over workplace speech in the great danger is of a danger for the petitioners in a way to prove they are ineffective. to the extent they are a part of the process in the agreement that they make to have a productive work force is like a law of new york or california or kentucky facilitates. >> going back to the benefits of public employers , to say this

arrangement would work given every arrangement they should be perfectly happy in that experience of labor unrest it is not true to resolve the grievances to ensure satisfaction is important to insure those government services to reducing employee turnover that is something i have wanted to say of various points here but there are lots of different ways in which adopting a system were the only voice in place is take-it-or-leave-it then don't, work for us cannot be helpful because that means as soon as the employee experiences dissatisfaction very small but important to

that employee the solution should be for them to walk but for public employer may not be the best you may want to well-trained workforce so that is important to to that >>. >> should the petitioners succeed in overturning the one scholar has written a possible solution is to have public employers fund the unions entirely and get -- reduce salaries to fund it. that doesn't strike me as right for a couple of reasons but that is the suggestion for the free rider problem.

what do you think how that would work? the rest against of federalism idea that they can structure how they like but if the supreme court does not agree does that satisfy petitioners in this case? >> . . for labor management relations.

i think we are going to see a lot of new models over the coming years regardless of the outcomes of the case as has been mentioned. there are a lot of challenges and attacks and re- shifting of the economy and how public services are delivered command we will see a lot of models for ensuring the makes and contributing to the effective delivery of public services. but also we need to bear in mind one of the things that makes a workplace organization of employees effective is the fact that it is a workplace organization of employees. we talked about the reasons why the involvement has been so effective. the frontline workers understand that they can participate beyond information in critical feedback because they have a strong representative protecting against retaliation. whatever happens in terms of

public funding of labor management i expect the models of the future to come next year or 20 or 50 years will always involve some component. >> anybody else? >> in terms of the what comes next, it is important to keep in mind both the exclusive representation and collective-bargaining ability is an extraordinary power. the aclu and naacp ended already have no authority to compel the government to sit down and talk to them to help promote interest. i think just the nature of the powers take, if something is in the interest of 51 percent or more, i find iti find it hard to believe they would not be a vigorous engaged constituency of employees

voluntarily legislate and be willing to fund is only the members of the union get to participate in the process of bargaining and representation. i find it hard to believe that there would be more than enough funding and time and resources to make that continue to happen. >> i was just going to say, no one is compelling the states to do anything. it is in their interest to have someone to bargain with who is funded and can be effective obviously there are dramatically opposing views but the best labor-management relationships are ones where there is active give-and-take.

it works for both sides. but no one is compelling the states to do that. the states have decided that it is good for us. if they don't want to decide that they don't have to do it. i don't want to lose the idea that if the petitioners here for the when the very next day you will see a reinvigorated effort to get rid of exclusive bargaining on the same theory. the idea that this is some abstract thing that we can separate, no. if the first amendment applies here and prohibits this the people are going to say, that decision clearly means the bouncing an employee'semployee's right to bargain for her or himself is even worse. employees will not be able to band together and you have to look at history to see what employees can't

they generally are not going to get the kind of working conditions that they would like to have. and whether or not they do it even in the private sector where there are unions, the ability and the fact that employers now unionization as possible is a threat that is out there. that will be an unfortunate situation. >> one last question that i think everyone may have something to say. to recap the history, this case comes out a victim in a case called knox versus service employees union in which without particularly the question having been presented justice alito said by the way there is a case

that supports the public employee unions. i happen to think it is a complete anomaly and probably should be overruled immediately the opportunity was presented to him in a case called harris versus quinn. he said due to the attorney for the union are you aware that many people thought he was wrongly decided and think it should be overturned? in his opinion the opinion is devoted entirely to trashing the precedent and saying that it is a violation of the first amendment and then there is a paragraph saying but i don'ti don't have five votes. we're going to have a more limited result which is simply of these particular workers cannot have a fair share fee arrangement. possibly some of us might be

forgiven. i don't know. what i want to ask this group is, is there a chance? is this result fake? what should we look for when we read about a listen to oral argument that might indicate that something will happen that we don't anticipate. who wants to go 1st? >> anyone who thinks anything is baked into supreme court decisions is just as not have a lot of experience with the court. jeff referred to the halliburton case where everyone believe they would be a significant change and extract -- securities grant action and there was a minor change. so no one knows what can happen. i do think to expand your question, the court has aa

serious question to confront in terms of overruling. it's precedents say merely viewing that a precedent was wrongly decided is not enough. they are factors of the court looks to whether or not the decision has been questioned. i am a little bias. i think it's hard to say that those factors are met here. you have to step back and people who care about the court have to say we are in this incredibly polarized era where all of our institutions are viewed skeptically. i do think that there is a real risk that overruling a

decision risks making the court appear to be an institution where it is all about the personnel. not only think of the knock on effects. that it will really be about the views because it reduces the court to an institution more akin to a political operation than the court which would be a terrible result.a terrible result. that will be on the minds of them are of the justices. >> what will you be looking for? >> so similar to the answer, i think if the 2nd issue

is getting play that is a sign that it is in play. if it looks like especially kennedy, the chief asking a lot of questions command that's a sign that it is seriously in play. >> i agreei agree with everything to the extent that they are asking questions about the implications. that will reveal some reluctance to overreach. but also one thing we have not talked about is the tremendous reliance and in terms of the disruption that would flow from the decision were talking about laws

governing labor-management relations that would be undone. other states like the state of wisconsin still allow for agency fee collecting and collective-bargaining. others would find themselves and see in terms of what the governing rules work. and then we have thousands and thousands of contracts. this was alluded to. i don't think they will be receptive to the assertion. i don't think that is the case at all. we see a huge amount of reopening and renegotiation learning from the experience , litigation which will involve public employers and unions alike and will be incredibly disruptive.

these should be on the mind of the court when it is reconsidering a precedent. one other thing is that i don't think this case, very much hope this case will not be seen as a technical discussion of agency fees and the first amendment. this should be viewed as what it is much as a result in favor of petitioner's that would create and place substantial limitations on the ability of working people to advocate for the services they provide. that makes this case part of something larger. legal issues are not as interesting as they should be, but what's going on in our country in the moment we are is very important and i

believe the court will be thinking in terms of what kind of legacy it wants to provide. >> we have three or four minutes left. what are you looking for and what would raise interest? >> looking out very hopefully. not just in new york's multistate brief but in the government side briefs that were filed. in my mind the holding rested on the facts those individuals were not full-fledged government employees. they pointed to that of the implications of the reason why the rationale was not being served.

the provision of services and what it's like. this case squarely presents the same questions and all you briefs have tried to elaborate not just the many tens of thousands of contracts but also the day-to-day experience and our decision for the petitioners were change that. >> with that we will say way out. would like to thank for that wonderful hospitality, the american constitution society and most importantly this panel which has been extremely well-informed.

i think we should all thank them and ii thank you for taking time to come in your the panel. chairs the

three-hour hearing. >> committee will come to order. is authorized to declare a recess at any time. oversightnal investigative work does not need to be an adversarial activity. we require cooperation. it takes effort, communication,

and good faith. mr. cummings and a have worked together quite well. taken each other's views and ideas into consideration. our corroborative approach to oversight has yielded results. the committee has come a long way. adopted a 195 page report on the secret service, and have written 200 letters asking for documents and testimony. when we send a letter, it is not a thank you note. it is a little tougher than that. we have written more than 200 joint letters speaks a lot to the approach we are trying to take. we need cooperation from the agencies themselves. it might be helpful to clarify our expect haitians when we talk

about cooperation. are open and transparent and self-critical in the united states of america. that is why the congress formed this committee under a different name. it has grown, expanded, contracted, and gone through a variety of different names along the way. the function of oversight has been here since the foundation of our nation. a long time ago, people felt it wise to look at every expenditure made by the federal government. aen the committee sends request, we expect an honest effort in response. we expect to munication, to be kept informed. that you will work with us in good faith, which means that when you make a commitment, do what you say you will do. shareicans and democrats the goal of a more efficient

government that serves the people. we have to ensure that every dollar is spent responsibly. we do that by conducting oversight of the executive branch and examine government programs and policies that affect every american. invent the concept of this oversight of the executive branch. ,t comes from the constitution and comes from the need to be responsive as we represent the people of the united states of america. group we will hear from a from five different agencies, all with the troublesome track records when cooperating with request for information. to the ideahetic that they get bombarded from so many different committees. , agencies so task massive and so big, spending

billions upon billions of dollars. department of homeland security has been invited to discuss a request related to the secret service and tsa. tsa has ignored basic fundamental requests such as appearing at hearings. we invited the administrator to testify at a hearing scheduled a month later. the administrator backed out and cited a scheduling problem. we invited the justice department to address a position on withholding the memos that guided investigative personnel when dealing with gps tracking devices. we also hope to get an update on a request for the latest lois lerner files. state department is here to address specifically the difficulty of obtaining documents in our investigation entering its third year. always approaches the

production of documents and a halfhearted manner. that is very problematic. today, there is a story about providing in accurate information as it relates to hillary clinton and her e-mails. we will ask you some questions about that. the office of management and budget is here to address a toponse to a subpoena i sent the office of information and regulatory affairs. it is an office created by congress, and it's job is to review proposed regulation. to create the impairments that it is cooperating, omb offered a number of pages of documents it has produced. a flashing signal that maybe there is a problem. when they want to talk about the number of documents they have produced, i'm not interested in that. i'm interested in the percentage

of documents you have produced. have a trick to say we provided this or that, tell me what percentage of the documents we get. if we want 100% of the truth, we need 100% of the documents. until we get them, it makes us think that you are hiding something. the office of personnel management has been invited to discuss the effort to produce materials with response to the data breached investigation. opm has burdened the investigators by applying inexplicable reductions. publicly available information has been repeatedly redacted by opm. in some cases, answers have been found more readily by visiting the upsid website. it leaves us with the conclusion that perhaps they have a lot to hide. embarrassing,s that is not a reason to keep it

from the congress. a successful working relationship between the congressional committee and the executive branch agencies require effort, communication, and good faith on both sides. we need transparency and need to work together. we have a lot of good staff, a lot of good people. disparage anye to one person's reputation, but we are here to get answers, and we to make sure we get those documents. we need your help in doing so. with that, i recognize the ranking member, mr. cummings. i strongly support the authority of this committee to obtain the necessary documents as part of our investigation. these documents are a critical tool to investigate waste, fraud, or abuse, eliminate .uplication

we rely on other sources of testimony,, witness interviews, briefings, and meetings. .ocuments are unique they give us the ability to understand what happens over time without having to rely on memories or self-serving recollection of those being investigated. i support the committees of authority because i have been in the chairman seat. i know firsthand how oversight slowingpiteful by documents or withholding information to which congress is entitled. i remember very well the fights we had with the bush administration over their refusal to provide documents we needed.

remember how those actions impaired our ability to do our work. unfortunately, i have also seen how investigations can be used as a form of political attack, rather than search for the fact and the truth. i have seen how massive, repeated, and over wrought document requests have been used as a partisan weapon. forceeen how they can diverts to personnel and waste millions of dollars in the process. it is important to recognize the difference between these two purposes. we need to recognize not only the significant demands that have been placed on the agencies, but what they have

provided to date. for example, the state department has just experienced one of, if not the most, most amending years in terms of congressional inquiries. the state department is currently reporting to nine different committees, including the benghazi select committee. it has been inundated with requests unlike any previous year on record. oversight committee a loan launched nine investigations relating to the state department. in response, the department provided more than 21 gigabytes of information. our as part of investigation of embassy construction, more than 160,000 pages of documents were produced.

committee wants additional documents. i have signed on to some of those document requests myself. it is inaccurate to suggest that the state department has intentionally withheld the document's we need. with that said, the state for anent is notorious extreme report record management system. this problem dates back several administrations. frustratedncredibly in the past with the state department's inability to run the most basic document searches and produce documents in a timely manner. in my opinion, the solution to this problem is not to shame the heads of the legislative affairs offices. many officials worked in congress previously. they fully understand our needs and our rights to the information. some of our most effective advocates within the agency.

we really want to address this problem, we can take to key steps. arst, congress can conduct detailed review of agency management practices, including document preservation, collection, and redaction. long-term efforts to upgrade and improve their systems so they take less agency time to implement and provide congress what it needs more quickly. i'm talking about efficiency and effectiveness. this work will pay dividends to congress, the press, and the american public. the second thing congress can do is to take a closer look at itself. put a mirror up to our faces. end thein th politically-motivated headlines.

end duplicate requests. wecan ask for only what really need, rather than everything under the sun. we can work with agencies to legitimatethe interests in protecting certain classes of information, well giving accommodations for what we need to do our job. that is the balance that we should seek. that is the balance we should work towards. closing, mr. chairman, i hope we can explore some of these issues here today, and i look for to the testimony of our witnesses. i yield back. recordaffetz: i hold the open for five legislative days for any written statements. i recognize our panel of witnesses. thestant secretary of bureau of legislative affairs at the united states department of state.

assistant attorney general for legislative affairs at the department of justice. the honorable assistant secretary of the office of legislative affairs of homeland security. associate director for legislative affairs at the office of management and budget. director of office of the congressional affairs for the office of personnel management. thank you for being here. all witnesses are sworn before they testify. if you will please stand and raise your right hand. thank you. do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the whole truth, nothing but the truth? thank you. let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative.

you know the drill here. we are trying to keep it to five minutes. we will give you a little latitude. insert yourously entire written record -- statement into the record. mr. chairman, ranking member cummings, and members of the committee, i appreciate this opportunity to testify. the state department is committed to working with congress. secretary kerry spent 30 years and congress and believes strongly in the importance of congressional oversight. since he arrived at the state department, hughes instructions to the department have been -- his instructions to the department have been to be responsive. i share his commitment. career as antire capitol hill staffer. i have great respect for the role in oversight.

the request for documents at length. it is important to underscore that our willingness to work with congress is not limited to documents. the state department legislative affairs office provided 2500 briefings to the hill on foreign-policy issues. we worked with consular affairs. from loss reports to missing constituents overseas. we arranged over 500 congressional member and staff delegation trips abroad and have appeared at 168 congressional hearings and responded to 1700 congressional letters. with crises around the world and congress focused on foreign-policy, we are working hard to meet all responsibilities and recognize that cooperating with investigations is one of them. the state department have struggled to keep pace with the increasing demands of requests, which have expanded the number

and complexity. we are responding to dozens of investigations by nine different committees, involving hundreds of requests for hundreds of thousands of pages of documents. this is twice as many as last year. while some of the investigations are our focus, others are broad and complex. be clear, we know it is our responsibility to answer these questions, and we are working to improve the way respond, making it more useful for congress and the pace of our response. historically in responding to congressional requests, we follow a process similar to other requests, relying on the same infrastructure and technology. increase him a we found both were competing for the same resources. to compensate, we pulled together ad hoc teams from functional and regional bureaus to respond. we pulled people from the work

of diplomacy to respond to congress. this system is not sustainable. to institutionalize the way we process documents to speed up the pace of delivery. we knew we had upgrade our technology. this year we have been transforming the way we respond. i worked with my colleagues at state to create a congressional document production branch in which involves personnel and new software to facilitate reviews and production. we are grateful that congress to establish this new entity to provide additional personnel and technology. we've been able to process more quickly requests from this committee, select committee on been cozzi -- on benghazi, and other committees. enabling us to respond to more committees simultaneously than ever before. because the production branch is only a few months old, its impact is not apparent yet. this committee should see the results as we work on your

request. additionally, we have made tangible improvements to the way we produce documents to congress. we heard from staff, including yours, who had concerns that we were providing documents in a way that was not user-friendly. we used to provide documents on paper, without coding, that enabled you to find and organize them. we would hand of her boxes of documents. , who meeting with staff told us how hard it was to use documents in this format, we change the way we give you documents and now provide them electronically with easily searchable base numbers. we can now provide documents organized by date or custodian. the ability to review is vastly expanded. the move towards electronic document processing has improved our ability to provide documents quickly and enjoy them and easier to review. i would like to summarize where we are and where we hope to go. we are working on nine

investigations for your committee. we have provided over 160,000 pages to the committee for embassy construction and have participated in for hearings and many meetings and briefings. i do note that i did here with the chairman said, and i understand. have been collecting documents for the five requests outlined in your december 18 letter, and are committed to producing thousands of pages, along with providing briefings on the matters described in the letter. in closing, while we have implemented significant improvements, we are striving to do better. the obstacles to responding is not one. it is a question of balancing resources in response to multiple, large-scale request from a number of different committees. innovativeng to find ways to respond better and faster. i look for to working with you and your staff to ensure the state department and congress work together to provide

transparency that should be the hallmark of our government. rep. chaffetz: thank you. you are now recognized for five minutes. >> good morning. --. chaffetz: if you could >> is that better? rep. chaffetz: thank you. the opportunity to respond to the committee's information requests, including those related to policy and geolocation and other surveillance technology in the wake of the supreme court 2012 decision. assure the committee that we value the important role of congressional oversight, and as the attorney general has stated repeatedly, the department is committed to accommodating information needs consistent with law enforcement come national security, and prosecutorial responsibilities. the department appreciates oversight is a critical underpinning of the legislative process. consistent with the bite we play

some congressional oversight, since the beginning of the 114 congress, the department has testified and 60 congressional hearings and provided extensive information and more than 1800 letters responding to increase from committees and members. in every instance, we strive to provide as much information as possible without compromising our law enforcement and national security efforts, or our prosecutorial responsibilities. in addition to these sensitivities, the department also has an obligation to protect certain executive branch institutional interests, including confidentiality of client communication, attorney work product, and internal deliberation. we are committed to working in good faith to accommodate the committee's legitimate oversight interest and hope the committee will likewise continue to engage in good faith with the department in a manner that recognizes the important law enforcement and confidentiality interests presented in some cases. trust thelar, we

committee recognizes the importance of ensuring the department's investigative and prosecutorial decisions are made without regard to political considerations or a perception of political influence or pressure. and theitical influence mere public perception of such influence can undermine significantly our law enforcement efforts and in publicl matters shake confidence in the justice process. we recognize it is difficult when interest come into potential conflict. that is why the constitution envisioned that the branches would engage in a process of accommodation. this long-standing and well-accepted approach has been up lloyd by administrations for decades and supported by top department officials, democrats and republicans alike. consistent with this approach, the department has made efforts to respond to the committee's

information requests regarding on geolocation and other surveillance technology. as the committee is aware, these represent significant confidentiality interests. they include sensitive law enforcement-related confidential work product prepared in anticipation of litigation, specifically internal deliberations of department prosecutors about the legal come investigative, and strategic issues we face in our law enforcement efforts in light of the jones decision. our disclosure of this product would show analyses that are essential to law enforcement matters and prosecution. in addition, exposure could jeopardize ongoing and future investigations of prosecutions by prematurely revealing the governments strategy. such disclosure would afford

criminal targets an opportunity to preempt those tools, eve ate law enforcement detection, and attain knowledge of how our agents operate. -- evade law enforcement detection, and attain knowledge of how our agents operate. undertakenent has efforts to working good faith to accommodate the committee's interests. we were pleased to brief committee staff less september on the processes we use for obtaining geolocation information. we hope our breathing was helpful to the committee, and as we have offered previously, we would be happy to offer additional briefings and answer any remaining questions to accommodate request. in conclusion, i emphasized that the department recognizes the importance of congressional oversight. time, as it implicates law-enforcement efforts and investigative techniques, sensitive attorney , internalct

decorations, presenting unique confidentiality concerns. despite these concerns, we remain optimistic, and by working to gather cooperatively, satisfy interests and safeguard the independence, integrity, and effectiveness of the departments of the department's vital law enforcement efforts and prosecutorial responsibility. the department stands ready to continue this effort and accommodate information needs and hope you will work with us towards that goal. thank you again for the opportunity to testify. i will be happy to answer any questions. rep. chaffetz: thank you. mr. johnson, we look forward to hearing your testimony. committee roles require that you submit testimony 24 hours prior. you give your opening statement, you can explain why you failed to provide this committee with your testimony. you are now recognized for five minutes. you, mr. chairman.

ranking member cummings and distinguished members of the committee, i appreciate the opportunity to discuss efforts, time, resources, and money that dedicates to providing information. secretary johnson pledged transparency and candor and is committed to respond to congressional inquiries in a timely fashion. , the his arrival department's responsiveness to oversight requests has greatly improved. year, thest department examined its responses to congressional inquiries and found that it cut its response time in half. chairmanore appreciate -- we areix statement determined to continue to improve on our record. dhs, i servedg to

as an officer in the u.s. officer for almost 30 years. as a senior colonel, i was assigned to the office of the assistant secretary of defense for legislative affairs. we were still involved in combat operations in iraq and afghanistan. these two operations, as well as the detainee mission, generated a significant amount of congressional oversight. i was involved in that oversight process, which i thought was considerable at the time. dhs,er, upon my arrival at i was surprised to learn of the depth, breadth, and quantity of congressional oversight this department faces. in 2004, the 9/11 commission strongly recommended that congress form a congressional oversight structure of dhs. witness told the commission, the number of congressional bodies that exercise oversight over dhs is perhaps the single largest obstacle impeding the

department's successful development. with jurisdiction over both oversight and government reform, your committee is uniquely positioned to help foster efforts to implement this crucial 9/11 commission recommendation. in the 12 years since the commission issue that recommendation, the oversight structure of the department has more complex and extensive. the department answers to 92 congressional committees and subcommittees, 27 caucuses, commissions, and groups. as the 9/11 commission chairman peoplehink of having 100 you're reporting to. it makes no sense. you cannot do your job under those circumstances. despite these challenges, we are doing our job. during calendar year 2015, dhs responded to 700 oversight letters and more requests.

of those, 70 letters came from members of this committee. we have responded to oversight inquiries on a broad array of topics ranging from secret service protective mission to dhs assistance of victims of cyber breaches. than15, dhs devoted more 100,000 hours to responding to congressional oversight. to addressring is the department's response to oversight requests and demands regarding the united states secret service. during calendar year 2015, dhs and the secret service received 12 letters, over 100 requests for information, testimony, or documents in one subpoena from this committee. we have completed addressing over 90 of those requests. secret service has provided 13 briefings to committee staff, eight employees of the secret service participated in day-long

transcribed interviews conducted by the committee staff. as secret service leadership has specified a to committee hearings, and at the chairman's request, we facilitated a visit to secret service headquarters from embers of the in total, the department has produced over 10,000 pages of documents, in addition to thousands of classified documents. these efforts have submitted hard work to respond to the inquiries of the secret service from the independent panel, various investigations by the inspector general, and the oversight requirements of 10 other congressional committees. secretary johnson has made responsiveness a priority. as his assistant secretary of legislative affairs, i am determined to continue to improve on our past record. mr. chairman and ranking members statement wasthe a stateme

not forwarded. i will be pleased to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you, you are now recognized for comment. >> thank you. chairman k fitts, ranking member -- chairman jason chaffetz, ranking members, the office of management and budget is committed to working with congress and with this committee. strongly in the value that congress provides and b is working inm the most effective way possible on behalf of the american people. request forreceive documents, information, and we strive to provide responses in a timely manner. in addition to producing works everyday to provide information and analysis

and unforeseen circumstances. given our broad jurisdiction, we coordinate and respond to requests from over a dozen committees, despite being a small agency of only approximately 550 employees. in addition, given our extensive role in the bipartisan budget act of 2015, enacted in november, and our consolidated appropriations act, enacted does a few weeks ago, we received and responded to nearly 1600 budget requests over the last year. with more than 600 coming in the last six months. our mission is to execute the budget, management, and legislative agenda -- to ensure the federal government works best. we work with and across federal agencies to improve management, and create a government that is more effective, efficient, and

supports continued economic growth. office is responsible for coordination and review of all significant regulations by executive agencies. they ensure that regulations are based on sound analysis and serve the statutes that offer them. they also seek to ensure that the benefits of the rule justify the cost. we work under long-established over severalacted and ministrations in both parties. the committee asked me to testify today on the clean water 2013 andducted in 2014. request is in good faith to address the the and to accommodate request, and response, we have

provided five sets of documents during the period it was under review. we submit no reactions, with exceptions of e-mail addresses and phone numbers. omb continues to review records, and we remain committed to working with your staff to discuss how we can best produce materials to the best interests of the committee. thank you again for the opportunity to testify. i look forward to answering any questions you might have. >> thank you. you are now recognized, mr. levine. i am pleased to be here this morning to testify on the half of the office of personnel management and the acting director, regarding the request for documents related to the cyber security incident or over thent. under extraordinary circumstances, we have worked to provide information and services

to those impacted and to respond to numerous congressional inquiries regarding the incidents, classified and unclassified briefings, and town halls. during this time, employees have worked hard to improve on the services we provide everyday to the entire federal workforce, from resume to retirement. since i arrived in august, it has been my distinct privilege every day to serve with these individuals. opm is a small agency, with a to serve the american people. to preserve that mission, we have made the highest priority to respond to the cyber security incident and bolstering the i.t. infrastructure and security capabilities. we are committed to working with congress, as well as partners, including dhs, dod, fbi, among others, to protect the federal government and the people we serve. it is critical to opm that all

of our stakeholders, particularly those directly impacted, received information in a timely, transparent, and accurate manner. we undertook two separate processes regarding identity theft protection and monitoring services that are being provided. we are conducting outreach on our website and by communicating directly with stakeholders. further, to provide congress with necessary information, my office has provided multiple sets of faqs regarding related services. we established a phone hotline exclusively for congressional offices to contact us with questions on behalf of your constituents. opm has also attended town meetings conducted with staffers on the issue. simultaneously, we have made every effort to work in good faith to respond to oversight requests, including document production. since june 2015, opm has

received six separate document production request, resulting in 19 productions -- including tens of thousands of reports. we have testified before congressional hearings, made hundreds of calls to staffers relating to the cyber security incident. we have received over 170 letters from numbe members of congress. we have made officials available for interviews, conducted 13 classified and unclassified briefings, and extended thousands of staff hours to be responsive. we have worked as quickly as if the structure and resources allow, to be responsive to congressional requests. we have taken numerous steps to increase previously limited capacities to respond to the large volume and since debate. this includes hiring additional staff, other agencies, and obtaining document management tools that allow us to respond more promptly and efficiently to

congress. as the bastille was increase, we work to prioritize -- as capacity was increased, we work prioritize interests. as a result of the extreme and ongoing sensitivities related to the i.t. networks, servers, and systems, redaction of sensitive system was made so as not to provide a roadmap for more abilities for malicious actors. thoseare consistent with employed by other federal agencies, based on recommendations for opm, i.t. professionals, and in consultation with interagency experts. additional reductions were also made -- read actions were also made in the interest of accommodating the oversight. a number of sensitive documents were also made available for unredacted form. here in the rayburn office building, to provide ease of

access for staff. we look forward to continuing to work with the committee and to respond to requests for information in a timely manner as possible. thank you for the opportunity today. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. i want to follow-up directly on that point that you just talked about. when we had our hearing about the data breach, the chief information officer, when we asked about the stolen materials, this is what she said. " some were outdated security documents about our system. and some measurements about our system." she went on to testify that the adversaries "did not get the specific configuration diagrams of our entire environment." adding that "our documents about platforms, homeland security went on to testify that they did

not include proprietary information or specific information around the architecture of the opm environment." so, we are mystified as to what is true. is it as she testified? or is it what you are telling us now, that they did get very sensitive documents? we are not able to have them. they were stolen, we know the adversaries have them. but you will not allow congress to look at them and have them in our possession. you are offering the camera review still with re dactions. why aren't you sharing this information with us? >> thank you for the question. there were five separate requests from the committee on the specific topics to which you are referring. all of the documents that miss seymour was testifying about were produced as part of our production. i don't know the exact date, but

the response that was the august all of the documents in that incident have been produced. you are right. they were produced originally because of the categories of information that i described previously, sensitive information. >> she testified that they were outdated documents that did not give specific configuration diagrams. and they were commercially available. is that true or not? chairman, wer mr. looked at all of the separate requests that have been made. which include information both about that incident and others. our i.t. professionals recommended that we treat all of the following categories of information the same way. things such as ip addresses, sensitive architecture,

capabilities, tools -- things to be treated carefully. >> she testified this is all commercially available and outdated information. she is leading congress to believe -- i know they came in and break the system. i know they stole this. but it is all commercially outdated system information. >> again, what we have decided to do -- >> why are you giving us this information? we know the adversary has agreed but you won't let us see it. >> with all the respect, you do have it. >> we do not. >> we have all of the i.t. information. isy thing that remains unresponsive names, just a list of every username on the system with the last four of their socials. that said, we're happy to make that information and continue to make it available, if your staff lets us know.

we are happy to work with you on that on that set of responses. >> let me pull this out. we go in-camera to look at. this is what it looks like. that is the list. why are you redacting? we can go page after page, i don't know what is under this. >> that is simply a list of every username. >> ok, you are fine. we're happy? don't tell us you are happy. , youmember of congress will not let us look at these materials. >> to be there, we thought that was nonresponsive. it wasn't about being secure. >> what do you mean? we are asking to see this information. this is what you give us the in-camera. then we finally have to negotiate over months to get to this point where i can even hold it up. >> i will go back and work with you. i think what we have tried to do

-- seymour testified it was probably available. you won't even -- in-camera -- you still read that it. we are not happy. >> i appreciate that. the usernames on the systems, that is the last four social security numbers. >> that is what the adversary has. we are concerned about that. the answer is yes. and that is what we need, candor. the answer is yes. that is totally dramatically and completely different than what seymour testified. she tried to get us to go away by telling us it is all publicly available, outdated anyway. that was a lie. she misled congress. she will pay that price. orton forgnize mrs. five minutes. >> just to clarify all the names

of the employees publicly available -- are they publicly available? >> to the extent they are federal employees, all the names are available. but it would not necessarily the be -- about,ones i am talking i could go on and find out if i am, i don't know, a creditor. can i find your name? >> to be clear, we are talking about two separate incidents. the chairman is referring to the systems internally. i believe you are referring to the system that is the later personnel records and background breaches. that information is not publicly available. what i think we are referring to is, yes, every current federal employee at a given moment -- >> i just want to make sure of

the privacy rights. that the names are not publicly available. >> sure. list clear, i think the was from 2014 that we are talking about. those are separate things. course isongress of centered on legislative business. should know which of you get this question, but most important legislative business you have done in recent months is the production of a bipartisan budget. as i understand it, your office played perhaps the central role in all of the agencies. and i know that every number of congress, i was one of four leaders of the transportation bill, we were constantly talking to your legislative people about legislation. i know that you facilitated, and

i appreciate what you did, for the district of columbia. i cannot imagine there is not a member of congress on the phone telling you what their constituents did. i understand you responded to 650 -- 1650 budget requests. that 600 of them came in those last few months. your you describe substantive role in that legislation? that's important bill, perhaps the most important bill. the only bill that the congress of the u.s. had to put out every single year. >> yes, thank you so much for the question congresswoman. omb server wide mission. one of our central function certainly is to make sure that the government is funded. and so our primary focus over the last couple of months, which

has really been an agency-wide effort, has been ensuring the bipartisan budget agreement, as well as the consolidated appropriations act, that they got through. it was a massive effort that involves coordination with republican and democrat agencies. we're really proud of the work we did there. >> first of all, i want to congratulate you for that work. thank you for the work that you did on really rescuing congress from the last several congress' reputation. maybe it was busy legislating inquiries. one fromost important our constituents was the annual budget. i appreciate that. mr. levine, this breach of course -- if you were to name them -- perhaps the primary business of this committee this year.

and of course, you were called to the carpet. business thate you would have then been i task forost taken to was how you responded to the coming upts services, of the legislative business. i wish you would describe, pursuant to what this committee wanted you to do, how you responded? what services were effected? the notion of a hotline, i understand, for congressional offices to contact on the half of their constituents and other services. that, in fact, responded to congress 's concern about the opm breach. my time isassume

about to expire. >> please complete the question. >> what we have tried to do is to i can fold. working to provide services to all of those that were impacted whate separate incidents, we call the personal records and the background records incidents. we went out and acquired identity theft protection for those in those breaches. so what our effort has been is to provide all members of congress a mechanism for having information, when your constituents call. whether they be retired, serrent, or does anyone who information might have been swept up in that. we received letters, so what we did is put together a hotline

for offices to give to their caseworkers and sent information. faqs.d one-page sheets of please get in touch with our office, we can better provide information on those efforts. times, it be about wait how the service is provided, the language they use, we want to make sure people get the services that they need. that is the highest priority of the acting director and our office. >> we noow recognize the gentleman from florida. >> good morning. thank you. a simple yes' or no question.

considering airport in aviation security a top priority? >> yes we do. >> ok. do youregard to tsa, have adequate personnel. ? i think we just approved sa.795 four t is that about right? >> i would have to take a look at the numbers. >> that is one you should be aware of as the record. we just passed the budget. we will say 51,000, and we have a cap of about 40,000 screeners. i think that is about right. last time we checked, we had over 4000 tsa employees in washington, d.c. within 10 miles of this hearing.

$103,000. average i point this out because, somehow, when we request for information about airport there is anat unresponsiveness. it appears you have adequate overnnel -- 4000 making $103,000 on average. it is almost in your shot of t ofe we are -- in earsho where we are. let me give you some examples. march 16, almost year ago, a letter was sent on airport credentialing. we have almost no response. this one, in april, we followed up. in may, we followed up.

invited then acting administrator caraway, we can i get documents. and it summoned to testify, on the evening of the 14th, dhs informed us care away was traveling -- caraway was traveling. it seems that we have a problem with getting responses. additionald for nouments, same subject, later than june 5 they failed on that. bipartisan support on airport vulnerabilities. our report showed that tsa detected a high percentage of prohibited items. you missed production of any

information on that. on july 2, another bipartisan letter from the committee about fires and information on internal, covert testing. you failed on that. it goes on and on. here from requests november 23. we know there are vulnerabilities. we have had people coming up with false credentials and information. we have in trying since last march to get responses and information. and you have failed to produce this. this is the latest. when can i respect the response from this letter? we are sending it to jeh johnson, still working on it. i saw him in the hall yesterday here. maybe that is why could not respond. is that a problem? we have some 40,000 people, we cannot get responses to this? we have seen the system has

dangers and pitfalls. all we are trying to do is a simple oversight responsibility. maybe our latest requests -- could you bring this down to her? we still have pending requests from march. you see our frustration. we are doing our job. we're trying to get you to do yours. when can we expect a response? 23,n regards to november production on that one is imminent. i believe that should be out in, you know, a fairly short period of time. and the last one, i think you are talking january 4 we just got that. and we are using our usual testing mechanisms.

it has been passed out to tsa, and they are beginning that. >> thank you. i now recognize the gentleman from massachusetts. >> thank you, mr. chairman. at the outset, i want to say i share most of the frustration that is bipartisan up here, in terms of trying to get information from your agency. you need to do better. you really do. we had a hearing a couple weeks ago before the break regarding these waiver programs. and we have been waiting a long time from dhs to get a list of how many people. millions of people come in under the visa waiver program. we want to know how many overstay. i'm sure you can give us the information, so we're not getting political, but we need that information. plain and simple. there seems to be an unneeded adversarial relationship. it has been the same way in previous administrations, as well. but it is our constitutional

mandate to conduct oversight. we need this information. i do want to say that sometimes we on this side are responsible for promoting that adversarial relationship. i want to point out one example that highlights that. as the chairman has mentioned, we will talk about hillary clinton's e-mail today. i want to point out that this committee, we conducted nine separate investigations, we had direct evidence that secretary colin powell got frustrated with his e-mail -- his government it.il -- and discarded he went out and acquired his own private e-mail and private server. and he went to work. he used a private server during the bulk of his service. which was -- and he is a great american, no question about it -- we have the situation where secretary clinton has been pummeled with subpoenas and

hearings. nine hours -- 11 hours of hearings. you have secretary powell testifying that iraq had weapons of mass instruction. but we don't want to ask anything about the e-mails. we give him a complete pass. that is problematic. look tremendously , ok, i understand we have to look at secretary clinton's investigation. four brave americans died. and yet, secretary powell did the same thing -- bought his own private server. it says so in his book. we have direct, stipulated evidence that he did this. he gives testimony that iraq had weapons of mass instruction. 4000 americans died, and we don't want to know anything

about that. move along, nothing to see here. that sets up this adversarial relationship. that is why some people think that this is political. some of this stuff is political. and the evidence will certainly lead us to believe that. aselect committee, we call it select committee because of the way the members are chosen. not based on how the evidence is chosen. and looked at. and i think that, up on this ,ide of the aisle, we do have you know, 80% of what we are doing here is, you know, just straight up. we're trying to do the right thing for the people we represent. but every once in a while on an issue, we go sideways. hunt. becomes a political and we depart from i think our constitutional mandate to get at the truth.

instead, we go after what is politically expedient. so, i just want to say, ms. johnson, we need to have that information on the visa overstays. we really do. i am not looking that we are not to embarrass anybody. i've that it is embarrassing. we have received repeated assurances that it is ok. that is a pattern. everything is signed. secret service is fine. we found out it is not fine. the visa waiver program, we are told we have a robust system. then we find out there are dozens and dozens of people on the terrorist watch list that are actually working in secure areas of our airports. and have invented and cleared by dh -- have been vetted and cleared by tsa. we are after the truth here,

most of the time. but i do want to highlight that aspect of this. that we have to be fairer in conducting oversight, as well. i yield back. >> now recognize the did when ohio, mr. turner. >> thank you. andrve on the intelligence oversight committees. i have been following the role of technology in the role of the breach. the chairman has undertaken leadership of this committee to review this issue. and in joining the chairman's lead o, we wrote requesting documents pertaining to the breach and the device that was supplied and furnished by opm. your response on october 20 8, 2015, you said the device was sanitized. "in accordance with best practices from the technology

policy."m file names, titles, there are 15-16 per page. it is an and or miss the sanitizing. the preservation order, you wrote on september 1, 2015, that "opm continues to preserve records in a manner consistent with the national archives and records administration guidance." first off, how far back are you saving records? and do they cover the breach is that occurred in 2014, as well as 2015? >> thank you for the question. as i understand it, we are preserving records not disassociated with the breach, but all government records -- in

otherance with appropriate government record-keeping authorities. as you can imagine, we also have litigation that is ongoing. >> with respect to this breach, the standard is higher. you are preserving a wider breas, puttindth. what specific steps are you taking to preserve the records? >> i would need to get back to you on that. the device was returned you on august 20. did opm preserve records by making a copy of the information on the device before returning it? >> i would also need to get back you on that. i do want to go to your question about the way the device was returned. it is my understanding, and i am not an i.t. or cyber expert, but i understand it is standard practice when returning this sort of device in the

circumstances, to treated the way it was treated. to wipe it before it was returned, if there was sensitive information. >> i think that you probably understand that my question is not necessarily the status of the device, but the status of the information on the device that is supposed to be turned over. we requested that information. this, again, is a list of filenames of what would have been deleted -- 15-16 titles per patriot and a norse amount of an in norse-- amount of information. any information on the device even for forensics to understand, it would be important to preserve. this committee has requested a copy. there are two aspects. has it, and the second one is that you would turn it

over to the committee. >> and certainly to the extent that we have not, we need to have that conversation. 15-16d ask that the filenames -- >> on these pages. >> is that information we provided, or to the company? was provided by -- that understanding was there -- i don't want to miss the. we will have to get back to you, with regard to how -- the device. >> just to make certain, the expectation would be that the preservation order, not your processes, are a result of the cyber attack, that they would require you preserve this information. and so, we are looking for an affirmative response from you. thank you, i yield back.

>> before the gentleman yields back, and you go to me for a moment? >> absolutely. >> mr. turner and i sent you a letter. what percentage of the requests have you given back to us? we made a request. i thought i heard you say you gave us a full response. what percentage? >> i cannot put it in terms of a percentage. every efforte made to provide responses to every question that has been asked. and we have worked with your staff, who is been extraordinarily accommodating to help us prioritize. where they had follow-up questions, we provided -- >> my question with mr. turner here is, you say full. to me, that is 100%. is it 70% in your mind? >> i did not use the word. mr. chairman. we try to respond to every -- >> all the documents we have

requested, we've been asking for months, when we will get 100% of those requests? >> we believe we have answered every question that has been asked. staff or of course the members feel that we need to provide more -- >> i don't know when you are done. this is thproblem with all of you. separate document protection requests. >> we believe we have. >> i need to know if it is complete. you have given us an answer. >> i am sorry. with respect to -- keep in mind that those also incorporate other committees. with respect to the five requests from this committee, we have provided -- we looked at four of those as close. the differences between the contracts for the credit monitoring and the id theft, the

first and second contract we have provided answers to each question. we do expect another set of documents coming this month. if not the next couple of weeks. that remains the interagency process. but i hear your question, mr. congressman. we will get back to you with regards if there's something outstanding. >> you better start explain to providingy are documents that you are not providing to us. that you wrote, that you engaged in. and there is no excuse for withholding the information from congress. you have it. it is in your system. and we know it because we are looking at hardcopies, checking to see if you will give it to us, as well. and you are not. that is why he will be back before this committee. opm, we will get to the truth of this. it is one the biggest data breaches and history of this country. we need a response. pastt us see if we can get

and down to the nitty-gritty here. the chairman just mentioned documents that we do not have. cytech, why don't we have them? and can you tell us when we will get them? >> sure. >> it seems like we are going in a circle. maybe you all will be here long time. i cannot be here forever. going in circles -- i think it is unfair to the committee. can you tell us, give us some definitive answers? >> thank you very much for the question. to the best of my understanding, we have provided the information we have associated with that tool, to the extent that we need to go back and make sure we are being responsive. to follow on with the ranking member, if you don't have it, you need to explain why.

you're absolutely under responsibility to preserve it. if you have not preserved it, that is another issue the committee will have to pursue. >> thank you. >> we now recognize mr. connolly of virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i find myself in an interesting position in this hearing. because having worked for the legislative branch for 10 years in the senate, now being a member of the legislative branch as a member of the house, i certainly have always felt that it is a key responsibility of the executive branch to be responsive to information requests. on the other hand, our constitution i think builds in a dialectic in which, you know, we want information. the executive branch does not want us to have it. it is a natural order of things. and there is a built in tension,

and there are mechanisms for us to address that dialogue. on, at the endy of the day, on common sense. determination,on as well as statutory enablers. legitimate requirements for information must be enforced on a bipartisan basis. expeditions, blatantly partisan efforts to seek information to embarrass, humiliate, to undermine will not get bipartisan support. and they do not deserve it. and understandably, they can cause even more friction in the executive branch. trying to be responsive.

in may of last year, the chairman, along with mr. forows, had a request documents relating to the review of the clean water role. are you familiar with that? >> yes i am. >> that request was followed by a subpoena in july for similar documents. is that correct? >> yes. >> the time period ranged from -- a2016 to july o nine-year time period. is that correct? >> yes. you are asked to produce those documents rea can yos. can you briefly describe what is being asked?

sometimes in this conversation act like they are in piles, and you are just withholding them. that is not how it works, is it? >> thank you for the question. >> if you can hold that a little closer to you. >> is that better? >> great. >> the request for information was quite broad, covering a nine-year span. as such, we began the process for searching. that involves identifying the subject -- the various custodian information. and once the documents are gathered, then having a review performed by various subject matter experts, following review of other agencies, to assume they received proper review. it is quite intense, early for such a broad range of documents. to work on processing that request.

>> do you have a response to that subpoena? >> our response rate could certainly be improved. we have not produced them as quickly as we should have. as such, we have taken steps recently to improve our production sponsor rate. and i expect that that will continue. moving forward. >> i also, you know, the chairman is saying that you ought not have an issue of volume. how many pages you have delivered, that is. it is the percentage of the request. that sounds reasonable. in many cases, i would agree with the chairman that that is a better standard. in terms of determining responsiveness. they cane other hand, also be a self-serving standard. not that it would be here, of course. we don't like to respond. and when, in fact we are on a

fishing expedition that could be tens of millions of documents. and then, that standard can be used against you. i think, unfairly. where you are trying to be responsive, but you are not anytime soon going to give me 100 million pages of something you are doing the best you can to be responsive to the nature of the request. i think we need to tread a little bit carefully when we decide to say you are unresponsive, while at the same time, trying to seek bipartisan consensus to ensure accountability in the executive branch. and that we fulfill our role, our constitutional role, of oversight of that bridge. with that, i yield back. >> thank you. i now recognize the gentleman from ohio. >> you sent a letter saying there were no prosecutions -- there were going to be no prosecutions and the irs targeting case.

when was the decision made not to prosecute? >> well, i think that shortly before we send a letter. >> a week before, two weeks before? a month before? >> i guess the precise. >> you said 100 people were interviewed. was john interviewed? >> i don't know. >> were they transcribed? >> i don't know. >> in your letter, you said substantial mismanagement took place. you uncovered substantial mismanagement, by whom? >> by employees of the irs. >> specifically? >> i cannot give you specific names. >> you wrote this letter? >> that is correct. we will provide you with information. >> we appreciate that, we also sent you a letter requesting

that all documents pertaining to the investigation -- we have yet to receive a single document read why i. why is that? >> i understand it. file presententire particular issue, with law enforcement sensitive. >> we have that for 3.5 years. fbi had two different directors give me that exact same answer for 3.5 years. their answers added one other word -- ongoing investigation. now the investigation is over. , according toer the a-page letter you sent us, on october 23. now you are telling us you cannot give us any documents. is there some national security interest that prevents you? is there some presidential privilege that prevents you?

>> no, but there are law enforcement sensibilities and securities concerning the confidentiality of witnesses. people who cooperated, the candid assessment -- >> you have not given us anything. that is the point. >> we have a briefing next week. >> would you give me more information? in your letter, you say poor judgment. who exercised or judgment and the irs when they were theificantly challenging free speech rights under the first amendment, being violated for five years in some cases, certain groups and individuals? tell me who in the irs was exercising that poor judgment? >> we scheduled a briefing next week. >> it will be a heck of a briefing. before the letter came to the chairman, did you say no one was going to be prosecuted?

>> no. >> did you tell ms. lerner there would be no prosecution before the letter came to chairman jason chaffetz? >> no. mr.id you tell mr schulman? >> i've never talked to him. >> not personally, but did you notify these individuals that no one was going to be prosecuted, first amended' rights were targeted? >> not that i'm aware of. >> do you know if they were transcribed? >> i do not. >> and you don't know if john was interviewed? >> i do not. >> you think you should have been interviewed, the guy presiding over the internal revenue service, your agency, and he is the commissioner when 420 two backup cases are destroyed, containing e-mails?

do you think it would be maybe a good thing to do in an investigation?tie did a thorough investigation. >> for the people who were targeted notified? >> that i'm aware of. >> do you know catherine engelbrecht? >> i am familiar. >> the lady who was audited both personally and your business by the irs, visited by the epa, atf, osha, all law she was trying to clean up voter registration. the full weight of the government came down on her. she was contacted before you decided? >> i don't know. people were interviewed in the context of the investigation. >> one last question, sir. you are going to talk to us in a few weeks with a briefing.

>> next week. >> when you think we will get the documents? >> we will talk about that next week during the accommodation process. >> the you plan on giving us the documents? are you actively now trying to get those documents to us? >> we are actively preparing for the briefing next week, determining -- >> that was not my question. are you actively getting the documents to us? >> we are reviewing the documents to see what the law enforcement sensitivities are presented by those files. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> please be prepared to answer all those questions at the briefing next we. you have had years to look, months to prepare. given our letter, we expect a full and complete brief. we now recognize the gentleman from california for five minutes. >> thank you. let me thank the panel for their

public service. i do share the chair's frustration on the withholding of information by the executive branch to congress. one panel member, i believe, mentioned the difficulty of having 100 bosses. i just want to know that you only have one boss -- that is the american people. and one of the ways the framers designed the government is for the american people to express their will through 435 elected members of congress, 100 elected senators. it is the duty of the executive branch to respond in a timely manner to numbers of congress, whilw. let me explain the importance of this. i will go through one area, which is privacy. the u.s. supreme court has said it is illegal for law enforcement, without a warrant, to put a gps device on a person's car and track them through geolocation. this committee has sent two

letters to the department of justice, asking for the policies on geolocation. you have failed to provide those. and i want to know why that is. why don't you provide your colleagues? we want to know if you are violating the law? >> well, congressman, first of all, the request is not for policies. the request was for two memorandum.h that included investigation and litigation strategies. policies, theo similar context, we have provided that policy to congress. >> well, let me just read the first sentence of your letter. regarding your geolocation and other surveillance location. since you brought up simulators,

we had a hearing in october. and your department of justice witness testified about rates which can monitor cell phones, tractor locations. and we want to know, i want to uld thesekie stingrays give substantive conversations? you danced around that. and said i don't know. i find that troubling. either that witness was withholding information to the committee or had a shocking level of ignorance about it device the department of justice was using. but you did commit to providing the answer to that question. to which we have not gotten yet, even though we asked -- both publicly and in writing. but i did find out about a week later, through an address, that yes, the stingrays can monitor conversations. that is why it is so important we get documents. because i partly do not trust

the witnesses that i've heard sometimes for this hearing. that is why a look at these documents to know is the department violating the law? is not a hard request. matterdo not want this put up publicly, you don't have to. you can give it to us in a confidential, private setting. but i think it is important for us to get these documents. i think the american people have a right to know is a department of justice violating law when it comes to privacy? we need to have these documents, know what your policies are, no how you are using stingrays? how are you using these devices? i will ask you once again to provide them. i know in your letter to the committee, you do not cite a case. unless you provide a case that says you cannot provide these documents, i would like you to provide those documents. with that, i yield back. >> before the general and yields back, could you give to me for a moment? >> ranking member cummings and i

sent a request. i just don't understand, with the department of justice sent a request for the fbi general counsel, guidance specifically on the use of gps and what the supreme court case that what jones means for geolocation techniques? why is it the members of congress, i am on the crime subcommittee, why is it that i cannot actually see what you are sending out, far and wide? you are sinning this out to prosecutors, when you send this out far and wide, why can't allies elijah cummings and i don't look at it? >> first of all, a ghost in the prosecutors that need this information when they litigate cases. briefingse provided

-- >> know, a briefing is not good enough. this is the request that is put out. 100% redacted. this is what the pages look like. t-jones concerns pos that the federal government is potentially spying on americans rated what techniques are they using? we have a security clearance. you send blank pages to the public. we are asking for an in-camera review situation to be able to read this ourselves. you are willing to give to all of the federal prosecutors. ok? you are willing to share this widely within the department. but you will not allow mentors of congress look at it? why? >> mr. chairman, as i indicated, we have provided reefing additional briefings.

but there are law enforcement sensitivities. t is attorney information we're happy to cotinue. >> this is guidance. you sent this out on the techniques that are currently being deployed. we do not know if you are violating or not by letting the law? justice alito even referred to that, saying that the legislative body needs to be involved and engaged. the american people trust us. but you don't trust us. >> it is not that we don't trust you, mr. chairman. it is attorney-work privileged information designed to provide -- >> privileged from the american people. that is what i have a problem with. >> let me get down to the bottom here. it one of your concerns that the ongoing investigation? >> yes, there are ongoing

information. they do discuss investigative techniques. legal arguments would make for those techniques we are concerned that these techniques are disclosed that criminals could use that information to avoid detection and law enforcement efforts. the bottom line is that you don't trust us. >> it's not that we don't trust you. saying wew, if we are would like to see this information in confidence, and make commitment will not disclose, then what would be the reason, i mean, going to what seems totaid -- that ake away-- >> we would be happy to continue those discussions.

>> i want to actually read it. you given to all the federal prosecutors, and the criminal chiefs. why do you assume that if he elijah cummings or any member of congress with security clearance and takinged a note in oaths -- why do you assume that because we read it that it will suddenly get out? >> it is not only a question of disclosure, it is a question of privilege. the fact that we provided with third party that could potentially be in argument we have raised the privilege and discoverable by other individuals. what we're trying to do is to protect law enforcement responsibility. question, ifther there is a piece missing, there is nobody up here another sign that wants to do anything to criminal with a

investigation. sure you can do your job -- but you got to know that we are trying to do our job, too. and if there is caselaw supporting what you just said, do we have that? kadzik: we would be glad to continue these discussions. >> i would cite the ftc versus owens when the congressional committee compels production to does not prevent assertion in privilege. it is well documented you were hiding this may american people. was the client -- who is the client? mr. kadzik: we are trying to

protect the american people. >> we represent the american people. mr. kadzik: so do we, but -- >> i'm not talking about broad public disclosure. mr. kadzik: we are to accommodate the information request. >> know you're not, we just want to read the document. no, and itsaying should scare every american. i believe in a recognize mr. wahlberg. >> this is a perfect example of how we have gone away, with all due respect you don't represent the american people. you not represent the american people. we're the only ones elected to represent the american people. d'm sitting here thinking of ol with heroes rerun sergeant schultz saying i know

nothing. i understand you people of them put in difficult situations are present in people that do have the answers. that you and a place to try to give just enough to satisfy us. you have staff behind you to make sure you don't go too far in giving that answer. that is frustrating. i also understand it don't have the benefit that we do. in ours only one person district of people come to an expect to have an answer from and we are held accountable. members of congress, we are elected by those people. the further you get outside of this beltway, and that is a challenge that you have, but having relatives it live in different levels outside of this beltway -- the further you get away, the more frustration there is that the people have lost

control. from both sides of the perspective, so when we who directly represent the people -- who have been elected to represent thecontrol. people -- and given districts in the house are put upon by our people to ask questions and to get understanding, yet understand why it is frustrating to have document that we have been told we were received piecemeal to us. i go to you, representing a thee that has waters of u.s. surrounding us on three sides, very important to michigan. have very great interest in the rules making progress. 2015 in arch 3, hearing before this committee members asked administrators for documents relating to a review of the waters of the u.s. rulemaking. committeehearing,

staff followed up on numerous occasions about this request and received no response. did you instructor legislative affairs staff to respond to the committee after the march 3 hearing? did you instructor them not to initiate a search until a formal letter was received from the committee? did anyone tell you not to initiate a search? >> absolutely after receiving the request we began the search. it is a large research, and it is taking time. i appreciate that we should and could have increased the speed of that production. we are working on that. when he got the request, we started to produce documents. we will continue -- wahlber: in your first

production to this committee provided 893 pages of documents -- 846 of which were publicly available online. were you aware of that? ms fucile: the document request that we's received was quite broad. we were responsive to that. several of those documents much of those documents were publicly available online. since then we have produced communications between senior officials -- mr. wahlberg: is it normal practice to have staff under heavy load to produce for a committee documents that are readily available online already? fucile: we believe that the documentary provided were part of that request. wahlberg: that is not

helpful. we could do that. we are plenty of other pages. just going over with the epa has provided to us. they provided 21,000 pages of documents in the last 10 months omb has provided this committee with 3000 pages. 3000, that is concerning. fucile: the rule of the epa is considerably different than the world of the omb player. the number of documents we would produce for any rule would be smaller. mr. wahlberg: 80% of online already. we are capable of seeing those. we weren't asking for those. ms.fucile: i disagree with the characterization and 80 3% were available online. that included materials available online.

the vast majority of the document via produced for this committee is not been available online. we now recognize the gentlewoman from new jersey. coleman: thank you to each of you to be here today to answer our questions. this has been a very difficult discourse. i, as a new member somewhere between we play too much on our department trying to get information from so many different committees and subcommittees? burden thatnerous you are not staffed or configured to respond to in a timely manner, or in a way that meets our needs? are you trying to not give us the information that we want in a manner that is usable?