complex and very national security challenges for many corners of the globe. our witnesses views insistence of these challenges critical to the work of the committee. i traveled -- who are courageously serving the united states. despite the setbacks that extremist fighters have suffered, isis remains capable militarily. the coercion of local populations. airstrikes have enabled security forces and the iraqi government's newly established malicious to gain ground sit -- to gain ground against isis. we're ready to launch counteroffensive against most all.

-- molessul.. in afghanistan and pakistan, the military remains resilient. the challenge the u.s. forces in avenue and stan -- in afghanistan -- to ensure afghanistan does not want again become a haven for al qaeda and other terrorists. we would be interested in our witnesses views. the possibility of pakistan's reconciliation talks with the taliban. and growing isis presence in afghanistan. at the end of march is the next point where iraq's intent.

i hope the witnesses will provide us -- our assessment of iran's dealings in the regions. deal or no deal. in syria, airstrikes have enabled regain control of the bonnie. -- control of codekobani. promote the conditions for a political settlement. last week, u.s. and turkey signed a key agreement. i am interested in and the witnesses views -- the witness's views. russia seeks to intimidate the ukraine. perpetuation of conflicts and

aggressive military activities. president clinton's intentions -- president clinton's putin's intentions. demonstrates that a small and weak rogue nation, taking advantage of our networks can reach across the ocean. furthermore, while chinese cyberattacks are not as public they continue to pose a security challenge to the united states. we would be interested in knowing if we can expect more attacks of this nature. what can we do to make our nation more resilient in the future? sequestration is a threat that jeopardizes our national security, health

transportation, education, as well. as we receive testimony, we in congress must be mindful of the necessity of the balance of a bipartisan solution. thank you again. i look forward to hearing your testimony. >> welcome aboard, general clapper. >> it is a great pleasure to be here with general then stewart -- general vin stewart. i need to note upfront that there are some classified issues that we discussed on tuesday. we will not be able to discuss as wholesomely and this televised hearing. in the interest of time and allowing for questions, i will only cover some of

behalf of both of us. one unpredictable instability is the new normal. the year 2014 saw the highest rate of political instability since 1992. the most deaths as a result of state-sponsored mass killings since the early 1990's. he highest number of refugees or idp's since world war ii. half of the world's current stable countries are in risk. the second overall comment, it makes it harder to predict the future. 2015 saw a number of events that illustrates this difficulty. the attack on sony on sony -- the attack on sony, the ebola epidemic, the dramatic terrorist

attacks in australia denmark france and the united states. we will start with the united states. attacks against us are increasing. increasing and scale of sophistication. while we must be prepared -- a cyber armageddon -- the reality is we have been living with a constant barrage of cyberattacks for some time. this insidious trend will continue. cyber poses a very complex set of threats. profit motivated criminals. and variously capable states like -- nation-states like russia, china, or iran can, if they choose, do a lot of harm.

2014 saw destructive cyberattacks carried out on u.s. soil from nationstate entities. marked first by the durham attack against the -- the north korea attack against sony and november. these destructive attacks demonstrate that iran and north korea are motivated. russia and china continue to develop very sophisticated cyber programs. while i cannot go into detail, the russia cyber threat is more severe than we previously assessed. chinese economic espionage remains a major threat, despite details. skating public indictments. -- scathing public indictments.

cyber actors expressing support for isil. hacking several social media accounts. the cyber caliphate. two weeks ago hacked newsweek magazines twitter handle. the most pervasive cyber threat to the u.s. sector is from cyber criminals. criminals responsible for cyber intrusions and 2014 into jpmorgan, home depot, neiman marcus, and other companies. in the future, we will see cyber operations that change electronic information that compromises integrity. instead of deleting or disrupting access. in the end, access cannot be eliminated. we must be vigilant in managing to detect or defend it.

in 2013, just over 500 terrorist attacks worldwide killed people. the first nine months of 2014 killed -- 2014 would have been the most lethal year of counterterror -- of terrorism. about half of all attacks, as well as fatalities, occurred in three countries. iraq, iran, and afghanistan. isil conducted more attacks in 2014. i am drawing this data from the national consortium at the university of maryland. the recent attacks in europe emphasize the threat posed by small numbers of extremist radicalized by the conflicts in

syria and iraq. global media attention and widespread support and extremist circles will probably inspired additional extremist to conduct similar attacks. in isil, al qaeda, and al qaeda in the arabian peninsula and al-shabaab are calling on their supporters for the attacks against the united states and other western countries. the 13 attacks since last may were conducted by extremists. sunni fighters have traveled to syria to fight the assad regime. of that number, 13,600 have extreme ties. hundreds have returned home to your. about 180 americans are involved in various stages of travel to syria. those have attempted to go, have

got there. some number have come back. a little number have returned. i will not identify those engaged in attack plotting. loan actors or insular groups will likely gravitate toward simpler plots that do not require advanced skills. a small number of sunni tears -- some of them do not see aviation as a target. the middle east, isil is increasing their influence outside of a rock in syria. seeking to expand their self declared caliphate into north cal -- north africa.

planning attacks against she is. -- against shias. it is the first to assume that's -- some characteristics of a nationstate. spelling over -- spelling over is the prospect of -- in iraq, activity is growing. undermining progress against isil. prime minister has begin -- resistance from his shia allies will limit progress for a stable inclusive political environment. isil's ability to conduct operations in iraq has been debated by coalition airstrikes

by the u.s. and other allies. shia militants and tribal allies. not to mention the irradiance. i still remains a formidable and brutal threat. moving to syria and parts of western syria, the regime made consistent gains in 2014. it will require years to reassert control of the country as a whole. the regime has it clear advantage. firepower, manpower, and logistical shortfalls. assad is confident. he thinks the war is winnable. the conflict with over 250,000 people killed will threaten them stability of its neighbors. rise of sectarianism and extremism.

it will strain the region's fragile economic balance as millions of refugees continue to flee. over 52% of serious population has been displaced. -- 52% of syria's population has been displaced. to ron has provided robust support -- tehran has provided robust support. more broadly iran will face many decision points in 2015 as it did in 2014. he wants sanctioned real -- he wants sanctioned release. in libya, to rival governments emerged. the government has no clear political majority. they are embroiled in a civil war. external support to both sides

has a purpose further -- has further stoked the violence. terrorist groups -- they are using the country to train and plot. isil's beheadings of the coptic christians highlight the groups in libya. when tiananmen, the evacuation -- moving to game in, the evacuation -- after the president's. humans political future are at best uncertain especially with his escape to a. iran has provided support to the houthis for years. let me move briefly to russia. the crisis in ukraine is moving

into its second year. moscow sees itself in direct confrontation with the west over ukraine and will be very prone to overreact over u.s. actions. putin's goals are 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 former soviet space is russia's highest foreign-policy goal. western sanctions have spurred -- russia will continue to possess the ballistic missile force. russia's weapon modernization plan will focus on ways to think our advantages.

china's leaders are primarily concerned with the mastic issues. the communist party's hold on power, stability, and economic growth. although china is looking for stable ties to the united states , it is more likely to accept tensions in pursuit of his 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 progress. to improve their theater warfare capabilities.

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. many of which are covered in detail. such as afghanistan, north korea, and weapons of mass destruction. i think with that grim litany, i will stop and will open to your questions. >> 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. -- lethal 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 bent on capturing all of ukraine.

he wants an entity of the 2 oblasts in eastern ukraine. we do not believe that an attack on mariupol is imminent. they are in a mode now of reconstituting and regrouping after the major confrontation. >> well, i have to tell you that i disagree with you. they are already increasing activities around mariupol. i would predict he will put more pressure on there as he wants to establish the land bridge. just as some of us had predicted

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 already putting intense pressure on the baltics. this idea that we will provoke vladimir putin. 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 lethal 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 sought along the way. we will see who is right about mariupol. clapper: i think that they will wait until the spring before they attack mariupol. mccain: he is not getting any increase in sanctions. the ukrainians aren't receiving defensive weapons. if i were him i would do exactly that. 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 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 a lot of 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 combination of the challenges around the world and the declining resource base that we have to monitor them is of concern to me. director comey 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 -- not necessarily 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 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. 22nd of february. 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 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. 173rd airborne went in.

just a day or two ago there was a parade of military vehicles. what is the russian reaction to those? clapper: i think they watched that. it is symbolically important. there is a messaging there. they are mindful of the fact that the baltic nations are nato members. i think they distinguish that. >> 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 that has not changed his approach. what is have a greater impact is in the drop in oil prices.

reed: do you have any indication that as this situation deteriorates 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 existential threat to russia. the arabians have an explicit presence in iraq. we have forces there to.

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 iranian nuclear program. do you have any views in respect to what might happen in iraq? in respect to iranian forces which are now not cooperating with us -- 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 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. if i am here next year, i will say it again. 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. i would to get something from you guys that i can stand on. 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 80,000 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? why is it difficult to do? what can we use for sources? 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 come out with numbers, you will have a wide range. the current estimate is between 20,000 and 30,000. the difficulty is assessing who is a core fighter and does this full-time versus part-time.

i will say this is 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 elated. 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 an intelligence perspective, that is a policy issue.

we are in the engine room shoveling intelligence cold. -- intelligence coal. i have a personal view, and it is only that. 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 not 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

negative reaction 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 from putin? general stewart: i think it is important enough to moscow that they will up the ante if we take any action. whether that provokes a president or not, it is hard for me to say. 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. they will react accordingly. senator mccain: i'm sure that hitler felt the same way that

vladimir putin does. for you to 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 resupply 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 is 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 alawites are only 10%. for them, this is an exit stencil struggle. -- this is an existential struggle.

the reality is, that 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. they are more focused internally on their economy. 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 iraq.

what is iran's presence in iraq? director clapper: the iranians are there and helping with the fight against isil. he has issues with his shia power base. there is still great reluctance to fully include the sunnis, which must happen. there are laws that are extremely important to sunnis. he is in a very difficult position.

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. are they balancing that? director clapper: the fundamental interest of the iranians is to preserve a shia or shia-friendly government in baghdad. that is their underlying policy objective. isil poses a threat to the iranians as well, so they have an interest there in sustaining their aggressive combat and assistance. in opposing isil.

>> thank you gentlemen for appearing before us today. i do appreciate your service. 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 sphere 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. i would like to see all of the pieces put together. director clapper: i can comment on the intelligence aspects of this. national security strategy is

not my compartment. 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 combination of intelligence and special ops. they use that as their instrumentality. another one of their proxies is hezbollah, which they have been in a long 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 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 mosul and tikrit.

director clapper: obviously, the iraqi 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. the first order of business is to reconstitute them, 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 mosul.

general stuart: last fall, they they had about a hundred 85,000 and the iraqi forces. all three of those divisions are engaged today. they are engaged in operations. they are building three additional divisions from the ground up. >> when are they ready? general stewart: we are talking probably 6-9 months. best estimate. senator donnelly: 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 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 as 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. which would serve to reduce the threat some. 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 in libya. 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. it is essentially ungoverned. 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 staked 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 assad's --

assad's likely response. do you assess that he will attack them? director clapper: 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 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? director clapper: i don't think that they would necessarily

deploy 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 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 >> that's exactly the issue. that's the general there is no silver bullet answer here. i think there needs to be some form of legislation that will protect from a liability standpoint commercial concerns so that they would more freely be in a position to share with the government. this is not something government can do all by itself. there has to be given the pervasiveness of cyber in our society, we must have the partnering of the civilian sector. which means promoting sharing both ways. but you're right.

there's always this concern itself. there has to be there's always the trade-off between security and sharing. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman. to follow up on that. i believe that it's critically important that we move legislation that provides for that sharing so that we have more vigorous defense and indeed the intelligence committee reported out a bill last summer. i understand that that bill has been somewhat renegotiated reworked and it will be moving the trade-off forward reasonably soon.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?

washington, d.c. you can join the conversation every morning here on c-span. today the justice department unveils the portrait of outgoing attorney general eric

holder. president obama will be among the speakers. live starting at 5:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> with the opening of the canal in 1769 sailing ships were almost dealt a death blow. coal-fired ships had a shorter route to the far east, to india, to all of those markets. so sailing ships really needed to find a way to make their own living so instead of high value cargo they started carrying lowered valued cargos, coal,

oil, cotton, et cetera. so i she really found her niche in carrying any kind of cargo that did not require getting to market at a very fast pace. she really found her niche in carrying any kind of cargo that did not require getting to market at a very fast pace. the fact that she was a sailing vessel was all the more important.

>> this is important, because today less than one half of a percentage of the population -- that's right 0.5% serves in the military. and yet we have politicians from both parties who feel they're experts in foreign policy and who want to commit the u.s. military every time

that there's a playground fight between two oil brarnes in the middle east. and, look, we're not afraid to fight by no means. trust me on that one. but how about giving us a fight that we can win? a fight -- [applause] a fight where politicians and bureaucrats stay out of our lane. because we'll get it done. [applause] that 0.5% is carrying the burden for the 95.5% of this country. we have heard a lot about the 98% and the 2% in the media from these politicians but you know what? they're talking about money. about how rich or poor we are. about how large of a soft drink we can drink. about who is up, who is down. and that's what this town spends its days on. but do you know who no one is

talking about? the 0.5%. and that's ok because we are proud to serve. because of this service of so many of our country's men and women washington is free to talk about washington feels its important to talk about. washington can sit and worry about who got the committee assignment and who is invited to what party and who got snubbed and who got caught offguard on camera. but those of us like trap palin who served in iraq and like governor palin a mother who stayed up nights worrying about the unthinkable about if her child will make it home we'll continue to serve. a lot of you are probably thinking where is he going? is he going to introduce governor palin or not? but i say all this to make a point. the amazing woman that i'm introducing know what veterans are been through and what their families are going through. she knows we are not charity cases. and that we want nothing more than to serve our great nation.

she knows that when the bell is rung again that we will be ready. we will be there. we will be ready to do the nation's bidding at a moment's notice again and whatever is necessary to defend our rights as americans but also those across the globe who are less fortunate than us. she knows because she's lived it. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome governor palin. [applause] >> thank you so much. i am so honored to get to be here. thank you very, very much. thank you. i'm glad to be here. and i am so honored tonight to be able to speak about our

veterans. i was asked to speak about veterans and i said absolutely. talk about near and dear to my heart this subject. sergeant meyer, i thank you so much for that introduction. his selfless service reminds us of that love that patriotic love that our country was built upon. and his selfless service inspires us. he and his generation of vets remind us of that courage that founded this country. in fact, i would like to tell you a story about america's first veterans and what this city's namesake said about them. 1783 it was just days after the last british troop left our soil and the father of our country, general george washington, he gathered his officers in a norks new york

city tavern to bid them fair well. these hardened men had fought for years against the greatest military might in the world at that time. against all odds they won freedom. freedom for themselves and freedom for every american since. and standing before them washington was overcome with emotion. he was noting the sacrifices that they had made. he said "with a heart full of love and gratitude i now take leave of you. i most devoutly wished that your latter days may be as prosperous and happy as your former ones have been glorious and honorable. " that was the wish for our first veterans. and it should be ours for every veteran that follows. but we must ask, have we lied up to that? from then until now there have

been a long line of heroic vets and they connect our history. from george washington to chris kyle millions like them.til now there have been a long line of heroic vets and they connect our history. from george washington to [applause] millions like them. ordinary americans, equipped for extraordinary things because they have come forward to serve and to save americans' lives. how many have done more than this generation in uniform, though? the war on terror is the longest military engagement in u.s. history. so many have served in iraq and afghanistan. tens of thousands wounded. more than 6800 dead. the strain on military and their families it is enormous. during world war ii the average deployment in the combat theater was six months. the korean war, nine months. vietnam, 13 months, for iraq

and afghanistan an initial enlistment with 45 months. these deployment costs are huge and are hidden. half a million returning vets suffer some form of ptsd. they suffered disproportionate unemployment numbers. the average divorce rate is 80%. at worst, friends, worse, the suicide rate among our vets a -- our best and our brightest is 23 a day. as we gather here, we are safe secure, we are having fun, at a conference, in these four days 92 of our veterans will have taken their lives. have we lived up to washington's wish for our vets?