When they do that it alienates potentially the Central Government in baghdad but to me the important aspect here and the important theme would be to sustain the pressure. One of the sources that has been surprisingly consequential is blackmarket antiquities sales for the looting. It is my understanding that the u. S. Has sanctions it can impose on anyone who imports antiquities stolen by isis but it doesnt have separate abilities to sanction individuals who purchase looted syrian antiquities. Would it be helpful to authorize sanctions that are not just against the buyer or the seller but against the middle man who are involved . I would take that under an fis and and consult with my colleagues in the department of treasury but i would tell you in the relative scheme of things the sale of antiquities is not a big revenue generator, it taper off some. Whatever way we can pressure the isil financially we should. I want to thank you for your service, and thank you for your many decades of service to our country, we appreciate it. I want to follow up on your written statement where you reiterated it today, iran reviews it as a way to preserve its Nuclear Capabilities and in the second option to expand its nuclear infrastructure, can you expand on that . The period of the agreement plays out, i think the iraqis will push the margins, they have done work on research and development on centrifuge designed. They sustained the position they have taken, the supreme leader, they are not going to pursue Nuclear Weapons but there are many other things they could do in a Nuclear Context that serve to enhance their technology and expertise. Let me ask you, we saw deer ran have Ballistic Missile tests on october 10th and november 21st, even pre receiving the sanctions cash release, they recently received of billions of dollars. We also know recently north korea had a space launch continuing to develop their icbm program. I wanted to ask you first of all, we know in your statement you mentioned historically there has been cooperation between north korea and iran under Ballistic Missile program, can you tell us what that cooperation has been and can we expect that north korea will sell or Share Technology with tehran that the expedite irans development of icbm missiles . I have to be mindful of the setting here, there has not been a great deal of interchange between iraq and iran, between north korea and iran on the subject of Nuclear Missile capabilities that there has been in the past. We have been reasonably successful in detecting this so hopefully upper. Vigilance we will sustain that. North koreans are interested in cash and this is one of there we know iran has more cash. They do now but as general stuart indicated a lot of their cash, at least initially was in cumbered. Iranians have a lot of obligations to fulfil the economically. Let me follow up. What do you make of the fact that the iranians did in fact, in violation of existing u. N. Resolutions made two launches of Ballistic Missiles and i think you were asked about the sanctions that were put in place, lets test the clear, those sanctions were not very tough, do you think those are going to deter iran from continuing to develop its icbm program . The iranians have conducted 140 launches since the original u. N. Security Council Resolution in 1929, it was imposed in 2010. Sows 70 of those, half of them were done during the negotiations given the fact that the missiles were not a part of a negotiation. As far as these two lunches are concerned, this was a deliberate message of defiance, the iranians will continue with an Aggressive Program to develop their missile course. You and i have talked in the past to be clear, we judge that tehran would choose Ballistic Missiles as his preferred method of delivering Nuclear Weapons if it builds from. That is obviously why you would build a Ballistic Missile if you choose to build a nuclear weapon. Have hundreds that threatened the middle east, two under development that could potentially given the technology, the immediate one that is the most of proximate that would be launched, built by civilians and ostensibly for space launch. I only have five seconds left but i want to follow up with a question. I believe you said apps and sentinel which of course is 30 to 50 times more powerful is coming over our southern border and that has doubled by the Mexican Drug Cartel going back to 2010. Do you believe that is something general kelly has raised this as commander of south calm. Said Delivery System and those cartels could actually deliver almost anything with sophisticated networks that have established but the you believe we should be focused on more interdiction particularly on the apps problem . I do. The experience of what i have observed, kelly said this consistently when he testified, it wasnt for lack of intelligence, it was lack of operational capacity to react and interdict. I am a big fan of the coast guard. The coast guard has done great things, and the new National Security cutters are fantastic capability for drug interdiction purposes. Thank you. Thanks to the witnesses. I have many questions to ask but also will focus on one. I am struggling with this and would love to hear your thoughts about low oil prices and how they affect our security posture. This is not in a litany of gloom. This is a good thing that has some elements that are challenging. I was in israel in april 2010 meeting with president shimon peres and asked him what would be the most important thing the u. S. Could do to enhance security in the region and he said wean yourself off of dependence on oil from the middle east and as i talked to him his basic logic was to the extent we develop non carbon alternatives for or our own native energy sources, our demand for middle eastern oil would drop, that would have the effect of reducing prices and a lot of the nations elise, iran and other nations, russia or venezuela, they used High Oil Prices to finance bellicose adventures in and if they get more stress on the cash time that had a hard time doing it so we have seen a Dramatic Development in american native energy and non carbon energy, and we have seen oil prices go to dramatic lows and the wont stayed there forever, but many are predicting they will stay significantly lower than historic lows. Is good for american consumers, good for american businesses, poses a challenges for our principal adversaries, russia for example, puts a cap to some degree on what iran would get from being back in the Global Economy selling the oil but it also poses some risks as well. I have heard european counterparts theyre really worried about aggressive russia but even more worried about economic basket case russia. From the intel side as you look at intel and threats, talk a little bit about the prospect all of Lower Oil Prices and danny negatives associated with that. You have painted the picture pretty well. It is working, i guess you could say, to our advantage, spoke about that earlier, the price of crude is 20 a barrel. When russias planning factor for the National Budget is 50 a barrel. This is effective for example, they have been unable to invest in the arctic, so it has profound impact and will for some time, structurally in russia. Venezuela is another case. The country that was completely dependent almost for its revenue for a long time on oil revenue, with a precipitous drop in oil, had a drop on the economy which is that is managed anyway and is laced with all kinds of subsidies for its people there people are facing insolvency so it has that effect and to the extent that we become independent and not depending on any ones oil, that is a good thing. Countries caught in the middle, i think, will be a mixed bag as to how well they manage themselves, and they are dependent on the price of oil. If is height either by virtue of Natural Forces or artificially, that could have a deleterious impact on the economy in europe so it is a mixed picture. A followup about russia in particular. It seems that sometimes they are more likely to engage in some adventurism outside their country when their internal politics and economy is in trouble. When things go bad at home, he wants to divert attention and whether it is throwing an olympics or world cup or invading another country that seems to be a move that he will make when he has dissatisfaction at home driven by economic challenges a there is some degree to which Lower Oil Prices negative affects an adversary that may make more unpredictable. That is true. All decisionmaking in russia is essentially done by one person. The russians have great capacity for in during pain and suffering. Polls that are taken in russia still indicate high levels of popularity of 80 range for Vladimir Putin. Is interesting, speeches of late, domestically have taken a different turn or different tone in that they are much more exhorting patriotic spirit and the great history of russia come as i think probably a way of diverting attention from the poor Economic Performance of the russian economy and by any measure, you look at unemployment, inflation, at an alltime low, investment etc. Whatever measure you want is not good for a russian perspective. The issue of how does that affect the street . At what point do people start turning up and demonstrating, people get organized on a large scale throughout russia, russians are very concerned about that. Thank you, mr. Chair. Thank you, mr. Chairman. In your statement you assess that foreign support will allow damascus to make gains in some key areas of this year. General stuart, you state that the Bashar Alassad regime is unlikely to be militarily defeated or collapse in the near term and poised to enter 2016 in a strong guerrilla military position, and increased support they are receiving from iran and hezbollah and russia. Given Bashar Alassads apparently improving fortunes that we are seeing, do you assess that they will negotiate any transition from power . Certainly in a much stronger negotiating position than he was six months ago. Forces supported by Russian Air Force and iranian and hezbollah forces, are having some affect, not decisive affect across the battlefield. In a much stronger negotiating position and i am more inclined to believe he is up player on the stage longerterm than he was six months to a year ago. In much better position. How would you define longerterm . This one is interesting because the russians are very comfortable with the idea that if they have a regime that supports their interest, Bashar Alassad might not be as important, Bashar Alassad is more important to the iranians to maintain their relationship with syria and the status around lebanon. Giving all parties to agree on whether he should go, the timeline should go, who might be a better alternative, with all the parties, this is such a dynamic space. And change in status for the next year or so and beyond that we will see the fight on the battlefield unfolds. Before i turn to you, when you mention about iran and moscow being able to Work Together on this, diverging in their support for Bashar Alassad and keeping him in power or giving him more leverage, do you think that will come to a head in the short term, long term and consequences of that. I can remember it wasnt that long ago we would all set up, a question on if Bashar Alassad is leaving when he is leaving, that obviously is changed. Eruption reinforcement has change the calculus in the company, tactical relationship that iran and russia has today, at some point, it is hard to predict at some point will diverge because they wont shares the stage. Iran wants to be the regional hegemon, if it has to compete with russia in the longerterm, cant put months or years but inches will diverge because competition is a regional power. In the nearterm, up to pop up the regime and the regime in my mind is not necessarily Bashar Alassad, allows russia to maintain its interests, to allow iran to control c rea, greater syria and parts of lebanon. When those things become tension points, their interests, russia jettisons Bashar Alassad, and a tactical break down and it is irans interest to maintain a relationship with russia because of what we talked about earlier, the ability to procure weapons from russia without any preconditions and would like to modernize military forces and russia seems to be an option. The relationship might be tense. The regional desires for control, they have the enduring relationship for the procurement standpoint. I am out of time but if you have a couple commentslike to add i apologize for giving you less time. That is fine. Both the russians and the iranians are growing interested in using proxys rather than their own forces, russians are incurring casualties, the iranians are and so to the extent, in hizbollah, russians are not wedded to Bashar Alassad, but they have the same challenge as everyone else. If not Bashar Alassad, who . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for being with us this morning. I was discussing yesterday with one of our partners overall longterm intelligence and worldwide for rats. I am afraid and you touched upon this in your report, the syrian refugee crisis is a precursor of a larger refugee crisis we could be facing over the next and to twentyfirst based on predictions of climate change. The world will be subject to droughts, crop loss, flooding in some areas, and the band around north africa, central africa, southeast asia. We could see mass migrations that could strain the western countries. Would you concur . Alluded to that in the statement about the fact the we have some 60 Million People around the globe displaced in one way or another, and i think if that increases, it will create all those people want to go way things are better. That will place greater stress on the remainder of the countries, with is there in the americas, europe, africa, asia or wherever, and the effects of climate change, whether aberrations or however you describe them, what we have by way of resources to feed and support the growing World Population is of finite resources. Theres only so much water, so much land so the conditions you mentioned i believe are going to comment more fresh air for migrants, not on top of instability of government that i spoke briefly about, will make for a challenging situation in the future. Turning to something you touched inert, the lack of capacity of the drug imports, the real strategic and tactical challenge, we are suffering terribly in my home state of maine, New Hampshire has one death, overdose, 200 year, one that every weekday if you will, we are trying to deal with the demand side, treatment and prevention but keeping this stuff out to begin with, the supply is up. Where should we be putting efforts in the interdictions side . Working with the mexican government, aware great deal of this comes from is mexico. The partnership pecan engender with them. Do they want to stop this . Did they see this as a cash crop . It depends on who they is from mexico, the National Leadership would obviously like to stop the flow but as you know there are very powerful forces in mexico that are against that. We have a lot of money so they also have a corruption problem to deal with. We need to be as aggressive as we can be in interdicting what we can, mentioned earlier for example the tremendous impact of coast guard capabilities when they are brought to bear. As we discussed earlier general kelly, former commander of south calm, spoken to this many times about not so much lack of intelligence but rather lack of Operational Capability to respond, the intelligence capability and capacity needs to be matched by a resource commitment. We need greater commitment than interdiction capacity. End to take is for the record, always at these hearings we talk about cyberthreat, we have done some actions here, got through a cyberbill, and i am concerned about Critical Infrastructure and for the record you could give us some thoughts about what further we should be doing in congress. That is one of the areas of greatest vulnerability. I share your concern. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for your many years of service to this country. I would like to say this reassuring many members of the committee to vote to give the worlds worst state sponsor of terrorism tens of billions of dollars about what iran might do with that money. I wish we had more of those concerns during the debate and for your vote on it. Ending 45 years of Public Service this is the worst global threat environment you have seen. Is that correct . Say it again and response to a question earlier. That was your point with senator mccain earlier, the worst global threat environment in 46 years. Certainly the most divers a ray of challenges and threats that i can recall. Why is that . Frankly it is somewhat a function of change in the bipolar system that did provide a certain stability in the world. The soviet Union Community alliance, the west led by the United States, and all other threats were subsumed, the contest but went on for decades and was characterized by stability. When that ended its set off a whole range, group of forces or dynamics around the world that changed. You both have long experience in the middle east. Does the middle east but place that prices negotiations or strength and toughness . I would argue in almost all these cases strained is preferred over signs of weakness. The reputation for power is an important part of the reality of power and National Security affairs. What would you believe is our current reputation for power in the middle east after say ten american sailors were videotaped kneeling at gunpoint by Iranian Revolutionary guard forces . I dont know that that incident alone reflects the perception of our strength and power. Over the last seven years there has been concern among our partners about our commitment to the region, our willingness to employee the force where our interests both national and strategic interest lie. That has caused a little concern among our partners about our commitment to the region. I would like to return to the question senator heinrich raise, the Saudi Foreign ministry, suggested that they would be willing to deploy their troops to the ground in cnn asked you to assess the capability of those military is the threats for good or for ill are the intention in both statements from saudi arabia and the you a even a insisted they would need to see u. S. Leadership in that effort. Do you have any idea what kind of leadership they are talking about . What more they would expect to see from the United States that they are not seeing at the moment . I took it to mean specifically with respect to if they deployed significant military force into syria. I took it to mean the command and control capability of the u. S. Is pretty good at, that is what i took it to mean. I think the arab countries led by saudi arabia would like to see more Ground Forces to match their commitment. Having said that, i do not assess the saudi Ground Forces would have neither the capacity to take this fight john kaimac as i said earlier, theyre very capable, acquitted themselves well in yemen, the capacity to take an additional fight elsewhere. The idea is how do we get more u. S. Skin in the game . In early october after russia began its insertion president obama called the, quote, a big mistake and, quote, doomed to fail. Delete four months later that russias incursion into syria is a big mistake from their standpoint and doomed to fail . It could be a big mistake reporter thank you for Public Service. Given what you just said, about russia being bogged down, back to the comments of senator kaine about a cash reserves of russia diminishing because of the price of oil and you mentioned at some point these are my words, the street in russia is going to erupt. Can you give us any sense when that might occur given the factors that have been discussed in the whole Committee Meeting . I cannot. I dont know when that Tipping Point might occur. The russian people have great capacity for in during discomfort and inconvenience and payne, but at some point they will reach a breaking point can and i think the russian leadership is mindful of that and very concerned about it. This sustained economic recession which will go well into 2016 is somewhat imponderable to predict when this is sustained, will cause a breaking point and when the street will say something. From an intel standpoint, Vladimir Putin can continue his diversions, crimea, syria, what not, to get the nationalistic forever of the russian people continually stoked up, but when they cant get butter and they get to the point that they realize that is going more to done this do we have any sense from the history of russia or from an intel standpoint do we hear anything of the rumblings going on in russia that would give us a better idea how to predict that timing. I dont think predicting sociological dynamics is val wh demise home their ability to endure the gradual erosion of the economy of russia, their tight control of information, not unlike the heyday of the soviet union to me at least makes it difficult to predict wind all those forces will collide. Let me ask about assured access to space which is essential to our National Security. We have a great deal of optimism as a result of what we are seeing, a number of companies now producing rockets that seem to be quite successful, we have the likelihood of new engines being produced. But this senator is concerned, not in the long term but more in the short term of is there a gap there is that if we do not have that russian supplied in an that we will not have the assured access to space because of the alternative being number one that the delta a 4 cannot be produced quickly enough and number 2, that it would be prohibitively expensive compared to the alternative of the atlas 5. I said earlier, senator nelson i am customer mode. I have certain imperatives in terms of our assured access to space, this is crucial capability for the nations safety and security. I look to the providers of those who get those things into space which for me is the air force. The delta has worked great for us. We felt it was responsive. It is costeffective in the work force. Are you concerned that there could be a gap . When we had managed gaps, not so much because of launch but simply because of capabilities in space that is a great concern to was in the Intelligence Community so i would be very concerned about gaps. Senator rounds. Thank you, thank you for your service to the country, most certainly appreciate the participation you have this day. In october of last year the u. S. Naval Institute Published a chilling article detailing the long list of advanced weaponry the Chinese Military has stolen from other nations either through cyberespionage or reverse engineering. What roles do you see the intelligence agencies taking to prevent this hemorrhaging of american technological advantage . It is our responsibility to ensure that our policymakers particularly the department of defense are aware of this hemorrhage of technological information so i think our duty, our obligation is to make sure people know about this and where we can suggest ways to stop it. General stuart. I dont know that i could anything more to is that. We have given appreciation and understanding of the threat vectors. We informed and provide potential solutions. It is up to those who have the technology, who threatened their intellectual property threatened to take this countermeasure is no we identify, we born, we report. It is over to the users. With regard to the tools you have available today do you have the appropriate equipment, tools, to detect and report these attacks . Yes we do but id define, this gives me an opportunity for a small commercial, we do sustain our indeed, particularly important that we stay ahead of cybertechnological developments in but domain of foreign intelligence purposes to stay abreast of these. What do you believe constitutes an act of war in cyberspace, what do you think it will look like . When does it become an act of war . Great question, senator, that we have wrestled with. To western extent i guess is in thought i of the beholder. This gets to the whole issue of cyberat the terence and those complex questions. That is the determination that would almost have to be made on a case by case basis depending on the impact. If we were to suggest it was time to define what an act of war in cyberspace would be it would not be appropriate or should we be looking at clearly defining what an act of war constitutes with regard to cyberactivities . Would that be helpful or not . It would be extremely helpful to have clear definitions of what contest to students cyberattacks versus acts of war. With little cyberevents and define it as an attack. In many cases you can do reconnaissance, as the and i should, that in this domain we call cyberspace but the reaction always is when there is an adversary during reconnaissance or trying to conduct human operations in this domain the fund as an attack and that is not terribly helpful so if we can get much fuller definition of the range of things that occur in cyberspace and start thinking about what thresholds, it is catastrophic or destructive the nafta we define it and act of war that would be extremely useful. Have we done enough or a sufficient job deterring cyberi gresham . I think we have a pretty robust capability to understand the adversaries. Most potential adversaries understand we have capability, whether or not we are ready to use that because that is the essence of deterrence, an adversary actually feels they will use the capabilities we have. I am not sure we itn that goes beyond our ability to understand and counter military capabilities. There is another dimension of convincing from a policy standpoint the we are willing to use the capability. Would be a good idea to have the policy . We have no policy as to whether we should indeed care respond or if so how. Would it be good if we have a policy . Always find it good to have a policy to guide the things i do is a military officer. That is not an earthshaking comment. The fact is we dont have a policy. I dont know how you act when there is no policy as to how we respond to threats or actual acts of penetration into our most sensitive information. Senator sullivan . Thank you, mr. Chairman and welcome, great to see two marines at the table. As the chairman knows the terms marine and intelligence are considered synonymous by most. Glad to see you are bolstering that fine tradition. An want to focus on what is going on in the South China Sea, and last time you were here you expressed concerns over the militarization of formations being built up in that part of the world by the chinese and here we are a year later and that is exactly happening in terms of 3200 acres of new land, 7 large land features and an air field one of which is 10,000 feet long. What do you believe the chinese what do you believe their goals are in the region . I see think the chinese are very determined to sustain their exorbitant claims in the South China Sea. They had this daesh line for some time, they have sustained that. I think they will continue building up their capabilities on these outcroppings. Theyre looking to militarize those outcroppings . Not sure what the definition of militarized is. There may be a different definition and we have but when you put in runways and his angers expense start installing radars, doing port calls with Chinese Media and coast guard ships. They have not yet i dont believe landed indeed military aircraft yet but they tested the air worthiness so to speak of their airdromes. Very clear that they will try to exert as much possessiveness overs this area and the South China Sea in general. Want to follow up on the deck of the chairman may. As far as our policy to countered that, this committee in a bipartisan way encouraged the white house, the military to conduct regular operations in the region, preferably with our allies who are all very motivated to see American Leadership here. Do you think we have clearly articulated what our policy is . Do you think regular operations by the u. S. Military vehicles, ships, aircraft with our allies is an important way to counteract the strategy that seems to have very little push back on it right now . This is policy, we are in the engine room shovelling coal but i do think we have made clear freedom of navigation, have done at least two missions. Using our allies understand what the are to debated policy is . I think they do and they welcome freedom, navigation operations, they are reticent to speak publicly come as supportive lee as they do in private. Let me turn to the arctic. I appreciate your focus on your testimony and there has been a dramatic increase in Russian Military buildup in the arctic, statements by the deputy Prime Minister about how we should colonize the arctic. You mentioned the director in your testimony that the russians would be prepared to unilaterally protect their interests in the arctic, let me ask a couple questions and you can answer them in terms of prioritization. The dramatic buildup in the arctic, president putin probes for weakness. How is he reacting to our actual plans for dramatically withdrawing the only arctic trained forces in the activeduty u. S. Military . Do we need to look at operations in the arctic particularly given such Significant Interest in the arctic, they built up the northern fleet, have we icebreakers and the strategic Northwest Passage will become more important. Is that something we should look at doing on a regular basis . And you can answer all three of those questions. I can comment from an intelligence perspective the we are turning attention to the arctic, 6,000 kilometre long coastline the russians have on the arctic. They established the northern fleet, joint command to oversee military activities, refurbishing basis, quantitatively they appeared to have where they would going would be less than what they had in the arctic regions in the heyday of the cold war but qualitatively it will be better. Where it stymied the russians as i alluded earlier was there grand plans for investing particularly with Energy Extraction have been stymied because of the economic recession. They need Foreign Investment from a technological standpoint and they are not getting it because of the Economic System they are in the arctic is important and we engage with the arctic household, canada and norway, stepping up intelligence sharing with those countries, and what the russians are doing their. And their department. What Vladimir Putin would think as he builds of the arctic, and the assessment of how they operate and think what does he think about that, how will eat you a reduction in arctic forces by the United States when he is dramatically building up forces, you can answer that question. I dont know what he thinks. Anytime he sees an opportunity where he believes we are reducing or not being prevalent, if that serves his purpose he will take advantage of it. Any of you . The russians intend to control the arctic region. Theyre building a Missile Defense capability, coastal, an able Missile Defense capability. They are doing that for economic and military reasons. In the absence of something that counters that they will continue to expand and i think there is an imperative the we have both of the willingness and capacity to pushback on their control or dominance of the arctic region. They are probably in they would be willing to negotiate and conduct operations in the arctic but they need to have something to push against. Thank you. Senator king is compelled to as the additional question. Thank you, quick question about money. Where does north korea get its money . Doesnt seem to have much of any economy yet it is building missiles, nuclear capability, military buildup. Where is there funding . Their primary trading partners china by far. Probably 90 of their trade and the biggest single export from north korea to china is coal, they get 1000000000. 2 year in coal sales. And alyssa finances, they have an organized approach to laundering money and this sort of thing but most of their trade, north koreas Natural Resource heavy and so the chinese exploit that so that is where they get the lions share. Of china decided they didnt like the direction of north korean policy they could have a significant influence . If anyone has influence is china. What percentage of the russian budget is funded by oil revenues . I will have to take that for the record but a large part is a significant proportion of their budget from oil revenue. Dont know exactly what it is. You talk about 4 contraction in their economy which is projected to continue into this year and at some point it seems to me they will reach a point where they run out of money and i wouldnt imagine they would be too good a credit. They do have significant reserves the bill for the couple of years which are starting to eat into but over an extended period they cant sustain that. Very quickly, director. General kelly testified before this committee about this issue, manufactured apps which has become a major issue all over america particularly the northeast and the midwest, dramatic increase in heroin Drug Overdoses, some across the land border. General, testified that because of his lack of assets he watches see borne transportation of drugs that went in various places, the caribbean that come up. Isnt that an issue traced to some degree to sequestration but also squeezing the. Theory. I cant say specifically whether this is attributable sequestration or not but i do know that theres a great deal of intelligence the Intelligence Community produces on drug flow into the United States. Some of that is shifted to seaborne. Said with the semi submersible vehicles that are sailed to american coasts. The difficulty has been nodding of operational resources particularly in coast guard or Navy Resources that could be used to take advantage of the intelligence that is produced. I saw general kelly speak to that just about every year he testified. The interesting thing about this is if you talk to any governor in the northeast or midwest of this country today they would say this is practically an epidemic and a dramatic increase in apps Drug Overdose deaths. Now we are going to have this agreement in colombia, do all these people go into the drug business . It certainly could. The others thing i alluded to briefly in my statement was of course we are seeing an increase in cocaine which is the patient, comes from colombia, is part of this agreement and also president santos took heed of the Environmental Impact of the Eradication Program that had existed in colombia for some years and so they are stopping the air ratification and trying to appeal to farmers to grow other crops which probably would be a challenge. Saw that experiment in afghanistan. Trying to get farmers to go to other crops rather than poppies. It was the failure. Didnt seem to work, no. There is so much money to be made, such a huge moneymaker it is very hard to find alternate crops that are legitimate or equally profitable. Apologize for imposing on your time, but one thing we know is the company that sells the Russian Rocket engines to the United States is rife with people who are cronies of Vladimir Putin, people who have been sanctioned, criminal activities, would it be better for us rather isnt giving tens of millions of dollars to Vladimir Putin and his cronies, to buy more deltonas as part of the solution . I know your answer is you are the purchaser but i also think this almost borders on a National Security issue because if we are going to get tens of millions of dollars to people who are known thugs and Vladimir Putin himself who was recently implicated by the british for the murder of former kgb agent in london, the assassination of boris nassau off ninsov in the shadow of the kremlin, to provide the russians with tens or hundreds of millions of dollars doesnt seem to me to be a logical way to do business particularly if we have the opportunity to buy more deltonas and have the development of Russian Rocket engines in the United States which people like spacex and others are working on. Do you have any comment . I would agree with you. I am interested in the service and a lift and long she and getting our reconnaissance satellites deployed on time and i would much prefer the totality of the system that gets those satellites into orbit were american. Thank you. Senator reed. I think general stuart and James Clapper for their testimony and their service, thank you for your Extraordinary Service to the nation. Can i save sometimes we have hearings that are not too productive. I view this as one of the more helpful hearings we have had before this committee and i thank the witnesses for their kantor and wisdom. This hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]. Plus, abc journalists john donovan and karen zucker,