    [Senate Hearing 114-300]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                          S. Hrg. 114-300

                               WORLDWIDE THREATS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               FEBRUARY 26, 2015

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/

                                   __________

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    20-720 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2016
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
             DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                              Washington, DC 20402-0001

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                         JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman

    JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma            JACK REED, Rhode Island
    JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama               BILL NELSON, Florida
    ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi         CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
    KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire          JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
    TOM COTTON, Arkansas                 KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
    JONI ERNST, Iowa                     JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
    THOM TILLIS, North Carolina          MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 TIM KAINE, Virginia
    MIKE LEE, Utah                       ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
    LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina       MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    TED CRUZ, Texas

                       Christian D. Brose, Staff Director

                   Elizabeth L. King, Minority Staff Director

                                      (ii)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                   __________

                               february 26, 2015

                                                                       Page

    Worldwide Threats................................................     1

    Clapper, James R., Director of National Intelligence.............     4
    Stewart, Lt. Gen. Vincent, Director of the Defense Intelligence
      Agency.........................................................    38

                                     (iii)

                               WORLDWIDE THREATS

                                  ----------

                          THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2015

                                           U.S. Senate,
                                   Committee on Armed Services,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 a.m. in room
    SD 09106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator John McCain
    (chairman) presiding.
        Committee members present: Senators McCain, Inhofe,
    Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst,
    Sullivan, Reed, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Donnelly, Hirono,
    Kaine, and King.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN McCAIN, CHAIRMAN

        Chairman McCain. Well, good morning. Good morning,
    everybody.
        We have some nominations that, when we get sufficient
    number of frightened members who couldn't brave the snow today
    to come in--and we also have a--that----
        Glad to see the Senator from Maine here, who is used to
    this kind of weather year-round.
        So, anyway, so we'll--if we get a quorum, we'll talk about
    the nominations.
        And also, I'd like to tell the members here that Senator
    Reed and I have agreed on a letter to the Budget Committee
    concerning our views as to what the Budget Committee should do
    on Defense. And, hopefully, we'll circulate that letter and get
    as many signatures as possible. Both Senator Reed and I have
    reached agreement on that letter, and I'd like you to look at
    it, and as many as possible can sign it.
        The committee meets today to receive testimony on the
    nature and scope of the global threats faced by the United
    States and our allies.
        I want to welcome James Clapper, Director of National
    Intelligence, and General Vincent Stewart, the newly confirmed
    Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Thank you for
    being with us today.
        The committee recently conducted several hearings with some
    of our most respected national security leaders to explore the
    need for strategic thinking to address the threats we face. In
    the course of those hearings, these military and foreign policy
    leaders all agreed that the current international environment
    is more complex and dangerous than at any time in recent
    memory.
        On the terrorism front, ISIL continues to dominate much of
    Syria and Iraq while spreading its dark and vicious ideology in
    its effort to become the dominant Islamic extremist group in
    the world. At the same time, the risk of attacks by foreign
    fighters returning from the battlefield, or lone-wolf threats
    inspired by ISIL's successes, only increases the danger to the
    West. And Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Africa, al Qaeda and
    its affiliated groups continue to take advantage of ungoverned
    spaces to plan attacks against the United States and Western
    interests.
        Simply put, we are engaged in a generational fight for
    civilization against brutal enemies, and defeating these
    enemies require significant intelligence resources and focus,
    given the diffuse and constantly evolving nature of the threat.
        But, as we continue the fight against Islamic extremists,
    we must not lose sight of the other strategic threats we face.
    As the world ponders how to respond to Russia's invasion and
    dismemberment of Eastern Ukraine, Russia's provocations are
    only more worrisome in light of Vladimir Putin's intense focus
    on building up and modernizing Russia's military forces and
    doctrine and the geopolitical ambitions that these new Russian
    capabilities are designed to further.
        In Asia, stability and security of a vital and economically
    significant region is threatened by North Korea's continued
    aggression, buildup of its nuclear arsenal, and development of
    long-range ballistic missiles. The far greater challenge is
    China's dramatic growth and modernization of its own military
    capabilities, which appear designed to restrict the United
    States military's ability to operate in the western Pacific.
        That chart over there is very interesting, in that it shows
    the expansion by China in areas of the South China Sea. And I
    hope our witnesses might comment on the fact that, apparently,
    they are filling in enough of that area to perhaps employ
    weaponry such as anti-air and other capabilities.
        Anyway, Iran continues to exert malign influence throughout
    the Middle East and Africa, using proxies in Lebanon, Syria,
    Iraq, Sudan, Yemen, Gaza, and Bahrain, to undermine United
    States strategic interests. In fact, the Iranian influence and
    presence in Iraq have become one of the key factors and, it
    seems, limitations in United States policy planning in Iraq and
    Syria. We must also remain focused on the myriad potential
    threats of the future and, thus, maintain technological
    superiority against potential adversaries. Today this is of
    most concern in the cyber and space domains, where we see
    increasingly capable and aggressive activities by nation-state
    adversaries in areas with few established norms.
        I'd appreciate our witnesses' thoughts on each of these
    major issues. As policymakers, we look to the intelligence
    committee--community to provide timely and accurate information
    about the nature of the threats we face, the intentions of our
    adversaries, and the likely effect of certain actions we could
    take. In an age of increasing threats and flat defense budgets,
    the need for accurate intelligence about the plans and
    intentions of global actors becomes even more paramount.
        Again, I want to thank Director Clapper and General Stewart
    for testifying today. I look forward to your assessments of the
    nature and scope of the myriad threats we face, how the
    intelligence community prioritizes and approaches these many
    threats, and which of these many issues concern you the most.
        Senator Reed.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED

        Senator Reed. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me join you in welcoming our witnesses. As they know
    very, very well, we currently face an alarming number of
    complex and varied national security challenges from many
    corners of the globe. And our witnesses' views on, and
    assessments of, these challenges are critical to the work of
    this committee.
        Last week, I traveled to Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq,
    and had the opportunity to meet not only with the leaders in
    those countries, but also with the United States civilians and
    uniformed personnel who are so ably and courageously serving
    the United States.
        In Iraq, our military commanders stressed that, despite the
    setbacks that extremist fighters have suffered, ISIS remains
    capable militarily. It continues to consolidate its power in
    the region, including through the coercion of local
    populations. Coalition airstrikes have enabled local security
    forces, including Kurdish peshmerga and the Iraqi government's
    newly established militias, many of them Shi'a, to begin to
    gain ground from ISIS. But, concerns remain about when Iraq
    Security Forces will be ready to launch a counteroffensive to
    take Mosul and about Iran's growing influence inside Iraq. I
    look forward to hearing the witnesses' views on Iraq and the
    capabilities of both the military and the new government.
        In Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Taliban remains resilient,
    despite coming under pressure on both sides of the border. The
    challenge for United States forces in Afghanistan will be to
    keep the counterterrorism pressure on the Taliban even as we
    build the capacity of Afghan Special Operations Forces to
    ensure that Afghanistan does not once again become a haven for
    al-Qaeda and other terrorists. We would be interested in our
    witnesses' views on the Taliban threat for the 2015 fighting
    season, the possibility of Pakistan-supported reconciliation
    talks with the Taliban and the Government of Afghanistan, and
    the significance of reports of a growing ISIS presence in
    Afghanistan and Pakistan.
        On Iran, the diplomatic effort to prevent Iran's
    acquisition of nuclear weapons are ongoing, and the end of
    March is the next point at which we will assess Iran's intent
    with regard to its nuclear program. I hope the witnesses will
    provide us with an update on the intelligence community's
    thinking with regard to negotiations and our assessment of
    Iran's activities in the region under the two possible
    scenarios: deal or no deal.
        In Syria, coalition airstrikes of the naval Kurdish
    fighters to regain control of Khobani and expand outward, but
    ISIS remains a formidable force. General Nagata will begin
    training the moderate Syrian opposition in the coming months.
    And, if successful, these forces could, over time, assist the
    coalition to promote the conditions for a political settlement.
    Just last week, at a Regional Chiefs of Defense Conference, the
    United States and Turkey signed a key agreement to allow
    training of these forces to begin in Turkey once recruits are
    identified. I am interested in the witnesses' views on the
    potential of this Syrian training initiative and the challenges
    we'll face.
        In Europe, the post-cold-war international order is under
    threat from a Russia that seeks to intimidate the Ukraine and
    other neighboring countries through the creation or
    perpetuation of conflicts at increasingly aggressive military
    activities. Your assessment of the size of Russia's military
    buildup and President Putin's intentions could be of interest
    to the committee.
        We've faced a different, but no less complex, series of
    challenge in the Asia-Pacific region. A recent cyber attack on
    Sony by North Korea illustrates the unpredictable and coercive
    nature of that regime and demonstrates that even a relatively
    small and weak rogue nation taking advantage of our
    unparalleled dependence on electronic networks can reach across
    the ocean to cause extensive damage to a United States-based
    economic target through cyberspace. Furthermore, while Chinese
    cyber attacks are not as public, they are just as problematic
    and continue to pose a security challenge to the United States.
    We would be interested to know whether we can expect more
    attacks of this nature and what we can do to make our systems
    and our Nations more resilient in the future.
        Finally, we have a threat close to home, and that is
    sequestration. It is a threat that jeopardizes not only our
    National security, but our public safety, health,
    transportation, education, and environmental resources, as
    well. As we receive testimony today on the current and future
    threats to our National security, we here in Congress must be
    mindful of the necessity to find a balanced and bipartisan
    solution that includes a repeal of sequestration.
        Thank you again for appearing today, and I look forward to
    hearing your testimony.
        Chairman McCain. Welcome the witnesses.
        General Clapper.

          STATEMENT OF JAMES R. CLAPPER, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL
                              INTELLIGENCE

        Mr. Clapper. Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Reed, and
    members of the committee, it's a great pleasure and honor for
    me to be here with General Vince Stewart. And he and I are here
    today to update you on some, but certainly not all, of the
    pressing intelligence and national security issues facing our
    Nation.
        I need to note up front that there were some classified
    issues we discussed in our closed hearing on Tuesday that we
    won't be able to discuss as fulsomely in this open televised
    hearing.
        In the interest of time and to allow for questions, I will
    only cover some of the wave tops on behalf of both of us. Two
    overall comments at the outset:
        One, unpredictable instability is the new normal. The year
    2014 saw the highest rate of political instability since 1992,
    the most deaths as a result of state-sponsored mass killings
    since the early 1990s, and the highest number of refugees and
    internally displaced persons, or IDPs, since World War II.
    Roughly half of the world's currently stable countries are at
    some risk of instability over the next 2 years.
        The second overall comment is, this pervasive uncertainty
    makes it all the harder to predict the future. 2014 and 2015
    saw a number of events that illustrate this difficulty: the
    North Korean attack on Sony, the most serious and costly
    cyberattack against United States interests to date, the ebola
    epidemic, and the small-scale but dramatic terrorist attacks in
    Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, and the United
    States.
        Again this year, I'll start with cyber threats. Attacks
    against us are increasing in frequency, scale, sophistication,
    and severity of impact. Although we must be prepared for a
    catastrophic large-scale strike, a so-called ``cyber
    Armageddon,'' the reality is that we've been living with a
    constant and expanding barrage of cyberattacks for some time.
    This insidious trend, I believe, will continue. Cyber poses a
    very complex set of threats, because profit-motivated
    criminals, ideologically motivated hackers, or extremists in
    variously capable nation-states, like Russia, China, North
    Korea, and Iran, are all potential adversaries, who, if they
    choose, can do great harm. Additionally, the methods of attack,
    the systems targeted, and the victims are also expanding in
    diversity and intensity on a daily basis.
        2014 saw, for the first time, destructive cyberattacks
    carried out on United States soil by nation-state entities,
    marked first by the Iranian attack against the Las Vegas Sands
    Casino Corporation, a year ago this month, and the North Korean
    attack against Sony in November. While the both of these
    nations have lesser technical capabilities in comparison to
    Russia and China, these destructive attacks demonstrate that
    Iran and North Korea are motivated and unpredictable cyber
    actors.
        Russia and China continue to develop very sophisticated
    cyber programs. While I can't go into detail here, the Russian
    cyber threat is more severe than we had previously assessed.
    And Chinese economic espionage against United States companies
    remains a major threat, despite detailed private-sector
    reports, scathing public indictments, and stern U.S. demarches.
        With respect to non-nation-state entities, some
    ideologically motivated cyber actors expressing support for
    ISIL have demonstrated their capabilities by hacking several
    social media accounts. The so-called ``Cyber Caliphate''
    successfully hacked CENTCOM's Twitter account and YouTube page
    in January, and, 2 weeks ago, hacked Newsweek magazine's
    Twitter handle.
        The most pervasive cyber threat to the U.S. financial
    sector is from cyber criminals. Criminals were responsible for
    cyber intrusions in 2014 into JPMorgan, Home Depot, Target,
    Nieman Marcus, Anthem, and other United States companies. And,
    in the future, we'll probably see cyber operations that change
    or manipulate electronic information to compromise its
    integrity instead of simply deleting or disrupting access to
    it. In the end, the cyber threat cannot be completely
    eliminated. Rather, we must be vigilant in our efforts to
    detect, manage, and defend against it.
        Moving on to terrorism. In 2013, just over 11,500 terrorist
    attacks worldwide killed approximately 22,000 people.
    Preliminary data for the first 9 months of 2014 reflects nearly
    13,000 attacks, which killed 31,000 people. 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
    compiled. About half of all attacks, as well as fatalities, in
    2014 occurred in just three countries: Iraq, Pakistan, and
    Afghanistan.
        I'm drawing this data--the Islamic State of Iraq and the
    Levant (ISIL) conducted more attacks than any other terrorist
    group in the first 9 months of 2014, and in--credit where
    credit's due, I'm drawing this data from the National
    Consortium of the Study of Terrorism and Responses to
    Terrorism, or START, at the University of Maryland.
        The recent terrorist attacks in Europe emphasize the threat
    posed by small numbers of extremists radicalized by the
    conflicts in Syria and Iraq. The global media attention and
    widespread support in extremist circles for these attacks
    probably will inspire additional extremists to conduct similar
    attacks.
        And ISIL, al Qaeda, and al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula,
    and, most recently, al-Shabaab, are calling on their supporters
    to support lone-wolf attacks against the United States and
    other Western countries. Of the 13 attacks in the west since
    last May, 12 were conducted by individual extremists.
        Since the conflict began, more than 20,000 Sunni foreign
    fighters have traveled to Syria from more than 90 countries to
    fight the Assad regime. Of that number, at least 13,600 have
    extremist ties. More than 3400 Western fighters have gone to
    Syria and Iraq. Hundreds have returned home to Europe. About
    180 Americans or so have been involved in various stages of
    travel to Syria. I should point out this is those who've
    attempted to go, didn't get there, those who got there and were
    killed, those who got there, fought, and went to another
    country, and some number who have come back. A relatively small
    number have returned, and we've not identified any of them
    engaged in attack plotting. Nevertheless, the homegrown violent
    extremists continue to pose the most likely threat to the
    Homeland. Lone actors or insular groups who act autonomously
    will likely gravitate to simpler plots that don't require
    advanced skills, outside training, or communication with
    others. A small, but persistent, number of Sunni terrorist
    groups remain intent on striking the United States and the
    west, some of whom still see commercial aviation as an
    appealing target.
        Moving to the Mideast, ISIL is increasing its influence
    outside of Iraq and Syria, seeking to expand its self-declared
    caliphate into the Arabian Peninsula, North Africa, and South
    Asia, and planning terrorist attacks against Western and Shi'a
    interests. ISIL's rise represents the greatest shift in the
    Sunni violent extremist landscape since al Qaeda affiliates
    first began forming, and it is the first to assume at least
    some characteristics of a nation-state.
        Spillover from the Syrian conflict is raising the prospect
    of instability in Lebanon, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. In Iraq,
    sectarian conflict in mixed Shi'a/Sunni areas is growing, and,
    if not blunted, will undermine progress against ISIL. While
    Prime Minister Abadi has begun to alter the ethnosectarian tone
    in Iraq, resistance from his Shi'a political allies and
    persistent distrust among Iraqi leaders will limit progress
    toward a stable, inclusive political environment.
        ISIL's ability to conduct large-scale offensive operations
    in Iraq has been degraded by coalition airstrikes, the
    provision of weapons and munitions by the United States and
    other allies, and stiffened defenses by the Iraqi Security
    Forces, Kurdish peshmerga, Shi'a militants, and tribal allies,
    not to mention the Iranians. However, ISIL remains, as we've
    seen, a formidable and brutal threat.
        Moving to Syria and parts of western Syria, the Syrian
    regime made consistent gains in 2014, but it will require years
    for it to reassert significant control of the country as a
    whole. The regime has a clear advantage over the opposition,
    which is plagued by disunity as well as firepower, manpower,
    and logistical shortfalls. Right now, they're incapable of
    militarily ousting Assad, and will probably remain so in 2015.
        Assad is confident. He thinks the war is winnable. The
    conflict, with over 202,000 people killed--estimated to have
    been killed--will continue to threaten the stability of its
    regional neighbors and foster the rise of regional sectarianism
    and extremism. As well, it will strain the region's fragile
    economic balance as millions of refugees continue to flee the
    conflict. Over 52 percent of Syria's prewar population, or
    about 11.4 million people, has been displaced.
        Iran is exerting its influence in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.
    Tehran has provided robust military support to Damascus and
    Baghdad in the form of arms, advisors, funding, intelligence
    collection, electronic warfare, and cyber support, and combat
    support. More broadly, Iran will face many of the same decision
    points in 2015 as it did in 2014. Foremost is whether the
    Supreme Leader will agree to a nuclear deal. He wants sanctions
    relief, but, at the same time, to preserve his options on
    nuclear capabilities.
        In Libya, two rival governments emerged, so the country has
    no clear legitimate political authority and is embroiled in a
    civil war. External support to both sides by countries in the
    region has further stoked the violence. Extremists and
    terrorist groups affiliated with al Qaeda and ISIL are
    exploiting Libya's permissive security environment. They're
    using the country to train and to plot. ISIL's beheadings of
    the Coptic Christians highlight the growing threat posed by
    ISIL and affiliated groups in Libya.
        Moving to Yemen, the evacuation of our Embassy in Sana'a
    has, for now, reduced the effectiveness of our counterterrorism
    efforts. After President Hadi's attempted resignation and the
    Huthi's unilateral dissolution of the government, Yemen's
    political future and stability are, at best, uncertain,
    particularly with Hadi's apparent escape to Aden and perhaps
    his reassertion of his presidential authorities. Iran has
    provided support to the Huthis for years, and there ascendancy
    is increasing Iran's influence.
        Let me move briefly to Russia. The crisis in Ukraine is
    entering its second year and is achieving--and achieving a
    lasting solution that allows Kiev to pursue western integration
    will be difficult, to say the least. Moscow sees itself in
    direct confrontation with the west over Ukraine, and will be
    very prone to overreact to United States actions. Putin's goals
    are to keep Ukraine out of NATO and to ensure separatist
    control and autonomous entity within Ukraine. He wants Moscow
    to retain leverage over Kiev. And Crimea, in his view, is
    simply not negotiable.
        Russian dominance over the former Soviet space is Russia's
    highest foreign policy goal. Falling oil prices, Ukraine-
    related costs, and Western sanctions have spurred double-digit
    inflation and have tipped Russia's economy towards recession.
    Russia will continue to possess the largest, most capable
    foreign nuclear ballistic missile force. Russia's weapons
    modernization plans will focus on strategic warfare and ways to
    mitigate what they think are our advantages, like prompt global
    strike.
        China. China's leaders are primarily concerned with
    domestic issues: the Communist Party's hold on power, internal
    stability, and economic growth. Although China is looking for
    stable ties with the United States, it's more willing to accept
    bilateral and regional tensions in pursuit of its interests,
    especially on maritime sovereignty issues. And, as you noted,
    Chairman McCain, China is expanding and accelerating the
    buildup of outposts in the South China Sea, to include
    stationing for their ships and potential airfields. More
    broadly, they continue an aggressive military modernization
    program directly aimed at what they consider to be our
    strengths. Their military training program last year included
    exercises unprecedented in scope, scale, and complexity to both
    test modernization progress and to improve their theater
    warfare capabilities. President Xi Jinping is pursuing an
    ambitious reform agenda that risks both leadership tensions and
    domestic unrest. The slowdown of the Chinese economy is
    reinforcing the leader's neuralgia about internal stability and
    reinforcing a harsh crackdown on internal dissent.
        Needless to say, there are many more threats to United
    States interests worldwide that we can address, many of which
    are covered in detail in our statement for the record--notably,
    the classified version--such as Afghanistan, North Korea, and
    weapons of mass destruction.
        But, I think, with that grim litany, will--I will stop and
    will open to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Clapper follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. VINCENT STEWART, DIRECTOR OF THE DEFENSE
                          INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

        General Stewart. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, we
    have the statement for the record and just one oral statement
    from Director Clapper.
        [The prepared statement of General Stewart follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman McCain. Thank you.
        Director Clapper, on the issue of defensive weaponry to
    Ukraine, do you believe that, if we give that assistance, that
    it would escalate--provoke Putin to escalate his assistance to
    the, quote, ``separatists'' and his aggression against Ukraine?
        Mr. Clapper. Well, General Breedlove discussed this
    recently, and he did make, I think, a very apt comment, and,
    you know, predicting exactly what Putin will do or what his
    behavior will be is something of an unknown. I think the
    intelligence community view is that, if we were to provide
    lethal assistance to Ukraine, that this would evoke a negative
    reaction from Putin and the Russians. It could potentially
    further remove the very thin figleaf of their position that
    they're not--have not been involved in Ukraine, and could lead
    to accelerating or promoting more weaponry and higher
    sophistication into the separatist areas to support the
    separatists. But, I hasten to add, this is an intelligence
    community assessment, and this is not necessarily to suggest
    opposition to provision of lethal aid.
        Chairman McCain. Well, I'm glad you added that, because my
    next question is, What more do you think that Putin would do--
    could do? Go to Kiev?
        Mr. Clapper. Sir, we don't----
        Chairman McCain. They certainly--the weaponry he's using
    now is his most sophisticated weaponry.
        Mr. Clapper. We don't--well, he could bring in a lot more
    if he wanted to, and----
        Chairman McCain. He could bring in more----
        Mr. Clapper.--certainly more volumes of it.
        Chairman McCain. To do what?
        Mr. Clapper. Well, for example, armed helicopters----
        Chairman McCain. Yeah, to do--to achieve what goal?
        Mr. Clapper. Well, it is not our assessment that he is bent
    on capturing or conquering all of Ukraine. He certainly wants--
    --
        Chairman McCain. Absolutely.
        Mr. Clapper.--I believe he wants a whole--from an
    infrastructure standpoint--entity, I believe, composed of the
    two oblasts in eastern Ukraine--
        Chairman McCain. Which he's already----
        Mr. Clapper.--to include, perhaps----
        Chairman McCain:--achieving.
        Mr. Clapper.--a land bridge to Crimea and perhaps a port--
    specifically, Mariupol. We do not believe that an attack on
    Mariupol is imminent. Think they're in the mode now of
    reconstituting and regrouping after the major confrontation in
    Debaltseve.
        Chairman McCain. Well, I have to tell you that I disagree
    with you. They're already increasing activities around
    Mariupol, and I will predict to you now he will put additional
    pressure on Mariupol, because he wants to establish the land
    bridge there. Just as some of us predicted exactly what he's
    doing now.
        And to say that we're worried about provoking him, he's not
    going to go to Kiev. He's going to establish the land bridge to
    Crimea, and then he's going to figure out whether he should go
    to Moldova, or not. He's already putting intense pressure on
    the Baltics. We all know that. We don't have to have
    intelligence reports to get that.
        So, this idea that somehow we will provoke Vladimir Putin--
    he's done everything he wanted to do, General. You tell me what
    he didn't want to do that would have--that he would have done
    if we had provided these people with the ability to defend
    themselves rather than be slaughtered by the most modern
    equipment that the Russians have.
        Mr. Clapper. Well, I don't think he will view it happily if
    we provide--if the United States provides lethal support.
    That's----
        Chairman McCain. Because more Russians might be killed who
    are now in Crimea killing Ukrainians.
        Mr. Clapper. That's right. And it will be harder for him to
    hide that fact to the home audience.
        Chairman McCain. What difference does it make whether he
    hides it? There's no hiding what he's done. Everybody knows
    what he's done.
        Mr. Clapper. Well, everyone in Russia----
        Chairman McCain. General Breedlove has made it--laid it out
    very clearly.
        Well, I'm not in an open dispute with you. I'd--we've got
    to move on. But, it is just incredible to believe that he would
    be, quote, ``provoked'' to further action, when he has achieved
    every goal that he sought along the way. And we'll see who's
    right about Mariupol, Director Clapper.
        Mr. Clapper. Sir, I'm not arguing about Mariupol. The only
    issue there is timing. I believe they will not--they'll wait--
    --
        Chairman McCain. He's got plenty of time.
        Mr. Clapper.--they'll wait til the spring before they
    attack. That's----
        Chairman McCain. Sure.
        Mr. Clapper. That will be a formal undertaking for the
    Russians and the separatists.
        Chairman McCain. I agree with you.
        Mr. Clapper. It's much better defended.
        Chairman McCain. I totally agree with you. Why not pull
    back? He's not getting any increasing in sanctions, he's not
    getting weapons--or the Ukrainians aren't receiving defensive
    weapons from us. If I were him, I would do exactly that, too.
    He's got plenty of time.
        Yesterday, the Secretary of State said, ``Our citizens, our
    world today, is actually--despite ISIL, despite the visible
    killings that you see and how horrific they are, we're actually
    living in a period of less daily threat to Americans and to
    people in the world than normally. Less deaths, less violent
    deaths today than through the last century.'' And yet, just
    today, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
    (FBI) and others have said that there are threats to 30
    nations--excuse me--30 States in this Nation. What is your view
    of the threat to the United States of America, Director
    Clapper?
        Mr. Clapper. Well, first, sir, I will say, as I've said
    every year--this'll be the fifth year that--in my 50-plus years
    in the intelligence business, I don't know of a time that has
    been more beset by challenges and crises around the world. I
    worry a lot about the safety and security of this country, for
    a lot of reasons, not the least of which, which Senator Reed
    alluded to, is the impacts that sequestration is having on the
    intelligence community. We didn't get a pass. So, the same
    rules that apply to, say, the Department of Defense apply to
    us, as well. So, the combination of the challenges that we have
    around the world and the declining resource base that we have
    to monitor them is of concern to me.
        Chairman McCain. So, could I just----
        Mr. Clapper. Director Comey was referring to the fact that
    he now has some form of investigation--and, of course, the FBI
    has a tiered system for intensity of investigation--and they
    now have some form of investigation on homegrown violent
    extremists, not necessarily direct sympathizers or supporters
    of ISIL, but in all 50 of our States.
        Chairman McCain. Thank you, Director. And I could just ask,
    again, because you made reference to it, if we don't--if we
    stick to sequestration, as it is planned, it will impair our
    ability for you to do your job and defend this Nation. Is that
    a correct statement?
        Mr. Clapper. Yes, sir. And I've said that in the past. A
    little harder for intelligence to make that case as concretely
    as, say, the Navy and how many ships it builds, or the Air
    Force and how many aircraft it's able to fly. In our case, the
    impacts--I hate to use the word, but I will--are more
    insidious, in that predicting when we have a lesser capability
    will eventuate in a failure is hard to quantify. But, just
    based on my best professional judgment from having served in
    this business for a long time, I'm very concerned about it. And
    if we revert to sequestration in 2016, the damage to the
    intelligence community will be quite profound.
        Chairman McCain. I thank you very much, Director.
        Thank you, General.
        Jack?
        Senator Reed. General, thank you. And, both generals, thank
    you.
        The Chairman has covered very well some of the issues
    arising out of the Russian activities in Ukraine and Crimea. Is
    your assessment that Putin is carrying out a strategic plan, or
    is some of this opportunistic? He's just seizing the moment? Or
    it's a combination of both?
        Mr. Clapper. I'm sorry, sir, I didn't----
        Senator Reed. Or is it a combination of both.
        Mr. Clapper. Both----
        Senator Reed. He has a strategy----
        Mr. Clapper.--a strategic plan and----
        Senator Reed.--and opportunistic----
        Mr. Clapper. Well, yes. I think it became a strategic plan
    when Yanukovych upped and left very suddenly last--almost a
    year ago, 22nd of February. And then I think he saw an
    opportunity, particularly with the seizure of Crimea, which I
    think has always been in his craw. And, given Putin's approach
    and the way he looks at greater Russia and what a disaster the
    breakup of the Soviet Union was, and his--as I said in my
    statement, that his highest foreign policy objective is
    controlling the former Soviet space. So, I think, on the heels
    of the seizure of Crimea and the establishment of some sort of
    an arrangement in eastern Ukraine, and what I believe will be
    more of a softer approach, maybe not direct military action,
    but, as the Chairman alluded to, Transnistria and Moldova, and
    certainly there'll be pressure brought to bear in the Baltics,
    particularly where there are high levels of Russian minorities.
    A little different situation with the Baltics, since they are
    North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members, which, of
    course, Moldova, Ukraine, et cetera, are not.
        Senator Reed. We have conducted recently some very small
    military demonstrations in the Baltics. Company of the 173rd
    Airborne went in. I think just a day or two ago there was a
    parade of U.S. military vehicles. What's the reaction to the
    Russians to those?
        Mr. Clapper. Well, they, I think, watch that. I mean,
    that's--it's an--it's symbolically important. There's a
    messaging there. And I think it is--and they're sensitive to
    that. They're mindful of the fact that the Baltic nations are
    NATO members. And I do think they distinguish that.
        Senator Reed. We have elaborate sanctions in place. You've
    indicated in your comments that they have not had, in my
    interpretation, an appreciable effect yet on his strategy. They
    might be affecting the economy, but they haven't affected his
    strategy.
        Mr. Clapper. That's exactly right, Senator Reed. So far,
    that has not changed his approach. And, of course, what's had
    the greater impact, frankly, on the economy has been the----
        Senator Reed. Oil.
        Mr. Clapper.--precipitous drop in oil prices.
        Senator Reed. Do you have any sort of indication that this
    is--as this situation deteriorates further, there will be an
    impact on his strategy?
        Mr. Clapper. There could. And there--and, of course, what
    we see is, they're very sensitive to opposition, you know,
    demonstrations in the street. They're very, very sensitive
    about a color revolution occurring in Russia, itself. And, of
    course, that's another reason why Putin reacted to the
    situation in Ukraine, because he believes we instigated that as
    another color revolution in Ukraine right on his doorstep, and
    that, in turn, posed a--in his mind, an existential threat to--
    in Russia.
        Senator Reed. Just changing gears, the Iranians have a
    explicit presence in Iraq today, and we have forces there, too.
    And in the next several days or weeks, there's two possible
    triggering events. One would be much more aggressive action
    against the Assad regime in Syria or the resolution of the
    negotiations with the Iranians on their nuclear program. Do you
    have any views with respect to what might happen to--within
    Iraq with respect to their Iranian forces, which are now sort
    of not cooperating with us, but----
        Mr. Clapper. Is your question, sir, Is there a connection
    between the nuclear negotiations and agreement----
        Senator Reed. Will there be a reaction in Iraq to either
    the activities that we undertake, or proceed to undertake, in
    Syria or the conclusion of the negotiations?
        Mr. Clapper. I really don't think that the negotiations,
    one way or the other, will have much bearing on what they do in
    Iraq or anyplace they are trying to exert their influence,
    meaning Syria or now Yemen. As best we can tell, the Iranians
    have kind of segmented the nuclear negotiations and potential
    nuclear agreement from their regional aspirations.
        Senator Reed. Thank you, General.
        Chairman McCain. Senator Inhofe.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I have three questions--two short ones; the other one may
    require going on the record.
        Director Clapper, I know what your answer is, after hearing
    your opening statement, but, when you said, ``Looking back over
    my now more than half century of intelligence, I've not
    experienced a time when we've been beset by more crisis and
    threats around the globe.'' And you still stand by that. And--
    correct?
        Mr. Clapper. Yes, sir. And if I'm hear next year, I'll
    probably say it again.
        Senator Inhofe. Yeah. Well, I appreciate that. You've been
    straightforward and honest about these things.
        General Stewart, you stated, and this--that we face a more
    diverse and complex problem than we have experienced in our
    lifetimes. Still stand by that?
        General Stewart. Absolutely, Senator.
        Senator Inhofe. Yes. Well, now, there's an assumption, when
    we're out in the public, out talking to real people and away
    from Washington, that we, who are on this committee, know a lot
    of answers that we don't know. And one of them that should be a
    very easy answer--and I want to get something from you guys
    that I can stand on--when we talk about the power, in terms of
    the strength and number of bodies in this--in ISIL or ISIS--in
    September 2014, we talked about that it's been an additional
    some--20,000 since this all started. I think we all agree on
    that. But, they said it was somewhere between 20- and 31,5-
    fighters that were in Iraq and Syria. Now we know, since that
    time, it's gone beyond that. Then, in August, they talked about
    from 80- to 100,000. Then, in November, one of the Kurdish
    leaders stated that the--ISIL's military had increased to
    200,000 fighters. Can you kind of give us an idea--and, number
    one, why it's so difficult to do, and, number two, something
    that we can use and quote you two as the sources?
        Mr. Clapper. It's--from my vantage, it's unfortunate these
    numbers get out. For one, we don't have what I would call
    Census Bureau door-to-door survey accuracy or fidelity over
    these numbers. They're very hard to come by. We have to derive
    them inferentially from a number of different sources. Ergo,
    even when we do come out with numbers, they're--you'll have a
    wide range. So, the current estimate is--that we're standing
    on, here, is somewhere in the range between 20- and 32,000
    fighters. Now, the difficulty here is assessing who's a core
    fighter who does this full-time, who may be a facilitator or
    supporter and do it part time, and all that sort of thing.
        I will say that the--this is one effect of the airstrikes,
    has been substantial attrition. They lost at least 3,000
    fighters in Khobani. For whatever reason, they wanted to do
    that. And, as well, what that's driving them to--now we're
    seeing evidence of conscription. So, the estimate that we're
    going with----
        Senator Inhofe. But, that's----
        Mr. Clapper.--right now, but this is very dynamic, is 20-
    to 32,000.
        Senator Inhofe. Yeah. We're--gosh, I--well, anyway.
        It may take a while to get into this, but I am--I'm very
    much--I was over in the Ukraine when they had their elections.
    And that's when they had the elections, and it was Yatsenyuk as
    much as Poroshenko. They were just elated. Both of them from
    different political parties, but the political parties are very
    pro-Western, and they were rejoicing in the fact that, for the
    first time in 96 years, the Communists don't have one seat in
    Parliament. To me, I thought, when that happened, there's not
    going to be any problem with us going in with weapons. And
    obviously, the Democrats and Republicans up here agreed with
    that. We have language in our last defense authorization bill
    that we had $75 million, where we were encouraging the
    President to use, through the European Reassurance Initiative,
    for weapons going in to be of assist to our best friend in that
    area.
        Now, I can't figure out why we don't do it. Let me just ask
    the two of you. Would you recommend it?
        Mr. Clapper. Sir, I think I have to answer two ways, here.
    One, institutionally, this is a policy issue. And----
        Senator Inhofe. Yeah, now----
        Mr. Clapper.--the Intelligence Community doesn't----
        Senator Inhofe.--let me make sure. I'm not talking about
    sending troops, I'm talking about sending lethal weapons.
        Mr. Clapper. I understand. I understand----
        Senator Inhofe. All right.
        Mr. Clapper.--what you're asking, and that's what I'm
    answering, I think. So, from an intelligence community
    perspective, that is a policy issue. We're down in the engine
    room, shoveling intelligence coal, and the people up on the
    bridge, to use a Navy metaphor, drive the ship and rearrange
    the deck chairs.
        I have a personal view. And it is only that----
        Senator Inhofe. All right.
        Mr. Clapper.--that I would favor it. But, that's a personal
    perspective, and----
        Senator Inhofe. That's what----
        Mr. Clapper.--it does not----
        Senator Inhofe. And I appreciate your----
        Mr. Clapper.--represent an official company policy of the
    Intelligence Community.
        Senator Inhofe. I appreciate that very much.
        And General Stewart?
        General Stewart. Sir, I'm trying to stay out of the
    personal----
        Senator Inhofe. I know you're trying to stay out, but----
        General Stewart. So----
        Senator Inhofe.--it's time that we--we've got to get this
    done.
        General Stewart.--we stand by the assessment, that lethal
    aid couldn't be delivered quickly enough or change the military
    balance of power on the ground.
        Senator Inhofe. So, you're for lethal, right?
        General Stewart. It would not change the military balance
    of power, and it couldn't get there quickly enough to make a
    difference, and that Russia will up that----
        Senator Inhofe. As a military guy, do you buy this argument
    that we might be provoking negative reaction from Putin? You
    know, I listen to--I see what our--what the President is doing
    on--every once in a while. And they talk about, ``Well, we
    don't want to make the terrorists mad at us, they might hurt
    us.'' And, you know--so, what's your opinion about this
    statement on provoking a negative reaction from Putin?
        General Stewart. I think as important as Moscow placed on
    Ukraine to keep it in their near abroad, to keep it out of the
    EU, to keep it out of NATO, I think they will up the ante if we
    do any lethal aid or take any actions to bolster the
    Ukrainians. Whether that provokes the President or not, it's
    hard for me to say. The realities are, they see this as central
    to their foreign policy, they see it as critical that they keep
    Ukraine out of NATO, to keep it out of the Western sphere of
    influence----
        Senator Inhofe. Yeah, and----
        General Stewart.--and exert influence. And they'll react
    accordingly, I suspect.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, General.
        Chairman McCain. Well, I'm sure that Hitler felt the same
    way, General Stewart, about the Sudetenland, about German-
    speaking people. I'm sure he felt exactly the same way that
    Vladimir Putin does. And, for you to say that we can't get
    lethal weapons there quickly enough, that defies logic,
    General. I know how we can transport weapons. We can put 'em on
    aircraft and fly 'em over there.
        General Stewart. But, you----
        Chairman McCain. How do you justify a statement like that?
        General Stewart. Senator, I believe the answer was, ``We
    couldn't deliver lethal aid sufficiently--quickly enough to
    change the military balance of power on the ground.'' And I
    think I stand----
        Chairman McCain. Quickly enough? What does that mean? I--
    it's----
        General Stewart. Russia and the separatists have
    significant interior lines that they can resupply a lot faster
    with a lot heavier weapons than we could deliver in--so, it
    would be a race to see who could arm. And I think, with their
    interior lines, they would have a significant advantage on the
    ground.
        Chairman McCain. I'm sure that the Russians had a
    significant advantage when they invaded Afghanistan. I'm sure
    that, throughout history, when we've helped people who have
    been invaded and oppressed, and when we haven't, what is--the
    consequences have been. Very disappointing, General.
        Senator Shaheen.
        Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you both for your testimony.
        I want to go back to the Middle East and to what's
    happening in Syria. To what extent is Assad's continued--I
    don't want to say ``control over Syria,'' because I appreciate
    that he doesn't have control over the entire country--but, to
    what extent is his position there an obstacle to our fight
    against ISIL? And is there--what's the thinking about how to
    change that dynamic?
        Mr. Clapper. Well, I--that--the last part of your question
    is a tough one. I--he maintains the control because of his
    control of the economic levers, to the extent that they have
    them. His focus is on the--what I would call the ``Western
    spine,'' say from Aleppo to Damascus. That's where most of the
    population is, and the major commercial entities, to include
    the ports. So, he has surrounded by people who are committed to
    preserving that, because they benefit from it. They are the
    minority. The Alawites are, you know, only 10 percent. So, for
    them, this is an existential struggle. And, of course, the
    irony is that we actually are in common in--both Assad and his
    regime are opposed to and fighting ISIL, as we are. And so,
    it's a very, you know, complex array of factors there.
        Senator Shaheen. And to what extent have--has that affected
    other Arab countries in the Middle East and their willingness
    to engage with us?
        Mr. Clapper. Well, there's been, you know, I think,
    somewhat of a change. It's gradual. But, the fact that many of
    these countries aren't participating in the coalition that
    General John Allen has been organizing. I do think the brutal
    savagery of the ISIL, and the beheadings and then the emulation
    of the Jordanian pilot, have had a galvanizing effect on
    opinion in the Mideast region. So, I think there is more of a
    willingness to cooperate. There certainly is, from the
    standpoint of intelligence sharing and our partnering with our
    counterparts in that part of the world.
        Senator Shaheen. And are you optimistic that Turkey will
    become more engaged than they have been?
        Mr. Clapper. No, I'm not. I think Turkey has other
    priorities and other interests. They are more focused on what
    they consider to be the threat: the KGK, the Kurdish
    resistance, if you will, in Turkey. Public opinion polls show,
    in Turkey, they don't see ISIL as a primary threat. They're
    more focused internally on their economy and this sort of
    thing. And, of course, the consequence of that is a permissive
    environment, in terms of--because of their laws, and the
    ability of people to travel through Turkey en route to Syria.
    So, somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 percent of those
    foreign fighters find their way to Syria through Turkey.
        Senator Shaheen. And to move to Iraq, to what extent is
    Iran's presence in Iraq an obstacle to Abadi's ability to make
    the kinds of overtures and engage the Sunnis in the way that he
    needs to in----
        Mr. Clapper. Well, he--he's in a very----
        Senator Shaheen.--order to keep the country unified?
        Mr. Clapper.--very difficult position, having to balance
    these competing constituencies. And clearly the Iranians have
    influence. They're there. They're helping, as well, in the
    fight against ISIL. He's got issues with his own Shi'a power
    base, since they're competitors to him. There's still great
    reluctance to fully include the Sunnis, which must happen.
    There are two laws in their Council of Representatives that are
    extremely important to Sunnis: de-Ba'athification and----
        Senator Shaheen. Right.
        Mr. Clapper.--anti-terrorism laws. So, he's in a very, very
    difficult position.
        Senator Shaheen. What I'm trying to ask you to respond to,
    and I haven't been as articulate as I should, I guess, is, To
    what extent does--is Iran weighing their efforts to under--to
    take on ISIL versus the Sunni's role in Iraq? I mean, are they
    balancing that? Are they just----
        Mr. Clapper. Well, the fundamental interest of the
    Iranians, of course, is to preserve a Shi'a or Shi'a-friendly
    government in Baghdad. So, that is kind of their underlying
    policy objective. And, of course, ISIL poses a threat to the
    Iranians, as well. And so, they have an interest there in
    sustaining their aggressive combat, if you will, and assistance
    in opposing ISIL.
        Senator Shaheen. My time is up. Thank you both.
        Chairman McCain. Senator Ernst.
        Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing before us today. I do
    appreciate your service.
        I'd like to go into the discussion with Iran a little bit
    more. Their Iranian military is arguably one of the most
    deployed forces in the Middle East from--in probably more than
    a generation. But, they have been into areas, such as Syria,
    Iraq, Lebanon, Bahrain, Yemen. So, Iran is effectively
    reinforcing and increasing its sphere of influence in the
    region. And it is also defending its allies in ways which
    afford Iran the ability to decisively engage its adversaries
    and immediately alter any battlefield momentum. So, we have
    seen a progression of expert witnesses in front of this very
    panel, and many of my colleagues and these witnesses have
    stated that they do believe the President is failing in this
    area of setting a national strategy. And his failure to
    construct a comprehensive strategy against Iran has led to
    Iran's expanded influence in the Middle East.
        So, I would like to hear your assessment, Director Clapper,
    on, of course, the tools that Iran has in its pocket, and
    whether we are effectively engaging Iran, what we need to do to
    gain a national security strategy. I'd like to see all the
    pieces put together, please.
        Mr. Clapper. Well, I can--Senator, I can comment on the
    intelligence aspects of this. national security strategy,
    again, is not my compartment.
        But, the way that Iran is exerting its influence, I think,
    most prominently in the region is through the--their
    organization called the Iranian Republican Guard Corps, Quds
    Force, which is a combination of intelligence and special ops,
    has extensive commercial enterprise businesses, and this sort
    of thing. And so, they use that as their instrumentality, as
    they are now in Iraq, for extending their influence, as one of
    their proxies. And, of course, another one of their proxies is
    the Hezbollah, which they have had a long client-subordinate
    relationship with. And so, they use those as sort of the
    physical manifestation of their spreading their influence in
    the region. And, certainly from an intelligence perspective,
    we--you know, we try hard to keep tabs on those entities as we
    can from intelligence.
        Senator Ernst. And is there a way, Director, that we can
    more effectively engage our neighbors in the Middle East to
    push back on Iran's influence?
        Mr. Clapper. Well, we--from an intelligence perspective,
    which is all I can speak to, we do engage with our intelligence
    counterparts in all of these countries, those who are willing
    to engage with us, particularly the Sunni countries, who also--
    who do harbor great reservations about Iranians--Iranian
    objectives.
        Senator Ernst. Thank you very much.
        I'll yield back my time.
        Chairman McCain. Senator Donnelly.
        Senator Donnelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you both for being here.
        In regards to Iraq, what do you think are the biggest
    challenges that the Iraqi forces face right now in pushing ISIS
    back from Mosul and Tikrit?
        Mr. Clapper. Well, a first thing, I think--and General
    Stewart can speak to this as well, since he's----
        Senator Donnelly. Right.
        Mr. Clapper.--served there--but, obviously, the Iraqi
    Security Forces, particularly the army, need to reconstitute,
    after the precipitate losses in northern Iraq last June, where
    about four-and-a-half divisions or so of Iraqi forces just kind
    of melted away. So, that is--first order of business, I think,
    is to reconstitute them, which includes training and,
    hopefully, instantiation of a will to fight. They have
    challenges, clearly, with command and control, with leadership,
    with logistics. So, they've got a whole range of issues there
    that need to be attended to before they'd be in a position to,
    certainly unilaterally, retake a--you know, a place like----
        Senator Donnelly. General, how long do you think that'll
    take, to try to get them back up to speed?
        General Stewart. So, if I could put it in context, last
    fall they had about 185,000 in the Iraqi Security Force, about
    three divisions--the 6th, the 9th, and the 7th Division. All
    three of those divisions are engaged today, so they're not
    getting that continuous training. They're engaged in
    operations. They're building three additional divisions. Those
    three divisions, you're talking about building from the ground
    up. So, to build from the ground up individual soldiers----
        Senator Donnelly. When are they ready?
        General Stewart. We're talking probably 6 to 9 months, at a
    best estimate.
        Senator Donnelly. Director Clapper, here at home, when I
    look at what's going on with ISIS and see the threats that
    occur here, and the threat levels that we had last year--if you
    had to put it in perspective--this time last year, this time
    now--and it's an inexact art, percentagewise--significantly
    increased threats now than we were having last year at this
    same time, about the same?
        Mr. Clapper. It's probably about the same, sir.
        Senator Donnelly. Okay. And in regards to ISIS--so, our
    push is to get 'em out of Iraq, then to remove them from
    Syria--when we get to that point where ISIS is gone, does that
    threat level come down, here at home?
        Mr. Clapper. It would--I--yeah, absolutely it would, I
    think, but--at least that would reduce the threat some. But,
    again, as--if the caliphate is extended to other locations,
    which is what ISIL is trying to do--Libya, Egypt, et cetera--
    then we'll have that to contend with. So, yes, there would be
    some reduction of threat because--if ISIL were defeated in both
    Iraq and Syria, at least you are--have done away with a
    substantial safe haven, which would serve to reduce the threat
    some.
        Senator Donnelly. When you look over to Libya, is that the
    next place, or one of the key places, they look now as,
    ``Here's open space that's failed. Here's a place where we can
    try to grow''?
        Mr. Clapper. It is probably the most troublesome, from that
    standpoint, just because of the conditions in Libya--you know,
    two competing governments fighting with each other. There are,
    in addition to ISIL, probably six or eight other terrorist
    groups that have gathered in Libya. So, it's a magnet because
    of--essentially, it's ungoverned.
        Senator Donnelly. And when you look at a place that's
    ungoverned, you know, not too far from the Mediterranean, right
    there, what do you see--like you said, you don't set all the
    strategy; you review all the intelligence--but, what do you see
    as the best steps we can take in that region right now--and,
    General Stewart, you, too--in Libya, to try to change the
    course of what's going on?
        Mr. Clapper. Well, from an intelligence perspective we, I
    think, clearly need to step up our game from an ISR
    perspective, where we can operate. I think there's a lot of
    merit to partnering with the French, who have sort of staked
    out their claim in the Sahel region of North Africa. So, we
    have worked with the French, particularly from an intelligence
    perspective, to share with them. They have history and heritage
    there, access, and have committed to deploying troops in that
    area--boots on the ground, which we can supplement. So, those
    are things, from an intelligence perspective, that we--so, as
    we get a better handle on just what is going on in that part of
    the world.
        Senator Donnelly. And I see my time is up, but I just want
    to ask one very quick question that you can just----
        How are we doing on cooperation, interagency, here at home?
    Better than ever before?
        Mr. Clapper. Well, that's, frankly, the reason my job was
    created, after September 11, is--promote integration here in
    this country. I'd like to think it's better. I was around for a
    long time before September 11, so I--it is better, but it's--
    there was always improvement. We're not as mature in the--on
    the domestic side, in coordinating with State, local, tribal,
    et cetera, but I think we've made a lot of progress there, and
    we'll continue. And it's something I push very hard.
        Senator Donnelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman McCain. Senator Fischer.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Director Clapper, what do you assess is Assad's likely
    response to the introduction of our United States-trained
    Syrians to move in against ISIL in Syria? And do you assess
    that Assad will attack them?
        Mr. Clapper. Well, if the--as long as Assad is--believes
    somehow that this--once it gets up sufficient center of mass,
    you know, enough force--as long as he felt as though this were
    something to be used only against ISIL, he'd probably be okay
    with it. But, I think he'd have a hard time determining whether
    it's a threat to ISIL or a threat to him. So, I could see a
    circumstance where, depending on what information he's
    getting--and we wonder about that sometimes--that he could
    easily consider that force as a threat to him.
        Senator Fischer. Do you believe that you're receiving good
    intelligence from that--from Syria, from that area, in regards
    to this?
        Mr. Clapper. No, we have a lot of gaps for--intelligence
    gaps in Syria, principally because we're not there. So, no, I'm
    not satisfied with that. We're working at it, obviously, to
    come up with more intelligence from Syria. But, that's a tough
    problem for us.
        Senator Fischer. Have you received any intelligence that
    would, I guess, give you comfort, in that the moderates that
    would be trained by us would, in fact, be fighting ISIL and not
    Assad?
        Mr. Clapper. I think a more fulsome response to that would
    be best in a classified environment. But, I guess the short
    answer would be yes.
        Senator Fischer. Okay. And how do you--how would you assess
    Russia and Iran will be looking at these trained forces?
        Mr. Clapper. Well, probably wouldn't like it. I think, at
    this point, you know, Russia looks at Syria as a client, as an
    ally, someone that they provide support to. So, again, it would
    be almost the same perception problem with the Russians as it
    would be with Assad. If--they could probably rationalize, if
    it's focused on ISIL, but if it be--it's perceived as a threat
    to the regime, then I think that they would react negatively to
    it.
        Senator Fischer. And if they would perceive it as a threat,
    what type of force would they employ, then? You said they'd
    react negatively.
        Mr. Clapper. The Russians?
        Senator Fischer. Yes.
        Mr. Clapper. I'd--well, I--this is really speculative,
    hypothetical. I don't think they would necessarily deploy
    combat forces to Syria. They would probably step up military
    equipment support, which they've been doing, intelligence
    support, if, in fact, they, too, perceive that what we were
    doing was a direct threat to Assad.
        Senator Fischer. Okay. And if I could shift gears, here,
    I'd like to ask you something about cybersecurity. As you know,
    the Senate is looking at a bill to authorize greater
    information sharing. There are some concerns out there about
    the entities that the--that we might be sharing that
    information with. I'd like to ask you, How do we balance that?
    How do we balance the risks between really valuable information
    sharing and the need not to provide information either to
    private individuals, hackers that are out there, or to a
    foreign government that may be able to pick up information that
    we give our colleagues, in trying to work with this, that they
    could then, in turn, use against us?
        Mr. Clapper. Well, that's exactly the issue. In fact,
    that's a general dilemma that we have across the board, whether
    it's cyber or any other dimension. You know, the--sharing
    versus security. And that's the same issue here. There is no
    silver-bullet answer here.
        I do think there, though, needs to be some form of
    legislation that would protect, from a liability standpoint,
    commercial concerns so that they would more freely--they'd be
    in a position to share with the government. This is not
    something government can do all by itself. There has to be--
    given the pervasiveness of cyber in our society, we must have
    the partnering of the civilian sector, which means promoting
    sharing, both ways.
        But, you're right, there's always this concern, there's
    always a tradeoff between security and sharing.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you, sir.
        Chairman McCain. Senator King.
        Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        To follow up on that, I believe that it's critically
    important that we move legislation that provides for that
    sharing so that we have more vigorous defense. And, indeed, the
    Intelligence Committee reported out a bill last summer. I
    understand that that bill has been somewhat renegotiated,
    reworked, and it will be moving forward reasonably soon. I hope
    that that's one of the Congress's highest priorities. I don't
    know how many warnings we have to have.
        Turning to ISIS, what are the chances that it will wear out
    its welcome within the areas where it is now trying to govern,
    because of the weight of its brutal and harsh ideology? And I
    guess the followup question is, Do we have any intelligence
    about what's going on inside Mosul, inside Raqqa, in terms of
    the citizens and how they feel about the--this new regime?
        Mr. Clapper. Senator King, to answer the question, I think
    that is a very important point, and we are seeing anecdotal
    evidence of resentment, and even resistance, in those areas
    that are controlled by ISIL, because of their brutal approach
    to enforcing Sharia.
        I think the challenge--and we're already seeing indications
    of this--that ISIL has--as I mentioned in my oral statement,
    assuming some of the accouterments are some of the
    characteristics of a nation-state, and now they've having
    challenges with governance--they do not have enough financial
    wherewithal to provide the services--municipal services that
    are required to run a city of a million people. So, we're----
        Senator King. You mean they're running----
        Mr. Clapper.--electricity----
        Senator King. You mean they're running a deficit? Maybe we
    could ship them the sequester in a sealed railroad car.
    [Laughter.]
        Mr. Clapper. That'd be good.
        We're seeing signs of electrical--electricity outages,
    shortages of food and commodities. The airstrikes against
    their--the refining capability has forced them to go to a lot
    of individual mom-and-pop refining stills. So, they're going to
    have trouble generating the revenue that would be needed to
    actually run the areas they have captured. And that--and we're
    seeing anecdotal evidence of the strains and the stresses
    that's putting particularly on the city of Mosul and its
    citizens.
        Senator King. Does that suggest that perhaps a containment
    strategy instead of a reinvasion strategy--General Stewart,
    you've testified recently about the proportion of troops it
    takes to root somebody out of an urban setting. Could you
    articulate that for us?
        General Stewart. If I recall, we talked about the ratio of
    offensive forces to----
        Senator King. Correct.
        General Stewart.--take a urban environment, something in an
    order of 10 to 1, offense versus a defense. That requires a
    very skilled, determined force to take that kind of action.
        There is something to be said about ISIL wearing out its
    welcome. It's precisely what turned al Qaeda in Iraq before--
    the brutality, the inability to govern--that convinced the
    tribes that there may be a better option.
        Senator King. And ISIS is much more brutal than--and
    difficult than al-Qaeda, as I understand.
        General Stewart. The question is, Where is the tipping
    point? And it's very hard to determine where that tipping point
    where, where the Sunnis in Anbar will go, ``This is enough.
    There's a different option, and we ought to counter ISIS.'' So,
    I think there will be a tipping point at some point. We just
    don't know where that will be.
        Senator King. But, a--as you just testified, a 10-to-1
    ratio of offense to defense going into a city like Mosul means
    you're going to have a large, well-trained force. And it's just
    a question of whether that's going to be necessary, rather than
    let it fall of its own weight. And I guess that's a question of
    timing.
        General Stewart. It's a question of timing, yes, sir.
        Senator King. Quick question on cyber. It concerns me that
    all of our discussions about cyber are essentially defensive.
    We're talking about legislation to share information, we're
    talking about greater rebutting of these kinds of intrusions.
    Should we think, Mr. Director, about developing an offensive
    capability to provide a deterrent? It concerns me that now a--
    particularly a state actor can act essentially without fear of
    consequences. Whereas, the theory of deterrence in our nuclear
    field stood the test of time for 75 years. Should we think
    about a deterrent capacity so that people know that if they
    attack us in any kind of critical way, they're going to suffer
    in return?
        Mr. Clapper. Yes, we--I agree with you, Senator King. We--
    and we do--you know, we do have offensive capabilities that I
    can't go into here. I think the issue, though, is, What is the
    policy? What is it that would achieve cyber deterrence? And
    that is an issue that, at the policy level, we're still,
    frankly, wrestling with.
        Senator King. But, it is one that--I'm delighted to hear
    that it is being wrestled with, and I think I heard you say
    that this is something that we need to consider. And, of
    course, to go back to Dr. Strangelove, if you have a deterrent
    and don't tell people about it, it's not a deterrent.
        Mr. Clapper. Well, that's true.
        Senator King. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman McCain. Senator Ayotte.
        Senator Ayotte. I want to thank the Chairman, thank both of
    you for what you do to protect the country.
        And I wanted to ask about Iran. And I know that in, your
    written testimony, you have said--and you previously testified,
    Director Clapper, before this committee, that Iran was on
    track, by this year, in terms of its ICBM program. So, since
    the negotiations have been ongoing on the nuclear program, has
    Iran continued to develop its ICBM program? And can you tell me
    what the status and the goal of that program would be from
    Iran?
        Mr. Clapper. The Iranians have continued on their space
    launch vehicle program, and recently put into orbit a
    satellite. And obviously, that--any work they do on missile--
    missiles could conceivably go towards work on an
    intercontinental ballistic missile. And it's going to be hard
    to determine whether a given missile is launched for the
    purposes of a space launch vehicle, a satellite they want to
    put into space. Because if they do that, they also acquire
    proficiency, expertise, and experience in what could be a--an
    ICBM. And so, it's a hard question to answer, because it has a
    lot to do with intent. But, there's no question they have the
    technical competence.
        Senator Ayotte. Do you think they have good intent, in
    terms of what they're doing with their missile program?
        Mr. Clapper. Well, it's--no. I mean, I think the huge
    medium-range ballistic missile force they have today that's
    operational is--you know, I think poses a threat to the region
    now. So----
        Senator Ayotte. And if they----
        Mr. Clapper.--no, it's not.
        Senator Ayotte. And if they were to get ICBM capability,
    that obviously poses a threat, in terms of our country, and the
    East Coast in particular.
        Mr. Clapper. Well, it could. I mean, it, again, depends on
    what they actually do. If they actually are able to--you know,
    it's theoretically possible they could attempt to launch one
    this year. So, this is something we just have to watch. But,
    again, the challenge for us is going to be, you know,
    determining just what their intent is.
        Senator Ayotte. Could you help me understand also, as we
    think about Iran's activities, what types of other activities
    they're engaging in to establish regional hegemony?
        Mr. Clapper. Well, they are certainly trying to, where they
    can, reach out diplomatically. The organization that we watch a
    lot is the IRGC Quds Force that I mentioned previously, their
    intelligence activities throughout the region. But, they will
    look to establish their influence by whatever mechanism they
    can.
        Senator Ayotte. So, as I understand it, obviously they
    continue to support Assad, they have continued to support
    groups in the region, including Hezbollah. What other
    activities--are they still--would you still characterize them
    as one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the world?
        Mr. Clapper. They are still classified that way, yes.
        Senator Ayotte. Thank you.
        I would like to follow up on an issue that is hitting us at
    home, but I think has international implications, and that is
    of the international drug trafficking that's occurring. And, in
    particular, my home State of New Hampshire, we've had a
    devastating number of people who are dying from heroin
    overdoses. And so, I would certainly like to hear your opinion,
    General Stewart, about what is happening, in terms of drug
    trafficking--in particular, heroin--and how is--are the
    networks that are being used for drug trafficking, are they
    also being used to fuel terrorism?
        So, General Stewart, if you could share that with me. And
    I'd be curious, Does Southern Command and Northern Command--
    what do they need, in terms of fighting heroin and also the
    drug trafficking that can be used to fuel terrorism, as well?
        General Stewart. I'll have to look at the numbers again,
    but I don't think drug trafficking is on the increase from
    our--through our southern borders. I think Pakistan and
    Afghanistan heroin production continues about at the norm that
    we've seen over the last several years. We've seen no
    indications that the drug trafficking routes are being used for
    terrorist activities or hostile actions. And I spoke recently
    to the folks down in Southern Command, and I don't recall any
    request for additional capability to help them with the problem
    in the south.
        Mr. Clapper. If I can add, Senator.
        Senator Ayotte. Yes.
        Mr. Clapper. I well recall, I think it was last year, when
    General Kelly, Commander of SOUTHCOM, testified with then-
    General Jacoby, who was the NORTHCOM Commander--they testified
    together. And one of the challenges with drug trafficking is
    not so much a lack of intelligence--we have a lot of
    intelligence on it--is the lack of resource, particularly in
    the case of the ability to interdict, by the Coast Guard and
    others. And that, since General Kelly's testimony, has been--is
    being addressed. I've spoken--discussed that with the
    Commandant of the Coast Guard, and we are putting more of his
    capability, deploying more ships and planes, in the southern
    hemisphere.
        But, I think I would take, you know, a little mild
    disagreement, here, with Vince, that I think this is a--it is a
    problem, the--throughout this region, not only across the
    border, but through Puerto Rico is another vulnerability we
    have. And so--and we have pretty good intelligence on this.
        I think the challenge has been--and again, sequestration
    has had impacts--is on the ability to react and interdict.
        Senator Ayotte. I thank both of you. And I also noticed
    that, in your testimony, Director Clapper, you noted the
    incredible surge of heroin-related deaths since 2007. So, thank
    you. It's a horrible problem.
        Senator Reed [presiding]: Senator Kaine.
        Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you both for your testimony, both earlier in the
    week and today. Mindful that this is a--not a classified
    hearing, a few questions.
        My perception of the level of American and allied
    intelligence about the extent of the Iranian nuclear program is
    that, before November 2013 and the beginning of the Joint Plan
    of Action (JPOA), the level of intelligence was good. Certainly
    there were gaps and challenges, but at least, if I go by public
    reports, the level of intelligence at--that all have, together,
    enabled some actions that have slowed the Iranian program.
        One of the reasons I supported the JPOA is my assumption
    that our intel sources haven't gone away, but the inspections
    that were allowed--required under the JPOA, together with
    existing intel sources, would even give us a better level of
    intel, which would (a) help us determine if we needed, God
    forbid, to take military action to stop the program, and (b)
    enable us to better target any military action if, God forbid,
    we should need to take it. Am I looking at this the right way?
        Mr. Clapper. Yes, sir, I think you are. I will tell you
    that the, you know, huge--that the important aspect of any sort
    of agreement we might reach with the Iranians would be a very
    invasive and thorough surveillance and inspection capability on
    the part of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). I think
    that would be requisite to any kind of an agreement.
        I--you know, we have, I think, a reasonably capable
    intelligence capability, but I wouldn't want to rely on it,
    only, for verification that, in fact, the terms of the
    agreement were being lived up to.
        Senator Kaine. And, Director Clapper, I agree with the last
    point you made, is--I would look at any final deal, if one is
    reached, in analyzing its content and determining whether I
    support it or not. The degree of inspections, to me, is the key
    factor, because that, combined with existing intel, is our
    guarantee of an ability to (a) know if there's going to be a
    problem, and (b) take appropriate action--target an appropriate
    action to eliminate the problem.
        You indicated, Director Clapper, in earlier testimony, that
    your intel suggests that Iran is looking at the nuclear
    negotiation as sort of separate from this whole question of
    Iranian bellicosity and adventurism in the region, that these
    are sort of separate items. My sense is, there is at least one
    connection between the two. And this also bears on my analysis
    of any deal, if reached. And that is this. Any deal, if
    reached, would involve sanctions relief--i.e., dollars to Iran.
    And they use dollars to carry out adventurism. I think--you
    know, just from what I've heard, some of the sanctions relief
    already may have enabled them to invest more heavily in running
    Syria as a puppet state or invest more heavily in the Quds
    Force or other agents that are destabilizing governments
    outside of their own borders. And so, to at least that extent,
    as we look at any deal, if there is such a deal, there could be
    a connection between a deal and Iranian bellicosity outside
    their borders.
        Mr. Clapper. Perhaps, sir. And, in a classified
    environment, I can go into this a little bit more. But, the
    sanctions have had impacts on--financial impacts on the
    Iranians, and it--that, in turn, has impacted funding for the
    military and for even the Quds Force. So, I----
        Senator Kaine. Yeah.
        Mr. Clapper.--perhaps best left to a classified environment
    for----
        Senator Kaine. Thank you.
        Mr. Clapper.--more details.
        Senator Kaine. We have had two meetings of the Senate
    Foreign Relations Committee, in the last 3 weeks, where we've
    heard from leaders from the region who are engaged in the fight
    against ISIL. King Abdullah was with us about 3 weeks ago, and
    he told us, in a coffee at the Foreign Relations Committee,
    that American ground troops as part of this battle of ISIL
    would not be a good idea, in his view. Yesterday, we had a
    coffee with the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim, who also said
    American ground troops is a bad idea because it would convert
    the perception of the battle against ISIL to the United States
    or west against ISIL rather than, ``We are engaging in a battle
    to clean up our own regional extremists. And we want the--we
    want America's help on that.'' But, they both offered us advice
    that American ground troops would be problematic, because it
    would enable, from a propaganda standpoint, this being
    positioned as American or Western occupation, and that America
    is the point of the sphere--the spear against that terrorist
    threat. I'd just report that to you, and I would be curious to
    either of your's--your reactions to those comments from trusted
    allies.
        Mr. Clapper. Well, the--I have had similar discussions with
    the King, and he is a staunch proponent, an articulate one,
    for, you know, ``the people in the region have to take this on
    and have to lead,'' and that, you know, the United States--
    anytime we show up someplace, then, you know, we're a--we're,
    by definition, occupiers. He--you know, he recognizes, as do
    many others, that, at some point, there will be a need for
    boots on the ground, but hopefully others, not the United
    States, because that engenders its own challenges and issues.
        Senator Kaine. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Reed. Senator Sessions.
        Senator Sessions. Thank you, Senator Reed.
        And just to follow up on Senator Kaine's comment, I think
    we need to reestablish where we are, or confirm where we are,
    not--Director Clapper, is it still our policy that no options
    are off the table and that Iran should not have a nuclear
    weapon?
        Mr. Clapper. That's my understanding, yes, sir.
        Senator Sessions. That's your understanding. Do you have
    any doubt about it?
        Mr. Clapper. I take what the administration said for its
    word, that all options are not--no options are off the table.
        Senator Sessions. Well, I think that's true. We had a very
    important hearing yesterday on nuclear forces and strategic
    forces. And one of the things I came away with was greater
    concerns than I had before about the proliferation impacts, the
    instability in the region that could occur from a nuclear-armed
    Iran. And I just think that we've got to be careful about that.
    And I do remember that the CIA reported, in, what, early 2000s,
    that Iran wasn't intent on building a nuclear weapon. That was
    wrong, was it not?
        Mr. Clapper. Well, up until 2003, they were. Right now,
    they--and, of course, the--we believe the Supreme Leader would
    be the ultimate decisionmaker, here. And, as far as we know,
    he's not made a decision to go for a nuclear weapon. I do think
    that they certainly want to preserve options across the
    capabilities it would take to field one, but right now they
    don't have one, and have not made that decision.
        Senator Sessions. Well, we've been----
        Mr. Clapper. But, I agree with you, it would be very--it
    would be very profound and very destabilizing if they were to
    achieve a nuclear weapon.
        Senator Sessions. Is--I mean, it really makes us face some
    really tough choices. Our--I don't--but, I don't think there's
    any doubt they were--they would never--they never relinquished
    the intention to build a weapon. The CIA report was in error.
    And they are closer today. And every month that goes by, it
    seems they get closer.
        General Stewart, I had the honor to be briefed by you in
    2006 or 2007 in the al-Anbar region in Iraq. And you gave us a
    remarkable briefing about how you had--the marines had worked
    with the tribal leaders, and they began The Awakening that
    allowed them to remove al-Qaeda from that region after great,
    great commitment by the marines and other forces.
        This is what I would like to see. I am not for any major,
    massive American troop leadership in Iraq, but I do think--and
    I want you to give us your best judgment--but isn't it true
    that even a few embedded forces with the Iraqis with the
    ability to communicate to aircraft and bringing in smart bombs
    and to assist them, that that does encourage them, and that the
    Iranian forces fight better under those circumstances than if
    they don't have the confidence that a--even a small American
    presence with them brings?
        General Stewart. Senator, let me answer the question this
    way. Senator Kaine raised a great point of what we've heard.
    The best propaganda victory that we could give ISIL is to make
    this a fight between the West and Islam--and ISIL. But, being
    able to provide ISR, precision fires, some command and control
    will certainly help those forces--Iraqi forces--to be much more
    effective on the ground than left to their own devices.
        Senator Sessions. And--all right, I agree with that. But,
    I'm just asking you, from your experience with them, isn't it
    true that there is more confidence, even if there are just one
    or two Special Forces there with them--not out in the--leading
    the fight--
        General Stewart. Right.
        Senator Sessions.--but with the forces that are advancing?
        General Stewart. There is a great sense of comfort when
    U.S. forces are with our partners to provide precision, to
    provide command and control, to help bolster leadership. There
    is some advantage, yes, sir.
        Senator Sessions. With regard to the momentum that we have
    there, aren't there--I mean, we have a large Iraqi army. And--
    --
        Is my time up? My time's up, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Maybe
    we'll----
        Chairman McCain [presiding]. If you want to finish your
    question----
        Senator Sessions. How--are they--can't some of those
    divisions, some of those units, be utilized now to blunt the
    momentum that they have--that ISIS has achieved, and maybe take
    the bloom off their rose and give some confidence again, in the
    Iraqi forces, that they can retake the territory, and the
    sooner is better than later?
        General Stewart. Yes, Senator. In fact, they have blunted
    the ISIL advance. And, best as we can guess, ISIL has lost
    territory over the last couple of months. So, it's not just the
    Iraqi Security Forces. You have the Kurdish forces that are
    involved. And they are making a difference. I wouldn't
    categorize the difference as significant, but they are, in
    fact, causing ISIL to lose territory at this point.
        Senator Sessions. We've been training them for a decade.
    Not as if they need another--I don't know. I'm--a little odd
    that we need another 6 to 9 months of training, when I thought
    we were training the Iraqi armies for nearly a decade.
        General Stewart. When we talk about the 6 to 9 months
    additional training, it is to deal with an urban fight, which
    is very, very different, very complex, requires a great deal of
    skill, a great deal of precision to be successful.
        Senator Sessions. Thank you, General, in your leadership
    and your commitment to fight this----
        Chairman McCain. Also has to do with the collapse of the
    Iraqi army.
        Senator Manchin.
        Senator Manchin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thanks, both of you, again for being here. And just a
    couple of questions I have.
        Following up on the Iran nuclear capabilities that they may
    have, since we know that they haven't dismantled--they might
    have downgraded some of their enriched uranium--are we just
    prolonging the inevitable? I mean, they're going to be able to
    get up to enrichment and to armament speed pretty quickly, if
    they desired, unless there's an absolute dismantlement of
    their----
        Mr. Clapper. Well----
        Senator Manchin.--capabilities. Director Clapper?
        Mr. Clapper.--that's obviously the concern, and that's why
    the importance of intrusive and comprehensive surveillance and
    inspection is so critical, to make sure they don't,
    particularly, enrich to highly enriched uranium.
        Senator Manchin. But, we're not doing away with any of
    their centrifuges. They're not downgrading some of the things
    that they can, or taking away their capabilities. I don't think
    our agreement's----
        Mr. Clapper. Well, that's----
        Senator Manchin.--going to achieve that.
        Mr. Clapper.--that's to be determined. That's a--you know,
    the--and I don't want to talk too much about this----
        Senator Manchin. Sure.
        Mr. Clapper.--because of the delicate state of play with
    the negotiations, themselves. But, that's all in play as part
    of the negotiations.
        Senator Manchin. Well, I have a concern.
        If I could switch gears over to China and--basically, our
    partners in Asia-Pacific area, especially Taiwan. They're
    growing uneasy about China's access area denial strategy which
    seeks to limit American power in that region. Can you please
    update us on China's effort to deny American access to the
    Asia-Pacific region, sir?
        Mr. Clapper. Well, the Chinese--and I can't go into a great
    deal of detail here, but the Chinese are embarked on extremely
    impressive military modernization program across the board. And
    their modernization program is deliberately designed to
    counteract or thwart what they feel are our strengths; meaning
    carrier aviation, our bases, C4ISR, and our abilities in space.
    And they are doing specific things in each one of those realms
    to deny us, first, potentially, surveillance, command and
    control, as well as what they view is our primary weapons--our
    primary strengths. I can certainly go into--in more detail if
    you're--if you'd like, in a classified setting.
        Senator Manchin. Okay. I'm just--I guess you're not able to
    speak about their developing capabilities within the last 10
    years or what they're accelerating. I'm understanding they're
    accelerating very fastly. You said they're impressive.
        Mr. Clapper. They are. And they also are getting more and
    more into the realm of indigenously designing and producing
    things, rather than relying on others, notably the Russians.
        Senator Manchin. Okay. Let me see, I had one more here for
    you.
        We talked about, I think, in a closed setting--you might be
    able to talk about it in generality here--as far as ISIS, their
    ability, as far as financial ability, to attract the dollars
    they do, be able to operate the way they can. And are we having
    any success in shutting down that money flow?
        Mr. Clapper. Well, they--again, I'll have to speak in
    generalities, here--they acquired a lot of funding initially,
    some of which was derived from overrunning Iraqi banks.
        Senator Manchin. Sure.
        Mr. Clapper. That's going to dry up. And, of course, the
    airstrikes against the oil has made that--forced them to go to
    sort of mom-and-pop stills. And, as a consequence of the
    brutality, the donations that they've received are tapering
    off. So, I think, again, this says something about an
    attrition----
        Senator Manchin. I----
        Mr. Clapper.--approach which I think, over time--and the
    other thing, of course, that's draining resources is the
    demands that they have for governance, particularly in large--
    --
        Senator Manchin. Yeah.
        Mr. Clapper.--cities like Mosul.
        Senator Manchin. Just a--just very quickly. But, the rapid
    rise, as far as in their--when we first heard about ISIS, it
    was 3-, 5,000, then it just seemed to leapfrog to 10-, 15-, 20-
    , and 30-. Were they paying their soldiers, or attracting
    because of better pay than--
        Mr. Clapper. The reason they----
        Senator Manchin.--al Qaeda and Taliban?
        Mr. Clapper. The reason they--there was sort of mushrooming
    growth there, and the initial phases when they did their
    attacks in northern Iraq----
        Senator Manchin. Sure.
        Mr. Clapper.--was because the--this is largely a Sunni
    region. They were very receptive, frankly, to joining up with
    ISIL, which I think many viewed as a better protector of
    themselves and their communities and their families than were
    the Iraqi Government. So, that's what occasioned the joining
    up.
        Senator Manchin. Do you have any----
        Mr. Clapper. Now, we're--we're now seeing anecdotal
    evidence of their having--and paid, you know, money----
        Senator Manchin. Were they paying better than----
        Mr. Clapper. They are----
        Senator Manchin.--everybody else?
        Mr. Clapper.--also having to reduce the amount of money
    they're paying some of their fighters.
        Senator Manchin. So, that should reduce--that could reduce
    some of their strength, right? If they don't pay them as well
    as somebody else?
        Mr. Clapper. That and the--and what we're also seeing--
    again, anecdotal evidence of--they've been driven to
    conscription. In other worse, forcing people to join the ranks
    to----
        Senator Manchin. Gotcha.
        Mr. Clapper.--sustain their fighter force, particularly as
    they've taken some pretty heavy losses--notably, in Khobani.
        Senator Manchin. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman McCain. Senator Sullivan.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, gentlemen, for your wonderful
    service to our country.
        General Stewart, you may have noticed the Chairman has a
    particularly soft spot in his heart for marines. He's probably
    treated you in that regard. So----
        General Stewart. I'm pretty delighted about that, too,
    Senator.
        Senator Sullivan. Yeah. Well, I'll make sure he keeps
    treating you with kid gloves, I'm sure.
        I want to thank you gentlemen for what you're doing,
    because I think that your service, particularly providing real,
    accurate threat assessments to not only the Congress, but to
    the American people, the administration, is absolutely,
    fundamentally critical if we're going to get a hold of these--
    many of the challenges that we face right now as a country. And
    you probably noticed that this committee has had several
    hearings over the last several weeks about these assessments
    with some luminaries, Democrat, Republican, former Secretaries
    of State, former four-star generals, about what they see as
    some of the challenges and strategies that we need. I think
    there was consensus that we're living in a very challenging
    environment. Henry Kissinger mentioned it was one of the most
    challenging that he's ever seen in his career, which says a
    lot.
        What I want to touch on a little bit is what I see as a
    rather disturbing disconnect between some of the testimony that
    comes from gentlemen like yourself from this whole series of
    hearings that we had and the disconnect between that and senior
    administration officials. Let me give you a few examples.
        The President, himself, in the State of the Union, talked
    about the crisis of 9/11 and everything has passed. Went
    through a whole list of things that made it sound like we're
    living in a very benign world environment.
        The Secretary of State yesterday talked about, ``actually
    living in a period of less daily threats to American and people
    in the world normally.'' That was his quote.
        The recent National Security Strategy document from the
    White House lists, I believe, climate change if--as one of the
    top, if not the top, national security threat, relative to,
    say, Iran gaining nuclear weapons, or ISIS.
        Do you agree with these assessments from the senior
    leadership of the administration, that we're living in a less
    daily threatening--that Iran gaining nuclear weapons is less of
    a threat than climate change? I really need--I think it's
    critical that we level with the American people what exactly
    are the threats that we face as a country right now. And I
    don't think we're getting it from the administration.
        Mr. Clapper. Well, I think our function, in the
    intelligence community, is to portray, as accurately as we can,
    what we see as the threats. We probably always occupy the half
    of the glass that's empty, and policymakers, and oftentimes
    military commanders, will occupy the half of the glass that's
    full. Probably the real truth is at the water line.
        I think our instinct, frankly, is to perhaps--I've been
    criticized for this--worst-case the situation. Having been on
    the receiving end of virtually every post-event critique
    investigating intelligence failures since September 11, I think
    we are much more conservative and much more cautious than
    others might be about the nature of the world out there. But, I
    think we have a certain institutional responsibility, which we
    try to discharge. If others don't see it that way or others
    don't agree, that's certainly their prerogative.
        Senator Sullivan. So, do you agree with those assessments
    that----
        Mr. Clapper. I'm not in the mode of--we don't do policy,
    and I'm not critiquing those who do make it.
        Senator Sullivan. Okay. I don't think that's policy that
    they've been putting out. I think it's--they're giving threat
    assessments to the American people that are inaccurate. But,
    let me----
        Mr. Clapper. Well, climate change----
        Senator Sullivan. I'll move on----
        Mr. Clapper. I mean, climate change, for example, I think
    will have--does have national security implications. It--if you
    watch what's going on in the Arctic now, and the impacts on
    climate change, in terms of water availability and this sort of
    thing, does have national security implications. I probably
    wouldn't rank it up there as problem or threat number one, but
    it is a serious concern.
        Senator Sullivan. Let me just ask General Stewart. The--you
    know, the--Senator Manchin was talking about the increasing
    recruitment of ISIL. What role do you see that they are
    perceived as continuing to win, as continuing to be victorious,
    as continuing to be kind of a team that's gaining ground, not
    being defeated? I think--in your experience, I'm sure that if a
    recruit thinks he's going to go join a team and get killed, he
    probably is not going to be interested in joining that team,
    but if they seem to be perceived as kind of gaining ground--
    North Africa now, Syria, Iraq--do you think that that helps in
    their recruitment efforts?
        General Stewart. A very capable propaganda media operation
    that emphasizes their success and their victories, however
    small, and that is a basis for attracting those who would move
    to that ideology. So, their success on the battlefield, or
    perceived success, or the way they're presented, certainly
    helps them in gaining recruits for the fight.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman McCain. Senator Gillibrand.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you both for being here today.
        The execution of Coptic Christians in Libya by terrorists
    affiliated with ISIL raises a question about ISIL's ability to
    coordinate with other groups. What's your assessment of the
    links between ISIL in Syria and Iraq and the groups that have
    acted in its name outside of those two countries?
        Mr. Clapper. If you're referring to ISIL's other chapters
    or provinces, so-called, if that's what you--if that's what
    you're referring to?
        Senator Gillibrand. Yes.
        Mr. Clapper. And what's the connection there?
        Senator Gillibrand. So, what's your assessment of their
    ability to coordinate, to communicate, to engage in terrorist
    acts outside of Syria and Iraq?
        Mr. Clapper. If you--do you mean the homeland or elsewhere
    in the world?
        Senator Gillibrand. Your choice, but both would be good.
        Mr. Clapper. Well, I think what they've tried--they're
    trying to do, of course, is to create the--both the substance
    and, maybe more importantly, the image of this global-scale
    caliphate by establishing chapters or franchises, if you will,
    in places like Libya, Egypt, Yemen, and South Asia. The extent
    to which, though, they--this is some monolithic organization,
    where ISIL in al-Rikah or Abu Du'a or Baghdadi is calling the
    shots in, say, Afghanistan/Pakistan, I don't see a lot of
    evidence of this. I think this is more about pledging
    allegiance to the brutality and the savagery of the--of ISIL.
    But, the first and foremost issues for these local chapters is
    local.
        I think, aspirationally, there is a threat that ISIL poses,
    potentially, to the homeland, and those they might harbor in
    their area, particularly in Iraq and Syria, who would do us
    harm.
        Senator Gillibrand. I agree with that assessment. And we
    just had a recent case out of Brooklyn, where we had threats
    being made.
        You mentioned Yemen. Could you just briefly----
        Mr. Clapper. If I----
        Senator Gillibrand. Go ahead.
        Mr. Clapper. If I might comment on that, ma'am, this is
    what I was referring to in my oral statement about--and this is
    a real challenge for all of us in--whether homeland security or
    intelligence--is the appeal, the rhetorical or spiritual appeal
    that, because of the effective--very highly effective media
    capabilities that ISIL has demonstrated, and how that--they are
    able to appeal to people, who then can act on their own at a
    time--in a time and place and circumstance of their choosing.
    And that is a very worrisome challenge, particularly in this
    country. So, not so much them commanding/controlling plots as
    much as----
        Senator Gillibrand. Inspiring----
        Mr. Clapper.--inspiring them.
        Senator Gillibrand.--plots, right.
        So, do you have recommendations for us about ways to stem
    that tide? Do you believe that our allies and other countries
    are doing their fair share? Particularly, I am concerned about
    the flow of foreign fighters, some of them from the United
    States, from Europe into--in and out of Syria. For example,
    what should Turkey be doing to help us more?
        Mr. Clapper. Well, as we discussed before, Turkey has its
    own focus, which doesn't necessarily comport with ours, in
    terms of focusing on ISIL or al-Qaeda. They have very
    permissive laws. It would be good if they could--if we could--
    if they would change them to have more stringent controls over
    who transits through their country.
        I do--I would volunteer that I think, because of the
    effectiveness of the media campaign or the propaganda campaign
    that ISIL mounts, that we, the United States, and we, the West,
    we who oppose ISIL need to be, I think, much more aggressive in
    mounting the counternarrative.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman McCain. I want to thank the witnesses.
        Just before we conclude, could I just, again, take a look
    at that chart over there--General, I know you've seen it--as to
    the expansion of the Chinese by filling in areas in the South
    China Sea. That's a rather dramatic change, it seems to me. And
    obviously, they'd be filling in--that in, in order to place
    installations there. Is--could you talk a little bit about that
    before we conclude?
        Mr. Clapper. Well, the Chinese, of course, have had their
    exorbitant claims, the so-called ``Nine-Dash line,'' throughout
    the South China Sea, been very aggressive about pursuing that.
    The--and, of course, this runs afoul of counterclaims that many
    of the other countries also have in the same area. And they,
    too, are very concerned about it. In fact, I think, in a sense,
    that's--that may be a good thing, because, in the end, their
    strength is going to be as--if an act--they can act
    collectively.
        So, what the Chinese are doing, here, of course--in one
    case, you know, building airfield--an airdrome so that they can
    launch aircraft in and out to do patrols and surveillance and
    further exert what they consider is their sovereignty over the
    South China Sea. And it has been impressive, in the last year,
    year and a half since they've been doing this, as they pursued
    drilling, which has caused conflict with the Vietnamese and
    others. And so, this is a worrisome trend of the Chinese
    because of the tensions it's going to create in the South China
    Sea.
        Chairman McCain. So, you've----
        Mr. Clapper. But, they've been very aggressive about it.
        Chairman McCain. So, you've got, not only the capability to
    build an airfield, but, obviously, weapon systems. Could also
    be--
        Mr. Clapper. Well, they could, exactly.
        Chairman McCain. Yeah.
        Mr. Clapper. Of course, they're still in the construction
    phase, so what they actually deploy to something like this, or
    whether they permanently--they make it big enough so they could
    permanently station forces, that'll be interesting to see what
    they do.
        Chairman McCain. Well, obviously our attention is on other
    parts of the world, but this is really quite a major step on
    their part. And I thank you for helping us out on that.
        Jack, do you----
        Senator Reed. I'd--if I may, with just one question, in
    reaction to Senator Gillibrand's questioning.
        We all understand, there's a huge, sort of, public campaign
    that ISIL is undertaking to attract recruits, to dramatize what
    they're doing. And you may not be able to comment in this
    setting. But, are we taking steps to interdict that
    communication so that they're not able to put things up and
    attract recruits and communicate?
        Mr. Clapper. Well, the problem there is, their ubiquitous
    use of the media. And so, the challenge is, How do you take
    down the Internet? Because that's more and more what they're
    doing. In the day when al Qaeda or ISIL put these things out,
    it was kind of channelized, and we kind of watched it, and
    could do that. They've gotten wise to that, and now they make
    it very difficult, because of the universal forums and the way
    they get things out so ubiquitously. Very hard to control it.
    Ergo, what we must do, I believe, is counter the messages.
        Senator Reed. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman McCain. General, I know you've had a--are going to
    have and are having a very busy couple of days, and I know you
    understand that we have our responsibilities to try to inform
    members in the Senate so that we can shape legislation to help
    you do your job more effectively and efficiently.
        And we thank both of you for being here.
        This hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:28 a.m., the committee adjourned.]

                                     [all]