souvenir home from the war, so i decided we would make souvenirs for returning troops and it caught on. we have been in business five years this august. host: how long were you in the military? guest: 21 years in the united states army infantry and -- kosovo kuwait, afghanistan, and iraq. host: you put out a book called "we got him!" where were you? guest: i was inchoate, -- i was inchoate. i will -- i was in kuwait. i was not near the hole, but i did commit infantry during the hunt and the capture of saddam.

it was a six-month manhunt. that is what a lot of people are not aware of. i was able to get really indications on intelligence and other things and we were heavily involved because it was saddam's hometown, and ultimately pursuing these hometown connections that saddam had, we were able to get on this trail and over a six-month time period , he was captured. host: did you ever meet him? guest: i did not meet him personally. when he was captured, we did not want to make a zoo out of him, so he was secured in a little bird helicopter and phone to -- flown to to print, then to baghdad under great sick -- secrecy. i did great -- i did get to meet nefarious characters around him and we were able to pursue a lot of folks on the deck of cards. you may recall a lot of those. it was an interesting time.

i never imagined i would be part of anything historic. host: i am sure you have been following the back-and-forth with jeff bush this week -- jeb bush this week with regard to the war and whether or not it was worthwhile. he finally came out and said if we knew then what we know now, i would not have been in support of it. guest: i think that is a little unfair. here is why -- saddam defied the world for decades. he violated multiple united nations agreements. he violated the peace agreements that we shed after the first gulf war with all of the allied nations. his nuclear program was certainly on track. we destroyed much of that infrastructure in 1991. a lot of people do not realize that. the other thing is he defied many of the agreements and policies, so much so that the

united states made it our policy to have the iraqi liberation act. it was signed by president clinton in 1998. it was good policy when president clinton signed it, and it was, i think, the right path to take to remove him from the region. now, we can look at all of the associated problems in the middle east as if none of them ever existed before saddam arrived or departed. that is a volatile region. to somehow think the trains ran on time and maybe life would be better if saddam had been left in place is a slight on history and a slight to the servicemen and women who gave so much to remove a tyrant. he attacked every neighboring country except for syria. he murdered 20,000 of his own political opponents. he even murdered his own son-in-law. he guest entire vision -- villages. he murdered 60,000 current and

shia arabs -- kurd and shia arabs. this was not a nice man. we cannot look at this to a lens of a political viewpoint and erase a lot of history. i just do not buy. host: two final questions, and then will go to calls and we will put the numbers up. you are on the armed services committee. 60-2 was the vote to move the defense authorization bill out of the committee and now it is on the floor of the house. did you support it, would he support it, is it enough is it too much -- where would you rejigger the funds? guest: i think we have to have a strong defense. it is important that we do. the cost if we do not -- i have been on the receiving end when people make bad foreign policy war when we see tyrants that try to read aloud cage. we have to be -- or when we see

tyrants that try to rattle our cage. we have to be prepared. imagine, 60 votes, two dissents, one from each party, that is great consensus. the reason is we worked a lot through those amounts. it will be interesting dynamic when we go to the floor because now it becomes political. you had this trade fight with the democratic party, with the president, and now there are feelings hurt, feathers ruffled and now they will try to show support and a strong coalition. i think it will be a political game if they lock up against it because in committee they were all for it. is it enough money? the president's budget asks for $580 billion to $600 billion but that is impossible due to sequester. we try to meet the president's and demand with overseas contingency dollars. we agreed with the president that a new to be around that

figure but the only way to do that was with contingency funds, and now the president is saying why are you heading contingency funds and playing some game? it is not. it is about defense. host: i want to show you some video, get your response. speaker weiner on -- speaker weiner on amtrak at -- speaker john boehner on amtrak yesterday. [video clip] >> some democrats said amtrak was not funded enough. speaker weiner: -- speaker john boehner: are you really going to asked that? it is a stupid question. people say it is all about money. the house passed a bill to reauthorize and track and a lot of these programs. it is hard for me to imagine that people take the bait on some of the nonsense that gets spewed around here. host: congressman russell? guest: well, i think you have to

look at the facts. there has not been money cut that would have cost -- caused this incident. the tracks were examined the day prior, i believe, or shortly before. there was no fault found with the track. the engineer, for whatever reason -- we do not know the investigation is ongoing -- he was going 107 miles an hour. that is too fast for a 55 mile an hour curve. that is what caused the wreck. i think it is unfair to the families of those that were lost, unfair to all of us, to make this some political gain that it was somehow some dispute over some amendment that did or did not get past. the american people are smarter than that. let's reach out to the families and let's try to make sure this does not happen again for our own safety. host: what do you think about the optics of the speaker telling a reporter that her

question was stupid, and the fact that the house voted on amtrak funding the day after this happened? host: i think --guest: i think a lot of the tone of the response often comes from the framing of the question, and this question appeared to be framed only in one direction. so, it should not have been a surprise to her that if it was framed in one direction it might come slinging back in another direction, and i think that was part of the dynamic. host: you have been here a few months. are you a supporter of speaker john boehner? guest: i voted for him. i caught some flack on both sides of that vote but look, the speaker of the house, i have tremendous respect for. he bears enormous responsibility. it is an interesting dynamic that he will be blamed for the matter what it is by the democrats, the republicans whatever. i am on the steering committee. the speaker chairs that committee.

he has all of the leaders in the house on the republican conference and i get to see a side of the speaker that people do not see. i have to tell you -- i know something a little bit about leadership, having pushed soldiers my entire adult life. the speaker is an incredible leader. he may not always make popular decisions, but it is a very tough job. host: what has surprised you most about being in congress these first few months? guest: the most surprising thing is a lot of our division is not created by us. it is created by these outside groups both left and right that thrive on the lucrative business of creating division. that has been the most eye-opening and surprising. people that claim to love liberty, love the environment or whatever -- you can go left or right of the spectrum -- all of the things that we're supposed to care about yet they

will create division to change or make improvements on these measures simply to raise money. that has been the most surprising thing to me. host: have you made any friends of the democratic side or the republican side? guest: sure, a great many. seth from boston massachusetts we have become great friends. he served in the marine corps. a veteran of the army. we both served in iraq. there is overlapping ground. tammy duckworth ted lieu, joyce beatty, matt cartwright, ted deutch -- look, my dad is a democrat. mom is a republican. i love them both. we're not going to agree on every thing. i do not agree with my wife on everything, nor does she me, but

we have to find the common ground and work on that, and where there are sharp differences, let's make the case. state it clearly. at the american people decide. host: steve russell is our guest. randall's in texas. independent line. caller: hi, how are you guys? guest: good morning. caller: what i want to address, mr. russell, is we have an issue in america that is never discussed and it needs to be discussed. let's get it out there. guest: ok. caller: the issue is all politicians. the issue is not social security. bernie sanders from vermont, who is happening to run for president, says let's raise the cap. there is a reason for that. we hear about china all the time because that concerns wall street. you actually owe since 1969 since richard nixon put it in the general fund.

that is how much you always. -- you always. let's get you guys meals on wheels five days a week at your desk. host: randall, you got a lot on the table. i think we have your theme. congressman russell? guest: i think if there is any notion that on either side of file that we're going to let social security fail, i think that is a false notion. this is something that is part of our american fabric. it is something that we do care about on both sides of the aisle. it is also something the american workers have worked for all of their lives. we do have to make sure that it is not rated. i certainly do not supported being plundered and siphoned off to other programs. i will fight to not do that. to think that we're going let social security crash i do not

know anyone of my colleagues i feel that is the direction we should go. host: brian in massachusetts on a republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would like to ask the representative, he made a statement when he first came on that he was not allowed to take souvenirs back from iraq his service in iraq. -- service in iraq. guest: firearms. caller: i have relatives that were able to take firearms back from world war ii. it seemed unfair to me, and maybe he could talk more about that, and how he runs his company while he is a representative. guest: sure. i appreciate the question. when i was a kid growing up, most of the adults in the neighborhood were world war ii veterans and they had things like you described that they brought back from the pacific, germany, or whatever.

there are provisions under the war trophies provisions of u.s. law, but field commanders, oftentimes, i think it not want to touch it politically, so you have some cases where firearms are allowed to come back. we have seen muzzle loaders or bolt action rifles -- into that nature. it -- things of that nature. it is possible that a lot of people do not want to authorize it. in terms of ethics, things that we do, i can still own my company but no longer be involved in the day-to-day operations. there are some provisions that do limit you. as far as my book i can still collect royalties on it, but being elected to congress, you do make sacrifices, even with your own business. host: do you think -- have you found that the ethics rules regarding members of congress are weak loopholed strong, etc.? guest: it appears to me much of

it was probably in over reaction to one or two nefarious actors. i think in some cases you do want your attention here in washington, and it is certainly a full-time job. at the same time, i think in the way we look at how people learn or make money, it is assumed that we are all somehow, lying cheats that are going to steal from america, and that is simply not the case. host: peter. rockford illinois. you are on with congressman steve russell. caller: how are you doing? guest: good morning. caller: i lost my train of thought. since 1946, i think the united states has bombed 30 countries and tried to overthrow 50

governments. in the 1950's and the 1960's i am just -- host: peter, what is your question? before we go through 30 years of history, what is your question? caller: i just have to pass on this. host: all right. thank you for trying. let's go from peter to paul in columbia, south carolina, independent line. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i called about veterans, but the congressman mentioned the leadership of the republican party. i usually vote republican, although i consider myself an independent. boehner and mitchell --

guest: mitch mcconnell. caller: how the republican people can vote those people as their leaders, i cannot -- host: why do you feel that way, paul? caller: mitchell is for this trade deal that is not going to help the american people. host: let's talk specifically with the congressman about the trade issue. guest: i find myself very concerned about the tpa, the promotional authority that would be given to the president to allow him to fast-track negotiations. my concerns are related to defense, and to not just a security posture, particularly in the pacific you hear a lot of discussions, but they are also related to having a system of alliances that we need to secure our commerce. i am not against trade. i am not against a great economy.

i am very weary, and as a student of history, if you look at the marshall plan, we formed a system of alliances, we formed security, and then we formed economy. it seems to me right now with this fast-track we are going in a reverse direction. when you alter the balance of an economy in any region, nations will have friction points, and without good security relationships and alliance relationships, it can get out of whack and people start wars over it. i want to look longer than just six months or the next election. i am looking two three decades out and the impacts that would be there, and that causes great concern, and that is why i am standing outside even my colleagues on that issue. host: steve russell, you began debate on the defense authorization bill yesterday. a couple of amendments were voted on. here is 1 --

how did you vote on this issue and why? guest: first we have to recognize there are many noncitizens that have served. i served with a great number of hispanics that were not u.s. citizens, the people from great written, italy germany, many other countries. -- great britain, italy, germany, many other countries. it is not uncommon to have people from other countries and most will earn their citizenship. i know a veteran there was on a work visa, was drafted and serve in vietnam. he is still a british citizen to this day that he was in our regiment and served in vietnam. there is a difference between being legally here and having those that are not legal. i think are some national security concerns. there are some vetting concerns. these are issues that i do not support. i do support legal -- people that are here on work permits or

permanent residents. i think there is a place for that. to accept those that are illegally here, i think we have to abide by the rule of law because of the old that we take if they are not citizens that are pledged allegiance to the country. -- that have pledged allegiance to the country. host: you voted to strip the provision -- guest: it is not the place for the fight. we should move that to the judiciary, i think we can have those accommodations and debates, but the national defense authorization is the place for that. host: the next call is robert. flat rock, north carolina. you are on what congressman steve russell. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: hi. i was listening to the democratic representative earlier, and i listened to you and it seems like in congress there are adults, and there are

children. the adults plan for the future and the children want everything right now. guest: sure. caller: i think that is the philosophy. the democrats seem to be the children and most of the republicans seem to be the adults. i just wanted to comment on that. thank you. guest: i appreciate the spirit of that. i think it is an interesting frame up. i think it is accurate to say we often times can get very shortsighted in the things that we are striving after. i think that -- although i understand the way the optics are portrayed in the way the media plays it out it would appear one party might have some leverage or advantage over another, but i would tell you that both parties care about seniors. both parties care about education. both parties care about defense. both parties care about our internal issues. it is just that many times it will have different philosophies

about what is best and how it congress that with the limited resources that we possess, and therein lies the debate and therein lies the friction. i appreciate the comment. host: from "the washington examiner" "obama avoids drawing another redline over chemical weapons" in syria. guest: if we were to see a spillover effort from the assad regime attacking neighboring countries, that would alter the course of a lot of things. also concern about the poorest hardest -- you do not hear -- port of tarnished -- tardis -- it is a russian, one water port in the mediterranean. it is very important. it is not isolated from other events going on in crimea, ukraine, or even therein. -- iran.

russia has to protect the port. if radicals were to attack the port i russia would defend it. that would change dynamics. there are a number of situation -- scenarios that could alter the state of affairs. right now i do believe the leadership of king abdullah in jordan along with many other nations has been a godsend because he has really impacted and curtailed a lot of the isis effort. in iraq itself, we see success on the ground. militias are posturing. iraq you slowly rejecting that. that is positive. we see u.s. airstrikes and special operation forces on the ground working with tribal leaders and others and the legitimate forces of iraq making turnarounds. tikkrit, where i was was a

mess. we are seeing gains. we have to watch it very carefully. host: mike, washington, oklahoma. republican line. is washington, oklahoma, in your district? guest: i do not believe it is. it is nice to hear from a fellow . caller: you appear to be a straightforward and honest than, and my hope is you can continue that way because i know it is not easy in washington. god bless you for sure. the question i have is what is your personal a fan about president obama has handled foreign relations -- opinion about how president obama has handled foreign relations particularly his inability to recognize that religion is driving radical islam? guest: we must admit that we are

fighting a radical ideology, and that is not to say that islam as a whole is the issue, or other things are the issues, for we are fighting an ideology -- but we are fighting and ideology. to the same troublemakers that unite under any black flag and now they are uniting under the black flag of isis. we have seen them before with al qaeda. we have seen with others. what is important to note is we can win a fight against ideology. we did against communism. in 1917 we did not take communism very serious. by 1930 we thought it might be a problem. in 1938, president truman laid the groundwork that said we are going to contain it. this is a threat to national security and the world. 40 years later, a different party president helped to defeat that ideology. so, it is a long-haul flight.

we must develop a cost bring -- comprehensive, long-range strategy. i do not see the president doing that and i would like to see us go that route. host: do you stay in touch at all was senator coburn? guest: i do. in fact, we were inspired by dr. coburn -- he was always the waste watchdog and what his we look, we have continued -- waste book, we have continued in that spirit with the waste watch the we are releasing quarterly so that we can have impact on there is no shortage of creepy crawlies. there is a lot of waste there. host: when is your first waste watch coming out? guest: we released the first installment in april and it had a lot of attention. we uncovered some pretty egregious things. we've already been able to impact some of that with the defense authorization. we also have sent letters and have asked for audits.

we are getting assurances back. we're continuing to take. host: in waste watch, wasn't there some money being spent on elephants and national security? guest: i think some of the most interesting that we have seen -- we brought over a bunch of people from the middle east to do films, learned how to be filmmakers, and they went back in may -- made anti-u.s. films with our training. there was a range in afghanistan. it melted the facilities because they were mud walls. you can go on our website and get the full waste watch report. you just shake your head. there was a $100 million missing the no one can account for through the state department and afghanistan. we are asking where it is. i am on the oversight and government reform committee as well. we do have the ability to reach down and get to the bottom of

these issues. host: james is in daytona beach florida, on our democrat line. caller: good morning. gentlemen, i wanted to say first off, i heard 40 years ago that we have a military to protect the american people, and i am all for it. 20 years later, i heard we have a military to enforce our political views around the world . i said i am not so sure about that. two or three years ago i heard a republican senator and a republican congressman say we had a military so congress -- commerce can take place. now i am wondering this iraq war, it was fought over oil. treasury secretary o'neill was in the oval office with george bush rumsfeld, and cheney, and during the second week of george

bush's first term they were running around wondering how we can get of war started with iraq . this is the second george bush. i'm wondering when you are going to stop lying about why we fought the war with iraq. it was over oil. that is my question, john. guest: ok, your perception of whether or not i present you facts and you believe them, you can characterize me as a liar. i cannot change her characterization. i can assure you as a soldier that has defended my country these are not academic issues with me. they are experiential issues sir. they are not things that i opine about. they come from broad experience. i have served around the world as a member of the military. i think i understand what our military is about and what it is used for. the political pieces become a little more difficult. i agree with you on that because they become very polarizing.

the constitution is clear. let's go back to that is the baseline. it says we must provide the common defense. what does that mean? well, we take an oath to protect the constitution against all in his, foreign and domestic. so within -- all enemies, foreign and domestic. so within the framework it really embodies it. we provide for the common defense -- protect our livelihood pursuit of happiness, commerce -- it is embodied in all of those things. we are also required to protect against enemies, foreign and domestic. so, it is very broad why we have the armed services. how they are employed is really up to the political process and administrations in charge, and ultimately the american people as we vote whether or not to employ them. host: jay florida, independent line.

caller: first, welcome back from iraq. it is an art to be state with you. -- to be speaking -- it is an honor to be speaking with you. my question is simple -- when will all elected officials be term limited to 10, 12 years all to terms of the considering senators serve six-year terms because i believe our lobbyists our corporate lobbyists, be it the koch brothers, tend to influence votes with large continent -- campaign contributions. second of all, my other question would be when will there be some bipartisan budget control put into place so that our country's debt will not hit $25 billion of debt or more, then get to the point where the millennial's

will have to pay? i am one of the baby boomers. i would like to retire, and for every dollar i have ever paid into social security, i would like to see back with a little bit of interest. host: all right, a lot of the table. guest: i appreciate the question. it is one of the debates. in my state of oklahoma we have a constitutional amendment to does the budget and i think a lot of people would agree with what you are saying. on the term limits, we have had them in full cycle in oklahoma and they did a study to determine the average length of time members serve a fourth term lengths and after. it was something like seven years, six months, compared to seven years, two months. it was very little difference to the amount -- the amount of time that was averaged or service. what did change -- it is thing you mentioned lobbyists.

lobbyists then became the institutional knowledge. [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] >> we delayed it so we could report that information to you. we've interviewed three crew members today and i want to point out, i'm going to recapture some of the things that they have said, but i want to point out that these crew members have been traumatized through this accident that they

were in. and they've not fully recovered from their injuries. we did interview the engineer today. it's been widely reported he's 32 years old. he had his f.r.a., federal railroad administration, required physical just last month. our investigators found the engineer to be extremely cooperative. he was accompanied by his lawyer which is not at all unusual. and the engineer told us to contact him if we needed anything else. so again we found him to be extremely cooperative. he recalls ringing the train bell as he went through the north philadelphia station, that's not a normal station stop for him, but he's required by regulation to sound his bell. may have said horn.

he's required to sound his bell as he goes through -- past the station stop. and he did that. he recalled doing that. but he has no recollection of anything past that. he felt fully qualified and comfortable with his equipment and he reported no problems with his train handling. and when asked, when asked he demonstrated a very good knowledge, very good working knowledge of the territory. speed limitations, things like that. he began his railroad career while he was in college as a brakeman. he started with amtrak in 2006 as a conductor. and in 2010 he became a locate motive engineer -- locomotive engineer. since 2012 he's worked out of new york city and he's been on

this particular job for several weeks. he works five days a week, it's an out and back trip for him. new york, washington and back to new york. five days a week. he said that he did not feel fatigued nor did he report any illness. as we reported the other day, the train has three conductors. the conductor is not able to be interviewed as he is still in the hospital. however we did interview the two assistant conductors. assistant conductor number one is 39 years old, she was hired by amtrak in 2011 and she was in the fourth car, which is the cafe car. she stated that before departing washington, the

entire crew conducted a safety briefing where they went over all of the speed restrictions along their intended route. she reported that it was a normal run through philadelphia everything was normal up through philadelphia. and she said she could hear the transmission of the locate moltive engineer -- locomotive engineer, as conductors carry radios and they're frequently talking to and listening to the locomotive engineer. so she could hear the transmissions from the locomotive engineer. she reported that approximately three to four minutes after departing philadelphia she said she heard the engineer talking to a cepta engineer. she recalled that the other engineer had reported to the train dispatcher that he had either been hit by a rock or

shot at. and that the cepta engineer said he had a broken wind shield and he placed his train into emergency stop. she also believed she heard the engineer say something about -- she also believed that she heard her engineer say something about his train being struck by something. this is her recollection and certainly we're going to be conducting further investigation of this comment. our investigation is not independently confirmed -- has not independently confirmed this information, but we have seen damage to the left-hand lower portion of the amtrak wind shield, that we have asked the f.b.i. to come in and look

at for us. we oftentimes rely on the f.b.i. for their technical expertise in such areas and they will be there tonight looking at this particular damage to the amtrak locomotive. win shield. of course when the engine went through the impact, the wind shield was shattered but there's particular damage there that we want them to look at for us. we've secured the track image recorded from -- recorder from the cept a a train to see what we can learn from that. moving forward, right after she recalled hearing this conversation between the engineer and -- her engineer and cepta engineer, she said

that she felt a rumbling and her train leaned over and her car went over on its side. she said they were not able to self-evacuate and they waited for the emergency responders to get them out. she said she had about 15 passengers in her car. we asked what her relationship, working relationship was with the -- with her locomotive engineer. she said she'd worked with hymn a good bit and said he was -- with him a good bit and said he was great to work with. she said he was always offering to help her with her job. now let's move to the assistant conductor number two. he's 35 years old, he was hired by amtrak in may of last year, just a few days before the accident he had celebrated his one-year anniversary with amtrak. he was in the seventh passenger car, that of course is the last

passenger car, and he reported having about 40 people in his car. up to the accident he reported no problems other than some radio problems, radio problems with his portable radio. he said that sporadically he could hear, but not sure that some of his transmissions were going out. at the point that we're describing at the location of the accident he said he felt shaking then two major impacts. he said that interior seats disconnected and he attempted to contact the amtrak dispatch center, but does not recall receiving a response. he assisted with the evacuation of engine passengers until he was instructed by emergency responders to go seek medical attention on his own. he said he had not worked much

with the amtrak engineer for the accident trip, but he did say he was happy with the engineer and described the engineer as being very professional. so what we've just described is the information that allowed us to delay the press conference so that we could report that information to you. we've got some other investigative activities that we'll fill new on, what's been going on. we've mentioned through the week a 3-d layer scanner. we've done a 3-d laser scanning of the locate motive interior and ex tear yore -- exterior. we've scanned a passenger car so we can compare the -- that to the damaged cars. and we've also documented interior safety features in all cars. we'll continue -- we've continued the testing of the

signals and the signals circuittry. basically as the tracks are being rebuilt, our signals go along to check the continuity of the circuitry. over the weekend we plan to reassemble the train set as much as we can to put it back together connect the brake loins and conduct a brake test -- lines and conduct a brake test and that will take several days. over the course of the last few days, some of you have asked, what would we do if we could not talk to the engineer? and how would we resolve it? one of the things we've called for in the wake of a failed train crash in 2008, where 25 people were killed including the engineer the ntsb issued recommendations for forward facing image records and inward

facing image records, so something that would get a video image, video and audio image of what's going on inside the locomotive cab, as well as the outward facing cameras. of course this train did have an outward facing camera. we also feel it's important to have the inward facing cameras. that issue -- that recommendation was issued in 2010 when we completed our investigation of that accident in california. and the f.r.a. has said that they do intend to act upon that recommendation. there's a lot to be done. i think over the last few days we've gotten a lot done. but this will be our final press briefing on scene. future information on this accident will be coming from our press office in washington,

d.c. in just a moment i'll ask peter to explain that process. but basically i think you can follow us on our web page, www.ntsb.gov. and also follow us at twitter. i think you know our twitter handle is @ntsb. i want to emphasize that even though this is the final press briefing certainly there is a lot of work that needs to be done and will be done over the next several days while our investigative team is here in philadelphia. there's a lot that needs to be done and will be done. but anyway, that's the end of my prepared remarks. if you would please raise your hand, i'll call on you and identify your outlet. questioner: you said the route is from new york to washington and then back to new york? was he coming back -- [inaudible] >> he does. that was his -- the answer is

it's one round trip. so he starts in the early afternoon new york, washington, back to new york. so it's one round trip. questioner: how much time is between that? >> how much time is between that, we will have his schedule. i don't have it immediately in front of me. we are here to get information that will go away with the passage of time. his schedule we can get next week. but we want to do things like train interviews and things like that, crew interviews. yes, sir. questioner: what else can explain the acceleration of the train? speaker: the train does not have -- i flew arpse for a long time. we had airplanes that had automatic throttles trains do not have automatic throttles. it's a manual input. we're going to be through the

event recorder through the black box, if will you, we do -- one of the parameters recorded is throttle movement. we'll be looking at that to see if that might correspondent with the speed increase. we're also looking for any kind of speed anomally. questioner: [inaudible] -- you have been able to get any of his toxicology reports back blood work, things like that? are there any other video sources of the train that may show you -- [inaudible] robert: have we been able to get the tox reports and is there any other video that we may be able to learn from? let me address the video issue first. we're always surprised and happy that there are video sources that come from unintended sources like has been reported on the media.

there was a security camera that reported some sparking or really an explosion as it was described on tv that probably came as a result of lines collapsing after the collision -- after the accident. so people have cell phone cameras and things like that. so we're always looking for additional sources of video information, if anybody has video information that we don't know about. we'd love to hear about it from our witness line. that within line is witness@ntsb.gov. we'd love to hear from that. also the first part of the question was tox results. let me say first of all i hear people talking about blood work. we do not, the ntsb, does not request blood work. we don't do that. but by federal law, whenever there's a transportation accident involving commercial entities by federal law safety

sensitive transportation workers are required to perform drug and alcohol testing. that is done by the carrier. in this case, by amtrak. so amtrak has conducted that in accordance with the regulations. at least that's the information we have at this time. that information is set. we take a split sample amtrak sends that to their independent lab, we send it to our independent lab in oklahoma city. and one of the f.a.a. -- i'm sorry, the d.o.t. requirement is for five specific drugs to be checked for. we send it to the f.a.a. in oklahoma city to look for many, many drugs. over-the-counter drugs. it's a wrong answer to -- long answer to say that that process takes time but the process has been initiated. there's a question right here.

questioner: based on what you saw at the scene and the interviews you've gotten so far today, what is the preliminary conclusion you can draw in terms of what caused this crash ? you say you want to look at a particular part of the window. what are you looking for? what did you see that raised suspicion? robert: a couple questions there. what conclusions with we draw? the answer to that is easy. we do not draw conclusions at this stage of an accident investigation. we're here to collect information. we will draw conclusions at the completion of the investigation , which will be after a very thorough and comprehensive investigation. regarding the question about what damage patterns to that wind shield are we having the f.b.i. look at, it would be on the -- if you're standing in the middle of the locomotive cab, the centerline, over here's where the engineer's wind shield. is over here is the other wind shield. in the lower portion of the

left-hand wind shield, there is a circular pattern that emanates out just a bit. so that's the damage to that. questioner: a rock might have gone through that? robert: what could have caused that? we are going to -- that will be part of the analysis and that's exactly what we're going to look at. questioner: since the ntsb requires similar compliance of truck drivers -- [inaudible] nupe robert: does the -- robert: does the ntsb -- questioner: [inaudible] -- number of hours. robert:: what hours of service requirements are there for modes of transportation? those are not regulated by the ntsb. those are regulated by the u.s. department of transportation and they are different depending on whether you're a trucker or a commercial bus driver or an airline pilot or whether you are a train

operator. they're very complex. to sit here and explain it right now, i'd have to spend a lot of time looking through regulations. but they are different according to each mode of transportation. questioner: the engineer's injuries and this interview, did anything indicate -- [inaudible] robert: does the engineer indicate from his injuries that there may have been -- that he may have been struck by something entering the cab? he did not report anything to that affect when he interviewed -- when we interviewed him this afternoon. questioner: [inaudible] robert: did it come from the assistant -- i'm sorry did the

engineer report anything about that conversation about the projohn kerry tile or being shot at? -- about the project aisle or being shot at? -- projectile or being shot at? was he specifically asked that question? he was specifically asked that question and he did not recall -- he did not recall anything of that sort. but there again he does not -- he reported that he does not have any recollection of anything past north phil difflia -- philadelphia. can we kill those fans? can you figure out how to work that thing over there? thank you. good job. almost good job. [laughter] thank you. questioner: i know you said you don't have the schedule right now. do you know if these two routes were the only ones for the day -- [inaudible] -- had he done any other trips? robert: had he done any other trips of that day? no he had not. he reported for duty in new

york, took his train to washington and then he was on his return trip to new york. questioner: the second question, you said -- [inaudible] robert: do we have any information from the track image recorder, the video recorder from the cepta train? we have just secured that and have not looked at that -- have not evaluated that yet. questioner: did he report having any problems on the way down with the train? robert: did he report having any troubles on the train going down? he operated a different train going down and also he reported no fatigue throughout the day or any illness throughout the day. questioner: and no problems on the way down? >> he had some technical problems on the train going down that got in about 30 minutes late. robert: thanks. just for the microphone

purposes, he did apparently have some technical problems on the route down to washington. questioner: follow-up, it's not reporting fatigue, did he report that that was stressful that he was frazelled in any way from that experience? robert: i have no knowledge of him being frazelled as a result of being on time -- or being a little late. questioner: [inaudible] -- is there any evidence of video image on the train to show any project jile? -- projectile? when the conductor said she overheard the engineer saying that someone may have thrown something at his train does she believe -- in that context, does she believe it was at that moment or prior to that? robert: does the track image recorder from the amtrak train reveal anything about anything being thrown at the train?

and when we evaluated it yesterday, we did not see anything. we will of course -- we're very interested in this report. we want to learn more about it. so we will use all sources of information that we can to independently validate that. the second part of your question, which i've already forgotten, was exactly what? questioner: -- reported recalling her engineer saying that something might have struck his window as well. was it your understanding that she meant at that moment that they were speaking it happened or it may have happened prior to that? robert: the sort of time frame of things that she's recalling, believing that she heard the cepta engineer reporting to the amtrak dispatcher that he had had a broken wind shield and thought that something had either been thrown at his train or being shot at, and then at that time, according to her recollection, the amtrak

engineer stated that he had had something along the same lines. questioner: at this point do you have any other corroborating evidence about what may have been a projectile going through the wind shield? robert: at this point do we have ner any information to corroborate anything shooting at either of the trains? at this time we don't other than the fact that we're having the f.b.i. go out and examine this fracture pattern in the wind shield. this was late breaking news for us. again, that's why we delayed the press conference. we just interviewed these people this afternoon. it's new information for us and so we will use all available sources to independently corroborate that. let's see. somebody we haven't called on. "wall street journal." questioner: two questions.

do you guys know yet whether or not the engineer was manually increasing the speed using the throttle? did the train's alert system work? did the brakes kick in automatically? robert: the question is and i actually answered the first question about do we know if the train was -- the throttle was being moved -- was being advanced manualy. i've already answered that question. the other part of the question is that, did the train stop on its own or did it stop because the alerter had not, you know in a train if an engineer does not make a movement throttle movement, horn movement, bell movement, anything like that, if a throttle -- if an engineer does not make an input to the train within a certain period of time, and that period of time varies, varies on the speed, varies with the carrier, varies on a number of things, if the train does not receive an input it will sound an alert .

if the engineer does not respond, the train will come to a stop. what we said on the first day we got here was the train was placed into engineer-induced braking. which means that the engineer placed the train into emergency braking. that was an engineer. i want to thank you for your time. questioner: can you explain the cepta train in relation to -- [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] >> today here in washington, d.c., the 34th annual national peace officers eam -- officers' memorial service was held in front of the capitol. president obama spoke at the event and expressed his thanks to those who gave their lives. here's more from the president. president obama: we cannot erase every darkness or danger from the duty you have chosen. we can offer you the support you need to be safe.

we can make the communities you care about and protect safer as well. we can make sure that you have the resources you need to do your job. we can do everything we have to do to combat the poverty that plagues too many communities in which you have to serve. we can work harder as a nation to heal the rifts that still exist in some places between law enforcement and the people you risk your lives to protect. we owe it to all of you who wear the badge with honor, and we owe it to your fellow officers who gave their last full measure of devotion. most of all we can say thank you. we can say we appreciate you. we're grateful. for the work that you do each

and every day. >> and that was just a portion of what the president had to say earlier today at the 34th annual national peace officers memorial service held here in washington, d.c. you can see the president's entire remarks plus other speakers tonight starting at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. on tomorrow's "washington journal," neema singh guliani and author steven bradbury will be discussing the patriot act and its implications since 9/11. also amy harder looks at the decision to allow shell oil to begin drilling off the alaska coast this summer. we'll also take your phone calls, facebook comments and tweets. "washington journal" is live tomorrow starting at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. >> congress returns to session

on monday and later next week the house will turn to several items including work on the highway trust fund which is set to expire at the end of may and 2016 spending for the legislative branch. you can see the house live on c-span. the senate also returns monday with continued work on the trade promotion authority with votes on a couple of amendments scheduled for 5:30 p.m. eastern. that measure authorizes president obama to enter into trade agreements by july 2018, and would need congressional oversight and apursuant to the rule. senators could amend the patriot act to end n.s.a. collection of americans' phone record. see the senate live on our companion network c-span2. >> just one more week on capitol hill before the house and senate go out for their memorial day break. joining us for a look at that last week ahead is lauren french she's a congressional reporter with politico and two big deadlines ahead. the patriot act and the highway trust fund.

the house passed its bill dealing with the pay trocket act. n.s.a. surveillance, renewing expiring provisions. what's the stat toufs the legislation in the senate? guest: that's a lot more complicated than it was in the house. the house passed it with an overwhelming number of members supporting the u.s.a. freedom act but that legislation is not being picked up in the senate. mitch mcconnel wants a clean re-authorization of the patriot act, the program most notably known because of edward snowdon and the release he did. but there's critics of the patriot act and the bulk collection of american data who want to see the u.s.a. freedom act or a bill like it on the floor instead of the patriot act. host: senator rand paul finding himself against mcconnel. guest: senator rand paul said he would likely fill bust fer mitch

mcconnel puts up just a clean patriot act. he's concerned because it allows the government to collect information without warrant or notification. he would filibuster that bill if it came to the floor. mcconnel is pushing other republicans to have the votes needed to pass that and move on to other measures. host: and another deadline coming up is the highway trust fund. senator carper said, today senator boxer and i are back with a bill to compel congress to fix the trust fund this summer. what's the status of that? guest: the current authorization ends the end of this month. lawmakers are on a very strict deadline with the upcoming construction season. there needs to be money available to keep the projects

going forward and building. what is happening here as you see in the senate and the house a two-month extension of that authorization to fwi lawmakers much more time to figure out how to pay for a long-term extension. everyone involves wants a -- everyone involved wants a five-year or longer highway trust fund the sticking point is how to pay for it. democrats are advocating for an increase in the gas tax, but that's not a popular proposal among republicans. host: the senate moving forward with trade promotion authority what do you think we can expect in floor debate and will the senate finish this by the end of next week? guest: expect a contentious week in the -- in the senate and then to a lesser extent in the house over fast track trade authority. democrats, there are some democrats who want it but they went with senator reid earlier this week to stop it from going forward until there was currency debates and other bills

considered. but now that it's going to be on the floor, you'll see democrats railing against fast track authority and the qualms they have with the upcoming transpacific partnership that large trade deal. it will be a contentious week. and there's no guarantee that trade is dealt with by the senate. they might not get to it or it might not pass. it's all very much in flux. of course if it does pass it goes to the house where the future of the fast track authority is much more uncertain. host: affecting also the t.p.p., transpacific partnership as well. let's move on here former secretary of state hillary clinton was supposed to testify before the select committee on benghazi as early as next week but then as you write, the chair of the select committee, trey gowdy, said he won't allow her to testify until certain documents are turned over. what's happening here? guest: he flipped the switch to

turn attention away from hillary clinton to john kerry, her successor. he said he can't have hillary clinton come in and testify because he doesn't have the evidence he needs and she's insisting that she'll only appear before the benghazi panel one time. gowdy's fear is she comes in and then new evidence comes out when new documents are made available, they will have missed the opportunity to question her. he's saying without all these docksyumes she's won't be appearing, trying to amp up pressure on the obama administration to get the documents they have been waiting for, in some cases for six months. host: thanks, lauren. your twitter handle is #laurennfrench and the politico website. >> earlier today, f.b.i. official gerald roberts talked about what isil is doing to finance itself and thousand disrupt their budget.

this is about an hour and 15 minutes. mr. levitt: good afternoon, everybody. welcome to the washington institute for near east policy. i'm dr. matthew levitt and i'm very, very pleased to have you here. some of you in person, some of you online via live stream, some of you live via c-span. you are all welcome. for a talk on money flow in the age of isis, f.b.i. and following the money with jerry roberts. jerry is the head of the f.b.i. terror finance operations section, he's a longtime friend, he's been there and he's done that, he was in new york on 9/11 he was later deployed in iraq.

he was a liaison officer to interpol and he has a tremendous amount of expertise and insight. this is part of our counterterrorism lecture series. some of the recent events that if you missed you can still catch online involve an event with the assistant director, just about a year ago almost, here at this podium. the director of nctc. state department counter terrorism. general allen in terms of the effort to counter the islamic state. and that of course was one of its subcomponents a counterisil finance group which is focusing on a variety of issues. just this week, a meeting and statement that followed on the importance of combating kidnapping for ransom. there are lots of things going on in the terror finance world, things that are change, some that are reverting to things that were before, like the return to the abuse of charity

and some that are new. it's a timely opportunity for taos have this conversation. with no further ado, just before i introduce jerry to the podium i'll ask a, if you could please turn off your cell phones, b, when we get to the q&a, if you could wait for the microphone to come to you and then identify yourself and speak into the microphone so not only can we in the room hear you but the viewers on c-span and on the live stream crewing -- viewing can hear you as well. with no further ado, jerry roberts. mr. roberts: good afternoon everybody. as matt mentioned, my name is jerry roberts. i'm a chief of the f.b.i. financing terrorism section. i want to thank matt for inviting me. i'm pleased to provide you with an overview of how we are

adapting and evolving to the current threat of isil and the threats our partners overseas face. i've had the pleasure of working with the washington institute for phi years now on a variety of topics, homegrown extremism, counterradicalization, i'm honored to be here in my new role as section chief. before i address the financial aspect of isil, i want to address how the f.b.i. is adapting evolving to stay ahead of the threat of national terrorism. our deputy director, mark jewel yaw noah, spoke here last year. at the time he advised how the f.b.i. as the u.s. government's lead domestic intelligence agency has transformed become a threat-focused intelligence driven organization. as such, the bureau is committed to the full integration of intelligence and operations. as matt mentioned, i have been in the new york office and prior to coming back to f.b.i. headquarters i was in the baltimore field office where i not only was the

counterterrorism assistant special agent in charge, i was also the intelligence branch assistant special agent in charge. that required me to have that intel and operational integration and allowed me to build that within the field level operations. one way at the macro level we integrate intelligence and operations at the f.b.i. is through the creation of our fusion cell model. the fusion cell model allows us to integrate the intelligence analysis and our special operations by having analysts and special agents co-located, evaluating the threats. they evaluate the threats and provide intelligence on current and emerging threats to our field offices as well as other agencies. within my current section, we have additional analysts as part of that mods el. we are also addressing staying ahead of the threat by working

with state local and federal partners throughout our 56 field offices in the united states. we also work with the fusion center, the intelligence community, and our league abroad. with regard to the financial aspects of terrorism, the importance of partnerships with the private sector, particularly the financial industry, is critical to that. i want to touch on a few points regarding private sector partnerships. partnering with the private sector has been a focus long before i got here, but one i've continued to champion since i arrive. how do we accomplish that? it's through a rigorous schedule of outreach and training that we provide to private sector partners. in partnership with the treasury and other government agencies, we conduct outroach and training to our partners throughout the united states. the financial industry's efforts and resources dedicated to detecting and reporting suspicious financial activity is

key to our success in the terrorism financing world. the sars that are reported is a critical trip wire for taos detect financial movement of known or suspected terrorists here and abroad. the analysis of the sar information quined -- combined with other information is critical to identifying new associates and suspected terrorists. this information is not only critical to identifying that activity within the united states but abroad as well. in conjunction with the treasury department we conduct annual training sessions up in new york at the federal reserve bank. we just recently had one which was attended by approximately of our closest partners. during those sections, we provide an opportunity for the -- for the financial sector to

get a key insight into what we see. we do so to allow our private sector partners to have the most up to date information to allow them to more accurately and definitively report their information within these sars. such meetings allow us to better inform industry of emerging threats, what indicators to look for, have been enhancing their erpgses as well as our own. i cannot discount the proactive work done by the private sector here in the united states through their new and maturing financial intelligence units that many financial institutions have. they provide us critical information. information not only on existing cases but information that led to new f.b.i. cases. the threat of isil, i will touch on before i get on to the financial particulars. in the last five years throughout the united states and abroad have disrupted over 100 counterterrorism threats. in the last year alone, we've arrested dozens of americans who

have either attempted to travel overseas to fight for isil or provide financial support. however, even with those success story the threat we face in terms of understanding and combating them have never been more complex. with core al qaeda having been degraded, our efforts are challenged by a combination of the decentralization of violent extremism, as in the case of isell, and general instability -- isil and general instability in the middle east and africa. isil has risen to prominence in a short period of time. by decentralizing the method by which they spread their ideology isil has been extremely effective at targeting english speaking audiences throughout multiple social media sites. al qaeda's use of the internet and social media, for example "inspire" magazine, has provided

a tool to recruit and provide guidance on how to attack our critical infrastructure. their magazine and the massive following on social media allowed them to reach tens of thousands throughout the world. furthering their goals inspiring individuals to plan and conduct attacks throughout europe, australia and the united states. as our director said last thursday there are hundreds, maybe thousands of people across our country who revive recruitment overtures from a terrorist group with directives to attack the united states. he added it's like a little devil sitting on their shoulder telling them kill, kill, kill. with regard to foreign fighters that threat is tied distinctly to isil and other combat zones throughout the world. but this messaging that isil is doing is attracting thousands of individuals from across the world interested in fighting with isil. the u.s. government agencies, the intelligence community and

our foreign counterparts new york an effort to pursue increased information sharing with regards to foreign fighters combating radicalization and exchanges regarding outreach programs and policy changes. through this collaboration, we're working hard to ensure foreign fighters from other nations do not enter the united states. the f.b.i. has also expanded the team within the counterterrorism division to fully track, analyze and ultimately neutralize the threats emanating from this region to the united states a team for which tfos is an integral nature. given the long-term conflict in the region and the method they spread the message through social media, the f.b.i. is concerned that u.s. persons will continue to be attracted to the region and may travel to -- attempt to travel to fight. from the early days of tfos it became apparent that the critical importance of the

financial intelligence finit as we like to refer to it in identifying the hijackers and the larger network of those response frble the 9/11 attack. even with that critical message, finit is often overlooked. you hear about the role of human intelligence with regard to detecting and disrupting activity but not nearly as often do you hear about finit. finit, financial intelligence, is more than just reviewing bank accounts of known or pt suspected terrorists. combining finint with other ints -- other intelligences -- we are able to combat threats. we have seen isil's funding through extortion theft and taxation. to date, the support is minimal compared to fundraising

activity. however it's not simply the broader picture of the financial support beyond those immediate areas. by following the money, we are not able to identify the individuals that are financially supporting that operation, but in fact we are able to identify foreign fighters, facilitate logistic networks before they depart their countries or origin and most likely return or perhaps return. in conclusion, to succeed in combating terrorism, we remain intelligence driven within the f.b.i. and continue our close collaboration with our government partners, our foreign partners and the financial industry. partnerships are absolutely necessary for the success of the counterterrorism mission and financial intelligence the work that tfos does is no different. thank you again for having me. we will take some questions now. thank you. [applause]

mr. levitt: that's a fantastic introduction to a conversation about where we are in dealing with the problem of terrorism in general and in particular. we'll take some questions for jerry and identify yourself and ask your question. some of the ways we know things are different today is because isis controls particular territory. while we've had some success in preventing isis from being able to access the financial system, they have found some back door means of accessing banking. i've written recently as and as

was reported in a financial action task force report, there's some kind of sanitized derek classified examples here from the united states system of for example -- sanitized, declassified examples here from the united states. for example, financial transfers have been received in areas i'm sorry, in areas known to be a funding, logistical, and smuggling hub for financial terrorist fighters and terrorist organizations. in some cases excessive cash deposits were placed into u.s. accounts and then sent from those u.s. accounts via wire transfers to recipients and banks in areas that are near where isis operates in iraq, but not quite in isis controlled territories. kirkuk for example. in other cases, just to cite a third type of situation, people that we don't necessarily know

who they are, unknown persons, have made foreign cash withdrawals in say, iraq from a.t.m. machines in areas that are near but not quite under isis control, obtaining money from u.s. bank deposits by using check carts system of literally drawing on a.t.m. transactions in areas near isis control from a u.s. bank. so talk a little bit about what you are seeing in terms of some of the financing that's happening in the united states not necessarily at this kind of macro organizational level but i think part of what we're seing with isis, their big financing as a group at home is largely domestic criminal activity kidnapping for ransom, oil etc. what are we seing abroad? what are we seeing here? mr. roberts: sure thanks matt. as i mentioned, a primary source

of isil's funding is their criminal activity in their controlled areas. it takes a lot of money to keep the lights on in the areas they control. so a lot of that funding goes to there. with regards to outside funding though that's where we're seeing the self-funded, in many cases, of the foreign fighters. it doesn't require a lot of money to buy an airplane ticket to travel to a neighboring country to make your way into isil controlled areas. again, because of that it makes the investigation that much more complex. we're not talking about sending thousands of dollars, we're talking in many cases hundreds of dollars. the uniqueness by which isil operates in a decentralized way in which they operate allows people to have that ease of sending those smaller numbers. the -- what we do see, matt as you mentioned, was the a.t.m. withdrawals and you mentioned the wires. so those are specifically the type of information that we share with our banking partners.

what to be alert for. again, we realize, not to paint a broad brush but there's perfectly legitimate reasons why individuals from u.s. banks would be withdrawing money in iraq syria, or neighboring countries. there's perfectly legitimate reasons for them to send wire transfers. it's the come bay nation of that information that the banks provide with other intelligence that we have in our holdings that really paints the picture for us. so it's not necessarily one piece, just one piece of the puzzle. mr. levitt: right over here, just wait for the mike and then i know who you are but tell everybody else. mr. roberts: i know who she is too. >> that was actually very informative. i want to catch on one set of words that you used. you mentioned that hundreds may be exposed to material here in the united states, maybe

thousands. that's a lot more than has been publicly discussed in the past. i want to know, and of course you've been involved in many of the discussions about what role the f.b.i. will take in domestic efforts to counter the threat to the homeland. can i ask you where that conversation is right now? like, how does the f.b.i. feel about working with community groups doing interventions the role of local -- of state and locals as opposed to the f.b.i. i'd love your thoughts on that. mr. roberts: thank you. we've worked together for a few years now. with regard to the numbers, hundreds or thousands, that was a quote from the director last week. it is the potential of isil's social media campaign that can reach hundreds or thousands of individuals at any given time. to clarify that point with those numbers. we're not saying there's thousands of people within the united states that are arming themselves today to conduct attacks based on isil but that the reach and the breadth at

reach isil can reach here is in the hundreds, is in the thousands, through their social media. they can reach or potentially have reached but it's just the potential is there. the distinction between the individuals who have necessarily read the material and those as we talk about, the continuum the radicalization that have read the materials and are marching down the continuum of radicalization. you've known for me -- you've known me for years and you know i'm a fan of the community outreach we do, you and i have done a lot of work together in that matter. i think the f.b.i. plays an integral role in counting -- countering violent extremism but i think we only have one seat at the table. i think the community leaders like yourself play an integral role as well. but i think it's everyone's job, and it's not just about violent

extremism, we're talking about all type of extremism then it comes to the c.b.e. world. i think the state, local, as well as other communities and really plays an integral part in that as well. it's a one team, one fight mentality that we need to all work together on counterering violent extremism mission. the f.b.i. doesn't get paid additional money for the number of arrests we get so if there's an opportunity for us to talk to individuals that, as you and i both know that may be walking down the wrong path, we obviously would like to do that. we certainly don't want to see the end game always being an arrest. mr. levitt: here in the middle, please. >> scott james, "new york times." a couple of questions about

isis-isil recruiting in the u.s. one is that, a lot of these cases, young people without much in the way of money suddenly have turned up with $1,500 to buy round trip ticks to turkey and i wond every if -- i wonder if you have seen any evidence that that money is flowing to them back from isis central, so to speak, or where that money is coming from? the other question is, if the -- the f.b.i. has put a lot of resources into stopping people from flying off to fight for isis. and i have -- i've heard people in minneapolis for example in the somali community, raise the question, why do you stop them? because you're creating a kind of i mean, they said either come join us or carry out attacks at home.

by stopping a sort of self-identified pool of loyalists, are you adding to the pool of people who are going to carry out attacks at home? mr. roberts: sure, thank you. with regards to your first question. a lot of this is self-funded. there's no great picture at this point that i can go into in further detail here with regards to isil facilitating this travel. the -- the means by which we've seen individuals obtain this money quickly is sometimes as simple as taking money from their parents without them knowing. so there's many means by which theft, common crime, just borrowing money from family and friends by which they disguise the purpose for that money is another way in which individuals have obtained that cash to allow them to travel. with regard to your second question they are a threat whether they are here or abroad so our goal is to disrupt that

threat. what we certainly don't want is individuals that are looking, i would argue that them going over to train and to fight would increase the threat that they are today, so by preventing them from getting that additional training whether they're a threat to u.s. interests or our partners' interest abroad, as well as coming back potentially with that knowledge would be a far greater threat to the united states. it becomes a decision point with regard to, do we disrupt them now or disrupt them late her quite frankly, we're in the game of disrupting them earlier. mr. levitt: if you're interested in more information about self-finance i testified before congress this week, that's up on our website, a third of it is the problems and opportunities a and challenges that come from that kind of self-financing.

right up here, please. >> in my world, this is public relations, in my world if i was faced with something that had -- that required 99% of my investment time and effort and 1% i would maybe look at the 1% occasionally but i would never talk about it. i would never even publicly discuss it. you seem to, is this political correctness when you mention muslim and other terrorists, is one 99% and one 1%? and why mention them both in the same breath as the same threat? mr. roberts: if i understand you correctly, we're talking about the c.b.e. comments i just made.

>> you gave them about 50-50% of your, quote, concern. mr. roberts: i don't think i provided a breakdown of it, right. we -- so we -- we are concerned about all threats, the f.b.i.'s counterterrorism division not only tracks international terrorism, the ohm homegrown violence and extremism inspired by international terrorist groups but also the domestic terrorist groups. i wouldn't begin to give you a fraction or percent abbling by which we dedicate, but we are all threats, not only those. that's just within the counterterrorism world. we obviously have our cyber division and criminal divisions that have another set of priorities. within counterterrorism a lot of our focus is on international terrorism, based on the numbers. we've seen, as i mentioned before, we've had 100 disrummingses in the last few years.

-- disruptions in the last few years. i wouldn't venture a guess to say what is our breakdown. obviously we have to prioritize based on what we believe is the greatest threat to the united states. mr. levitt: here on the left, please. >> richard monnen of the world bank. i'd like to question your contention, or challenge it, the growing importance of countering the current terrorist threat from isil by way of looking at the financing. i mean you yourself described that it comes at two levels. one is low level operatives who may be self-funded. the other one is we have in isil an organization which controls territory and has resources and differs in almost every way from al qaeda. is the current rules laws and regulations, are they designed

for another era and look at how one can, or if one can challenge the organizations on the basis of financing? mr. roberts: i think when we talk about financing there's two aspects to it. we have the tactical level, the foreign fighters and self-funding and those smaller options. but then the strategic level as we're talking about the more macro level approach to disrupting their finances. in those cases, when we're talking about that, that macro level approach, we have one seat at the table with the f.b.i., working with treasury and state and everything else. isil is a completely different animal. when we're talking about, it's a completely different organization. it's a completely different way in which they operate. it gives us an opportunity disrupt it in different ways, as we've seen with, whether it's the coalition air strikes as well. but i think if they basically, what we need to look at is the

financial aspects, it's a two-prong approach. we need to disrupt it at the low level, disrupt the facilitators and fighters. but then at the macro level. not just when we're talking about counterterrorism but talking about all criminal activity, trabs national organized crime as well, we need to continue to look at the a.m.l. and try to readjust those. >> thank you. my question is somewhat probably linked to the previous question. i remember a line in the wire, follow drones and you get junkies. but one of the goals of isis and isil is a caliphate in a state. i think last december, a german journalist was allowed access and gave some open source reports of what was happening in there, he referred to a security

system, a social welfare system a school system which are the signs of an economy and the formation of a state. yet we've seen with proper success in other conflicts, you can strangle an economy by economic sanctions as effectively as by military intervention. my question from an e.u. perspective, we do as we said to admiral roberts, we share the same threat, the e.u. and the u.s., we're fighting the same enemy. probably the e.u. is more at risk from the amount of foreign fighters returning from the conflict zones. in the financial sense is there anything you would success that the e.u. we do have tftp, we are working well with treasury but in the macro sense, i think it's important we have a coordinated policy to make sure we don't allow a terror state to form and that we join together in some economic form which is somewhat related to the earlier point but i would welcome your

views on how we could increase our collaboration on that mr. roberts: unffrpblt we don't have anybody -- on that. mr. roberts: unfortunately, we don't have anybody from treasury or state department to comment on that. i think our partnership with e.u., with interpol and other international organizations is key to this. the same approach we did with al qaeda and other international flets. this presents an interesting challenge, as the previous individual acknowledged. so i definitely agree, this becomes a whole of government approach of they have line of effort targeting isil's finances is a whole of government approach for the united states in which we're using every tool within our toolbox, whether it's sanctions, whether it's the tactical side of the work of the f.b.i. or other federal agencies as well so it becomes a whole approach. yes we need to look at sanctions, yes we need to look

at the other avenues in which to disrupt, as matt mentioned, the other avenues in which they're fundraising as well. i think it's no one answer it's really it's a multiprong approach to disrupt their finances both on the tactical and strategic side. mr. levitt: as the former treasury and state person, i'll say enge we're seeing some of that. the counterterrorism group is chaired, this current report, one of the best reports ever done. done slowly in an effort to bring in examples from as many partners around the world as possible. not just the u.s. as these reports tend to be. usually it won't say u.s. because it's all u.s. or much u.s. information. this time it wasn't just u.s., it was the ashe states, just off the top of my head there are

examples in the report from the netherlands from denmark from finland, not just the u.k. or france system of we're seeing this type of international cooperation in particular but not limited to transatlantic already. david. just wait for the mike. >> thanks very much, i'm dave pollak, here at the washington institute. i understand the current focus on isil. at the same time, according to the u.s. government, the prime state sponsor of terrorism in the world today continues to be iran. and there is a great likelihood, i think, that as the result of a nuclear agreement, iran will get a quote-unquote signing bonus of $50 billion to $100 billion. so right away, so from the point of view of counterterrorism finance, do you see this as a potential issue.

mr. roberts: absolutely. we have the dais and the table here to speak specifically about isil but obviously when we're talking about isil, as the gentleman over here asked, we are only talking about one of the many threats that the f.b.i. is tracking. obviously we track all state sponsored terrorism as well and we're concerned about the financial aspects of all of that. tfo s's role is critical to that in partnership with the rest of united states government. but i agree that we need to make sure that just because isil appears to be the greatest threat at this moment, we can't take our eye off the ball of other threats that continue to exist among us. mr. levitt: but it's also safe to say that responsibility for the terrorism here in the united states it's more likely to see terrorist groups engaged in fundraising, moving, transferring, than to see states abroad use the united states. that happens but it's probably less likely.

mr. roberts: that's absolutely correct. mr. levitt: to mona. >> hi. i was wondering what type of pressure are you putting on countries, for example in lebanon, i'm lebanese, there are millions of dollars smuggled through the airports to an organization and everyone knows about it. as well, for example last year there was a cell that was arrested it was linked to a national who had smuggled money into the country to people who are supporting that for isis system of these are countries that are looking, you know, sponsoring in a way terror. what type of pressure can you put on these countries? mr. roberts: sure. with regards to those, the example you gave. the f.b.i. obviously is one player at the table here. so it's us partnering with the usic.

it's us partnering with treasury and the state department to tackle those examples. when you talked about the disrupted cell, obviously that would be -- i'm not sure in particular the exact example you're discussing at the moment but that's something i could research and get back to you on. but we play an integral part whether it's the f.b.i. in the lead or d.e.a. or one of the other agencies that we are partnered with many of these investigations. as the previous gentleman a question about, we're talking about isil you mentioned the connection to isil with regards to the money flow there. but with regard to hezbollah as well and other terrorist groups, we're tracking the money there as well. mr. levitt: as this week's arrests in cedar rapids suggest also as well. up front here please.

>> you say that one of the source of isil is the cash flow for -- derived from the selling of oil, ok. what can they do to stop the buying of isil oil? that's number one. number two. of course from oil revenue isil will buy weapon to use on the opposition. what is the effort to identify the supplier of the weapon and what effort to stop the suppliers? mr. roberts: i can't go into detail on the suppliers of weapons to isil but with regard to the oil, obviously, it's not just the f.b.i., again

regarding this the department of defense has a big role in the disruption of their oil transports and that the united states government as a whole is tracking not just the united states government but our partners as well, are tracking those routes and disrupting those routes of those teapot oil refineries that they've created along the way to move that oil. mr. levitt: yes, the very front of the back -- there you go. >> can you break down for us the different, as the gentleman just said now, oil is one of the top players for bringing in funds to islamic state and isis, also weapons, but could you go into other means the illegal trafficking of individuals bribes in the community etc., and also how do those play in with the countries neighboring

syria and iraq? and how can the u.s. intervene as well as be a part of cutting off the funds as they travel potentially? mr. roberts: sure. thank you. with regards to, as i mentioned, and thank you for the question. with regards to bribes extortion, taxation, it's publicly known as far as the delooting of the banks and the hundreds of millions of -- through the looting of the banks and the hundreds of millions of dollars isil has obtained through that. it's also fairly well known that they tax the businesses, the local businesses by which they're able to derive that funding. so with regards to those sources of financing, the f.b.i. doesn't really play a major role within that. we would do so as that relates to individuals of interest,

targets of the f.b.i., and be able to assist other government agencies that they are -- with their investigations and their tracking of that but we don't necessarily play a meage role in that aspect of it. with regard to sir ja, turkey and other neighboring countries obviously the f.b.i. has partnerships through our legal attache program throughout the world and we do so with the engagement of the state department treasury and other agencies in order to have essentially a whole of government approach to tackling whether it's the movement of people, the movement of items. so it's really, we again have one seat at the table but it's really a multiagency, multination approach to identifying those paths, first, and then disrupting them. mr. levitt: all the way in the back. thank you.

>> you brought up the partnership you have with the financial sector and forgive me for being skeptical of this, but a lot of large players in the financial sector, royal bank of scotland credit suisse, hsbc has been key players in laundering billions of dollars of drug money other illegal funds. there was a blockbuster report in 2014 out of the senate finance committee, i'm not sure exactly what happened with that but how do you address the fact that -- i mean, i'm just assuming that those types of institutions wall street, european banking institutions are partnering with you.

how do you address their -- in my view very poor -- track record? mr. roberts: with regards to our royal with it, we don't necessarily have a role with regard to their compliance and their -- or their lack of compliance, and a couple of examples that you mentioned there. our role really is pryly -- primaryly our point of contact in those institutions are, as i mentioned, the financial intelligence units or sometimes the compliance if they don't -- if those organizations don't have an f.i.u. stood up yet. it's really from i guess, from my interspective, it's really the way to -- from my perspective, it's really the way to better inform them so they can improve. we realize that not everyone is at the same playing level when we talk about financial institutions. some are advanced, some are proactive, some are doing their own targeting and their own proactive analysis with regards to terrorism financing, with

regard to foreign fighters, and are way ahead of the game. the partnership i reference is to try to bring everybody up to that level. if by doing so, they learn best practices from the other partners in an environment similar to this, then that's great for us. that's a win for us as well. it's not just, again about the terrorism financing in our last -- in our last meeting up at the federal reserve, it wasn't just about terrorism financing. we brought in from the f.b.i., we brought in experts from our counterintelligence division, from our criminal division from our cyberdivision, that again to make, to better inform the banks and hopefully through that, we can play a little piece of making all the banks that much better when it comes to compliance and when it comes to alertness. with regard to the examples you gave, again, it's a lot of that

is not just terrorism that slows their funds through -- that flows their funds through banks. there's a lot of criminal activity that flows through banks. sometimes the banks need to be better at what they do, but often it comes as a result of us pointing things out to them. mr. levitt: if i can follow up, because there are lots of investigation into banks around the world, including russian banks, and there's improved compliance since then. when you talk to the federal reserve and others, what's your advice about in the very current environment, improving bank filters? in other words there are a bunch of people from the private sector here i see. one of the things we try to do is help the private sector establish more effective filters for the types of ill list activity we're seeing, that we're understanding they're seing from their reporting, but there is a difference as several questions have suggested of how isil financing is happening here in the west, here in the united states in particular, how do we improve that? mr. roberts: that's key to this outreach we're doing.

we're trying to increase their business rules. whatever they are using currently to come up with that. we don't want, what we don't want, and it's not just about private industry, it's about our partners in government as well, we dent want to rely on historical information. we don't want to rely on, examples like charities before. we want to make them smarter. by helping, as you said earlier the a.t.m. withdrawals. providing that kind of key, what i think is key points to what they're already doing helps to add their business rules and by doing so, the goal is perhaps they don't do 800 sars in a time frame, perhaps they only do 250 sars. speshes activity reports. -- suspicious activity reports. but those are higher quality and more substantive. mr. levitt: otherwise we drown in reporting. mr. roberts: correct.

>> jeff smith, center for public integrity. i'm a bit confused, despite all you've said so far about how you can remain optimistic about making inroads, given there's a lot of self-financing, the amount of transactions, the flows of money are quite small. they're not going to be large enough to be reported, no matter how carefully you fine tune the bank rules. so how are you actually intervening? what are you doing to actually intervene and prevent people from traveling and getting the training you said you wanted to do? i don't see the connection between the outreach, which is all, you know, seems like a wise thing to do and the training that you do with banks and this circumstance which involves small amounts of money, people who self-identify people who travel who get money from their relatives, their families, how can you make an impact?

mr. roberts: that's a great question. what we need to understand is i'm talking specifically about the financial intelligence, the finint aspect of this. but that's just one piece of this pie as we're trying to make that impact. we talked about, as i touched on earlier, the human intelligence, signal intelligence and other avenues. we have individuals in the public that come forward when they have individuals that they are aware of that may be discussed in a small group of their desires system of the financial intelligence is really just one sliver of this that helps us paint that picture. i guess we can think of it as a water color or paint by numbers, it's one of the colors. but the other intelligence, the other information the general public concern, to see something, say something campaign throughout the united states. often in many cases, you know, we have the public, not just the financial sector folks, advise us of individuals that raise their suspicion. so there's information we

obviously receive from our foreign partners as well in collaboration with our foreign partners that will help paint that picture system of again i guess to clarify, for your sake and to clarify for the good of the folks here, is i'm specifically talking about the financial aspect of it from my perspective, knowledge is power. the more knowledgeable we make our financial partners, could be the key component we're missing. if we have a lot of other information that financial analysis that financial intelligence could be the piece of the puzzle we're missing. so that's, and i'm just normally an optimistic guy so that's why too. mr. levitt: there's also the developing information to have a trend analysis. i think there's a myth that following the money is only effective if it's at a certain level large enough to have a footprint. but you can see certain types of trends. a followup to the last question, do we need to low you are our reporting thresholds in terms of

how much money is considered suspicious? something we've been talking about for a lock time, something that's been discussed legislatively in canada. when i go to australia, meet with austrac, they always kind of needle me well, you guys don't but we have 100% insight, they like to brag, into every transfer that goes in and out of australia, which is probably less in a year than goes out of -- in and out of new york in a month. but do we need, and this is a current debate, do we need to be lowering significantly, and i think we do, the $10,000 reporting threshold? mr. roberts: as a question from the world bank as well, regarding taking a look at our a.m.l. standards. i think it's -- we need to constantly, not just look at the financial rules but electronic communications and other rules. the world is ever changing. we need to constantly look at the existing rules and assess whether or not they are -- they satisfy what the growing need.

is we're talking about the $10,000 rule for coming, leaving the united states or whether we're talking about historic -- whether we're talking about store cards or other methodologies by which people are easily able to move money. we need to constantly look at the existing rules and try to acapt. -- adapt. mr. levitt: prepaid cards right here, i'll ask the question if no one else does. in the front here. >> my name is ron taylor. so i have a couple of thoughts. one is that the financial enterprise is a global enterprise. for me, using amounts of money as a filter, there's a disconnect right there. i want to know what the money is

doing. i don't necessarily want to know how much money there is. that goes back to what you said your mission was, which is, you know, and i'll put it in slightly different terms and then ask the question. so i'll change your mission, but the mission to me seems to be identify and disrupt the sources of money that enable sustaining the ongoing violent behavior. we want to eliminate that violent behavior. we've got to find the money sources, got to disrupt them hopefully eliminate them. so that seems like the mission. so the question is, what about russia? what about putin? what about legitimate financial sources that come out of there indirectly sustaining the violent behavior or directly? what about the criminal elements that operate out of russia? and what about the umbrella countries around russia that also support that kind of activity? who is following it, who is tracking it, who is identifying it who is disrupting it? >> great question. appreciate that. so again, just to clarify my earlier statement or statements,

with regards to the money and the financial intelligence, it's one aspect of it, right. we're not simply looking at a wire transfer or a.t.m. withdrawal or a transfer between two different bank accounts. mr. roberts: it's a combination of that intelligence with other intelligence we have and not just focusing on the dollar amount bus focusing on what it's -- but as you pointed out fork cusing on what it's used for. or maybe not on what it's used for but time and distance. if we look at financial transactions overlaid with travel or perhaps we don't have travel information, that's financial path -- that financial path can provide us that, in the case of a foreign fighter, can provide us with travel. just by tracking the money so it's not necessarily a focus on the dollar amounts per se, but the dollar amounts are telling a story. i think that's what helps us paint the picture that we have. with regards to russia or the elements in and around russia, again as i mentioned earlier our focus, our sole focus is not

necessarily iraq and syria. we need to focus as the gentleman talked about, their concern with the european foreign fighters, right? so our concern is not just iraq, syria, not just europe, not just australia. we need to take a large look at every threat and every potential threat. and then with regards to, as you mentioned, you made a great point with regards to criminal organizations, right. it's not to say that criminal organizations are necessarily funding terrorism or not. i think we can probably talk for a long time about that right? but there's certainly avenues by which they overlap. they're certainly facilitated by things where they overlap, they can allow for that to happen whether they're ideologically together or not.