tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN March 16, 2015 6:00pm-8:01pm EDT
the presiding officer: on this vote the ayes are 94. the nays are zero. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the question occurs on the brown nomination. is there any further debate? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. all those opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order the motions to reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate will resume legislative session. the majority leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: mr. president i ask unanimous consent the senate be in a period of morning
business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the appointments at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president could we have order in the senate? the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that the filing deadline for second-degree amendments to s. 178 be set for 10:30 a.m. tomorrow, march 17. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m., tuesday, march 17. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: following leader remarks, the senate resume consideration of s. 178 with the time until the cloture vote at 11:00 a.m. equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. finally that the senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 to allow
the weekly conference meetings. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow, the senate will vote on cloture on the committee substitute to the antitrafficking bill. if cloture is not invoked, there will be a second immediate vote on cloture on the underlying bill. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned until the previous order following the remarks of senator cotton for up to 45 minutes and senator brown for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. the senate will be in session. and members take their conversations to the cloakroom please. mr. cotton: i speak today for the first time from the senate floor with a simple message.
the world is growing ever more dangerous and our defense spending is wholly inadequate to confront the danger. to be exact during the last four or five years the world has grown gravely darker. we have steadily disarmed partly with the sincere desire to give a lead to other countries and partly through the severe financial pressure of the time. but a change must now be made. we must not continue longer on a course in which we alone are growing weaker while every other nation is growing stronger. i wish i could take credit for those eloquent and ominous words but i cannot. winston churchill sounded that warning in 1933 as adolf hitler had taken power in germany. tragically, great britain and the west didn't heed this warning when they might have strangled that monster in his crib. rather, they let the locusts continue to eat away at the common defense. the axis power grew stronger and the west worker, conciliating
with and appeasing them, hoping their appetite for conquest and death might be sated. as we all know, however that appetite only grew until it launched the most terrible war in human history. today, perhaps more tragically because we ought to benefit from these lessons of history the united states is again engaged in something of a grand experiment of the kind we saw in the 1930's. as then, military strength is seen in many quarters as the cause of military adventurism. strength and confidence in the defense of our interests alliances and liberty does not seem to deter aggression but to provoke it. rather than confront our adversaries our president apologizes for our supposed transgressions. the administration is harsh and unyielding to our friends soothing and supplicating to our enemies. president minimizes the threats we confront in the face of territory seas, weapons of mass destruction used and proliferated and innocence murdered. the concrete expression of this
experiment is our collapsing defense budget. for years we have systematically underfunded our military marrying this philosophy of retreat with a misplaced understanding of our larger budgetary burdens. we have strained our fighting forces today to the breaking point even as we have eaten away at our investments in our future forces. creating our own locust years as churchill would have put it. meanwhile, our long-term debt crisis looks hardly any better, even as we ask our troops to shoulder the burden of deficit reduction rather than shoulder the arms necessary to keep the peace. the results of this experiment should come as no surprise are little different from the results of the same experiment in the 1930's. american weakness and leading from behind have produced nothing but a more dangerous world. when we take stock of that world and our position in it there can be no doubt a change must now be made. mr. president, an alarm should
be sounding in our ears. our enemies sensing weakness and, hence opportunity have become steadily more aggressive. our allies, uncertain of our commitment and capabilities, have begun to conclude that they must look out for themselves even where it's unhelpful to civilian order. our military, suffering from years of neglect has seen its relative strength decline to historic levels. let's start with the enemy who attacked us on september 11th radical islamists. during his last campaign, the president was fond of saying al qaeda was on the run. in a fashion i suppose this was true. al qaeda was and is running wild around the world now in control of more territory than ever before. this global network of islamic jihadists continue to plot attacks against america and the west. they sow seeds of conflict and failed states and maintain affiliates throughout africa, the greater middle east and south asia. further, al qaeda in iraq was let off the mat when the
president disregarded his commanders' best military judgment and withdrew all troops from iraq in 2011. given a chance to regroup, it morphed into the islamic state which now controls much of syria and iraq. the islamic state cuts the heads off of americans burns alive hostages from allied countries executes christians and enslaves women and girls. the islamic state aspires and actively flotsactively plolts to attack us here at home whether by a foreign plot or by recruiting a lone wolf in our midst. the president's suggestions, in other words, that the war on terror is over or ending, are far from true. indeed, the director of national intelligence recently testified that when the final accounting is done, 2014 will have been the most lethal year for global terrorism in the 45 years such data has been come has been compiled yet the president won't even speak our enemy's name. the threat of islamic terrorism
brings us to iran, the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism. my objections to the ongoing nuclear negotiations are well-known and need be be rehearsed at length here. i'll simply note that the deal foreshadowed by the president allowing iran to have uranium enrichment capabilities and accepting an inspiration date on any agreement -- expiration date on any agreement to quote prime minister benjamin netanyahu doesn't block iran's path to the bomb, it paves iran's path to the bomb. if you think as i do, the islamic state is dangerous a nuclear-armed islamic republic is even more so. recall, after all what iran already does without the bomb. iran is an outlaw regime that has been killing americans for 35 years from lebanon to saudi arabia to iraq. unsurprisingly iran is only growing bolder and more aggressive as america retreats from the middle east. ayatollah ham any continues to call for israel's elimination. iranian-backed shiite militias now control much of iraq, led by
sulamanaih the commander of the kurds force a man with blood of hundreds of american soldiers on his hands. america continues prop up bashir al-assad in syria. militants recent seized the capital of yemen. hezbollah remains iran's atzpah. they drive five capitals in its drive for regional hodge hegemony. and they have increased its size of their nuclear missile arsenal. just two weeks ago iran blew up a mock naval aircraft carrier in exercises and publicized it with great fan fire. iran does all these things without the bomb. just imagine what it will do with the bomb. and imagine the united states further down the rows of appeasement -- road of appeasement largely defensive against this tyranny. you don't have to imagine much, though. simply look to north korea. because of a naive and failed nuclear agreement that outlaw state acquired nuclear weapons.
now america's largely handcuffed watching as this rogue regime builds more bombs and missiles capable of striking the u.s. homeland and endangering our allies. but perhaps an even more obvious result of this experiment with retreat is the resurgence of russia. the president aspired with a reset with russia and made one-sided concessions like withdrawing missile defenses from poland and the czech republic. so vladimir putin saw thighs consensus as weakness and continues to violate the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty. the west refused to assist the new ukrainian government so putin invaded and stole crimea. the western response was modest sanctions to russian-supplied rebels shot a civilian airliner out of the heart of the sky in the heart of europe. the president dithers in supplying weapons to ukraine so putin reignites the war. when bomentz and bombs and bullets were called for blankets were rushed
to the frontlines. and that's u.s. in ukraine. putin is testing nato's result. they have tested a ballistic missile with multiple warheads designed to threaten our european allies. russian bombers recently flew over the english channel disrupting british civilian aviation. estonia asserts that russia kidnapped an estonian security officer on its border and they continue to harass sweden moldova and georgia. finally, russia's able ability to continue its aggression will only ago because its defense spending has more than quadrupled over the last 15 years. moreover, the russian military today is qualitatively better than the old soviet military despite its smaller size, as admiral bill gortony commander of norad testified just last week. some say that falling oil prices will restrain putin and in fact russia's finance minister recently announced 10%
across-the-board defense budget cuts to all departments of their government except defense. this should give us some insights into putin's intentions and ambitions. among major nation-state competitors, russia's military buildup is exceeded only by china's. over the same period of the last 15 years china's military spending has increased by 600%. moreover the bulk of this spending is directed quite clearly against the united states as china pursues its antiaccess and aerial -- area denial strategy. this strategy is designed to keep american forces outside the so-called first island chain and give china regional hegemony from the korean peninsula to the indonesian archipelago. thus china is on a spending spree for more submarines, aircraft carriers, antiship ballistic missiles and other air and naval systems. the impact of china's rapid military expansion is clear. china has challenged japan's control of the islands and purported to establish an exclusive air defense zone over
the east china sea. by expanding its activities in the spratleys klein is precipitating a confrontation with the philippines vietnam malaysia and taiwan. further, china's repressive actions against protesters in hong kong only serve to undermine taiwanese support of reunification which itself could spark further chinese aggression. and all of this is to say nothing of china's cyber theft and economic espionage against america's interests or its atrocious record on human rights. mr. president, while america has retreated not only have our enemies been on the march our allies anxious for years about american resolve now worry increasingly about american capabilities. with the enemy on their borders many have begun to conclude they have no choice but to take matters into their own hands. sometimes in ways unhelpful to our interests. even our core nato allies appear unsettled by our recent experiment with retreat. the french intervened in mali to
confront islamic insurgents. but without advanced coordination they quickly found themselves in need of emergency logistical support from our air force. turkey just announced a new missile defense system that won't be interoperable with nato systems. greece has a new governing coalition that is hinting at greater cooperation with russia. the picture is no better outside nato. japan has significantly increased its defense budget because of a rising china and may feel compelled to reinterpret its post-war constitutional ban on overseas collective defense. saudi arabia just entered a nuclear pact with south korea likely a response to iran's nuclear program. similarly the persian gulf states have increased defense spending by 44% in the last two years. while we should encourage our partners to carry their share of the defense load the sunni states are building up their defenses not to help us but because they fear we won't help them against iran. we should never take our allies for granted but we also shouldn't take for granted the
vast influence our security guarantees give us with our allies' behavior. germany and japan are not nuclear powers today because of our nuclear umbrella. israel didn't retaliate against saddam hussein's scud missile attacks in the gulf war and thus we preserved the war coalition because we asked them for restraint and committed significant resources to hunting down this scud launchers. this kind of influence has been essential for american security throughout the postwar period, yet it has begun to wane as our allies doubt our commitment and capabilities. mr. president, make no mistake -- our military capabilities have declined. in recent years, we have dramatically underfunded our military to the detriment of our security. to fully understand the military aspect of our experiment with retreat, some historical perspective is needed here. defense spending reached its peak in 2008 when the base budget and wartime spending combined were $760 billion. incredibly the total defense
budget has plummeted by $200 billion in the last year. today, defense spending is only 16% of all the federal spending, an historic low rivaled only by the post-cold war period. to give some context during the cold war defense spending regularly accounted for 60% of federal spending, but if we don't end the experiment with retreat, this president will leave office with a mere 12% of all federal dollars spent on defense. the picture is no prettier when cast in the light of our economy. in the early cold war defense spending was approximately 9% of our gross domestic product. today it sits at a paltry 3.5%. but our defense budget isn't just about numbers and arithmetic. it's about our ability to accomplish the mission of defending our country from all threats. the consequences of these cuts are real, concrete and immediate
as former secretary of dweans leon panetta explained these cuts in defense spending have put us on the path to the smallest army since before world war ii the smallest navy since world war i and the smallest air force ever. let's look more closely at each service. our army has shrunk by nearly 100,000 troops. the army has lost 13 combat brigades and only a third of the remaining brigades are fully ready to meet america's threats. further, investments in modernization have fallen by 25%. if we continue on the current path the army will lose another 70,000 soldiers and every modernization program designed to preserve the army's technological advantage will be eviscerated. the navy meanwhile has had to cancel five ship deployments and significantly delay the deployment of the carrier strike group. the navy's mission requires it keep three carrier strike groups and amphibious groups prepared
to respond to a crisis within 30 days but the navy can only fulfill a third of its mission because of cuts to maintenance and training. similarly, the air force is less than a third of its size 25 years ago. moreover the air force depends on modernization to preserve its technological edge, perhaps more than any other service. the current funding levels could require cancellation of airborne refueling tankers and surveillance aircraft. set back fighter and nuclear weapons modernization and shorten the life of tact airlift and weapons recovery programs. nor are these impacts just immediate. they will be felt long into the future. key programs once divested will be difficult to restart. manufacturing competencies will be lost, the skilled labor pool will shrink and defense manufacturing will atrophy. today's weapons systems and equipment will age and begin to break down. our troops won't be able to train. their weapons and equipment won't be ready to fight. in short, we will have a hollow force incapable of defending our national security. what is to be done now?
our experiment with retreat must end. this congress must again recognize that our national security is the first priority of this government. our national security strategy must drive our military budget rather than the budget setting our strategy. the military budget must reflect the threats we face rather than the budget defining those threats. in the face of these threats and after years of improvident defense cuts, we must significantly increase our defense spending. after hundreds of millions of dollars of these cuts, the base defense budget next year is set to be only $498 billion. that is wholly inadequate. as secretary of defense ash carter recently testified i want to be clear about this. parts of our nation's defense strategy cannot be executed under sequestration. all four of the military service chiefs in addition have testified that these cuts put american lives at risk. the president has proposed a modest increase of $534 billion,
which is better than nothing. senators john mccain and jack reed have called for the full repeal of sequestration which would raise the base of defense budget to $577 billion. i applaud and thank these veterans of both the senate and our military for this correct and clear-eyed recommendation. yet i also want to highlight their support for the recommendation of the national defense panel which estimated that base defense spending for fiscal year 2016 should be $611 billion at a minimum. the national defense panel was a bipartisan group of imminent national security experts convened by congress to analyze the quadrennial defense review. they unanimously concluded that then-secretary of defense bob gates' fiscal year 2012 budget was the proper starting point to analyze our current defense needs for at least two reasons. first, secretary gates had already initiated significant defense cuts and reforms
totaling $478 billion. it's hard to say given those efforts, that his 2012 budget had left much fat in the department of defense. secretary, secretary gates and the department submitted this budget in late 2010 and early 2011 or just months before the budget control act with its draconian defense cuts became law. that budget, therefore was the last time the department was able to submit a threat and strategy-based budget instead of the budget-based strategies we've seen over the last four years. this logic is compelling even unassailable. thus i agree that we should spend not merely $611 billion on the base defense budget next year but substantially more than that. after all as we have seen earlier and as the national defense panel noted the world has gotten much more dangerous since 2011. islamic terrorism iranian aggression russian revisionism and chinese adventurism have all worsened to say nothing of other challenges. $611 billion is necessary but
it's not sufficient. mr. president, what then should our defense budget be next year? i will readily admit we can't be sure how much is needed above $611 billion. as the national defense panel explained, because of the highly constrained and unstable budget environment under which the department has been working the quadrennial review is not adequate as a comprehensive long-term planning document. thus the panel recommends that congress should ask the department for such a plan which should be developed without undue emphasis on current budgetary constraints. i endorse this recommendation. in the meantime, though, even if we can't specify a precise dollar amount, we can identify the critical needs upon which to spend the additional money. first, our military faces a readiness crisis from budget cuts and a decade of war. our young soldiers, sailors airmen and marines are the greatest weapon systems our country could ever have, but they need training, exercises
flight time and so forth. their weapons and equipment and vehicles need maintenance. if we faced a major crisis today, our troops would no doubt suffer more casualties and greater likelihood of mission failure. of course, they know all this and morale suffers because of it. second and related our military is shrinking rapidly to historically small levels. this decline must be reversed. our navy probably needs 350-plus ships not a budget-dictated 260 ships. the army needs to maintain its pre-9/11 end strength to 490,000 active duty soldiers, as the marine corps needs 182,000 marines. the air force needs more aircraft of virtually every type -- bomber, fighter airlift and surveillance. it's the deepest folly to reduce our military below its 1990 size as the world has grown considerably more dangerous since that quiet decade. third, we should increase research development and procurement funds to ensure our military retains its historic
technological advantage particularly as our adversaries gain more access to advanced low-cost technologies. this should start with the essential tools of command and control, cyberspace, space intelligence surveillance, reconnaissance. the air force needs to modernize its bomber and mobility aircraft in particular. the navy needs to continue to improve its surface ship and especially its submarine capabilities. these critical priorities will no doubt be expensive. probably tens of billions of dollars more than the $611 billion baseline suggested by the national defense panel. because of the massive cuts to our defense budget resulted in part from record deficits, the question arises, however can we afford all this. the answer is yes. without question and without doubt, yes. the facts here, as we have seen, are indisputable. the defense budget has been slashed by hundreds of billions of dollars over the last six years. the defense budget is only 16%
of all federal spending, an historic low and heading much lower if we don't act. and using the broadest measure of affordability and national priorities defense spending as a percentage of our economy last year we spent only 3.5% of our national income on defense which is approaching historic lows and may surpass them by 2019. let us assume for the sake of argument that our military needs $700 billion in the coming year, an immediateocracy of $200 billion. to some, that may sound staggering and unrealistic yet it would still be barely 4% of our economy a full percent lower than the 5% in which president reagan started his buildup. if we increase spending merely to that level which both president reagan and a democratic house considered dangerously low we would spend $885 billion on defense next
year. furthermore, trying to balance the budget through defense cuts is both counterproductive and impossible. first, the threats we face will eventually catch up with us. as they did on 9/11. and we will have no choice but to increase our defense budget. when we do, it will cost more to achieve the same end state of readiness and modernization that it would have without the intervening cuts. this was the lesson we learned in the 1980's after the spare cuts to defense in the 1970's. second we need a healthy growing economy to generate the government revenue necessary to fund our military and balance the budget, and our globalized world, our domestic prosperity depends heavily on the world economy, which, of course, requires stability and order. who provides that stability and order? the united states military. finally, in the short term, ee phenomenon really -- ephemeral gains in deficit reductions and
defense cuts merely masks the genuine driver of our crisis. the budget control act ultimately failed to control these programs, a failure not only of promises made to our citizens but also because the deficit reduction default became annual discretionary spending, particularly the defense budget. in the four years since relative deficits have declined. alleviating the political imperative to reform these programs yet doing nothing to solve their long-term insolvency and our debt crisis. a better question to ask is can we afford to continue our experiment in retreat? i suggest we cannot. imagine a world in which we continue our current trajectory, where america remains in retreat and our military loses even more of its edge. what would such a world look like? it's not a pretty picture. russia might soon possess the entire north shore of the black sea and embolden putin sensing western weakness for what it is, could be tempted to replay his ukrainian play book in estonia and latvia, forcing nato into
war or object sal essence. -- obsolescence. with china denying american forces access to the seas, countries as diverse as south korea, japan taiwan and the philippines will feel compelled to conciliate or confront, neither helping regional stability. while north korea already possesses nuclear weapons iran appears to be on the path to a nuclear bomb, whether it breaksor it holds a potential nuclear agreement. not only might iran use its weapon but its nuclear umbrella would also embolden its drive for regional hygemony. does anyone doubt that saudi arabia and other sunni states will follow iran down this path? nuclear trip wires may soon wring the world's most volume industrial region, increasing the possibility that islamic insurgents may seize materials if they can topple the right
government. islamic terrorists will continue to rampage throughout syria and iraq inspiring more attacks upon europe and american soil. emboldened by their own battlefield assesses, they will continue to attract thousands of hateful fighters from around the world, all eager for the chance to kill americans. all these are nightmare scenarios, but sadly not unrealistic ones. the alternative however is not war. no leader, whether a president a general or a platoon leader, wishes to put his troops in harm's way. war is an awful thing and it takes an unimaginable toll on the men and women who fight it and their families. but the best way to avoid war is to be willing and prepared to fight a war in the first place. that's the alternative. military strength and moral confidence in the defense of america's national security.
our enemies and allies alike must know that aggressors will pay an unspeakable price for challenging the united states. the best way to impose that price is global military dominance. when it comes to war narrow margins are not enough. for they are nothing more than an invitation to war. we must have such strength that no sane adversary would ever imagine challenging the united states. good enough is not and will never be good enough. we can look to a very recent historic example to prove this point. just 25 years ago a dominant american military ended the cold war without firing a shot. if we return to the dominance of that ear rising powers like china and state sponsors of terrorism will think long and harped before crossing us. and while we may not deter terrorist groups like the islamic state and hezbollah we will kill their adherents
more effectively and sending a needed lesson to their sympathizers. join and you too will die. being prepared for war will no doubt take a lot of money biwhat could be a higher priority than a safe and prosperous america leading a stable and orderly world? what better use of precious taxpayer dollars what more lessons from history do we need? i began with churchill's prescient words from 1933. alas the weapons did not take his advice, did not rearm and prepare to deter nazi germany. the predictable result was the german remilitarization of the rhineland and the long march to war. let me close with his regretful words from 1936. the era ofshot soothing and half measures is coming to a close. in its place we are entering a
period of consequences. churchill later called world war ii the unnecessary war because it could have been stopped so easily with western strength and confidence in the 1930's. i know many of you in this chamber stand with me and i humbly urge you all democrat and republican alike to join in rebuilding our common defense so that we will not face our own unnecessary war. our own period of consequences. i will now yield the floor but i will never yield in the defense of america's national security on any front or at any time. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: we just had an opportunity to hear from our new colleague from arkansas who has laid out the national security requirements of our country quite effectively and as
someone who's served in the military himself in recent conflicts, speaks with extra authority. and so i just wanted to congratulate the junior senator from arkansas for an extraordinary initial speech and look forward to his leadership on all of these issues in the coming years. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: time is running out for us to extend the children's health insurance program. a program that began 20 years ago, almost, in this body and the other body that has -- is taking care right now of ten million children, the children of parents of mothers and fathers who in most cases have full-time jobs that don't offer insurance, and full-time jobs that don't pay enough that these children -- that these families can buy insurance for their children. we know that chip works it works for parents it works for children.
we know if we don't act now states will start rolling back their chip programs. legislatures are adjourning almost as we speak. we need to provide states certainty so they can budget for chip now and four years into the future. the deal currently being floated in the house would not fund chip for a full four years. instead if reports are true, it would permanently repeal the sustainable growth rate, the so-called doctors fix while failing certainty to children's health care. i want to take care of the doctors, make sure it is done right because it affects doctors, it affects doctors' ability to deliver care. it affects those patients whom doctors serve. but how do we leave here taking care of the doctors permanently and shortchanging children, only giving them two years of health insurance? it's time -- it's past time we fix s.g.r. in fact, in 2001 when i was a member of the house congressman
billirakis and i the democratic ranking member on the energy and commerce health subcommittee, we wrote the first s.g.r. fix in 2001 so i've been doing this a long time fixing s.g.r. but we shouldn't be focused in this body and that body when paying doctors at the cost of shortchanging our children. our priority must be passing a full four-year clean extension of the current chip program on which 130,000 children in my state depend. again, sons and daughters of working oklahoma families, working ohio families, working in jobs where they simply don't get insurance and don't get paid enough that they can buy insurance. these ten million children in our nation depend on this. a four-year extension of chip will provide congress, the administration and our states with the necessary time to
collect relevant data and information to fully analyze and prepare for the future of kids coverage. it's not just shortchanging these children and creating anxiety in their families by only doing two years. it's also truncating our ability, compromising our ability to really understand how to full lip integrate chip into a health care system overall in the future. we should be providing certainty into these families, not the cliche of kicking the can down the road. a four year extension provides that certainty and will make a difference into the next decade in how in fact we take care of low-income children. in ohio, chip provides insurance to 130,000 children. enrollment is expected to grow over the next couple of years. i've traveled across ohio just in the last few weeks meeting with parents and children, doctors and nurses to discuss chip. i've been at cincinnati children's at toledo children's
hospital columbus nationwide children and cleveland's rainbow children. this morning i was in the mahoning valley, a suburb of youngstown at the youngstown campus mahoning valley campus at akron children's hospital. 6,000 children rely on chip for care. i met with eric flaherty whose children could lose coverage if we don't extend chip now. her son was diagnosed with a number of chronic conditions. heart dwrects w -- heart defects and chronic lung disease. thanks to outstanding dornghts at akron children's he's alive and growing today but he needs routine medical visits, visits his family can't afford. his parents work but they simply can't afford to treat the conditions the visits to the lung specialists the urology
and eye specialists and regular checkups every two months. without chip, eric would face significant financial hurdles in getting chase the care he needs. i met with jessica miller of lisbon a community south of the mahoning county, during this round table. her youngest son peyton was diagnosed with serious respiratory condition. he had to be life flighted to akron children to receive care. he has been diagnosed with type 1 general diabetes. she told me, his mother jessica told me, and his grandmother joined us. she's so thankful for chip so she got peyton the care he needs that she p and her husband justin would have a hard time affording otherwise. justin is working as a paramedic. he was called out and couldn't be at our meeting today. justin is full time in nursing school. they are making something of their lives. i don't want them to be anxious about the health care of their children. throughout ohio i hear the same
thing, providing health insurance to children like chase and peyton isn't just the right thing to do. it's the smart thing to do. it means children do better in school. they feel better when they're in school. they miss fewer days of school because they get preventive care because their insurance their health care needs are taken care of. we also know statistics show when you follow these children that are part of chip -- remember it's been around 18 years, almost 20 years always been bipartisan. if you follow these children later in life, you see that they have higher rates of going to college, higher earnings than non-chip kids who don't have insurance. by all kinds of very quantifiable measurements, chip is not just good for those families, not just the right thing to do to continue to fund chip over four years; it's l -- also the smart thing to do with our country. together with my colleagues, more than 40 of us i introduced the protecting and retaining our
children's health insurance program, pro-chip, which is a clean four year extension of prohealth care plan chip. it would protect the pediatric quality measures program provide funding to sustain this through 2019. it would extend the performance incentive program which provides bonus payments to states that help increase medicaid enrollment among children. because if you give them, if you provide insurance for these children for low-income children they're going to do better. society is going to do better. they're less likely to end up in the emergency room for something much more serious. for instance, a child without insurance who has an earache and the mother and father think you know, it's going to cost a lot of money. you can go to the doctor, maybe this will get better. they wait a week. into the second week the pain is worse. the child can't sleep. the child cries. they eventually go to the emergency room, costing a lot more money than going to the doctor's office with the potential, the possibility that
that child has had hearing loss. that's just one example of why you want to provide insurance and get them into the doctor early rather than waiting late. pro-chip has been endorsed by every children's hospital in ohio almost every -- the association of children's hospitals, virtually every children's hospital in the country, i believe. other national groups: march of dimes, american academy of pediatrics children hospitals association, families u.s.a. all of them want a clean chip, a four-year extension for the reasons we talked about. 1,500 organizations across the country, 75 from ohio, a number of from oklahoma, the presiding officer's state have written to congress asking us -- quote -- "to take action as soon as possible to provide a four-year funding extension for chip." groups including the urban institute, medicaid and chip payment and access commission, the bipartisan policy center have all noted the importance of the current chip program. the urban institute estimated an
additional 1.1 million children would become uninsured if separate chip coverage were eliminated. these are sons and daughters of families who have jobs, parents who have jobs, jobs that don't provide insurance and jobs that don't pay enough that they can afford insurance. this will be a 40% increase if this would happen in the number of uninsured children in the united states relative to the number projected under the a.c.a. with the continuation of chip. the bipartisan policy center has called for extending chip for more than just the two years. but know what they say when calling for chip extension. quote, "two years does not provide sufficient time for state and federal elected officials and agencies to address the major program change sought by policy-makers on both sides of the aisle." that is the bipartisan policy center. support for chip has been bipartisan. senator hatch republican from utah; senator kennedy democrat from massachusetts, a number of
us back in 1997, republicans and democrats alike chairman bilirakis and i helped to write this legislation which has been successful in bringing the uninsured rate for children, bringing it down by more than 50%. support -- i'm encouraging members of both parties have shown a willingness to come together. senate democrats mr. president will have a hard time supporting any plan that doesn't extend chip for a full four years. i want to support the sustainable growth rate. i helped write the original one. we shouldn't be doing it like this on a temporary one- or two-year basis. this is finally going to get done right but you don't do that and then leave out the children by only providing two years. parents like eric and jessica face enough uncertainty with their children's health. many of us in this body are most of us in this body are parents. a number of us are grandparents. most of us, because we dress like this and we're united states senators and have good
insurance provided by taxpayers most of us don't have angst. we may have anxiety about our children and grandchildren's health but we don't have anxiety about their insurance and their ability to go to hospitals and go to doctors and go to specialists to get care. certainly we're anxious about our children and all the things that can happen. but our anxiety doesn't stretch or reach in to the whole whole sphere of worrying about how do you provide insurance for children. erica and jessica they can't be anything but anxious when they hear that chip could end and they understand it should be four years. chips gives parents like them peace of mind that they'll be able to get their children the care they need without bankrupting those families. we need to make sure these parents continue to have that peace of mind. a four-year extension the legislation, the pro-chip legislation we've introduced in the senate with almost four dozen cosponsors, we have to make sure those kids don't lose critical coverage by saying no
the islamic state in iraq and syria. he also addressed he also addressed the agency strategy to strengthen intelligence gathering capabilities and enhance global security. charlie rose moderated the discussion. it is just over an hour. [applause] >> thank you very much, good afternoon, everyone. i also want to thank the council on foreign relations and especially richard for inviting me to be here today over the past many months ca
has been in the news for a variety of reasons, most of them unrelated to the many challenges and opportunities that lie ahead of us. i would like to begin with a a snapshot of some of the international developments and trends that zero greatest concern to the cia and talk to you about how we're tackling these challenges. i thought i would take some time today to focus in particular on the importance of our work with foreign partners and enhancing global security. these relationships are founded on discretion, so we don't talk about the much but they play an essential role provide insightful analysis and conduct effective covert action as directed by the president. last month the extremists can download director. made his way across town and shot and killed a security guard at a synagogue. later this day i sil released a video showing the horrific execution of christians questions on a beach in libya. ..
these attacks underscore a disturbing trend that we have been monitoring for some time. the emergence of a terrorist threat that's increasingly decentralized, difficult to track and even more difficult to thwart. while it's true the united states and its allies have had considerable success degrading the capabilities of core al qaeda various al qaeda affiliates and other terrorist
organizations have surged in other countries. countries such as libya, egypt somalia, nigeria and especially yemen where al qaeda and the arabian peninsula has demonstrated a capability to plot attacks including in our homeland. no region has gained more of the world's attention that syria and iraq where isil is waging a campaign of unspeakable brutality against the local population and indeed against anyone who does not share its ideology. isil is well-armed and well financed. its fighters are disciplined and committed and battle-hardened. left unchecked the group would pose a serious danger not only to syria and iraq but to the wider region and beyond including the threat of attacks on the homeland of the united states and the homelands of -- this will be a long-term struggle. i so will not roll back overnight. if there's one thing we have learned over the years it is that success against terrorism requires patience and determination.
clearly our country will be dealing with terrorism in one form or another or many years to come. what makes terrorism so difficult to fight is not just ideology that fuels it for the taxi -- tactics that enable it but the power of communication plays a role. new technologies can help groups like isil coordinate operations attract new recruits disseminate propaganda and inspire sympathizers across the globe to act in their name. the overall threat of terrorism is greatly amplified by today's interconnected world where an incident in one corner of the globe can instantly sparked a reaction thousands of miles away and where lone extremists can go on line and learn how to carry out an attack without ever leaving home. indeed for all its advantages the information age brings with it and afraid of new challenges that have profound implications for cia's mission implications that go far beyond counterterrorism. most obvious example of course
is the tremendous growth of activities in the digital domain which is full of tremendous opportunity for good but also serious challenges and vulnerabilities that can be exploited to harm our national security. threats and the cyberrealm our national security priority. as america has no equivalent to the two white oceans of help safeguard our country's physical maritime and aviation domains for centuries. everyday state actors criminals terrorist organizations and hackers of all stripes try to penetrate our nation's digital networks. government institutions are under constant assault and private companies are spending enormous sums of money to defend against hacking attempts denial-of-service attacks and public efforts to disrupt their networks. the attack on sony late last year was a reminder of just how serious the threat is and how. we can take place. the cia is working with our partners across the federal government to strengthen cyberdefenses to share expertise
and to collaborate with the private sector to mitigate these threats. together we have advanced our understanding of the threats in the cyber realm. just as we have improved our knowledge as well as our capabilities so to have our adversaries. they are skilled, agile and determined and matching them will require focus on imagination not just from government but from private industry as well. in addition to counterterrorism and cybersecurity developments and a host of countries across the globe are raising strategic and tactical challenges for policymakers and for our agency. countries like iraq, syria, yemen, libya, afghanistan, pakistan somalia and nigeria venezuela and north korea are in addition to monitoring developments in these hotspots are analysts track overall trends in local stability. their findings for 2014 confirmed the sense we all get from monitoring daily events that the current international environment is extraordinarily
complex. developments last year continued a three-year trend of rising instability wrought by secure conflict in the russian of state capacity worldwide. we saw more outbreaks of instability than any point since the soviet union matching the rate we saw during the. maccabee colonization in the 1960s. the implications of this trend are well-known to this audience. rising instability leads to ungoverned spaces. a spike in humanitarian crises surgeon refugees weapons and fighters across borders and an emphasis on security over democratic principles principles among conflict weary public. a cia tackle the challenges we benefit greatly from the network of relationships we maintain with intelligence services throughout the world. this is a critically important and lesser-known aspect of our efforts. i cannot overstate the value of these relationships to cia's mission and our national security.
indeed the collective security of america and its allies. by sharing intelligence analysis and know-how with these partner services we open windows on agents and issues that might otherwise be close to us and when necessary we set in concert to mitigate a common threat. by collaborating with their partners wear much better able to kaliski intelligence gaps on our toughest targets as well as fulfill cia's mission to provide global coverage prevents surprises for our nations leaders. there is no way we could be successful in carrying out our mission of such scope and complexity on our own. naturally these are sensitive relationships built on mutual trust and confidentiality. unauthorized disclosures in recent years by individuals who portrayed arc -- betrayed her country have provided difficulty with these services we have had to overcome. as a testament to the strength and effectiveness of these relationships that our partners remain eager to work with us with the stakes so high for our
people safety these alliances are simply too crucial to be allowed to fail. from largest services of global reach to those of smaller nations focused on local and regional issues cia has developed a range of working and productive relationships with our counterparts overseas. no issue highlights the importance of our international partnerships more right now than the challenge of foreign fighters entering and leaving the conflict in syria and iraq. we roughly estimate that at least 20,000 fighters from more than 90 countries have gone to fight. several thousand of them from western nations including the united states. the dangers these fighters pose upon their return is a top priority for the united states intelligence community as well as our partners. the exchange of information with our counterparts around the world to identify and track down men and women believed to be violent extremists. and because we have the wherewithal to maintain ties of
so many national services we act as a central repository of data and trends to advance the overall effort. on this and innumerable other challenges our cooperation with foreign liaisons quietly achieved significant results. working together we have disrupted terrorist attacks and rollback groups intercepted transfers of dangerous weapons and technology, brought international criminals to justice and shared vital intelligence and expertise on everything from the uses of chemical armaments in syria to the downing of the malaysian airliner over ukraine. these relationships are an essential adjunct to diplomacy and by working with some of these services and building their capabilities we have helped them become better prepared to tackle the challenges that threaten us all. cia's role in enhancing the capacity of our foreign partners as part of the team effort across our government. just as the defense department
helps train foreign militaries and the justice department assist in developing the criminal justice systems the cia works with many of our partner services to build their skills their tradecraft in their technology. to be sure if we are to work with a broad range of services around the globe we must also focus on enhancing professionalism and commitment to the ethics of intelligence. we advocate core principles and practices that are indispensable to any intelligence agency by maintaining strict independence and objectivity and appearing to international norms. with cia supported zinc counterparts development is sophisticated and effective partners. over time our engagement with partner services fosters a deeper more candid give-and-take a more robust exchange of information and assessments and a better understanding of the world that often ultimately encourages better alignment on policy. another advantage of building and maintaining strong bilateral and multilateral intelligence
relationships is that they can remain albeit not entirely insulated from the ups and downs of diplomatic ties. these links can provide an important conduit for dispatching dialogues during periods of tension and the u.s. perspective on contentious issues. the recognition of the importance of our relationships recently established a senior position at the cia dedicated to ensuring we are managing relationships and an integrated fashion. to developing a strategic vision and goals for key partnerships and help me carry up my statutory responsibility to coordinate the intelligence community's intelligence relationships. this position is one of the number changes on the way at cia designed to maximize our capabilities for the future. as you have read last september i asked a group of very experienced officers from across cia to take a fresh look at our organization to make recommendations on how we can ensure our agency remains highly capable of carrying out our
global mission in the years ahead. the result is a major initiative announced last week at cia. that initiative stems from two ships in the national security landscape that i open my remarks with today. the market increase in the range diverse the complexity and immediacy of the issues confronting policymakers and the unprecedented basin impact of technological development. the attention is focused on efforts to embrace and leverage the digital revolution among other things creating a new directive within our agency created in 50 years called a directed the digital innovation. this step does not signify a marked change in cia's core mission. rather it's an organizational response to the simple reality that in today's interconnected world we must place our cavities and operations in the digital domain at the very center of all of our long-standing efforts. you also have read about the
formation of mission centers. these better integrate our collection analysis technology support and digital innovation and apply them more efficiently and effectively across the cia against the nations most pressing and security issues. finally we are pushing ahead on two other strategic goals. doing a better job of attracting and developing highly talented workforce and modernizing the way we do business. we seek to build a culture in which our people are first to regardless of whether they have practiced collection technologies digital innovation or support. we want a business model that improves our capacity to make the sound strategic decisions needed to build a better agency and run it efficiently even as we respond to urgent external requirements. we are determined to push decision-making to the hierarchy which is one reason we created a mission center that had to which will hold responsibility for taking initiative and further
enhancing the agency's success. before we began our conversation today i would like to want to like to once again thank the council for inviting me here to speak at such a timely period of our nation's national security and i look forward to your questions. thank you. [applause] >> thank you john. we look forward to this. let me begin by one thing i noticed in your remarks. you emphasize the relationship with other intelligence agencies around the world. is that in any way of fallout from the stoughton -- snowdon exposures are the sense that you want to insure us and the rest of the world that whatever damage has been repaired and our relationship is good and cooperative and functioning? >> two points there. one is i think it reflects
mostly just how complex this world is and how we at cia have to rely not only on our u.s. colleges community partners and be u.s. government but we have to rely on partners overseas because the world as capable as cia is we have to make sure we are able to work with those security services to have a lot of eyes and ears on the ground to stop terrorists and proliferators or others. that is a critically important component of this new world which is its interconnected is one that we have to be able to rely on partners and also it reflects despite the damage caused by the disclosures i have found over the past two years since i've been at cia i have still a steady stream of foreign partners to emphasize how much they want to be able to continue and build upon the relationship with cia. they see it as critical.
they know that we bring to bear the insights, the intelligence the technologies as well as the approaches that they need to be able to address the many challenges they face. i do see the world being more interconnected for a variety of reasons on the technical front but also in terms of intelligence and law enforcement. >> i want to turn to the threat assessment and cia reforms that came out last week. when you look at the threat of terrorism today what is it that scares you the most about it? to mention the fact that there is a real effort to try to monitor the people who are going through syria and to have passports back to europe, back to the united states. >> i have worked with terrorism for good part of my career and i think we see an evolution of the terrorist phenomenon. that is what i would call it. dealing with al qaeda over the years one of these organizations
organizations, they try to migrate their philosophies against others but they were almost contained organizations. we have been able to make a lot of progress. isil demonstrates the worst developments because it has basically been a phenomenon that has snowballed in terms of its residents and appeal so they were able to make great strides within iraq and syria. their roots are in iraq and they establish what they referred to as the islamic caliphate and unfortunately they have had a fair amount of excess using the technologies available, the internet and youtube and other things to present the narrative in ways that romanticized it. a lot of it is inconsistent with the realities of iraq and syria but this phenomenon now is generated a lot of appeal.
so we see boko haram inside of nigeria pledging allegiance to isil in these different franchises whether it be in libya for south asia or other areas, in egypt. they are trying to get on the bandwagon of this drama so this is a worrisome global movement that really requires us to work with this broad over a the partner services throughout the world. >> is what is happening in tikrit the beginning of rolling back isil in iraq? >> while i think there have been a number of things that have helped to contain the rapid spread and growth of isil both in iraq and syria. i think the iraqi security forces and others were able to bolster their defenses. >> how close were they? >> they were within you know a couple of dozen miles. they had sent out some of the forces to see if they could
soften up some of the iraqi forces. thankfully the iraqi's were able to coalesce and bring to bear the capabilities they need it. now the question is against trying to dislodge isil from some of the areas of iraq that they have been able to take over over. tikrit is a good example so we see a combination of forces right now. some shiite militant groups as well as the extreme forces including a sunni tribal that are brought to bear the resources to push isil out of the good part of tikrit. i think that is still going to be a rather intense battle across urban areas. but also isil has taken it on the chin and other areas. we look at kobani and alawi where for a couple of months isil was pummeling the area trying to gain the victory along the syrian turkish border. so they are not invisible. they can be stopped. >> could this be accomplished without the support of the
iranians as well as the shiite military? >> is a hypothetical and that militants are brought to bear a number of capabilities and are working closely with the coalitions, the shia militias they are. a large enough force to build to push back against isil's and roads that the of strikes that have taken place over a thousand strikes have softened up a lot of the isil forces and disrupted their logistics networks. although this is an iranian threat shia militia effort there has been tremendous efforts made by the coalition in terms of success. >> the iraqi army are they fighting back? >> the iraqi forces that melted away in a lot of areas where isl came down. i think they have been able to regroup and so there is trading going on right now the number of
iraqi forces that have been able to augment resisting iraqi forces that are out there. the coalition is engaged in trying to strengthen those forces with training and advice so this is going to take time. we can expect great things to really turn around immediately here. i think this is going to be a long tough fight. isil has a lot of matériel. they have sent a lot of the iraqi stockpiles. they have shown that they are willing to kill themselves in defense of some areas so this has been a long and bloody fight. >> there's the combination of the iraqi forces and shia militia and whatever help they are getting, set enough on the ground pushing into mosul with american support or coalition air support? >> i think there's going to be a deliberate effort on the part of the iraqis along with their partners whether it be with coalition partners or iranian shia partners to move into those
areas that isil has overrun. so i think what needs to be done is a very careful strategic approach so that they don't go into battle unprepared and unready in order to rebel. i think it's important both from a military battle. battlefield perspective as well as a psychological and symbolic that we need to have those victories and successes against isil. they're they're not on principle but you need to bring to bear -- [inaudible] >> you can never eliminate or eradicate them were serious lead diminish their power must we do something about isil and syria. >> there is a combined effort. we are working with the government right now in baghdad trying to have to make sure they do the right thing not just on the battlefield but also in terms of reform so they can get most of the sunni community
involved in this fight against isil. in syria though we have a government that is problematic in one of the reasons there has been this great attraction to the region are these foreign fighters. it's the administration that assad is not part of serious future as we see it. >> what do we need now for assad to be in power temporarily to negotiate a settlement and opposition to isil as well. >> there's the crisis and syria which it is both from a humanitarian standpoint and a countrywide standpoint is not going to be resolved on the battlefield. we need to be able to continue to support those elements within syria that are dedicated to moving assad out but there has to be some type of political pathway. >> do you think russia needs to be part of that? >> russia is looking at the problems that have been created by the situation in syria. there are a lot of russian --
that have traveled from chechnya and other areas and are concerned about this flow of foreign fighters to to theater as well as back i think they realize assad is problematic. none of us, russia come united states coalition wants to see a collapse of the government and political institutions in damascus. what we want is for there to be a future demascus that is going to bring into power they represented government that's going to address grievances that exist throughout the country. it's a multi-conditional country that really deserves a government that's going to try to represent the people of iraq. >> you feel a collapse of the assad government might replace that? >> i think that's a legitimate concern from the standpoint of what we don't want to do is allow those extremist elements that in some parts of syria are incented. we have isil and the al qaeda elements in syria and the last
thing we want to do is allow them to wander into damascus. that's why it's important to bolster those forces within the syrian opposition that are not extremists. >> do you worry about iran and iraq in terms of what happens if in fact the iranians would like to have a stronger presence in iraq lacks. >> well the iranians have a clear interest because they share a border with iraq. they share a history with iraq as well. there are the shia coreligionists from iran so we recognize iran has an legitimate interests. what we need to do is make sure there's not going to be that kind of a iranian situation inside of iraq that is not going to allow the iraqi people to live in a country that has morbid sense of instability that may have right now. >> and coordinate on the ground are using iraqi -- >> would the iranians?
there is an alignment clearly in terms of what isil is done so we work closely with the iraqi government. the iranians were closer with the iraqi government as well so some of these efforts through the iraqi interlocutors are ones that are trying to advance our common objectives with the isil. >> speaking of iranians and negotiations taking place what is it for you consensual requirement in terms of an agreement of the kind of inspection or notice you would need and those kinds of issues? >> clearly there are aspects of iran's nuclear program that need to be addressed that will give lee the united states as well as countries in the region and international partners convert that they are not on the march to a nuclear weapons capability. that involves enrichment
capability and what the limits would be in terms of what type of enrichment they would be able to obtain, also cutting off pathways to a nuclear weapon trying to make sure you're going to have the opportunity to inspect facilities so that there is not going to be this breakout and these are the arrangements. it's a multidimensional package that the negotiations are looking at right now. i must say my experience in government looking out over the last six years or so as this march towards these negotiations are addressed there has been a very intense deliberate careful effort to try to understand all of the different dimensions of the iranian program as well as to address all of the areas of considerations and concern. this is not something that's being done in a haphazard way and i must say looking at what the united states government is doing with our partners and how
this has proceeded i think this has been the most deliberate experience i have seen this first negotiations to come out with the result that will help the prospects of peace in the region. >> have come up an agreement they are working on now. >> uncomfortable the parties of negotiation on the u.s. side are going to have minimum requirements that we are not going to -- that we have to have that confidence with the arrangements again not just with what iran has agreed to but allowing us over the course of the agreement to have confidence that the terms of the agreement are being upheld. >> what is your sense of what putin is up to and did he get involved in over his head as someone suggested and is he back looking for a way out or do you believe that this is part of a larger idea of expanding russian
influence? >> i think russia and putin clearly have strategic ambitions as far as the area along the western border of russia as far as russian influence in countries there and concerned about checking what they perceived as the western and nato influence in the area. so i think putin has gotten himself to appoint where there is i think international consensus about not allowing russia to continue to march in this direction. thankfully over the last several weeks we have had a reduction in the amount of violence there but i would look to mr. putin to say how is he actually going to get himself out of this predicament where the russian economy is facing serious challenges.
and how the international community and western nations are united. >> can they find a way out of? >> i think it's always in our interest to find a diplomatic and peaceful way out of these problems. i think it's incumbent certainly on the united states as the leader of the western free world to help to shape this but the countries in that area but have very serious concerns about other types of russian activities in that region need to have a very strong voice so we see them as partners along with germans and others taking a leading role as well. >> someone in the administration wants it to me they worry most of all over the possibility of some russian making a mistake and a loose nuke idea. is that something that causes you to lose sleep? >> i think in any situation where you have there's almost a game of workmanship is going on
as far as the various chess moves. how's the potential for some type of escalatory cycle that was not the intention. when there is a lot of violence going on there can be some devastating attacks or developments that will provoke a reaction had a quick series of reactions to that. so we are talking about a place like ukraine or were talking about a situation between north and south korea that spark especially at spark especially the tender is dry has potential. that's why think it's important that the constant attention to these issues even though they might be similar and this is the time to try to keep those tensions at bay. >> how do you do that? >> sometimes you need to bring to bear the various tools of power. united states has a lot available to it and sometimes they are pressured as far as sanctions and other types of
activities. on these issues the united states recognizes rightly that they are not you latter -- in a letter of solutions. it's very important for us to be able to work with our partners to gain a type of international security. >> do we include in our partners china? >> absolutely. china plays a very important role on the world stage, increasingly so. obviously their economic power is critically important to a lot of countries in the world. we have regular interaction with the chinese. we are trying to make sure as we engage with the chinese on east asian issues were also cognizant of the fact that the chinese are playing more for world across the world. the chinese recognize there are geostrategic go political operations. >> what are their ambitions? >> i think they see china's size capability and power gives it a
place on the world stage that is different than it was 10 or 15 years ago. that is why they're looking at the superpower relationships and trying to defined them in a way that are going to advantage chinese interests. xi jinping is pursuing a very careful strategic approach as far as how to expand china's templates. >> and consolidate power. >> yes and keeping the chinese economic engine going. it has decreased a bit because of the world developments but also he needs to be able to fuel his domestic engine of growth as well. >> in your form you talk about security and in your talk you talked about sovereign security and we think about china in terms of cyber espionage and to suggest that the government acted upon corporations. what is the cybersecurity -- >> if you look at nationstates across the world engagement in
that digital domain there so much information and activity going on out there. some countries believe that any activity in the digital domain is okay. i think this is where the norms and standards in the digital environment are clearly important. there've been a number of discussions that we have had with the chinese and others about appropriate activity in that realm but it's not just a question of some of these large nationstates and our adversaries in certain areas. there's a lot of capability developing particular the private sector companies around the world so any country can tap into the ability to coexist in these companies and elected for the purpose of national security political commercial. >> how do you measure the tension between china and asia asia --. >> is one issue out there which is north korea that is the
problem for the country's region. china, south korea japan and other states with the unknown actions of kim jong un as far as where he is going to go next. i think this is worrisome. there are issues that certainly divide the south koreans and the chinese and the japanese. what we would like to build the see is a greater dialogue. >> we are committed to south korea and japan. >> it underscores how important our relationships are. >> talk about the reform and the levels of reform that you initiated. when you went to the cia i understood you are saying we would like to see the cia to less paramilitary kinds of things. was that true and do you still believe that? >> the cia through the course of its history has played an
important role in several areas in one area has been -- most every president in 68 years has utilized the cia's authorities. a lot of times it requires paramilitary capability. i believe the cia needs to retain the paramilitary capability so should the chief executive or the president decide that we need to be able to apply it in order to protect it the cia needs to be prepared to do that. my concern is the cia has a lot of responsibilities worldwide. i want to make sure we are able to address those responsibilities capably across-the-board and not spring to wildly one way or the other. when i look back over the past 15 years a situation in iraq and afghanistan and counterterrorism efforts we have had to utilize a number of those paramilitary skills and capabilities working with our partners in order to address these threats and thankfully the cia had that
capability experience. it's not as though i'm trying to diminish it. what i'm trying to do is make sure in this is probably the innovation behind these reforms is to fulfill our responsibilities across all of those areas we have locally -- globally. >> the cia and its analytical function and how you see the challenge over the next 15 years and how you have to change and adjust to them? >> the world is becoming more and more challenging. nationstates are under increasing challenging threats. more and more individuals in different quarters of the world who identify with subnational groups and organizations. just the authority of nationstates and governments is being looked at in a different way than it was 20 years ago. this is one of the things we have to be able to understand and anticipate and work with foreign governments. if you're going to have basically a nation-state structure that we have had for
centuries on the analysis we have to not only help to reform policymakers about those trends and developments worldwide but analysis for cia has taken on more decisions. at that time cia's analytical work was exclusively limited to the finished all source products we have given. now i analysis drive so much whether we are talking about collection whether we are talking about different types of operational activities that analytic insight taking advantage of the intelligence we get through various means as well as taking advantage of the increasingly rich open source environment so we are better able to inform our activities as well as policymakers. analysis is becoming more and more of a driver of cia's mission. >> okay, questions? yes.
>> george shah american international policy. given the fact that terrorists are considered by many to be a -- factor how would you distinguish the terrorist actions from criminal actions? >> quite frankly i think frequently and most often they fall into both categories because of someone is countering an act of violence and terrorism is carried out by subnational actor or nation-state for political purposes and directing violence against noncombatants that constitutes terrorism according to most classical technicians but if you are carrying out that act of violence in most countries of the world that would be a criminal activity. sometimes people make this false dichotomy between a criminal act and a terrorist act.
what we need to do is to uncover whatever types of terrorist activities are going on because of the need to protect our people but also for the upholding rule of law. this is one of the things we worked closely with our partners that even if the terrorist is not planning attacking their country their use of the country whether or not it's a financial institution or their borders were safe havens this is something that should be in fact illegal and uncovered uprooted and criminalized. >> back here. i will try to get to as many people as possible. >> thank you. could you talk about the ideological -- that fuels organizations and continues to be reluctant to identify extremism and do you think that's a good idea?
>> quite frankly i'm amazed the debate that goes on that unless you call it by what it is you don't know and let's make it very clear that the people who carry out acts of terrorism whether it be al qaeda or the islamic state are doing it because they believe it is consistent with what their view of islam is. it is totally inconsistent with the overwhelming majority of muslims throughout the world so describing it as islamic extremism it really does give them a type of islamic legitimacy they are so desperately seeking that which they don't deserve at all. they are terrorists, they are criminals. many of them are psychopathic thugs, murderers who use a religious concept and masquerade and mass themselves in that religious construct. i do think it does him justice to the tenants of religion when
we attach a religious monitor to them. the muslims i know and the people i work with throughout most of my career find just disgraceful that these individuals present themselves as muslims. i think we have to be very careful also in the characterization because the words that we use can have resonance. there are things that we talk about publicly. this is as islamic extremists. a lot of these individual or proud to be referred to islamic extremists. we don't want to give them religious legitimacy because what they do has no basis in any religion. >> hi. i wonder if you can clarify establishing isil. weaker in some cases they are on the rise and we also hear
divisions between isil and foreign fighters. can you give us a better assessment? >> i might say all of the above. i do believe you still have a significant number of individuals who are traveling to iraq and syria trying to join forces with isil as well as attaching themselves to different franchises around the world. at the same time though i think the great image of isil in terms of its being able to prevail and be successful inside of iraq and syria is being pierced. we see attended to a control of territory and a responsibility to run is not the strong suit.
hopefully its ultimate demise that is consistent with some of the experiences of other groups. how would you measure success? >> first of all success is preventing their further encroachment into iraq as well as trying to work with our partner services to identify those elements that are popping up in other places. those are some milestones and i think success is going to take time. it's going to take years in order to further diminish and discredit not just their capabilities but also their appeal. wayne to expose just how murderous and psychopathic these individuals are. i promise we will get to the back as well.
[inaudible] >> first of all the world wide web, the internet is a very large enterprise in trying to stop things from coming out there are political issues in their legal issues as well as humanistic concerns but even given that consideration doing it technically and preventing-somethings from surfacing is quite challenging. we see a number of these organizations have been able to post what they are doing on twitter and the ability to stop things -- some things from getting out is quite challenging. as far as medication of various companies there has been
unfortunately a very long multiyear effort in congress to pass legislation that addresses these issues. there has been passage in the senate. i think it's overdue. we need to update our legal structure as well as our policy structure. >> concerning the iranian nuclear situation and the enrichment centrifuges that are active it would take extraordinary missions to destroy? >> i'm not going to get into the specific details about the iranian nuclear program but negotiations are what are the processes and procedures that
will give us the confidence that there's not going to be this type of capability that is going to be outside of any type of discussion regime. i think we need that and it's critically important. >> we worry the most about a covert site. >> i think we would always worry about something that we don't know about. >> how significant is the use by terrorist groups at the international offshore bank system which is also used by international criminals and all kinds of bad guys. is this now the time to focus on transparency to the system by saying non-transparent systems or banks or other institutions
cannot have access to the american financial system. >> there are a variety of reasons why we need greater transparency in the financial activities that go on. terrorism being one of them. particularly enterprising and creative in terms of how they take advantage of the opportunities that are out there. i must say the u.s. department of treasury as well as other institutions of the u.s. government have been very successful working with international partners to cover and uproot this. it's for organized crime cartels and others. absolutely we need to do more. behind you and then you. >> the repercussions of the reform program has suggested that the analytical operations
at the cia. [inaudible] i'm curious as to how you are going to do that. >> we have integrated a lot of the operations over the course of the past 20 years more and more so. we have a counterterrorism force because they bring to bear analytics. we do it overseas a lot. we have individuals analysts and operators and others working on these issues. it's tremendously effective as far as being able to make sure we have the experts who can work with operators and others. i believe it's important for us to migrate that model into other areas. we don't just labor crisis to develop. i think we have the ability to bring that expertise and capability in a way that preserves the independence of activity and integrity of
analysis. the cia really is the central point within the u.s. intelligence community. it's been my experience and i headed up the analytic effort 20 years ago that you can maintain objectivity as well as empower the other elements of the cia's mission to bring to bear the capability. >> i promise to get to the back so someone in the aisle there. whoever can get the closest to it might. >> you can suspend a considerable amount of your life talking about the -- relationship. are we in any way and directly able to -- [inaudible] >> i am not engaging with
suleimani so no i am not. i am engaged with a lot of different partners. some close to allied countries as well as others i would be considered adversaries. i'm engaged with the russians on issues. we did a great job working with the russians on sochi. we are also looking at the threat that isil poses to the united states as well as russia. i try to take advantage of all the different countries that are out there because there's strong alignment on some issues on proliferation and terrorism and others. >> yes sir, here. >> how disruptive are the intelligence capabilities in iraq? >> i think you are referring to the u.s. military forces drawdown in 2012.
a lot of times people think when the military leaves intelligence leads as well. a lot of times that is when the intelligence mission has to kick in to higher gear because we have to offset some of those losses. we rely heavily including afghanistan on a military footprint that allows us within a security structure. it's challenging but the cia doesn't design all of our presence overseas. we have to take advantage of whatever opportunity we have. >> can you speak about the importance of capturing a terrorist? where are we keeping them. [inaudible] >> i think it's critically important that terrorists be captured and a lot of times they
are captured or arrested here in the united states. what we need to be able to do is to work with our partners again to identify individuals and to have been captured. there are places throughout the world where cia has worked with other intelligence services to be able to bring people into custody and engage in the debriefings of these individuals individuals. sometimes their joint briefings that take place as well. although there are not a lot of public pieces on "fox news" about different parts of the world there are a lot of examples where we are getting some very good insight into what terrorist organizations are planning on bombing. a lot of times we rely on our specific partner services in order to have the understanding of other countries. >> right here in the back there.
you are all raising your hands. >> two days ago there were video images of forces carrying out beheadings. human rights watch has documented militias carrying out isis atrocities executions and so forth. isis atrocities in beheadings in places like saudi arabia. how do you think iraqi sunni civilians should be distinguished distinguish between the good guys and the bad guys in this circumstance? >> it's tough sorting out the good guys and the bad guys in this area. the human rights were that they take place on the part of isil or militias are individuals who are working as part of global
security services need to be stopped. in an area like iraq and syria there have been some horrific horrific human rights abuses. this is something i think we need to be able to address. where we see if we do bring it to the attention of the parties. we will not work with those engaged in such activities. >> somebody right here. in the back. >> when you do the daily intelligence briefing at the white house had he do -- pvd is doing very well. the president's daily briefing has been up place for many. i was the daily briefer during the clinton administration had the honor to bring to the present the intelligence.
>> he is the one that will go to the oval office and present the daily brief as well as additional information. the cia basically provides most of the input into that. we have responsibilities that continue and it is a very very impactful. >> what's the difference in briefing bill clinton and barack obama? to ask the better question is? >> oh boy. they are two of the most impressive individuals that i have had the opportunity to engage with. of course they have tremendous ability to absorb information and digested and correlated. president clinton would be able
to bring something up that i had forgotten the same thing with president obama. they both have rapacious appetites for information. >> president obama specifically have you seen an evolution in how he views national security? has there have been an evolution in how he assesses the threat to the united states the tools that he wants to use and his willingness to use the deployment of force? >> while i certainly think there has been a national evolution. any president who comes into office doesn't have a good appreciation of what they are going to encounter during their term in over the past six years the president has a pink faced more of these strategic and significant security challenges and a lot of his predecessors. so i think he is gone to school. he understands the complexities and he they also understand the interdependence of these issues that are important imperative in working with our partners.
the united states doesn't have the ability to shape the course of world events. it has to be working with a lot of our partners so i think the president looking at whether ukraine or north korea or cyber issues i think he recognizes just how complex the world is and what he has told me in the cia is we need to continue to involve ourselves so we are better prepared to deal with the challenges ahead of us and not to be dealing with the challenges of the 20th century. c1 more here. [inaudible] [laughter]
>> do you really not believe that there is in the community a worldwide caliphate group that has been operating at the standpoint of the brotherhood and beyond that? it has nothing to do with terrorism. >> i think within the muslim community over the course of decades, centuries millennia plus there are elements that have a very extremist, radical and i think warped perspective about what the role of their religion is and now it has to dominate whether it be society culture politics whatever. i think the same is true in a lot of other cultures and
societies. i think those radical extremist upon expression in different times throughout our history and sometimes -- but i would be very reluctant and cautious to try to interpret that than as something that is inherent to a religion or culture of society. i think sometimes individuals develop these perspectives and views. we look at the people who are joining isil right now and they come from all different backgrounds as far as educated. some are just attracted to a ward where they can carry out violence for whatever reason. i think we have to be thinking more about whether the dynamics at play continues to grow but we have been facing this for millennia. in terms of how people use violence to pursue their objectives and unfortunately i
think religion has been one of the most common bandwagons that some of these individuals have jumped onto. it's not specific to one religion or one society or people. >> one last question that i'm going to ask. beyond weapons of mass distraction, some have argued that the cia did not see the arab spring coming and they did not see ukraine. it did not see the rise of isil. if those were mistakes, why? >> you said if those were mistakes. ..
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN2 Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on