As soon as they experience it. Them as quickly as possible and we can protect others as quickly as possible. Protection liability is constructed i am not a lawyer, i cannot do find that in the legal terms that you all need to put into the law, but i we arewould be ready and willing to help with ethical assistance on trying to define precisely what it ought earlierlike as we tried with the last attempt to write the legislation in this body. Mr. Olson . I dont have anything to add on that cyber legislation. Thank you. Lets talk a bit about the lone wolves, american citizens, in many cases, that become radicalized, in some cases by traveling abroad and being exposed to jihadist activities and other cases being radicalized here, yogurt over the internet and in no communities. I worry about that, and i know you do, too. Share with us what you are doing in trying to address that threat and how you are working together and how we can help you. Let me go ahead and start. In addition to the great investigative work the bureau us, alongthree of 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 in association with that. And we, as matt olson indicated, it is not just before the event of but also what do you do after an event has begun to occur. Shooterhe active training that we do is designed to assist in that, although it ina much broader resonance terms of those kinds of events. Communitylast engagement, to talk to people in those communities, to hear what those concerns and issues are and provide that information to them as well. Us participatef in that effort, either as individual agencies or in concert with one another. That is the broad scheme of how we Work Together. Director, or, would you add to that . What i would as ad is with respect to travelers, in some ways the travelers are easier for us thats still a huge challenge then the homegrown extremist tuesdays in his basement basement radicalizing himself in the internet. A huge challenge trying to develop a set of indicators good what are we looking for . What should we equip the Police Officers patrolling in the neighborhood to look for . The travelers, we can see them coming in and out of the country, so figuring out smart ways to assess to what they are doing and having smart conversations with them that are useful to us is something we are working together on. Echo thean just really comments of my colleagues. The challenge of the homegrown experience extremist is exactly as director comey described, an individual that does not travel, does not communicate, maybe a passive consumer of radical information on the internet. So really does not hit any of the trip wires. So we are working closely together as a team to implement the strategy. The strategy has the three broad categories that rand beers laid out. Engagement, training and expertise with local Law Enforcement, as well as countering the al qaeda narrative. A minute ago about Fusion Centers. Use incentives to provide a very good way for us Fusion Centers they provide is a good way. First responders between Police Officers and firefighters, those are the individuals who are going to be most likely to see path from the radicalization and mobilization and to equip them to find those signed as a key part of the strategy. Ranks, my time is expired. If you could take 10 seconds. You know they say, see something, Say Something. If someone sees something they believe is being radicalized in their own community or family, who should they Say Something too . Isusually the first instance the local Law Enforcement agencies. Idea great. And i urge people, listen to the feeling on the back of your neck and did not write an innocent narrative over something that strikes you initially strange. Tell somebody. Element of this is to build trust in the communities, particularly the american muslim community, so they have a confidence and trust in our Law Enforcement agencies to, if they see something that gives them concern, to come forward. Thank you so much. Senator levin, good to see you. You recognize. Mr. Hank you very much, chairman. Director comey, let me start with you. The law right now does not allow detainees to be brought from fortanamo to the u. S. Detention and trial. Should this law be changed . Be brought from toronto guantanamo to the u. S. Were attentive and trial. Had they been properly tried and safely detain . It is one better answered by the department of justice. I know from my personal experience, though, terrorists can be safely detained and tried. In involved in many cases, myself, in civilian courts in the u. S. Answercould definitely yes. What is that personal experience . Specifically, have we tried individuals for terrorism and the federal courts question mark any, many, many. I was the United States attorney in manhattan after 9 11 and we have cases pending event. We are very good in the United States and at safely detaining bad people with all kinds of threat. Used toau of prisons, i supervise when i was Deputy Attorney general and there is nobody better in the world. And our courts have a proven track record going back to probably the largest case, the initial east africa bombing case brought to new york and was trial and the kays al libi was arrested on. A long record. Our trials held in federal court more likely to be conducted in a speedy manner compared to trials before military commissions . I dont have enough experience i guess we dont as a country with the military commissions for me to say about that. I do know the federal courts have long been able to move these cases and protect classified information and get them done in a reasonable time. Madee argument has been the bringing the terrorists trial either directly for trial in the United States or from guantanamo somehow or another creates a Security Threat for those communities in which they are held. He would have any evidence to support that kind of conclusion . Any with respect riseneaten an area of a facility. Our super max prison in the high desert in colorado is fairly remote. I dont know of any threats around that facility. We have housed in that facility some really bad people for a long time. Mr. Beers, is there any position dhs has taken about the from trying and detaining terrorists and defendants . Sir, i dont have any information indicating any significant threat to a particular trial that has taken clays. Taken place. I may justlevin, if jump in for a moment. I would want to fully endorse director comeys comments about the federal courts. I share at least in part the experience having been a federal prosecutor and the ability of our federal courts to handle the cases. The one element i would add is what we have seen in certain important cases is the ability to obtain intelligence information from individuals who are brought into the system. At the Perspective NationalCounterterrorism Center it is very important we do what we can to gain the intelligence and we have been able in important cases where individuals have been cooperative and provided Important Information. There any evidence maybe director comey and others, you can compare the kind of intelligence vote in quantity hasquality that the fbi been able to obtain from terrorist suspects compared to their being held by other element of our federal government. Senator, i am not in the position to go there because i dont know enough about the track record of getting information from other agencies, so i can only speak to fbi. Which is long. That is what we do best, and any information from people, especially bad guys. Is doing so consistent with the guarantees in the law for interrogation of suspects . Absolutely. At me ask you a question, director, about a bill that senator grassley and i have introduced relative to the u. S. States in the United States incorporating entities that have hidden ownership. From a lawproblem enforcement port review it not knowing their real owners of corporations, and in this regard, i think you may be familiar with what happened at where 20summit leaders, including president obama, reached a consensus that it was time to stop creating. Orporations with hidden owners and president obama has issued a National Action plan which calls for federal legislation such as we introduced to require states to include in the incorporation forms a question asking for the names of the real owners of corporations being formed. Do you support that bill . The the fbi want to know real owners of corporations . Is there a Law Enforcement purpose . All kinds of letters, Law Enforcement groups, federal Law Enforcement officers associations, federal thats fraternal order of police, and on and on, saying it is critically important you know the Beneficial Owners of corporations because otherwise suspected terrorists, Drug Trafficking organizations, and other criminal enterprises continued to exploit the through the filing process. That is quoting a letter from the federal Law Enforcement officers association. You support as director of the fbi our passing a bill that would require states to ask one incorporatione forms who are the real owners, who are the Beneficial Owners of the corporation you seek to incorporate and if you do support it, tell us why . I dont know enough about the bill in particular to have a position. I am sure the department of justice is working on it. But i agree with your premise, it is very important in our investigations across a whole range of cases to learn the information. Why . Give us an example. Why does it make a difference . If you are conducting an investigation of a Transnational Organized Crime Group in joke smuggling and they are laundering money through a particular corporate entity, connecting that entity to the bad guys is going to be a critical step in your investigation. You can take it and make an analog in any financing, bank scheme,onting ponzi you have to find people hiding behind the particular names or shells. Just to follow up on the question in the exchange you just had with senator levin, an issue he has pursued for some time. Interestingly enough, the state are uncomfortable in the manner perceived. Especially states have expressed concern through their secretaries of state. We have encouraged our own secretary of state in delaware to work with other secretaries of state across the fbi, engage in conversation with the fbi to find a way that addresses the concerns that senator levin has expressed and that you, and i think many americans, which area do so in a way that states are not finding overwhelmingly difficult to administer. I think there is a sweet spot there. The negotiations have begun and we appreciate the participation of the fbi and other Law Enforcement agency. Acta senator coburn. Thank you. Director beers, you mentioned the National Suspicious activities group. The full name . [inaudible] sorry. And this morning, a news people,broke that 4,904 their personal Social Security numbers, addresses, professions, and lots of other detail came s customs and Border Protection was leading an to get around how a lie detector tests, both of us will be i am not sure if you are familiar with this or not. Concerning toally me. First of all, it looks sloppy on this face in terms of the number of people. What i would direct you is the mcclatchy released today, todays news story. ,his is the kind of thing where because it is not done right, and it looks to be very inappropriate in the expanse. Is quoting thet agencies will keep the information for a long period of time on these individuals. And the American People are going to want to know why and what did we do wrong. Because we wanted to read a book, and now the federal government is sharing information with 20some other agencies, including our personal data. I think there is a balance to where we are going. I would love for you to both brief my staff and also respond to this news story, if you would, later today. I know i am catching you off guard. But we need to protect ourselves, but we also need to protect fourth and first amendment. To me, on the face and i will reserve final judgment until i hear from you is this is way overboard and way beyond. I would hope you would address this. , as you know, senator graham is holding up all nominations of the president senatebefore the 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 resistant. I have two questions for you. Two questions number one, why does congress not have the right to do this . And, number two, is senator graham appropriate and try to have the American People know what happened in benghazi by interviewing the survivors . I dont know, to the first question. And, no, to the second question, it does not strike me as inappropriate. My interest are in making sure we balance the fbis need to be able to protect our witnesses and five those people and bring them to justice, but i dont see anything inappropriate with the inquiry. Hebut it is my understanding has been told he cannot interview those survivors. Is that correct . Certainly not by me. I dont know. Problem withs no congress interviewing the survivors of benghazi . No. Thank you. One of the concerns 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 fiber. I think they listened well. I think they built a good plan. And so far it has been executed very, very well. So, i congratulate him and you on what has been on on that. Concerns is what is coming with the executive order in terms of regulation. Is of the things i believe stifling the economy now is tremendously excessive. If we want private data shared with the government so we can actually protect us do you have any concerns or any feel for what we are going to see in terms of regulations . The at this particular point in time as we negotiate the original cyber bill considered in this body and this committee, it was not our intention to seek regulation in association with that. It was a very light touch. Remains our posture with respect to going forward. The part of the executive order that seeks to catalog regulatory authorities is an effort to pull that together to see what authorities do currently exist that allow regulation that is already underway. We will see where we go from there. We have not completed that particular 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 forcednce or at least compliance would come after we see a failure of voluntary compliance . Would you agree . Yes, sir. Questions. O further senator johnson . I would like to follow up on a question from both editor ayotte and senator coburn on benghazi. , for 14 months it has been a consistent excuse of the administration is the reason why members of congress to that of access to the survivors of benghazi is because the fbi investigation that you are aware that . I am not. Eating back to what senator coburn said, that there should fbio reason that the investigation should be used as an excuse for us not to have access to lessen those witnesses, whether an open hearing or secure briefing setting . As fbint know director, i dont have an objection to it. I dont know whether the prosecutors would feel differently or some other reason i am not thinking of, but speaking from my perspective, i dont have an objection to that. Director olson, i would just like to and maybe for both the directors to talk about the difference between our gatheringprosecute in intelligence. From my standpoint with the threats that you are far more aware of the and im, to me, it sounds like intelligence gathering is a far higher than britain people to eventual justice particularly as we can hold them as unlawful enemy combatants. And you discussed between the difference between the desire to prosecute we want people brought to justice of the need to not dilute requirement for intelligence gathering . Conflictk there is no in that. Everything i have seen in my work at the National Counterterrorism center and before, the number one goal in any of these instances involving terror suspects is to gather is thegence, that overriding objective. At the same time, we need to have an option for disposition. With respect to abu are not only bi, aabu anas al li disposition option was readily available. Every case is treated on the basis of the facts presented in an every case, intelligence gathering is the priority. That is what i experience. Guantanamo with senator ayotte we spoke to people who were continue to be interrogated for a long. Of time, detainees. Thosetrong opinion of individuals doing those interrogations, saying the most effective interrogation occurs over years. Where you gain their confidence. It is slowly and surely you of tame the little threads of information, the types of threads of that i think the killing ofto osama bin laden. Do you disagree . To me, it is absurd