.s. attorney. excuse me, attorney general. i want to comment senator hatch for his comments. -- complement senator hatch for his comments. he said every lawyer has to be independent. she said this to him. i pledge to you i take that independence seriously. i want to particularly thank him for his comments. let me move to the legislation on the agenda. this week's hearing on human trafficking was very powerful. i want to thank chairman grassley for it.

ranking member leahy for allowing me to be breaking at that time. -- ranking at the that time. i want to congratulate senators for good bills i am proud to cosponsor. i want to thank you for including certain provisions of a bill i introduced calledi want to the combat trafficking act. one provision of the bill clarifies federal law allows the prosecution of a buyer of sex from a minor. this is important. it will enable the justice department to go after the demand for this horrible crime. the persian -- provision of the bill included will support that effort. i think he should talk about his bill before i say good things

about it. it is an excellent bill. thank you, senator klobuchar. thank you mr. chairman. try do it within five? thank you. -- did i do it within five? thank you. >> our founders gave congress certain powers as the branch of government. one of those is to -- at the outset of this process i expressed my concerns we should not confirm a nominee through the offices of attorney general who supports the lookout he of the president's executive amnesty. this is the top law enforcement job in america, not a political position. anybody must have fidelity to

the laws and constitution of the u.s. they must be willing and able to tell the president know if he overreaches. that has historically been one of the responsibilities of the attorney general. they cannot be a mere rubberstamp. the senate cannot confirm someone to this post who is going to support and advance a scheme that violates our constitution in this rates congressional authority. congress makes the laws, not the president, as every school child knows. congress has repeatedly rejected legislation to provide amnesty and work permits. we rejected it in 2006, 2007 2010, 2013. that's 14. the executive -- 2014.

president obama's executive order nullifies the immigration orders. even king george the third lack the ability to legislate without parliamentary. the executive orders go beyond any concept of prosecutorial discretion and provide people unlawfully in the country who have entered here wrongly with work authorizations. trillions in benefits. expert it's up to $10,000 a year. -- tax credits of up to $10,000 a year. all these measures would rejected by congress. i discussed these matters with ms. lynch. she is a fine person, i am sure. i asked her plainly whether she supported the legality of the

president's decision. here is the relevant transcript. i have to have a clear answer to this question. do you believe the executive announcement by the president's legal and constitutional? lynch: i believe it is. senator. she was referring to the office of legal counsel opinion that is part of the department of justice. that reports to the attorney general. one of the most stunning features of the action is the mass grant of work permits. social security numbers. photo ideas for up to 5 million illegal immigrants. all of whom will be able to take drops -- jobs from struggling americans and lawful immigrants.

it undermines the lawful rights of u.s. workers, including african-american workers and hispanic suffering from high unemployment. i ask about what she might do to protect the lawful rights of u.s. workers. they are entitled not to have jobs taken by them from someone who entered the country unlawfully. here is the exchange. who has more right to a job in this country? a lawful immigrant who is here someone with a green card or a citizen or person who entered the country unlawfully? lynch, they believe the right and obligation to work