different pieces of that layer take, but until the ncijtf was created, they were all worrying about it in ways that are inefficient and conflicting. this pulled everybody together, get them all in the same physical place so they can figure out who should work what threat and how should it be worked, and then parse that work out in the way that's most cost efficient and most effective for the american people. it is a great new story. a lot of its achievements are things we can't talk about in an open setting, but i agree with you, i think it's something the american people should be very happy about. >> let me second director comey's remarks. it is an excellent way in bringing these people together in addition to deciding who should take responsibility for a case, but to allow the people at the task force when an incident comes up to know who may have information about it and to pool that information so that when the lead investigator is determined, that that investigator has all of that information. we've had cases where one or the

other of us has been contacted about dealing with something when the other of us was with already running a parallel investigation to that kind of activity which provided absolutely critical information to resolving that particular case. the other thing to keep in mind for the american people is these investigations are really hard because of the difficulty in getting asterisks about who finish attribution about who's actually doing it. but with dedicated investigators, we have brought town a number of these bad actors. >> can i just add a word, senator? i've worked a lot of different kinds of investigations in my career, career, and when you're doing a la cosa nostra investigation, you can deconflict by calling up each other or setting up a meeting for next wednesday. when the threat is moving as a foe on the does on the internet, there's no time to make that phone call. so the genius of this is the fbi

and dhs person are sitting next to each other, they can respond in the way that's needed. >> okay, thank you. >> senator johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to welcome everybody here and also thank you sincerely for your service. i want to talk a little bit about just the actual threat level and the history of it, and so i want to start, first of all, ask each one of you quickly when do you believe the current, we'll call it war on terrorism, really began. where did this all start? secretary beers? >> sir, if we're talking about al-qaeda, i believe that we really first experienced it with the embassy bombings in tanzania and kenya in 1998. >> okay. >> we had evidence of them before, for example, in somalia during the u.s. intervention in somalia, but that was where it

really came to the fore if terms of my own -- >> director comey. >> i'd trace the current threat back to the 1980s in afghanistan, a situation i worry about repeating in syria where people were getting training and learning -- meeting each other and out of which osama bin laden formed the base al-qaeda. >> director olsen. >> i would agree with both my colleagues. i mean, this is a process that's evolved, and we see today the changing threat, as director comey described, a metastasized threat. so it's an evolving threat, but it can be traced back to the 1980s. >> okay. my next question, i realize the answer's going to have to be very subjective, but based on that history, that evolution, is the threat level higher today? i'll start with you, director olsen. >> it's a complicated answer. the threat level as we look at

the threat is more dispersed geographically. the threat has moved out from the afghanistan/pakistan border region to broad swaths of areas that are largely ungoverned across north africa and the middle east. so in some ways it has become more significant from a geographic perspective and more complicated from an intelligence perspective. i would not say that the threats to the united states of a 9/11-style attack is greater. in fact, i'd say it is lower today than it was in 2001. so that the threat of that type of attack today is lower than it was 12 years ago. >> director comey. >> i'd gary we that -- agree with that. i think because we took the fight to the enemy and got our act together in the last 12 years in very, very important ways, the risk of that spectacular attack in the homeland is significantly lower tan it was before 9/11, and what's popped up in its place in the homeland are the risks of

the smaller attacks which are no less, obviously, concerning to us. smaller, and similar overseas. the hydrohead is less able to attack us this the homeland, so it's pushed more overseas and gotten smaller and more disparate in the homeland. >> with secretary bierce. >> i would con fur -- beers. i would concur with that and go back particularly to matt's comment. the dispersion makes it a bigger challenge in terms of knowing what and where things might happen, but the where is more likely now to be overseas than it is to be in the homeland which isn't to say that we should drop our guard in any way. >> so you really do think that the threat is more severe in terms of a worldwide threat coming onto our shores as opposed to the home grown terrorists? is that what you're saying? >> no, that's not at all what i'm saying. i'm saying this terms of the consequences of a particular

kind of attack finish. >> it's going to occur overseas as opposed to the homeland. >> the dispersion of the al-qaeda brand in north africa, in yemen, in somalia and in other places and as it is appearing to manifest in syria now means that the kinds of activities that will be undertaken are likely to be undertaken overseas. >> okay. >> rather than directed against the homeland. that is not to say that we still don't face a threat, and it's certainly not to say that home grown violent extremists are inconsequential. far from it. >> i've always tell that our strongest -- felt that our strongest line of defense against these threats really is a strong intelligence-gathering capability. to what extempt has, you know, the nsa disclosures, how extensive is has the harm been in terms of those intelligence-gathering capabilities? director olsen? >> i would echo the comments recently of director clapper who characterized them as extremely damaging.

there's no doubt that those disclosures have made our job harder. we've seen that terrorists, our adversaries are seeking to learn about the ways that we collect intelligence and seeking to adapt ask change the -- and change the ways they communicate in order to avoid our surveillance. so it's made our job significantly harder. >> how cowe repair the damage of it? director comey? what does congress need to do? what do we need to resist, potentially? >> i agree with what matt said about the challenge. just in two months on the job, i've seen changes in terrorist behavior in response to the disclosures about our communications intercept capabilities. i think that congress just needs to make sure that we don't if there are changes that need to be made at the margins or in oversight, that we don't make those at the expense of the core capabilities we need as a country. >> secretary beers, what is your biggest concern that congress might do that would just be a

huge mistake? >> i think director comey characterized it. what we need to do is make sure that you are comfortable with the oversight but not to throw the baby out with the bath water in terms of through,ing too far in terms -- lurching too far in terms of restrictions on our intelligence, our ability to collect intelligence. >> director olsen, you were talking about going over to russia for the olympic games. can you describe the common interests we may have with russia? can you describe a little bit about who really are some solid world partners in this war on terrorism? do we have some common interests? >> we have a nurple of very -- a number of very close partners around the world in our fight against terrorism. obviously, particularly in europe and particularly the united kingdom. in the russia we face a common threat of violence extremists, particularly in the north caucus area of russia.

so there are consistent threat streams coming from violent extremists in that area, from terrorists in that area. they're largely focused on russian government targets. but, obviously, that's a concern as we approach the olympics which will be a very high-profile event this february. >> just quick follow up, do you find russian cooperation increasing or decreasing over the last, let's say, decadesome. >> i would point to the last several months as a period of increasing cooperation, and director comey may be able to speak to this as well. since the boston bombing, there has been an increase this cooperation with russian intelligence authorities. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you, senator johnson. senator ayotte, welcome. good morning. >> i want to thank the chairman and the ranking member. i want to thank each of you for what you do for our country. you have very important positions in keeping us safe. director comey, i want to ask you about the attacks on our consulate in benghazi over a year ago on september 11th.

i guess the question that i have most of all that you and i have talked about in the past when we met, why hasn't anyone been brought to justice? we're in a position now where i've seen public reports of individuals like ahmed abu caal la who's associated with ansar al-sharia, the reports are he's been indicted in new york with others that haven't been named, and yet no one has been brought to justice. can you tell us why? >> thank you, senator. if charges are brought in a case and they are under seal, it's not something that i could talk about. what i can tell you is this is among the fbi's very highest priorities. i have a lot of people working very, very hard on it. we are committed to bringing to justice those responsible for the attack and the murder of our folks. these are often difficult cases

to make, but as you've seen, i think you've seen in our work we never give up, and we will never rest until we bring to justice the people responsible. the challenge for me is i have twin goals. i want to bring to justice successfully, and i want to make sure that any witnesses i have stay cooperative with us and that the bad guys don't know what i might know or what i might be doing. and so i'm limited on what i can say this an open forum. >> well, one thing that struck me is on october 5th there was a successful raid into libya to capture al-libi which i congratulate all of -- the fbi and everyone who worked, obviously b, our military and intelligence agencies on that capture, and it just led me to raise, of course, this my own mind -- in my own mind when we went into libya on october 5th, if there are individuals that need to be captured, why we wouldn't capture them then as well. and i know that may not be

something you can answer in an open setting, but people are trues traited -- frustrated that these people have not been wrought to justice. so i do want your commitment that they will be wrought to justice. >> you have it. i think the al-libi case, i hope, illustrates for the american people what i said before, we will never stop, we will never give up. he's been wanted, as you know, for well over a decade, so that work will continue. >> let me ask you, are you getting cooperation from libya on this issue of capturing and seeing that those who committed the attacks on our consulate are brought to justice? >> i don't want to talk in particular about particular operations or particular conversations, but -- because we've been saying publicly the libyan government has been cooperative with us in this investigation. >> well, we expect them to be cooperative with everything, obviously, we've done and the support we've given them. and let me ask you in terms of the al-libi capture on october 5th, as i understand it, he was

captured on october 5th, placed on a ship and then was interrogated for -- this is according to all public information -- now he's been publicly indicted, until the 12th in which he was brought into civilian custody, is that right? >> i think that -- i don't know the exact dates -- >> it's about a week of interrogation. >> general contours sound like, sound right. >> so, mr. beers identified the beginning of al-qaeda as the attacks on our embassies in africa and, of course, al-libi has been charged with those attacks on our consulate. he was a very major capture, was he not, of al-qaeda? >> he's alleged to be one of the founding fathers of al-qaeda. >> that's right. so yesterday we had the nominee for, to take over for mr. beers, jeh johnson, and he described interrogation as a treasure-trove, as an opportunity, of course, for us to gather information and protect our country. you would agree with that, wouldn't you, director comey?

>> yes. >> was seven days enough, long enough interrogation, in your view, to find out everything that al-libi knew about al-qaeda and its operations? >> which i don't want to comment on -- i don't want to comment on the particular case. longer is always better. more is always better. interrogation -- i agree with jeh johnson, interrogation is a critical tool and always a treasure-trove -- >> so here's the problem we face. let's take al-libi for a moment. he was put on a ship instead of being brought to began tan poe because, obviously -- guantanamo because, obviously, this has been a policy of the administration of not wanting to put anyone in guantanamo. but is it practical that we can put everyone on ships of his nature? >> that's a hard question for me to -- >> well, i guess the question is tomorrow let's say we get

zawahiri. let's say we get the current fit laugh head -- where do we put him in you need to interrogate him to protect our country. what do we do with him? i would hope we're not going to only interrogate him for a week. so do you know what we do with him? where we detain him? how he's treated? >> i don't in particular. i'm aware of a variety of options. my goal would be just what you said, to have our agents and our intelligence community colleagues have the opportunity to interrogate him to get that information. >> do you think he should be mirandized? >> who are you asking, i'm sorry? >> zawahiri. when we capture him, do you believe he should be read his miranda rights? >> well, i -- as my predecessor did -- believe that the more flexibility we have to delay the reading of those rights, the better. but, again, the reason i'm hesitating is it would depend upon where he is and whether a court case fend pending against

him. but, sure, more flexibility better for us. >> ask that is because, obviously, you capture a known terrorist, someone who's the head of al-qaeda, you tell him you have the right to remain silent, that could interfere with your interrogation, right? >> sure. it would end the interrogation. and in situations like that it's not that i'm looking for confessions to be able to use in a court -- >> no, you're looking for information to protect the country, right? >> exactly. >> and that's different that be gathering -- than gathering, certainly, they can be committed and together, but the priority has to be in gathering information to protect the country, is that right? >> sure. and that's the way we aroach it. >> the one thing i will just say is i worry about the zawahiri situation because right now the administration has chosen not to use guantanamo, the administration is putting people on shipping, but al-libi -- to only interrogate someone like that for seven days, it seems to me we're losing opportunities to gather intelligence. and i hope that, director comey,

you're new to this option, that we can work on a policy for detention and interrogation that will allow you to fully interrogate the worst terrorists that continue to pose threats for our country. so i thank you all for what you're doing. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, senate ayotte. i want to return to my earlier question. secretary beers, you had a chance to respond to it. the -- we're under cyber attack every day. it's just not something that could happen, it does happen. and it happens a lot of different ways from a lot of different directions. i want to come back to it, and my original question, director comey and mr. olsen, was are you guys working together? how well are your agencies working together, are you doing better than you were, where can you do better still? how can we help? please. >> i think two things that i could add to the answer that rand beers gave you already. one is i agree very much what

we're doing better together is talking to each other and sharing information very quickly so that we can discharge our responsibilities quickly. the one area that i -- so that's my first response. my second response is it's our need to get information from the private sector quickly that's critical. otherwise we're patrolling, uh-uh picture us as police officers -- picture us as police officers patrolling the street. we can make sure the street is safe, but we can't tell what's going on in the neighborhood. that neighborhood is all the private networks and companies that are the victims of these attacks. so we need to find a way to lower those walls so we can learn the information we need quickly to be able to respond to the attacks. that's what we could do better. >> how can we help? >> well, i think as secretary beers said, one of the things that's very important is to create incentives for private companies to cooperate, to address their concerns primarily about liability and, second, their concerns about their

reputation. and so i think that liability issue sits with congress that can offer them that protection, so i think that's very important. >> talk more about that liability protection. >> well, private companies are concerned that if they turn over information, they will end up getting sued by people whose personal information may be somewhere in the data they supply, or competitors may complain about them turning it over, or it'll be used against them in some fashion in, i don't know, a government contract competition down the road. all of these things make their general counsels -- which i used to be -- say great idea, we really want to share, we do not want to hurt the stockholders of this company by sharing. that conversation just took me ten seconds to the say it, that's a several hour conversation inside any company. in the meantime, that threat, as i said, has moved at the speed of light. so that's just not sustainable. >> what are the short menu of options that we should consider in adjusting those liability concerns?

>> i don't think i'm expert enough in the -- yet in the pending legislation to offer you a specific view, so i would defer to secretary beers who, i think, knows it better than i. >> is that true? do you know better than he does? >> i've been at it longer, senator. [laughter] >> all right. do you want to take a shot of that, a menu of options for us to consider on the liability side? >> well, as we explored with senator coburn, i think what we need is for the liability protection to create the willingness for the private sector to share information about a daydata breach as soon as they experience it so that we can help them as quickly as possible, and we can protect others as quickly as possible. so how the liability protection is constructed, i'm not a

lawyer. i can't, i can't define that in the legal terms that you all need to put into the law. but i certainly would be not -- we are ready and willing to end with technical assistance on trying to define precisely what that ought to look like as we tried earlier on with last attempt to write the legislation in body with. in this body. >> all right. mr. olsen? >> i don't have anything to add on the cyber legislation. >> all right. thank you. let's talk a bit about the lone wolves, the folks, american citizens in cases, who become radicalized in some cases by traveling abroad, being exposed to jihadist activities, other cases just being radicalized here and and over the internet

or maybe in their own communities. i worry a lot about that. i know you do too. share with us what we're doing to try to address that threat and how you're working together, how can we help you? >> let me go ahead and start. in addition to the great investigative work that the bureau does, the three of us along with the department of justice leadership have a regular dialogue among ourselves about how to craft a common approach to assist in the identification of individuals, the prevention of them carrying out their acts. we do this under three large

categories of activity. the first is to look at all of the events that have occurred and see what transpired in those events so that we can create a body of knowledge about behaviors and indicators that can inform us and state and local law enforcement and citizens of what kinds of indicators might provide us with a warning of an event. we then take that information and provide it to all of our law enforcement partners. we conduct training in association with that. we conduct exercises association with that. and we -- as matt olsen indicated, that's not just

before the event, but also what to you do after an event has begun to occur? all of the active shooter training that we do is designed to assist in that, although it is a much broader residence in terms of those kinds of events. and then the last is community engagement, to talk to people in the communities to hear what their concerns and issues are and to provide that information to them as well. and all three of us participate in that effort either as individual agencies or in concert with one another. that's the broad scheme of how we work together. >> all right. director comey, would you add to that, please? >> the only thing i would add is with respect to the travelers, in some ways the travelers are easier for us. they're still a huge challenge, than the home grown violent extremist who stays in his own basement the whole time

radicalizing himself through the internet. it's a huge challenge, as secretary beers said, trying to develop a set of indicators. what are we looking for? what should we quip the police officers patrolling that neighborhood to look for? is the travelers, figuring out smart ways what they're doing and to have conversations with them that are useful to us is something we're working together on. >> good. mr. olsen? >> >> if i could just really echo the comments of my colleagues. the challenge of the home grown violent extremist is exactly as director comey described. this could be an individual who doesn't travel, doesn't communicate, maybe a passive consumer, a radical information on the internet. so it really doesn't hit any of the trip wires that help us discern when somebody is

inclined to violence. we're working together as well as countering the al-qaeda narrative. we talked a minute ago about fusion centers. fusion centers do provide a very good way for us to help to develop the expertise at the state and local level. around the country there are a million first responders between the police officers and fire fighters. those are the individuals who are going to be most likely to see someone who is on that path from radicalization to mobilization. and helping equip them with how to find those signs is a key part of the strategy. >> all right, thanks. my time is expired. let me just ask you take ten seconds apiece and answer this question. someone sees something, someone they believe is being radicalized this their own community, who should they say something to? rand? >> usually the first instance is the local law enforcement agencies. >> agree.

and i would urge people listen to that feeling on the back of your neck and don't write an incident narrative over facts that initially strike you as strange. just tell somebody. >> and if i could just add, a key element of this is to build trust with those communities, particularly the american muslim community so they have the confidence and trust in our law enforcement agencies to if they see something that gives them concern, to come forward. >> all right, thanks so much. senator levin, it's good to see you, you're recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. director comey, let me start with you. law now does not allow detainees to be brought from guantanamo to the u.s. for detention and and trial. should this law be changed? >> [inaudible] >> be brought from guantanamo to the u.s. for detention and trial. can they be properly tried, can they be safely detained in.

>> the policy question, i think, senator, is one better answered with by the department of justice. i know from my personal experience, though, terrorists can be safely detained and tried. i've been involved in cases myself in civilian courts in the u.s. so that part i can definitely answer, and the answer's yes. >> with what is that personal experience? more specifically, have we tried individuals for terrorism in federal courts? >>, many, many. we have. i was the united states attorney in manhattan after 9/11, and we had cases pending then. we are very good in the united states at safely detaining bad people with all kinds of threat. we are successful detaining them. the bureau of prisons i used to supervise when i was deputy attorney general, and this is nobody better in the world. and our courts are, as they've proven a track record going back to probably the largest case was the initial east africa bombings case which was tried, and it's actually the case al lib by

was -- al-libi was just arrested on, so long track record. >> our trials that are held -- are trials that are held in federal court more likely to be conducted in a speedy manner compared to trials before military commissions? >> i don't have enough experience, i guess we don't as a country with the military commissions for me to say about that. what i can say is i do know the federal be courts have long been able to move these cases, protect classified information and get them done in a reasonably prompt time. >> now, the argument's been paid that this -- been made that this bringing terrorists to trial either directly for trial in the united states or from guantanamo somehow or other creates a security threat for those communities in which they're held. do we have any evidence to support that kind of a conclusion? >> i don't know of any, senator, with respect to a threat created in the area of a prison facility.

our supermax prison in the desert in colorado is fairly remote. i don't know of any threat surrounding that facility. we've housed in that facility some really bad people for a long time. >> and, mr. beers, is there any position that dhs has taken about any security threat from trying and detaining terrorist defendants? >> senator, i don't have any information indicating any significant threat to a particular trial that's taken place. >> senator levin, if i may just jump in for a moment here, i would want to fully endorse director comey's comments about federal courts. i share at least in part the experience of having been a federal prosecutor and the ability of our federal courts to handle these cases. and the one element i would add is the, what we've seen in certain cases, in certain

important cases is the ability to obtain intelligence information from individuals who are brought into that system. from my perspective at the national counterterrorism center, of course, it's very important that we do whatever we can to gain that intelligence, and we've been able to do that in a number of important cases where individuals have been cooperative and provided important information. >> is there any evidence, maybe director comey and others, you can compare the kind of intelligence both in terms of quantity and quality that the fbi has been able to obtain from terrorist suspects compared to their being held by other elements of our federal government. >> senator, i'm not in a position to compare, because i don't know enough about the track record in getting information by other agencies, so i can only speak to the fbi's which is long. and it's one of the things we do best, is get information from

people, especially bad guys. >> and that also being -- doing so consistent with the guarantees in law for interrogation of suspects? >> absolutely. >> let me can you a -- let me ask you a question, director, about a bill that senator grassley and i have introduced relative to the u.s. states and the united states incorporating entities that have hidden ownership. is there a problem from a law enforcement point of view in not knowing the real owners of corporations? and in this regard, i think you may be familiar with what happened at the g20 summit where 20 leaders, including president obama, reached a consensus that it was time to stop creating corporations with hidden owners.

and president obama has issued a national action plan can calls for federal legislation such as we've introduced to require our states to include on their corporation forms a question asking for the names of the real owners of the corporation being formed. now, do you support that bill? does the fbi want to know the real owners of corporations? is there a law enforcement purpose? because we've had all kinds of letters from law enforcement groups, federal law enforcement officers association, fraternal order of police, u.s. attorneys' association, on and on saying it's critically important that you know the beneficial owners of corporations pause otherwise suspected terrorists, drug trafficking organizations and other criminal enterprises continue to exploit the anonymity afforded to them

through the current corporate filing process. that's quoting a letter from the federal law enforcement officers' association. do you support, as director of the fbi, our passing a bill which would require states to ask one question on the incorporation forms, wore the real owners? -- who are the real owners? and if you do support it, will you tell us why? >> i don't know enough about the bill in particular to have a position. i'm sure the department of justice is working on it, but i agree with your premise. it's very important to our investigations across a whole range of causes to be able to learn -- cases to be able to learn that information. >> why? give us examples, why does it make a difference in law enforcement? >> if you're conducting an investigation of a transnational organized crime group that's involved in human trafficking or drug smuggling and they're laundering their money through a particular corporate entity, connecting that entity to the bad guys is going to be a critical step in your investigation.

and you can take that and make it an analog in any different kind of case. a bank fraud case, a ponzi scheme, all of those require you to find the people who are hiding behind particular names or shells. >> thank you. my time's up. >> and just to follow up on the question of that exchange you just had with senator levin, this is an issue that he's pursued for some time, and interestingly enough, the states are uncomfortable with the matter that has been pursued, and the state -- especially states that express their concern through their secretaries of state. and we've encouraged our own secretary of state in delaware to work with, partner with other secretaries of state across the country to meet with the fbi, engage in conversation with the fbi and other law enforcement agencies to find a way that addresses the concerns that senator levin has expressed and that a you and i think many

herps would share. but to do so in a way that the states do not find overwhelmingly difficult to administer. i think there's a sweet spot there, and there's negotiation that's begun. we appreciate the participation of the fbi and other law enforcement agencies in that discussion. back to senator coburn. >> thank you. director beers, you mentioned a minute ago the national suspicious activities group, what was the full name of that? >> [inaudible] >> all right. would you punch your finish. >> oh, sorry. >> will we go. this morning a news article broke that 4,904 people, personal social security numbers, addresses and professions and lots of other detail came out of the dhs' custom and border protection was leading an investigation on some information about how to get around a lie e do tech -- lie

detector test and a book that was sold. and if you read this report, i don't know if you're familiar with this or not -- >> no, i have not seen it. >> -- but i would tell you this is really concerning to me. first of all, it looks sloppy on its face in terms of the number of people, and what i would direct you to is the mcclatchy release on this, today's news story. but this is the kind of thing where we get because it's not done right and it looks to be very unappropriate in the expanse, matter of fact, in the story it's quoted that this information for long periods of time on these individuals, and the american people are going to know why and what'd we do wrong. because we wanted to read a book, now the federal government's shared all our information with 20-some other agencies including our potential data. -- personal data.

i think there's a balance to where we're doing going, and i'd love you to have both brief my taffe and also respond to this news story if you would later today. and i know i'm catching you off guard, but this is -- we need to protect ourselves, but we also need to protect the fourth and first amendments. and to me on the face -- and i'll reserve final judgment until i hear from you -- is this is whey overboard. and way beyond. and i would hope you would address this. director or comey, as you know, senator graham has held up and is holding up all nominations of the president coming before the senate because, in his opinion, the congress ought to have the right to interview and discuss what happened in benghazi with the survivors. that has been resisted. i have two questions for you.

one, number one is why does the congress not have the right to do that and, number two, is senator graham inappropriate in trying to have the american people know what happened in benghazi by interviewing those survivors? >> my reactions are i don't know to the first question and, no, as to the second question. doesn't strike me as inappropriate. as i said in response to earlier question, my interests are in making sure that we balance the fbi's need to be able to protect our witnesses and find those people and bring them to justice. i don't see anything inappropriate with the inquiry. >> well, but it's my understanding he's been told he cannot interview those survivors, is that correct? >> certainly not by me. i don't know. i -- >> the fbi has no problem with congress interviewing the survivors of benghazi? >> no. >> all right, thank you.

one of the concerns that i hear from the private sector, mr. beers, secretary beers, on the executive order -- and by the way, i compliment the president on his executive order on cyber. i think they listened well, they built a good plan, and so far it has been executed very, very well. so i congratulate him and you on what's been done on that. but one of the concerns is about what's coming with executive of order in terms of regulations. one of the things i believe is stifling our economy now is just tremendously excessive. and if we want private data shared with the government so we can actually protect us, do you have any concerns in that, or do you have any feel for what we're going to see in terms of regulations? >> sir, at this mar point in time -- at this particular point in time as we negotiated the original cyber bill that was considered in this body and in

this committee, it was not our intention to seek regulation in association with that. it was a very light touch. i think that remains our posture with respect to going forward. the part of the executive order that seeks to catalog regulatory authorities is a effort to pull that together to see what we, what authorities do currently exist that allow regulation that's already underway and see where we go from there. we have not completed that particular -- >> okay. you would agree that voluntary compliance if people were made aware of it and made aware of the benefits of it is a better scenario than forced compliance or at least forced compliance should come after we see a failure of voluntary compliance, would you agree to that in. >> yes, sir. >> all right, thank you. i have no further questions.

>> senator johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to follow up on questioning by both senator ayotte and senator coburn on benghazi. director comey, for 14 months it's been the consistent excuse of this administration that the reason members of congress do not have access to the survivors of benghazi is because of the fbi investigation. you're aware of that, correct? >> i'm not, senator, i'm not. >> so just getting back to what senator coburn said, there should be no reason that the fbi investigation should be used as an excuse for us not to have access to question those witnesses whether it's in an open hearing or in a secure briefing setting. >> yeah. i don't know. as the fbi director or, i don't have an objection to it. i don't know whether the prosecutors would feel differently or there's some other reason i'm not thinking of, but speaking from my perspective, yeah. i don't have an objection to that. >> director olsen, i would just like to -- and maybe for both directors here -- talk about the

difference between our desire to prosecute and the difference between gathering intelligence. i mean, from the my standpoint with the threats that you are far more aware of than i am, to me it sounds like intelligence gathering is a far higher priority than bringing people, i guess, to eventual justice particularly when we can hold them as unlawful p enemy combatants. can you just kind of discuss the difference between the desire to prosecute which we all want people brought to justice, but the need, the absolute requirement for intelligence gathering. >> i think there's no conflict in that. in other words, from everything i've seen in the by work at the national counterterrorism center and before, the number one goal in any of these instances involving terror suspects is to gather intelligence. that's the overriding objective. at the same time, we need to have an option for disposition, and with respect to, for example, al-libi who we discussed, this is an individual

who was indicted and where a disposition option was readily available in the federal courts. but every case is different, and every case is treated on the basis of the facts presented, and in every case intelligence gathering is the priority. and that's what i've experienced -- >> i made a trip down to guantanamo with senator ayotte, and we spoke the people there continuing to be interrogated over a very long period of time the detainees down there. the very strong opinion of those individuals doing those interrogations say that the most effective interrogation occurs over years. you know, where you gain the confidence and it's slowly and surely you obtain the little threads of information, the types of threads that i think eventually led to the killing of osama bin laden. do you disagree with that? to we, i think it's absurd that we think we can actually gather the types of intelligence that

is possibly there in a week on a ship or a couple days before we mirandize somebody. do you disagree with that? >> i mean, as a general proposition it's clear that the longer opportunity we had to gather intelligence to interrogate someone, the better. >> so don't you believe we really ought to be using that absolute first class facility down in guantanamo to to detain these individuals so we can gather the types of intelligence we need. >> i mean, in every case there are going to be other considerations that would come into play -- >> any higher consideration than gathering the intelligence we need to keep the homeland safe? >> there are going to be other considerations and that was, indeed, in play with al-libi. again, though, the number one goal is to gather intelligence, and that's what i've seen in these cases. >> okay. i wish that were the top priority. it doesn't seem to be so. secretary beers, on may 23, 2012, we held a hearing in this committee on the very

unfortunate events in cartagena. we were pretty well led to believe by the director of the secret service that that was a one-time to car insurance. i really wanted to believe that -- time occurrence. i think the secret service has total credibility and their important mission of securing high government officials and national security information is paramount. in my capacity as ranking member on a committee that had oversight of that, we continued to dig into exactly what happened in cartagena hoping it was a one-time to currents. it does not appear that it was. we have through whistleblower accounts found out that similar instances occurred in 17 countries around the world. and, again, that's just a limited snapshot. we've had very limited access to individuals that might know better. just the other day two secret service individuals were disciplined for sexual misconduct in a hotel here in

washington. one of those men, ignacio sa mora, we have come to find out actually was involved in the cartagena incident and interviewed secret service personnel. the question i have for you we've been waiting for a cultural report from the inspector general's office now for 18 months. do you know when that cultural report will be released? >> sir, i don't have a specific date. i know that it is near completion, and we are expecting it shortly, but i can't give you -- >> do you think, do you think 18 months is kind of an inordinate amount of time to take something that i think so critically important, you know, to find out whether there's a real cultural problem in the secret service? >> obviously, we would have prefer to have the report sooner rather than later, sir. >> can i get your commitment to check into that and get that report completed and released as soon as possiblesome. >> yes, you have it. >> okay. thank you. no further questions, mr. chairman. >> dr. coburn, please.

>> i just had one other thought as we went through the boston marathon bombing and we look at the tsarnaevs, the one thing that was never covered is they came here, the parents came here under an asylum cease is saw. visa. the parents are back home and have been for a number of years. has anybody looked at our techniques, processes, requirements for granting asylum to individuals? because, obviously, with the ability to return home to their home city from which they were granted asylum in the first place, something has changed. either we got it wrong, or something markedly changed in chechnya. i don't think that's the case. so has anybody looked a thatt t? and i know that's a state department issue probably more than homeland security. or maybe it isn't. any comments on that? >> sir, let me start.

the tsarnaev family sought asylum from kyrgyzstan where they had moved to avoid the violence in their home area. their request for asylum was that they were being discriminated against in kyrgyzstan for being from dagestan. and that was the basis of the initial granting. so that was the way that it happened. and then they, as you quite correctly say, chose later on for presumably personal reasons to go back to the place that they were actually from, that they were actually born in. that's -- those are the facts of the case. with respect to the asylum, yes, we are looking at this as a

regular issue since dhs is a participant in the granting of asylum because in part it leads to, often to legal perm p innocent resident -- permanent resident status and naturalization, so we're very much a part of that. >> thank you very much. >> senator ayotte? >> thank you. director comey, i wanted to follow up on a discussion that we had on the jttf task force and the memorandums of understanding, because when commissioner davis had testified before our committee about the boston bombing and i the -- i think all of us agree that there was great cooperation there, and the boston police department did a phenomenal job along with the federal partners, hi had some more thans about how the mou was operating. i wanted to follow up as to where we are with the communication on the jttf task force for the hem ran dumb of

understanding. he was concerned that his local officers, the information wasn't flowing downward. >> thank you, senator. that is a concern that we've been discussing with the major city chiefs and the sheriffs. i had a lunch meeting last week with them to follow up on that. so it's a work in progress, but i think our goal is the one you and i discussed, cans to make sure there aren't impediments, either real or perceived. i don't have a date for when it'll be done, but it will be are soon. >> good. i would very much love if you would report back to the committee to give us that answer because i know it's an issue that is important to you just so we know the information is flowing correctly, you know, downward and upward. >> sure. >> thank you. also, mr. olsen, i wanted to ask you about your testimony. you mentioned something about the withdrawal of coalition forces from afghanistan could enable core al-qaeda veterans to reconstitute there. right now the administration,

we're in a key moment with regard to what happens in afghanistan. decisions that are going to have to be made on what the follow-on force will be in 2014. so i guess i want to hear from you does it matter? you know, i've heard some people say, well, why don't -- what can we accomplish that. and i was intrigued by what you said because i share that belief that we could have a reconstitution of al-qaeda or other terrorist groups there. so could you enlighten us own that? >> yeah. i think from an intelligence perspective we're concerned about afghanistan and pakistan and the boarder region no doubt because of the presence of extremist groups including the remnants of core al-qaeda in that region. we've seen that there has been an interest this l al-qaeda in parts of afghanistan, particularly northeastern afghanistan, and it's just going to be an issue that we're going to have to monitor very closely after 2014 to see what types of

activities al-qaeda or other allies of al-qaeda, for example, the haqqani network, undertake in that region. >> and, in fact, haven't we seen reacttivity by al-qaeda -- activity by al-qaeda in iraq with what's happening there right now? we weren't able to come to an agreement on a follow-on force in iraq, and now we're certainly seeing some follow-on there. can you describe that? >> sure. senator, we've seen an uptick over the last several months in violence this iraq. much of it we believe fetch traited by sunni extremelies -- perpetrated by sunni extremists, almost all of it focused on iraqi targets. not u.s. targets necessarily, but certainly there has been an uptick in violence in that country. >> and we certainly want to awe void ther is their owe where afghanistan become withs a launch pad for terrorists again, do we not? >> absolutely. >> all right. thank you all. >> senator live venn.

>> thank you. i just have a few more questions. director, you indicated that you don't have a personal problem with congress interviewing the witnesses from benghazi. but that you haven't talked to your prosecutors, is that what you said? >> i don't know -- no, i haven't discussed it with the department of justice to see whether there are concerns from the assistant u.s. attorneys handling the matter, and i thought the question was about the survivors which are the u.s. per personnel -- >> correct, correct. >> yep. >> um, is it possible that you would have a different opinion if you talked to those prosecutors? >> it's always possible, sure. i don't know. >> okay. other question has to do with going back to the beneficial ownership issue of corporations and the national security problems that are created when we don't know who owns the corporations.

we have some, apparently, testimony or some indication from some of the secretaries of state that the tbi could obtain -- fbi could obtain corporate ownership information from the irs on a form, i guess, called ss4, but corporations have to fill out those forms to get a u.s. taxpayer id number. does that work from the fbi's perspective to try to get the important information that you describe from the irs instead of from the applications for corporate incorporation? >> >> i don't know enough to say, senator. i just don't know. >> so you're not familiar with the argument that the fbi could get that information from the irs? >> i'm not. >> thank you. that's the only questions that i have and just want to thank you all. >> thank you. >> senator levin, if i could go back to your question with

respect to benghazi, the one point i would like to offer to the committee is over the course of the last year and several months since the benghazi attacks, we've presented a number of briefings to members of this committee as well as a number of other members, probably over a dozen briefings that presented a multimedia presentation including surveillance video, overhead imagery, witness statements describing every facet that we had from an intelligence perspective about those attacks. we've had a number of opportunities to present everything we know from the intelligence community's perspective about the attacks in benghazi. we'd certainly offer that again if the committee was interested in seeing that. >> i was just curious about not having talked to prosecutors, whether that might impact his opinion as to whether or not zonk shouldn't have access to those survivors. i don't know of any reason either, by the way, i've got to

tell you. i think this whole thing has been not handled appropriately, but that not the point. i don't see any reason myself why congress shouldn't have contact with anybody i wants to have contact with. why that's not overdone, i'll leave that up to others to decide. i sure as heck before i knew -- if i knew prosecutors had a problem with it, i'd want to hear their view before i reached my conclusion. i was kind of surprised that the director said, well, it's his opinion that this is no problem. but the prosecutors may have a different approach. so that was the reason i was pressing the director on this issue. i could leave it at that. going back just to clarify one e question about some of the positions that secretaries of state have taken about the fbi going to the irs to get the

beneficial ownership information. would you find out, give us an answer for the record as to whether or not the fbi believes that that is a satisfactory alternative b to knowing the beneficial owners from the incorporation documents? would you let us know for the record? >> sure, senator. >> thank you. thank you. all set, thanks. >> all right. i've got a couple of closing questions and then we'll give you an opportunity if you want to just to make a short closing statement of your own, so think about that while i ask these questions. a lot of americans, probably most americans, are concerned about their personal safety in in this country either from crime in their own communities, their own states or the threat of a terrorist attack. i my people are more mindful of the threat of cyber attacks than they have been ever, ask we're reminded of those threats every

day. people in this country also have concerned about their own privacy and the ability to have their privacy recollected. and sometimes there's a tension between those two desires, and we all want to be safe, but we also want to make sure that our rights to privacy are protected. talk about the intention that exists between those two rights and concerns and how we're trying to strike the right balance, please. mr. olsen, do you want to go first? >> sure. this is an issue, obviously, that is front and center today, and i can assure you, mr. chairman and the committee, that it's an issue that is part of what we think about every day at the national counterterrorism center. and i know it's true there my experience at the other places identify corked including the national security agency and the department of justice. particularly to where i am now at the national counterterrorism center, we are charged with the responsibility of preventing

terrorist attacks. we do that by integrating and analyzing information. we understand that we need to have access to a lot of information, government-collected information, in order to do that, in order to analyze that information, look for particular threads, look for threats, share that information again with agencies like the fbi and others who can act upon it, but we also understand that in so doing, in handling that information we are responsible for being stewards of that information and that we are enthe trusted by the americn people with protecting it. and it's part of training, part of everything we do in terms of having access to the information that we understand the laws and policies and regulations that apply to protecting that information to insure that we do so in a way that's consistent with the civil liberties and privacy of all americans. ..

is unlike anything i've seen anywhere in the world, and it surpasses that which we experienced 10 years ago, or even five years ago. so the degree of oversight that we are subject to by congress, by the judicial branch, like other elements of the executive branch i believe should give the american people confidence that we're handling this information in a way that's appropriate and that secures privacy and civil liberties. that said, we depend on the confidence of the american people in being able to do our job so we are committed to being

as transparent as possible in how we do that in order to continue to gain and maintain the confidence. >> director comey, we have people concerned that folks at nsa are reading your e-mails, looking at the text messages, listening to their telephone conversations. what would you say to reassure almost all americans that that's not it can -- a concern they don't need to have? >> i agree with director olsen this is something every american should care about. every american should care about how the government is using its authorities to protect them and where the government is being mindful of the liberties that make this country so special. and what i tell folks is, look, our founders were geniuses. they devised a divided power and created three parts of government to check power. if you care about these issues, ma and everybody should come you should first ask is the government working? is the oversight? is a balanced? the second thing is i tell people you should participate.

everybody should ask questions about how government is using their authority and asked whether the system is using but i happen to think the angels is in those details. what's gotten lost a lot of the discussion about how we use our authorities is how the design of the founders is operating, to balance and oversee the use of those authorities. the challenge for all of us are in charge of protecting the american people is finding a space in america like to have that conversation. because it can't be on a bumper sticker. it requires me to say look at how congress oversees me. look at how the inspector general overseas me. look at what i report on. that seems kind of boring but that is the most important part of what we do, to show people the government is working. >> all right, thank you. secretary beers? >> i would circuit associate with my colleagues at my college. the winning i would add is as a practical and operational matter at dhs we have a privacy office with a chief privacy officer.

we involve them in all of our projects to both collect, store, and share that information. it's not -- almost none of that is what you'd call intelligence but it is information and it is private information. about applications for citizenship or travel information, or these is. -- or visas. there's a lot of it and it's one of the major activities that we engaging in order to ensure that we are good stewards of that information. and as we obtain, store and share. >> should there be a similar kind of entity within, say, nsa? or the fisa court that focuses on privacy as well? >> what works for us is what works for us. but i do know that they do have

the individuals who work on these issues with their staff, just as director olsen mentioned. they do that nctc. it's not like him it just happens that uniquely we have an office that is formerly part of the organization with a chief privacy officer. >> could you say to the american people with assurance that they gathering of all of this information, and i realize that it's impossible for nsa to actually listen to every telephone conversation, to read every e-mail, to be mindful of all of the text messages that might be sent, but is there some way that you can reassure the american people that all the effort that is underway we're talking about is actually, for some good purpose, for some chemistry purpose because it has made us safer again and again

and again? can you provide any reassurance along those lines the? >> what i can tell you, senator, and the american people is, this is an agency that is not some rogue actor, the nsa. we work very closely with them. they have a personal compliance culture and they are overseen in many, many different ways in their activities. what i say to folks who discuss with me as well, if you think the law ought to change, that's a discussion of with congress but i see no indication the nsa is acting outside the law or the scope of their oversight responsibilities. i just know from working with those folks, they are obsessed with compliance and with staying within the law. >> i would agree with director comey, and as i mentioned, served as the general counsel of the national city agency. it is an extraordinary agency and it is an agency that is committed. and i think using director comey's words, assessed with --

every general counsel's office. the leadership on down reiterates and reinforces that the importance of complying with the law, and the civil liberties and privacy of americans. they follow the law when it comes to the collection of investigation -- information involving u.s. persons. they do not indiscriminately collect information around the world. they serve to protect american lives, and that's what i saw when i served there. >> all right, thank you. let's turn to the issue of dirty bombs, devices that could use radiological material. could sicken a lot of people, could cause significant psychological and really economic damage on a community. the nuclear regulatory commission, the department of energy's national, i think it's national nuclear security administration, i believe they are responsible for the security of radiological sources.

i think there's a gao report about a year ago may be second to last year, an audit that revealed the use medical facilities that housed radiological materials still facing challenges securing their supplies from potential theft. and director olsen, i don't know if you've any thoughts you could give us but what is the intelligence community's assessment of the likelihood that al qaeda or one of its affiliates will seek to acquire radiological materials in order to try to make a dirty bomb? >> i think what i can say in this study is that we've seen, over time, some degree of interest along those lines but nothing at this point that i would consider to be more than the most basic aspirational type of interest by a terrorist organization. and i'm not familiar with the report that you mentioned. >> and director comey and secretary beers, if you would, what roles do your agencies play

in preventing terrorism building and potentially detonating a dirty bomb in the u.s.? >> i could probably answer for both of us. we share a responsibility at the fbi, we execute through our weapons of mass destruction directorate, one whose was put to work with dhs to understand what other potential sources of materials that terrorists could use to harness and what are the plans we put in place so if we know something is suspicious happening around the material. >> the only thing i would add is we do have the ability to at least screen with radiation detectors at our ports of entry. obviously, it's possible that you could shield that information, but at least it gives us a first order sensor system. to try to determine whether or not that information comes into the united states. we've also, there are grants

program, held state and local authorities obtain first order radiation detectors so that they can also look for that material within the country. but they key here is that we in the bureau work together very much on this kind of an effort spent we talked earlier, this is my last question, talked earlier about travel, terrorist travel going to place the while overseas and then a place from which they can freely travel back to the u.s. let me just ask each of you. what are we doing to better track and monitor people traveling to war zones and terrorists say things? and then deciding to return to the u.s. >> it's an important question and a matter of significant concern for us, trying to get in particular i would reference syria as a place where concerned

about because of the ongoing conflict there and the presence of extremist elements, including a group connected to al qaeda, such that is it has become a place where literally thousands of individuals from other countries have gone to syria to join and fight, a number of them to join with al-nusrah, a group connected to al qaeda. we were close with the fbi and dhs to track the travel of any individual that we have identified as extremist. and if appropriate, place those individuals on the watch list. we maintain a central database of known and suspected terrorists. that central database for the government provides the resources for all of our agencies as well as some of our partners around the world to identify those individuals and then to do what we can to look for the ways in which they are traveling, their location routes, how they're funded, where they are going into disrupted travel is possible, but at least identified so they do return to the home country,

and especially the united states, we have a handle on what their activities are. >> let me add to that, this is truly an integrated effort. we sit together in terms of trying to pull together the lists of individuals that we have identified as potential threats to the united states. we also have a program with our, particularly our european allies, because of the visa waiver program, the share information that they and we might have nationally with one another in order to add to the database that we have of the individuals who are of concern. we at dhs also support this effort through our travel analysis. looking for people who we don't

know, might have gone to syria or might have gone to syria for nefarious purposes. we have a number of indicators that help us identify individuals who we might want to speak to you at ports of entry as they return to the united states. i don't want to go into the details of that because i don't want to give away the way we actually do that, but we have a number of techniques which will allow us to identify somebody who is not clear in terms of the travel record leaving the united states and coming back that they were anywhere near syria, but there are other indicators that can give us indications that we might want to talk to those individuals. that's part of finding the unknowns as opposed to tracking the knowns, which i think we're pretty good at. >> good. thank you for responding to that

question. that's the last question i have except this is an opportunity for you, if you like, just give a short closing statement, please. and could be something that's come to mind, something you want to reiterate, something your another colleague say, anything that is worth emphasizing. >> first, let me thank you and this committee for holding the hearing, and really for your support for the intelligence community after all of our efforts, protecting the homeland. the one issue i think that comes to mind goes back to director comey's opening comments, and that is on the budget. we are struggling, like all other government agencies to deal with this question gets and this is a real issue that strikes at the core of her workforce, and something i think it bears raising in this forum. >> i'm glad you did, thank you. >> otherwise i would offer can to continue to work closely with you and the committee going forward for whatever you need from us as we work together.

>> all right, thank you. director comey. >> mr. chairman, i would just thank you for having this hearing. these conversations are critically important to the american people. they should demand to know how we're doing our jobs and how we're using the power we have been given, and we ought to answer and have those conversations. i shouldn't be doing anything, we shouldn't be doing anything we can't explain. sometimes it has to be in a closed setting so that the bad guys don't know what we are doing but these conversations are what the founders intended, so thank you. >> you're welcome, and thank you. secretary beers. >> i certainly would be remiss not only on on the budget question, it always affects us enormously at dhs with 240,000 plus individuals, and a vast array of programs. the second point i would make is the point that we talked repeatedly about. we really do need a cyber legislation. i know that you are, and this committee, are trying to do something on that, but as we

have said and told you and you have told us that this is a critical vulnerability that the united states faces, not having that legislation leaves that vulnerability open and we know it to the american people to be able to protect them come and protect them better. >> those are all really good notes on which to close. i want to again thank you for your preparation for klinger schedules to be with us and spend as much time with us. dr. coburn said to me that, too bad the other members of our committee could not be here to hear this, and to participate in the conversation. almost all of them, they all have several committee hearings going on simultaneously and is difficult for them to go to every one of them. i'm glad half of the college were able to join us.

director comey, this is the first time you can be forced to testify, and i'm very impressed by the way you have handled yourself. you are all seasoned pros, and they lived up to the reputation. rand, thank you for taking on response, all the response of us at dhs and you doing them well. while we worked very hard to try to get a secretary confirmed and the deputy secretary confirmed so you can be a little less frenetic. thank you very much. i think the record will remain open for 12 days, doesn't tell the number 26, 5 p.m. for submission of statements and questions for the record. without, this hearing is adjourned. thank you again very much. [inaudible conversations]

>> today, a discussion with health care professionals on health care costs and price caps on some plans currently being offered by employers. they will speak at an event hosted by the alliance for health reform, and you can see it live at 12:15 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. also today, remarks from ms. magazine founder gloria steinem. she's one of 16 people president obama honored with a presidential medal of freedom. that's the nation's highest civilian honor. watch the data from the national press club live 1 p.m. eastern on c-span3. and, finally, the senate homeland security committee examines the impact of digital currencies that allow people to exchange goods and services without using real money. that hearing begins five, 3 p.m. also on c-span3. >> think of information that facebook has on over 1 billion

people. they know your political preference, your sexual preference, who your friends are, what you like, what your dog's name is, all these sorts of things and, in fact, one city analyst said if the government had asked you directly for that sort of information, it would have taken money. it would've taken florid longert might even taken guns to get you to cough up the information but we routinely do so on social networks. we also don't think about the fact that our google searches are tracked and i also write mystery books. so my google searches if the fbi chose look at them would be very incriminating. i'm looking at different date rape drug something like that for ministries. and so people may be sitting there with their computer think the engaged in some activity not knowing if there was a big eyeball on the of in keeping track of the things that you do. >> i know who you are and i saw what you did offer lori andrews

monday on "the communicators" at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> mrs. johnson as first lady love to show off this part of the country and are home to the guests of the ranch would gather here and again, and various heads of state would visit. we do have a few things that speak to her connection to the room here. one of the things she wanted to highlight was a native american heritage in the hill country, and we do have a small collection of arrowheads. chad and i for cover and selected various items through the years and had just from various friends. mrs. johnson gave a tour of the house in 1968 that was filmed where she featured a china that you see here purchase from mexico, very colorful. she spent a lot of time here at the ranch and it was very important because it provided such a rest and all the turmoil of washington, particularly later in the presidency whether johnson could come home, we charge the batteries and make

that connection back to the land and this place that they valued so much. >> first lady aber johnson tonight live at nine eastern on c-span and c-span3. also on c-span radio and c-span.org. >> house republican campaign chairman greg walden talk about next year's midterm elections and the impact that the health care law and someone more closely watched races around the country. he spoke recently at a breakfast hosted by the "christian science monitor" in washington, d.c. this is about one hour. >> okay, here we go. thank you for coming. our guest today is representative greg walden from oregon, chairman of the national republican congressional committee. his last visit with a group was in may 2012 along with pete

sessions. we welcome him back. he was born in oregon where his family into the state by wagon train in 1845 years he grew up on an 80-acre cherry orchard and graduated from university of oregon. early on he was a disc jockey at a talk show host and work as a press secretary and chief of staff for a member of congress. he was elected to congress himself in 1998. in 2010, speaker boehner named him to be chairman of the republican leadership. after the 2012 election, representative walden was elected as chair. he also serves as chair of the energy and commerce panels telecommunications subcommittee. now on to the riveting mechanical details. as always we are on the record. leaves, no live blogging or tweeting or other means of filing while the breakfast is under way. there's no embargo when the session ends except that a friend at c-span have agreed not to air video of the session into

one hour after the breakfast is over to give reporters in the room here time to file. finally, if you'd like to ask a question, please send a subtle non-threatening signal do my best to call on wendell. we will start off by offering our guests the opportunity to make some opening comments and then we will move to questions from around the table. iyou have had your two bytes of breakfast, thanks for coming. >> good morning, everyone. i'm divided to join you this morning. i appreciate that warm welcome and introduction. i would also add to it that my wife and i were in the radio business for 22 years as owners and operators. i've been everything but play-by-play sports and climb the tower. i'm probably the only member who is wired and a broadcast studio onto and they generally worked, and i have a degree in journalism. so it's good to be with you all. let me start in my role as nrcc chairman. and talk about 2014 and what we

see. i want to start by recapping what i said when asked about what i saw in 2014 would look like a year ago. and that was i believed then and believe now that 2014 will be about the president's health care law, obamacare. and i believe it more now than ever. and now it has become a category five political hurricane that is not just causing havoc in certain regions of the country, but he is ripping apart every region of the country in tiny hamlets and towns and major cities where people are finding confusion, chaos, cancellation, cost increases, all of which were predicted as if you had no reporting that the storm is coming four years ago, and the administration and the democrats in the house were in denial.

they misled. they did nothing to prevent what is now unfolding. and so, i think 2014 is going to be a referendum on the failures of this administration and its notion and philosophy that big government has the answers. big government can do things better, and americans now fully appreciate and understand that that's not the best approach. and further, that they want a check and balance on the obama administration and its big government ideas. now, they did not have that check and balance when the health care law was passed, only with democratic votes to and speaker pelosi shut out every single amendment in the house that was the tried to be offered in the rules committee on that

fateful day. the president has apologized to the american people in different ways. i think it's time for the democrats who voted for this law, and for the speaker of the house, today would be a perfect day, to apologize as well. the american people feel very misled, and a bond of trust has been broken with the president and the democratic leadership in the house. and when you lose that trust, it's a very difficult thing to ever get back. nobody wants to see what's happening out there. i did eight days straight on the road in my district last week. 36 meetings, 2476 miles by air and ground. and no matter what the purported agenda was, it always got to obamacare and the cancellations. and very personal and specific

examples of people who not only have lost their coverage, but also were now finding out their preferred specialist, whether an oncologist or cardiologist, is no longer in the network. and other deductibles have now gone from a thousand or two or 3000, to 10, 12, or 15,000 for a fairly. and some whose cancellations of their personal policies were now being replaced with forced participation in medicaid, something they did not want. there are a lot of other issues involving the economy. i would just touch on one and then i would be happy to open it up to questions. the other thing that came about as a subtext of the discussion about the failures of the rollout and -- of the health care law and broken promises, it's an insidious thing going on in the economy affecting real people in their everyday lives. and it's nothing that employers

are holding news conferences to announce, but i tell you it's going on every count and its employers who cannot afford the cost of mandated health insurance. they are therefore reducing the hours of people who work for them to under 30, and/or getting their total workforce under 50 in anticipation that the penalties will apply in a year and they will get ahead of it. and that is a really get thing for people who are trying to hold a job to see their hours cut back. i had a letter from an individual in the southern part of my district who talked about his daughter was trained to be a pharmacist, and her hours have been cut from 40 to under 30. she could no longer live independently. as a result she still does not have health care and i think he was moving back in with her three year old into her father's home. that the also be why he wrote me to seek help.

let me suggest this is a real answer is problem out there, and i think in terms of the political landscape, all of this boiling right at the surface is over, and there's a big problem. so, let me stop with that. again, dave, thanks for hosting this. with that i would be happy to take any questions you have spent on about to quote the expert on this, david wasserman from "the cook political report," no relationship, at the back table. but on the website they summed up the situation this week as not many targetable seats and a very minimal shift in the house and for the democrats, he probably picked a good time to be chair of the nrcc. basis for the democrats to take back the house they would need to win all the solid democratic, likely democratic, leaning democratic, tossup and 13-16 any group of conditions. so it puts you in a good time for the republicans. what is your sense of whether

the health care kerfuffle causes a wave, or do you still see a swing either way? >> i think we clearly have the ability to gain seats in, net gain seats in 2014. if you look at the lay of the land and read the independent prognosticators that put enormous amount of time and energy into this, i believe there's an ability to gain seats, and we have had a -- >> a hand full? >> i'm not going to get into specific numbers. but i do believe we can get a net increase. and we put a real emphasis on recruiting women candidates. we have reconfigured our old data and analytics department, creating probably the biggest digital department in republican politics very early on. we will have the grassroots, the

data, the digital components necessary to do more highly targeted voter identification and turnout. and i believe with our recruits and the issues set, and with history on our side, we can gain seats. look, history doesn't repeat itself automatically. you've got to go burn seats. you have to go burn the seats, we know that and that's why we've been so nice are focused, not only making sure our incumbents, or through the patriot program, which has been a huge key to our success starting back in 2009-10 election cycle that allowed us to be on offense. and our patriot members are doing a great job. raising a lot of money and having more than just money though, it's the mechanics behind it that gives them the team and the strategy and the plan to win. >> one more from me and then

we'll go to caitlin. me ask you about risks to your rosy scenario. "the new york times" estimates that in 2014 to will be at least 18 republican house primaries, and earlier this week at the atlantic, washington ideas for him, karl rove talked about the republican coalition team in a state of flux. he says quote, now it's starting to sort out and i think frankly that we are past the point of greatest warfare. so how do you see the intraparty warfare affecting your job? >> i think the democrats have a number of primaries that are causing them intraparty warfare. i'll talk about those in a minute but in terms of republicans, a nearly every one of those cases they are solid republican seats. i mean, in nearly every one, they are going to be republican seats. you can't say that about the democrats. you look at the challenge to mike mcintyre to you look at

what's playing out in the california 31, gary miller's seat where the dccc has picked the candidate who by the way didn't get into the runoff last time the emily's list has picked somebody else, and former member of congress is joe baca, is a third candidate their in a jungle primary. i mean, republicans are not the only party that has some primaries, but democrats where they have them, john tierney in boston, and there are others close to boston and i live, but i think that's a series challenge that he has any primary. and they will be weakened as a result. >> on health care, the republicans have to unite around alternatives for health care in? >> you know, we have, and we can survey layout and have how we would have a patient centered

health care system. the challenge we face that these we have a law in the books that the president has made clear he has no intent of ever repealing while he is in office. and, frankly, not even modifying, with very, very limited exception. and so our multiple attempts to suspend it, we peeled it, have met with -- unified assistance from of the democrats and certainly the majority there of the senate, the president. so some point you say we tried and we tried to warn you. these go back to a memo from the energy and commerce committee so years ago i think what w we're still in the minority that pointed out that individual going to lose their plans through cancellations because the ratio number i think 40-60% range with within their own documents been. it didn't get much attention. but they've seen this coming for a long time. i think the key now is how is

all this going to play out. they've waited too long. it's just, the storm has hit. >> congressman, what democrats are trying to wallop you, you control the house, you controlled the house with readers but you are ineffective. you're not getting anything done. i could go down the list, instead though you will be on number 46. give me one example since january where the house of representatives has passed legislation where you can go out there and say look, we've been effective. not messaging but we've been effective. >> let's back up. because the reality of this city is we are in the minority. when it comes to passing legislation. when you get up every morning and yet the president of the united states and harry reid on the other side, and i know people don't like to do that, but it's the reality of

legislating. we have passed legislation. we did pass the debt ceiling increase earlier in the year. we did pass the fiscal cliff bill with tax policy in permanent statute. you know, i think about the legislation i worked on in a bipartisan way, the spectrum of bill which will be part of creating hundreds of thousands of jobs in the high-tech world. there's legislation that we are working through. we passed some appropriation bills over to the senate. >> with all due respect, the transportation bill you had to pull because dissension within your own caucus. they stopped the markup. >> how many have the senate taken up we have sent? >> that's not the issue. >> it is spent address the effectiveness of the house. >> right. when you had the leader of the senate, correct me if i'm wrong, say publicly was not going to

take up any appropriation bills a house-senate over and is there not some responsibility there? i mean, this is -- it takes to dance. you know, for four years the senate, i know you don't like this but for four years the senate did not, or three, threee '04 years did not even vote on a budget. we did each year. you make -- they may not have liked our budget, but -- >> again, it's your caucus. go down the list, plan b. you couldn't even get support from your own caucus. i'm a democrat. i say you guys are ineffective. >> so we look at this and say, we passed a budget each year we been in the majority. where the only caucus that pass a budget that actually balances. and it took sort of shameful approach in the no budget no pay provision on the debt ceiling

increase to get the senate to even take up and vote a budget. how do you ever even have a discussion with the of the body when they don't vote a budget? at least now we're having that discussion. at least they're having that discussion so made we get that back on track. we need to. >> we're going to go -- >> i'm sorry. >> christina. >> toggled it about the dynamics of the immigration and the primaries. is there a sense that it would be easy to do after the deadline? >> so, we have a different approach in the house and the senate, as you well know. the american people are very skeptical of big, huge, comprehensive bills. and we are looking at real reform that's done a piece at a time, step-by-step so you can have it be transparent, so

people can have a chance to actually understand each step of the way, and now it is sequenced bits of the speaker has said on more than one occasion i believe that this is a federal problem. i said if it's a federal problem, it needs to be dealt with by the federal government. and so i think you will see it come in a matter of timing, in part because of everything else that hasn't been done yet, you know, with the whole government funding issue and all of that has eaten up a lot of time. so my guess is that it comes later. [inaudible] is it hard to do it for your members during an election season? >> you know, people know their districts pretty well and what they can and cannot support. i think going into it. i don't think it's that big of an issue. and you're going to primaries all the way to august. >> okay. we're going to go next to alex,

cameron, joseph, thomas, david wasserman and emily. alex. >> all the -- with that i'll be squandered if the shut down again in january? >> look, the thing about obamacare is it continues on. it continues on. and the government got funded, got back up and running. i think, on the ground, in the countryside, shutdown wasn't that well received by many. there are others, frankly, in some districts that probably like giving the over arching reach of the federal government to have at least specific shutdown forever probably. but obamacare affects everybody. and it continues to you and it will continue to affect them,

and they think it will be the dominant issue. >> have you warned your other members if it comes a second shutdown that it could hurt the momentum, if it happens twice within a few months of each other? >> and it shouldn't. we should keep the government open and operating. >> what can you do to make sure that the caucus doesn't get sideways divided on this and stay focused on obamacare where there's a lot of internal division became public last time around? you yourself wrote it against a bipartisan plan to reopen the government. i'm curious, what do you feel there was any internal pressures from the caucus on this? >> there are, obviously. you have people who have pretty strongly held opinions. some of our members who came in the 2010 way remember our kind of the equal opposite reaction to an overpowered government

here that with spending like there was no tomorrow. and these members are reflecting a view in the country that is strongly, passionately held, that if we don't get control of the deficit spending soon, all will be lost. and it's pretty easy to make that case when you see these deficits racking up at drilling, trillion and a half year now, six or 700 billion issue. somehow that's celebrated as a great reduction, and yet the long-term forecasts are not good. the next generation pays the bills. there's a very strong feeling we have to do more. and we just wish we had a partner on the other side of the capitol and down in the white house that would work with us to get that done. >> in this situation, having some type of brinksmanship --

[inaudible] as happened last time around the? >> i think we will work through it. >> congressman, you said that the house on immigration preferred a piecemeal approach. judiciary did five bills back in the summer. the house never voted on those. how can you say that you want to handle a piecemeal approach if you're not even going to consider the regular order doing the bills and going to conference? >> as you know, different bills get worked to a certain point in the process, and then you have to get the right floor time and that happens in both chambers, and it is a matter, as i said, everything else that happened this fall, it alters the schedule. between the speaker and the majority of their figure out when next year make sense to have time to work this through in a thoughtful way.

we need real reform, and i think you'll see it come forward. >> last week, mitch mcconnell pushed back against the far right. he said the most important election was the one in alabama where he said, noting that the tea party candidate who he mocked as naïve lost, was once backed by the business committed to he also went after the senate conservative fun thing it was counterproductive costing more republicans jobs, electing more democrats than republicans. should we expect out of him vendors to push back against the far right, targeting incumbents? >> so, my job is to defeat democrats and elect republicans. republicans that are chosen by republicans in the district as

the nominee, and that is really where we're focused it i think the extent where we can have our wide range of outside organizations focused on that, we will be more successful after growing our majority in the house. my words of encouragement always are, let's, sort of the bill buckley line, nominate the most conservative person that can win in the general election. and that is i think really critical. and focus our attention on defeating democrats who are continents apart philosophically from where we are. and so that's my view of it. >> do you suspect as the caucus was further and further to the right making it more and more difficult for speaker boehner to leave it in any specific direction, is that part of the equation in electing republicans

to the house? >> when you're in the majority you have the responsibility to govern. and we are a center-right majority. we have to be able to govern, and we need people to come here and will fight as hard and tenacioustenacious ly and thoughtfully as possible. at the end of the day we still have the responsibility to govern. >> david. >> yes. a few race specific question. first of all, democrats say they have a great a candidate in florida 13 special on march 11 to do you have a a candidate in that race as far as you can see and how important is that race to you? second of all, we've had six retirements on the republican side, including two sophomores which is unusual, and zero fewer democratic retiring and held so far. the you anticipate more on your

side saying, this sucks. i'm out of here? [laughter] spent could you use that phrase, please? [laughter] >> oh, david. well, first of all, florida 13 i think, you know, our hearts are still broken by -- what a great public servant, many, many, many years. you all knew that bill had a special relationship with his constituents in that district, and that district had changed over the years, and that we need no longer was serving, that district would be a competitive district. i mean, it's just the numbers. you do all of the analysis. i think the president has carried that district the last three cycles. having said that, having lived in the district them the filing deadline is not closed yet. there are a lot of people rallying around one person to

there may be others to get in. again, our job is it to nominate. the interesting thing is music sync will have some explaining to do about her tenure in florida. she has to move across the bay to actually show up in the district. which i think have sunset issues associated with it. and so we plan to be on faux offense there. she was in early and strong advocate for the president's health care law. she will have to explain how it's okay to take the 760 billion out of medicare and put it into medicaid. she's going to be an owner of obamacare. she was an obama bot. they are all lining up and going in the same direction, same program over and over. so she's going to have -- there's a reason she didn't win the governorship and we intend to make this a very big race. >> and retirement?

>> retirement, yes. as chairman, no one ever likes to have retirement on their watch. it's a natural evolution. i feel pretty good about where we're at. you never want any, you don't want an open seat but in most cases i think we're in pretty good shape. again i would rather the us and them even without the retirements. we have more members. they've got to go win on red territory. they've got to go pick up seats that romney carried. and i think they've got a big uphill climb to do it. but we've got to be on game and on message, and have the right people in the right places. >> actually two questions. one sort of it was on a number of questions you've had about governing, but in some ways you've got this built in advantage for the digit where you are going to probably keep

the house for a while, barring something or and usual. but how do you make sure that doesn't work across purposes with republican parties again and be competitive in a national election? because as i don't has talked about, your majority now is probably more conservative than what you need to be to win other elections. is that part of the responsibility? >> my responsibilitie responsibe sure that there's a check and balance in washington and not a runaway again. we saw the impacts of that when speaker pelosi and senator be and president obama, with no one to raise questions about things like the irs and benghazi and whatever else. and so that's my focus is the house. reince priebus is focus is national park and all the. you hit upon something i think people tend to miss at times. we represent individual districts, not whole states and

-- will occasionally of house members seek the presidency. it's rare that they get there. and so you know, we really are a different entity. we need to lead, and i think our leadership and the way we speak can actually help the republican party. we have had an initiative in partnership on the growth agenda to recruit more women to run. we are trying to mechanically build out, and then we stay on message of trying to great private sector jobs and positive alternative going forward in these areas, and have referendum on how the other side to these elections are about one side versus the other and people make a choice. and they have a clear choice in this cycle about big government run takeovers them how that

plays out in their daily life. i mean, when the president continues to talk about you have a plan, you can keep it, i think this election, a friend of mine oppressive yesterday, if you don't like your democratic house member, you don't have to keep him or her commentaryto come usually have this is going to play out. >> you mentioned the john tierney race in boston but do you have any hope of winning any seats in new england beyond that are beyond that? are there any speak i think so. we are not done recruiting in some of those seats. we have some really interesting people who are looking at running very seriously and are working through their own issues, family issues. it's always important to have your family fully supported when you venture down this path. and you can go up to new hampshire. frank is running again.

richard, as you well know, is running again. and i just think that we need to be competitive in new england and can be competitive in new england. and we can grow. remember, we came out of 2010 with the biggest majority since world war ii. we held the second biggest majority since world war ii in 2012, a point i often have to make to our donor community who still are one is that romney actually won because they invested so heavily, he must have the. and then we go to the discussion about the senate and all the things that happened there. by the time we get to what i ask you have responsibility for, the house, most people that don't realize we on the second biggest majority. this is the bigger majority since 94. and they have to get to the chiropractor because their neck snaps around like, what? we have to get out how to do our

job. we have a great team and with great candidates and i think we will grow our majority. >> so, in this cycle democrats seem to be -- [inaudible] the sec has said we don't get to vote primaries. but you recruit sometimes in districts where people have a primary, and i'm sure you help those candidates out the what do you consider -- >> we don't spend money. we don't go in and drop money on the race's. sure, we are out there recruiting, you know, there's always that one. ya self-starters, people who don't even know are out there. they just follow one day, driving fast secretary of state's office, happens. but we are open to everyone of those candidates. we have a program that reaches out to them your we will give those candidates the same silos

confidential counsel that we would give to someone else that we recruited if they seek it. because we want whoever becomes the nominee, whoever is chosen by the people in that district to be as capable and competent as possible so that they can win. but certainly as we go out around the country we are trying to identify ourselves to was the best one to run and encourage them to run. we've got some great ones. i don't know if you're tracking the stuart mills in minnesota, but he outraised his opponent. mills fleet farm's, a farm co-op sort of store chain. and never ran for office but he oversees about 5000 employees and their benefits. enos obama get inside and out. i would check them out. we've just got similarly good people that are out and run to

look at martha, running against barbara. mia love retooled in terms of her campaign and how to approach the race this time against matheson. look at jenkins, a democratic state senator for a long time, changed his party and is now out raising nick joe rahall. a race there in west virginia. so it's an interesting dynamic folks that are up and running. >> congressman, i'm interested in one district where the republican candidate will have trouble because there is no immigration bill from the house at least, the democratic candidate would be in a lot of trouble because of the problems of obamacare. and that would be california's district. what is your take on that particular race, especially given the fact that it but much is a moderate district? were republicans i think are slightly outnumbered in terms of party registration.

>> well, i think when, i think voters are more motivated when something is taken away from them. and i think voters are rightfully upset, maybe even angry at times, about the president's health care law. and i think that will be the overriding. between now and the election, i think the house will take up immigration legislation in a piece by piece approach. that has to do consideration. those are decisions made by others in the leadership, not me. but that being said, obamacare will live on the cost increases and confusion, chaos and cancellations. and i think that will be the dominant issue because that affects everybody. that ethics everybody.

when people figure out that they can no longer see their doctor, that will be the next less than truthful promise. another broken promise because what i'm hearing from my constituents that have been canceled, they give the new policy and some provider they have entrusted their health care within had a relationship with is no longer in the network. it's true they will be able to see them they will have to pay full price out of their own pocket because you are out of network so the -- deductibles will be off the chart. so practically speaking they won't. technically i suppose they always came, if they can afford it. i think as those play out, that this is, this is a hurricane of mammoth proportions that's going to strike everywhere, including california. >> following up, in your own state, there is, you know, you had schrader, you have

colleagues of yours. there is a lot of discontent about obamacare but there's a lot of discontent about immigration, plus the moves by senator merkley and congressman schrader to perhaps support today's bill in the house, what do you make of these moves? do they have legitimate reasons to be really concerned? >> this is sort of like the guy who robbed the bank, has affected my going outside the door to get in the car and gets caught. it's like here, i'll give you back the money. sorry but it doesn't work that way with voters. you know, i watched this play out with my friend, kurt schrader, who was coming, chastising the president for not being truthful. only to have pointed out that he had the same claim on his own website. and so the obvious people getting caught red-handed, they are co-conspirators in this.

you can't get away from that. and you can get away from your votes. you can't get away from your statements. there's this thing called, the press that kind of document all that and hold us accountable, as you should. and so i think they are in real trouble. what i saw when senator merkley said he was going to go on the lander bill, that told me panic had arrived. >> we're going to go next to francine. >> if you look at the latest developments in obamacare, strictly from a policy point of view, whether it's the presence executive order one whether it's the up and bill or whether it's what mary landrieu is working on, wouldn't allowing people who have these individual plants to keep their plans, wouldn't that mess up the overall concept of obamacare? ..