has been imminently deserved and clearly compelled by the law, it's a very consequential event in an individual's life. it should be, therefore, a consequential event in the life of our country. i have seen very young children in removal proceedings without guidance or without representation of council. i harken back to the supreme court decision of plyler versus doe, which gave all children, regardless of their lawfulness of presence in the united states the right to an education. i profoundly believe that every doe has a name, is a person and is entitled to a future.

wherever that future might be. it is hard for me, as a former federal prosecutor, as a lawyer who has maintained his bar status active, and who views himself as an officer of the court to think of a very young child in a removal proceeding, not understanding the meaning, the procedures and the consequence of what is about to happen. as i look back for a brief second on the last seven years, one of the signature achievements of this administration is the deferred action for childhood arrivals program. doca, that impacted the children as well. the children who were brought here by no intention of their

own but by the acts of others i think how we reach their presence here and how they reach maturity throughout the years is a question of our identity as a nation and how we view our immigration system. it is, in fact, the twilight of the obama administration. i think that very significant immigration issues will confront the new administration and i do hope the new administration confronts the very challenging and consequential immigration issues that will be before it. most notably, of course, the fact that our immigration system is broken, needs to be fixed and

what should that fix? a look like and hopefully may it be implemented. as we look at that issue, i hope we think of our identity, who we are as a nation and who we want to be and how we answer and respond to that issue hopefully will be a reflection of how we answer the question of our identity. on that, i will end with just a very brief quote of robert kennedy. our attitude towards immigration reflects our faith in the american ideal. i hope we live up to that. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> well, ali, thank you very

much. we have maybe ten minutes for q & a, which is going to take place from the microphones that are in the aisle. so, please feel free, either in this aisle or in this aisle, to come to the microphone, if you have a question. now folks. >> this is, frankly, too good to be true. >> this tends not to happen. >> really? >> it's early. >> i guess so. >> mr. secretary, thank you so much for those very thoughtful remarks as you look back and i'm

really glad you raised those questions. i'm going to ask you about one of those areas. it's one that's troubled me a great deal during this administration. that has to do with the reaction of the arrival of larger numbers of central americans from the northern triangle, particularly women and children. the question on my mind, when i think of a refugee, humanetarian crisis or something like that, as you have seen in different parts of the world, i think that the best tool the government has to address that is temporary protection. it's not to throw people into quick procedures or anything else that really result in our government getting overwhelmed, whether it's our asylum officers that you are in charge of or the immigration judges that the

justice department is in charge of. to me, both the humanitarian reaction, the leadership needed in this administration was to use temporary protective status as a way to receive people, then, in time, if the crisis continued and people could want to apply for asylum, they could do that. in the meantime, we wouldn't be removing people to situations where the government itself,dhs said now, publicly in federal register notices, the violence is significant in these particular countries and therefore, we have continued to protect those with tps from honduras that have been here from 1999. a long winded question, but i would like to hear your comments on that approach. thank you. >> thank you very much. this has been a very, very

difficult issue. let me speak to some of the things we have done and respond quite quarly to the issue of temporary protective status, which i know has been, is now the subject of a great deal of advocacy. quite a number of organizations through clinic, i believe, an extraordinarily wonderful institution that i have gotten to know over the course of the last seven years and submitted a letter to the president recently. as i understand it, temporary protective status protects those individuals already in the united states as of a certain date and the question will be what does that mean with respect to the continuous flow of individuals from these countries because the conditions in these countries continue to be very

challenging. so, i don't know, and when i say that, i mean that, whether temporary protective status is actually the right solution to the problem. so, that i think, is under study. but, the administration has done some very, very important things that were announced within the last two months. early on, we developed a central american minors program that allowed minors to be brought here without having to take the periless journey, the determination was made in the countries that they could qualify for humanitarian relief, they could qualify as hef grefu or alternatively, given the compelling equity that their

case presented, extraordinary humanitarian relief should be extended and paroled into the united states. importantly, we worked with the high commissioner to actually build the first in many, many years of a formal refugee program, also the need for people in despair from taking the journey through mexico trying to reach the southern border of the united states and now the u.n. high commissioner for refugees administering a formal refugee program in those countries. in country, which is an unusual paradigm for unhcr, but an extraordinary move in light of the problems and challenges there. also, costa rica agreed to serve as an emergency safety zone for

those individuals who cannot even wait for unhcr to respond in country. so, i think over the course of the last year, the humanitarian programs have expanded significantly. i think the expansion will be even greater in the coming months and we have under study the solution that you present that others have proposed and support and we'll see what comes of that. the solution, the ultimate solution, of course, the ultimate solution is to address the fundamental push factors to enable these countries to actually beat down the sources of violence so children are safe walking to school. to address the socioeconomic

disenfranchisement, the root charges of this migration. >> should we take one more? >> we can take a few. >> on immigration, every issue is pressing, there are so many people with such great need. what issues do you see that haven't arisen yet, but are going to? what are the up and coming issues? what is the future of immigration policy? things that aren't being addressed now. problems that haven't yet arisen but you can foresee? [ laughter ] >> so, i am not. that, i would have to give thought to. in other words, what is around the corner? what is around the corner? look, what's around the corner

is what has come around the corner a lot. so, i would say, you know, it's around the block over again, which is comprehensive immigration reform and what are we going to do? i will tell you this, too. when i was a federal prosecutor, i was a federal prosecutor for 12 years. i would look at the statutory framework in which we operated as criminal prosecutors and say this makes sense. it is a dynamic, it's not without tension, but a rather orderly set, orderly statutory framework driven to the three goals. punishment, deterrence and rehabilitati rehabilitation. i look at the immigration statutory framework and i find it to completely lack cohesion.

that sometimes, some provisions have been drafted. one time in our country's history and we go left. another provision is drafted another time in our country and we go right. i don't mean left and right politically, just in direction of our identity. and the two co-exist and are not reconciled. so, for example, an individual who is eligible for removal may also be eligible for naturalization and sometimes the individual is removed and sometimes the individual is naturalized. i don't understand. [ laughter ] >> yes, ma'am. >> we need to let ali go. let's take this final question. >> good morning. my question has to do with the requirement that congress placed on your department year after year to maintain 34,000 beds for immigrant detention per night.

my question, first question is, do you feel like that is a fiscally responsible policy. second, more important question is, do you think it allows your department the flexibility to address the question you raised earlier, who, if anyone, we should be detaining and not cause undue suffering from the family separation and community disruption that immigrant detention inevitably causes. >> let me answer that, if i may, how precisely the secretary answered it in response to congressional inquiry, which is that there's not a statutory, in the secretary's interpretation, there's not a statutory mandate we keep 34,000 people in custody at all times, but rather we are funded with 34,000 beds, and therefore funded with the capacity to have 34,000

individuals in detention at a particular time. look, things are in tension. many have expressed profound concern with the detention of families, with the detention of children. those in enforcement have expressed profound concern that in the process of removal, there's a very significant failure to appear rate. individuals d not appear for their hearings, therefore, removal orders are issued and people do not, they are fugitives from the removal court. so, where one comes out on that, one has to give due consideration to all of the factors and answer it

fundamentally with what you think is most important. one more question. >> i think we need to let you go. >> okay. sorry. >> i have been told. so, ali, terrific. >> thank you all very much. [ applause ] tomorrow, live here on c-span 3, a hearing on the growth of so-called ticket box software that allows scalpers to purchase massive amounts and sell to a higher price to consumers. that's 2:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span 3. c-span's washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up tuesday morning, pennsylvania republican congressman keith will join us to discuss his legislative

priorities. the deadline to fund the government and the role of his state as a key battleground state. also from pennsylvania, democratic congressman brendon boyle will discuss his role on the reform committee and the use of hillary clinton's private e-mail. james will review the new hampshire primary and republican kelly ayacht's battle for re-election. watch beginning live at 7:00 eastern tuesday morning. join the discussion. a live look here on capitol hill as the house oversight committee is preparing to continue a hearing that began earlier today. they recessed to go to the house floor for votes and they are scheduled to resume this hearing on the investigation of former

secretary of state, hillary clinton's e-mail use at 7:30. we will have that for you live. more news from capitol hill now. an effort under way to impeach the commissioner of the internal revenue service with a resolution possibly introduced on the floor of the house tomorrow. for more, we spoke with a congressman who wants to introduce that resolution. >> joining us from capitol hill is representative john fleming of louisiana, a member of the house freedom caucus. congressman fleming, you are going to offer this resolution of personal privilege to impeach the irs commissioner. the resolution, the impeachment from earlier reads impeaching the commissioner of the sberl revenue service for high crimes and misdemeanors. what are the high crimes and misdemeanors? >> i won't bore you with the

dates and times, but after he was confirmed by the senate to be the head of the i.r.s., he received a subpoena to protect and take in custody all information, all evidence that was involved with lois lerner, who we, of course, found out targeted certain taxpayers and for their political beliefs. well, within three weeks of receiving that subpoena, he either destroyed or allowed to be destroyed 24,000 e-mails and 422 tapes. even after saying to congress, promising congress he would protect them. then, later, after they were destroyed, he lied to congress and said they were all protected and preserved. then he came back and said that, nope, oops, something happened,

they are gone, when, in fact, there were some he didn't know about, apparently, that the inspector general found out about later. he didn't tell us about that, we had to find out about it on our own. the point is it's clear john lied to congress, was not responsive to subpoenas and it was clear that either he destroyed evidence or obstructed justice or allowed it to happen on his watch. as a result of that, we feel he is not fit for duty and he should loose his job. john, the head of the irs should be removed from office. >> this is the second time around for you. you tried it back in the midsummer. the house didn't move forward. they had two days to move forward on your request. what are you expecting this time around? >> journed before the two legislative days expired. in this case, that won't happen. we will be here for at least two

days. leadership will be forced to bring it up for some type of vote. there's several possibilities of how it could be done. the bottom line is, once this privileged resolution moves forward, there will have to be a vote on it within two days. >> have you heard leadership from how they might move forward? >> i have not. only that the speaker made the comment a week or so ago that he would leave it to the will of congress and i think that's exactly what we should do. but, exactly how this is going to be a direct vote on impeachment or whether it will be on to vote to table it or to move to committee, any vote other than moving forward with impeachment would be viewed by the public and rightly so, as no on impeachment and no on removal from office. the reason for that is that this resolution, in a very similar form has been in print for well

over nine months. jason put that in, the chairman of the committee. then, of course, i put one in in july. leadership and the judiciary committee failed to move forward on impeachment. it's clear nothing is going to happen, unless someone like me, in this case, me, unless i move forward with a privilege resolution to require a vote and then let every member answer to his or her constituent why we should allow high-level officials the privilege of getting by doing things that are unlawful, potentially criminal and not held accountable for their behavior. i get asked all the time by my constituents, why are there two standards? a standard for every day americans, the average taxpayer, then one for high level officials like john who is head of the irs. apparently he doesn't have to

respond to subpoenas and doesn't have to respond to the same sort of things we as taxpayers do. that applies to others like, of course, eric holder. >> what about, you talked about a standard, what about the standard of moving through the committee. we understand his attorneys have filed a memo saying, accusing some republicans of not going through the judiciary committee. you talked about the judiciary committee a moment ago. why not let that process play out? >> we have let that process play out and the judiciary committee and leadership failed. they have had ample time, they have had months. there's no new information here. they have everything they have needed for many months. it's clear, they are not going to act and the american people believe congress should act and, in fact, many notable people, george will just came out with an op-ed.

jonathan turtle, a famous liberal constitutional attorney says we should move forward and many other notables are saying congress is going to become irrelevant if we don't do our jobs, which in this case, hold high level officials in the executive branch accountable for their behavior. >> there's a house republican conference meeting this week. you have a bit of a sales job to your colleagues. what is your argument in favor when you get a chance to do that? >> well, the evidence is self-evident. i'm not going to try to persuade anyone to vote him out of office. i think it's a conscioence vote. the evidence is the evidence. they can read it as easily as i can. there's nobody getting votes as far as i can tell. we should have the opportunity to vote. i would say to every member of congress, certainly in the house where it will be voted on, go

back and face your constituents. if you vote to protect a high level government official whose lied to congress and who has ignored subpoenas and who has allow allowed obstruction of justice, you have to answer to your constituents. i know what i'm going to say, i was there for them. >> lastly, politico had a headline that says the irs commission or the chief tries to stave off with meetings on the republican side. do you plan to meet with the irs commissioner before a house floor vote? >> i haven't met with him. he hasn't asked to meet with me. i don't see what the relevance of meeting with him is. john has had plenty of opportunity to come on the hill to be sworn in and to give testimony under oath about these questions and he's not been willing to do that. coming up and having a chummy

conversation i don't think is adequate or matter. >> does it matter to you this could be the first ever sublevel government official impeached, subcabinet level official impeached? >> it does bother me. here is why. i can't recall a time in the past where we had such blatant activity that ignores the will of the american people and congress itself, which has the power to check on other branches of government. so, we wouldn't have to do this if the executive branch would take care of its own problems. in this case, lois lerner, and they admit this, was targeting people for their ideological beliefs, political beliefs. the commissioner was brought in to clean that mess up and instead of doing that, he only obstructed justice or allowed justice to be obstructed.

she was retired with a fat pension and never had to answer to a judge or jury. she pleaded the fifth. now, he's apparently wanting to get by without having to answer for his activities as well. there are many other officials. we have, of course, hillary clinton and the e-mail scandal. we have eric holder and fast and furious. the american people are just very upset, over the top, with the high level official that is seem to get by without a slap on the wrist. so, i think we have reached a new day when the executive branch, we don't hear from the fbi, we don't hear from the attorney general's office. they are not willing to act on those who defie congress, who break laws and defy the american people. congressman, thanks for joining us. >> great, thank you. >> again, you are looking at a live picture on capitol hill as the hearing on the investigation of former secretary of state

hillary clinton's e-mail use by the house oversight committee is about to resume. the committee met for an hour and a half earlier, recessed for votes. they are returning now to continue an open session of this hearing and there may be a classified session yet to come. you are watching live coverage here on c-span.

looking at the committee chair as house oversight committee about to resume, officials from the justice department, fbi, state department and the office of the national intelligence director have been it have testifying, representative elijah cummings. this is one of a couple hearings the house oversight is holding this week. tomorrow, another hearing related to hillary clinton's e-mail use while she was secretary of state, that's tomorrow morning. members will look at what committee leadership calls the

state department's failure to preserve federal records. we'll have live coverage of that here on c-span 3 at 10:00 a.m. eastern. again, you are watching live coverage here on c-span 3.

we will resume. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it seems the state department requested the b-5 exemption, is that correct? >> sir, i wasn't in position at the time they were doing that. i'm not -- >> is that your understanding? >> i'm not sure which exemptions. the redactions. >> it is my understanding the fbi overruled that. do you have awareness of that decision? >> we don't typically -- we are an investigative agency. when it comes to matters of classification, we typically defer to the owners of the information. >> okay, let me go to you. why were state trying to use this extremely broad exemption?

>> i'm not responsible for foia at all. i don't have an answer to that. >> you are not familiar with the b-5 exemption? >> i know what it is. i'm not actively involved in that process or making rdactions. >> you don't have any idea who made that decision? >> that is done through our administrative bureau, so i assume someone there would do it as a normal course of action. >> as a normal course of action given that exemption, would anyone outside of state department been consulted? >> we normally do in some cases if there's interagencies -- then try to agree on it. >> so, it would be your assumption, then, that probably there was some consultation? >> i don't know. >> you don't know that, but that would not be uncommon from your

understanding? >> fri my understands, my limited understanding of how the process works. >> that particular exemption is among many people known as withhold because you want to withhold exemption. have you heard that expression before? >> no, i have not. >> it's very, very broad. it gives every appearance, at least, there's a reason to try to hide. let me try to hide information and that's the frustrating point of all this. let me ask this. what criteria is used, do you have any idea when it comes to redacting information? >> for foya? >> for -- well, i'm trying to draw a distinction from foya and exemption from congress. >> foya is done through the

administrative bureau. >> what -- how does that differ from a request from congress? >> we don't do that kind of redaction at all when it comes to congress. >> we are filled with redactions. let me ask you the same question. what is the difference between making decisions of redactionk from foya versus congress. >> i'm not an expert on that, but we don't use the foya standard when we produce information to congress. typically, we provide more information, but we still protect our law enforcement equities when we make information available. >> all right. let me go back. it seems like we are going around in circles with this. the chairmen asked you what you believe congress should not be

allowed to see or have information. you said it varies from case to case. that's a pretty broad difference. does it vary depending on some cases a high profile individual? >> no, sir. let me try to answer it this way, if i could. when the bureau provided records to congress, really, we think the redactions were very light. we redacted personal identifiable information frr the folks. we try to protect information of a purely personal nature. so, as far as -- >> there's a -- excuse me, i have 20 seconds left. there's more than that that's been redacted. on page 48, you redact mrs. clinton's birth date. the next sentence, four attorneys of hers are mentioned by name, a fifth one is redacted. that's not personal information.

there are hundreds and hundreds of examples like this. >> certainly. a number of folks mentioned in the documents are out there in the public in a form or fashion. there's no reason to -- >> if they are in the public, why didn't we get it? >> the ones that are in the public you did get. the ones that aren't were redacted. >> is the standard what you would give the public? >> no, sir. >> we should receive that and much more information. i see my time is expired, mr. chairman. i look forwards to continuing this. >> we recognize the gentleman from florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you said the case involving hillary clinton is closed. did you mean that also includes the perjury referral that the congress has sent to the fbi? is that case been disposed of? >> there have been referrals. i would have to refer to the

department of justice. >> you can't say it's been disposed of? >> no, sir. >> let me bring you in, mr. higgins about the nature of the information. do you work or have you worked in your career at the cia in what is called the skiff? >> yes, sir. >> what is that? >> skiff is a sentive information facility. >> what's the purpose of it? >> it is a secure facility in which one can handle sensitive information. >> so, if i have that type of information, tsci, am i allowed to store it in my office if it's not certified as skiff? >> there are rules for handling classified information. i wouldn't want to misat a time them, but as a general rule, it should be stored in skiff. >> can i bring it home if i lock

my door at night? would that meet the qualifications? >> unless you have a skiff in your home, generally no. >> we have a skiff underneath the capitol here. when you are going into the skiff, there are certain protocols you have to follow, correct? >> yes. >> all the files have to be locked up at the end of the night? >> that's krekts. >> when the skiff is unoccupied, it has to be locked, you can't leave it open, right? >> that's correct. >> you are not allowed to bring phones or electronic recording devices. >> correct. >> if i want to bring my iphone to check my e-mail or to check news clips, i just can't do that, right? >> i would hope not. >> okay. has it happened at the cia or

any of the other agencies where employees have brought that type of electronic media into a skiff? >> i'm sure the people do on occasion accidentally bring electronic devices in. there's protocol for them reporting iltd to security officers and removing it from the building as soon as you discover you have it. >> there's probably been incidences where skiff's have been unlocked over night and there's procedures for reporting that, correct? >> no immediate personal knowledge, but i assume there are cases. >> why do you have to immediately report it? mistakes happen? >> to assess whether there were any consequences of a skiff having been unlocked or an electronic device having been brought in. >> that could mean that information is exposed to hostile actors?

>> potentially exposed one way or another. >> if that happens, what happens at the cia if somebody is not -- is not showing themselves able to handle this with the rules and regulations? is that something employees face consequences for? >> i would prefer not the speculate. >> it's not a hypothetical. have people -- have there been consequences for people that have not followed the protocol? >> if they fail to follow security protocols, there are implications to administrative action and up from there. >> that could mean loss of security clearance? >> depending -- it all very much depends on the facts of the case at hand. >> there's an issue about whether classified information is marked or not. does the fact it has markings if something is not marked, does

that mean it's not classified? >> information is classified it should be marked as classified headers and footers on the beginning and end of the document, but the lack of a classified marking does not mean the material in question is not necessarily classified. >> if you have, you know, if we have people that are forwards and you have things like signals intelligence and human intelligence, you can get that in forms before it's reduced to a document, correct? >> yes. one could. >> and the fact that if i got that i could not then go to an e-mail system or an unclassified area and reduce that to writing, if it's not properly protected, correct? >> when classified information is reduced to writing or put on an electronic system, it should be put on a system that is appropriately secure for that level of classification.

>> thank you, i'm out of time. i yield back. >> we recognize the gentleman from oklahoma for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank all of you for lengthy and continued service for the country. it is appreciated. if none of the documents had a classification mark as what has been asserted by many, then how would top secret special access information find its way into an unclassified e-mails content? anyone can take that. mr. herring. >> i think it's something we should talk about in the next setting. >> okay. we will. if a sender of information knows that they are sending information that came from a

classified source, then i guess would that be a breach of law, if they are sending it unclassified or if they are providing the details of that information in some form, would that be a breach of law? >> i think from my perspective, i don't want to speculate what the investigative team did -- >> we are not talking attempt -- >> well, i think there is intent. those things you look at in those kind of cases. >> okay. >> it's fact specific. we are not really, for the investigative team, i hesitate to -- >> if they willfully know they are taking it from a classified source to an unclassified source, is that a breach of law? department of justice? >> it's hard to answer hypothetical.

>> this is pretty straight forward. >> no case is straight forward until you look at the particular facts. >> so, i guess then, if they didn't know, is it appropriate to have an unqualified person handle that information? >> i don't know what you mean by unqualified. >> not cleared to handle that level of information, top secret sensitive access information. >> there are restrictions on access and one has to have appropriate clearances to handle -- >> absolutely. yet, we see that we did have top secret special access program information, is that correct? >> i don't know that for a fact. >> mr. herring? >> i have not looked at this. >> that is something that is for the next. >> mr. comby said in an open source in this hearing room that

it was so. so, i guess, if you allow unqualified handlers to access that, another question would be, if a leader, director or secretary directed their staff to handle secret or sensitive information in an unauthorized manner, have they breached the law? >> sir, we are here to talk about the process of getting the documents to congress. >> it's very important because i heard your testimony, mr. herring, and others that the fbi clearly was able to deduce what was sensitive access information, what was sensitive information, what was classified information. so much so that in order to guard it, they were able to prohibit congress from seeing some of that because of the sensitivity and we also know department of state had those same concerns that this was so

sensitive that these skilled people that are trained at the fbi and our long serving members of the department of state served from administration to administration, they were able to deduce what classified information was and sensitive information. yet, we are to believe, somehow, that mrs. clinton, a former first lady, a former united states senator, cleared at the highest levels when she was in that capacity and a former secretary of state, when she was in that capacity would not be able to deduce that. how is that, mr. herring? how do you think that could be, you and all your professionals in the fbi, mrs. fryfield and the professionals in the department of state they are able to deduce what that is. when i had a top secret sci clearance in my more than two decades in the military, i understood what top secret

information was. how is it that all of us could figure that out, yet we are to believe there's no marking on it, i'm not sure. i don't know. would you care to answer that, please? >> director combey addressed that and i would defer to his record for those type of questions. >> that's why i asked the first questions, how could people gain access? how can you take it from a cleared one, talking about skiff, how can you take it from one place to a private server? take it from one secure area to another? cut and paste? willful rewrite? unqualified handler? these are questions that the american public has a reasonable expectation to answer and that's why we have oversight. i yield back my time.

thank you for your indulgence. >> we'll recognize the gentleman in alabama for five minutes. >> thank you, i want to ek core our sentiments for your service here. we don't take it lightly. mr. herring, you mentioned dr. comby's testimony several times. his testimony, which he referred to the handling of classified information by former secretary clinton as extremely careless. i don't recall, i don't ever recall those two words used to describe the actions of anyone who ever served as secretary of state, extremely careless in handling classified information. i think the director expressed concerns that her account, e-mail account, her server may have been hacked.

i think you need -- i think all of you should appreciate the fact as members of the oversight committee, we have a responsibility to look out for the interest of the whole country, you know, folks tried to make this about politics. it really isn't. i think there's some legitimate concerns about national security and the safety and well being of our officers in the field. i want to ask you, what would happen, you know, mr. russell brought this up about the handling of national security information, cutting and pasting. what would have happened if they moved classified information to an unclassified system or took it outside the skiff? would it be taken lightly? what would be the consequences? would there be a ride up? would there be a reprimand? i mean, would you investigate it? >> i mean certainly it's not

my -- >> i'm not asking you, i'm asking you a general answer of the context of the fbi? would that be a problem for any of you? >> sure it would. it would be be reported to the security division. they would look at the facts and circumstances. >> let's just do a hypothetical here. >> i prefer not to do any hypotheticals. >> okay. then i will. i will assume that if you were the director of any part of our national intelligence agencies, or the director of the fbi and you had an employee who repeatedly did -- handled classified information with extreme carelessness, i would assume, based on your service, that there would be pretty severe action taken. is that a valid assumption? >> yes. very serious sort of-tsh. >> thank you. do you know of anyone reprimanded for violating security procedures? >> not immediately -- not that immediately comes to mind.

>> have you ever copied classification information on an unclassified system or removed classified information you weren't supposed to remove? have you, mr. kadsick? >> no, sir. >> how but, mrs. fridayfelt? >> no. >> ms. walsh? >> no, sir. >> mr. higgins? >> i can think of one occasion of which i have accidentally removed material from the skiff and immediately put it back to the skiff. >> you didn't take it home? >> no, sir. >> mr. samuel? >> no, sir. >> mr. seoul? microphone please.

>> sir, i took one home and the document was destroyed. >> so in two instances where you accidentally did something and you showed due diligence, took care of the situation. you did what you should have done and you reported it to your superior. that's not what happened here. so my problem with this is that, again, that i think this committee has a responsibility. i think the chairman's articulated that quite well. so exercise the oversight the constitution invests us with. and that we need to look into the possibilities of how a secretary of state acting, handling classified information, with extreme carelessness may have compromised agents in the field, possibly national security. there is a number of issues here and it begs the question, if that's not the issue then why

are you withholding 302s? why is so much of this stuff redacted? >> as far as 302s go, we provided some. there are a lot of them. it is in the process. can i go back and look at getting you the access that you need. i think the personal identifiable information where individuals do have a privacy interest. and we generally do try to protect that type of information. obviously, one question that obviously we would consider is how does it relate to the oversight interest of the committee at hand? >> but you have to let us do our job. we want you to do your job. but you have to let us do our job. my time is expired. i yield. >> we recognize the gentle woman from wyoming, ms. loomis, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. when we're home in our districts, we meet with our

constituents. while i was home in my state of wyoming over the august work period, among the things people asked me was, have you ever read classified documents in a skiff? and i explained that i had on two occasions. in fact, three. visited a skiff by myself where i had to surrender my electronic devices where i was watched while i sat there and read classified documents. by people who were ensuring that i would not write anything down, that i would not use my cell phone to take photographs of classified documents and take them out of the room. for some it is hard to read in a room where it is really quiet

and so as a member of congress and i have related to my constituents in wyoming is very different from the kind of thing we're hearing today. where we have heard at least on television, that secretary clinton had maybe as many as 11 or more that she used to communicate with. a classified server, unclassified server. if someone takes something classified and restates it without noting that it's classified, that it can be discovered by people who are hacking an unclassified server in the basement of say a secretary of state's house. this is the kind of thing that concerns my constituents. so that's why we're having this hearing. it's not because we're trying to make your lives miserable or our lives miserable by meeting late some monday night.

it is because our constituents are worried that classified information was compromised in ways that might allow hackers to refer that information to people who want to do harm to america and its allies. my question is this -- have any of you that are on this panel separated or begun to separate the classified information that is in the skiff from the unclassified information? or from the sensitive access information? anyone? mr. herring would you, yes or no? have you begun to separate that information? >> i'm not exactly sure what you're talking about. but generally, the information in a classified document is portioned and it stayed together in the stiff. >> so hopefully those dockments that we will be talking about in

a little bit, with i know whether i was viewing something that was classified? something sensitive? something unclassified? >> the information should be properly portion marked. >> okay. so you could separate classified from unclassified from sensitive? based on information available to you in documents that are currently in the skiff, right? >> if it is properly marked, you can certainly distinguish the classified from the unclassified. i do think though in our production to congress which is what we are here to talk about, there are other sensitivities and sort of nonpublic information and certainly not suitable for public release. >> okay. why have -- why have we, as members of congress, not been provided access to the nonclassified, nonsensitive information that is in the skiff?

>> ma'am, i think you've -- i think you've been given access, or certain members of the oversight committee, and staff, have been given all information in the skiff, ma'am. >> mr. chairman, i would like to yield the balance of my time to you. >> thank you. mr. herring, the problem that we have is that the redactions you have given us doesn't allow us to look at full and complete file. that's part of the challenge. let's start with mr. sole there, the nsa, do you have an understanding of the total universe of the compromised classified material that was found in the universe -- >> absolutely not. >> explain that to me. hillary clinton took four years of communication outside of a secure communication. do you or do you not have an understanding of the universe of

that breech? >> if you mean the importance of it, i certainly understand the importance of it but i don't have personal knowledge of everything that is said to have been released. >> does the nsa understand the universe of the breeched material? >> my understanding is that every document that was referred to us but i will want to talk more in closed session, sir, we had the opportunity to review and i can give you the results of that in closed session. >> but do you have an accounting that -- there were untold tens of thousands of things that were destroyed. we heard testimony from it, secretary kennedy just last week, they now have 14,900 additional e-mails, plus tens of thousands that have been given to them in the last 30 days. so i'm asking if the nsa understands how much classified

information from nsa has been compromised in a nonsecure setting. >> sir, i would have to speculate. i do not know that and i do not know that we do know that. but can i take that back. >> and you'll get that to me by? >> sir, i'll look, i don't know. a week, is that acceptable? >> that's fair. mr. samuel, same question. >> sir, while i prefer to discuss this in the closed session, yes, nga is aware of and has reported back to congress the extent of our equities found in those e-mailes. >> can you give us a general sense, though -- what percentage of the compromise do you believe you're aware of? >> sir, again, i prefer to discuss that in a closed session. >> mr. samuel, when did you first become aware that there could have been a compromise of this data?

>> sir, we started receiving requests last fall to give this information in earnest and that's when i first became aware of it. >> mr. soule, when did the nsa first become aware that there might have been a breech of this classified information? >> sir, like my nga colleague, i believe it was last fall, but i don't have that information in front of me. >> okay. just so members know, this criminal referral started because the inspector general got word that there was classified information in a nonsecure setting. they confirmed it was in a nonhe is security issing and that's when they gave it to the fbi. part of what we need to understand is when did they all

understand? when was that information recovered? we need to know whether or not odni understands the scope of what was potentially sending those e-mails. do you feel, ms. walsh, that odni knows a hundred percent of what was compromised? >> given that that's outside my role in legislative affairs, i would have to -- >> can you get that back to me in a week? is that enough time to answer that question? >> i'll do my best. >> a week then? >> we'll do our best. >> a week? is that fair? >> sure. >> thank you. appreciate it. gentle woman yields back. do any other members have any other questions appropriate for an unclassified setting?

mr. go sp sar is recognized. >> thank you. mr. higgins, cia collects a great deal of human intelligence, collects information from foreign individuals often at the risk of that individual's life. is that true? >> yes. >> are you aware that state department released among classified e-mails from secretary clinton with a redaction that said quote b 3 cia persons back slash org. do you remember that? >> i will admit i do not remember all pursuant to the request. >> so that means information redacted with sensitive information about an individual organization affiliated with the cia. correct? >> i will take your word for it. i don't have the manual in front of me. >> so if information from a single or small group of cia officers or agents makes it to our adversaries that could be a huge risk for their safety, right? >> sir, i wouldn't want to speculate without knowing what

information we are discussing and i prefer to -- >> but potentially. given that circumstance, it could potentially have serious ramifications for those people. >> again, it would all depend on the information in question and i prefer to discuss the classification review and any classified material in a closed setting. >> that is hardly a classification that we can't talk about right here, is it? >> if information of cia methods were known to an adversary, yes it could have complicationes. >> so it could be life or death? >> it could be, yes. >> even a few sentences from a source could expose that source, true? >> with it would all depend on the few sentences. >> but it could? >> potentially, yes. >> so someone treating information with our spies abroad carelessly should be trusted with a security clearance? >> sir, that is well outside my -- snez i watched the chairman ask each one of you

gentlemen and ladies, going back over classified, did you remove any information out of a skiff or any documentation and those that said yes, said, hey, there was seriously to it. right? >> i believe people with access to classified information treat that responsibility seriously, yes. >> say that one more time? >> i said i believe people with access to classified information treat that responsibility seriously, yes. >> really? >> i do. >> so why are we here? >> i would defer to the chairman. >> no, no, no. so why are we here? because we have a secretary of state that had a whole server that was off line. kind of unusual, wouldn't you say? >> again, sir, i am here and ready to -- >> that's fine. mr. soule, nsa is tasked with collecting intelligence electronic with your signals, is that correct? >> yes, sir, that's correct.

>> would leaking signal intelligence damage national secure snit. >> yes, sir, it would. >> what if the personal looking at intelligence thought the information wasn't important. is that a valid excuse for leaking signal intelligence? >> no, sir. >> leaking any signal intelians can leak intelligence cape bigts so even if information seems innocuous, is that correct? >> generally i agree. it would depend on the facts. >> still should be treated as classified, true? >> if it was classified and properly classified, it should be treated as classified. >> has the nsa ever lost an intelligence tool? been burned, is the quote, because classified information about that method made it into the wrong hands? >> yes. >> would you say that someone who treats nsa signals and intelligence exceptionally carelessly should be trusted with a security clearance?

>> generally i would agree with you sir. but i would have to have you stand the facts. in the general premise, yes. >> mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank the gentlemen. does anyone have question force an unclassified setting otherwise it is the intention of the chair to recess and reconvene in a classified setting. >> sorry, just a couple of questions for ms. frifield. she didn't submit her e-mail record to the state department, right, until december of 2014, almost two years after leaving the state department, correct? >> i don't have the dates but i -- >> about? >> i think that's in the range, my understanding. >> is that two-year delay in turning over federal records in compliance with your policy? what is your general policy of how quickly records should be turned over? >> i believe the rule is when you leave your records should be turn offered. i don't know if there is a time lag -- >> maybe a couple months. not two years?

you know of anyone else that took two years to turn over their records? >> i'm not aware of any. >> okay. and even that submission rate turned out to be incomplete? the fbi submitted thousands of e-mails from the state department that uncovered in the course of their investigation, correct? thousands of e-mails that she didn't turn over? >> i would defer to the -- i don't know how many. she didn't turn them. >> okay. >> will the gentleman yield? >> sure. >> the undersecretary for management patrick kennedy testified there were 14,900 additional e-mail answers tens of thousands he received in the last 30 days. is he accurate or inaccurate? >> i assume he is accurate but i -- >> there you go. go ahead. >> that's not my specialty. >> that's huge point for us. >> right. >> was failure to turn over eye mail in compliance to the state department policy, do you know anyone else who hasn't turned over that huge number of e-mails

upon leaving? >> i don't -- i'm not aware of any. >> anyone not turning over any e-mails since you've been in your position that you'reware of if. >> i don't monitor that. but i think we are each responsible for our own e-mail answers we file them and save them. >> do you ever hear of anything like this happening since you've been involved in state? anybody not turning over e-mails? >> i haven't been involved in the records retention issue. i know that we are working hard to improve our records pretension system. we have a new process, new people involved and it is helping us all to understand how it's done. >> okay. secretary clinton's i.t. contractor deleted an e-mail archive from their servers after they were made aware after preservation order from the benghazi committee. so after they were told to preserve it, they deleted it. was the deletion of that e-mail or those e-mail archives with the state department policy? >> i think the policies are not

supposed to delete e-mail possess. >> right. these are particularly severe because she particularly wasn't supposed to delete these. so that would be -- what would happen to a regular garden variety employee of the state department if they had done this sort of thing? >> i don't know. usually you saved your e-mail answers pass them on as records. >> i know that's what you're supposed to do. everybody does it. if another employee just -- put something in your mind, another employee deleted e-mails like this, what would the state have done about it. >> i honestly don't know. >> they never think about it? never occurred it would happen? okay. will she or any of her aides who helped participate face any negative consequences for their actions in doing this? >> i can't speak to specifics but in general when there is any kind of violation or issue, infraction, it is reviewed through administrative procedure

out of the diplomatic procedure office. >> i'll yield the remainder of my time to the chair. >> thank you to the gentleman. this round of the unclassified questions has concluded. committee will take a short recess. reconvene in the house senator's visit room 210 to conduct the closed portion of the hearing. we will give you 15 minutes and try to reconvene at 8:25. committee stands in reces

there are a couple of house oversight committee hearings this week related to hillary clinton's e-mail use while she was secretary of state. tomorrow morning, members will look at what committee leadership calls the state department's quote failure to preserve federal records. coverage here on c-span 3 at 10:00 a.m. eastern. later, hearing on the growth of

so-called ticket bought software that allows ticket scalpers to purchase mass quantities through third party at a much higher rate. that is also on c-span 3. secretary of state john kerry said today that it was too early to say if a cease-fire in syria will hold. but there are early reports of some reduced violence in major conflict areas. he and russian foreign minister announced a cease-fire agreement on saturday. here is somewhat of secretary kerry said at the state department briefing. >> i emphasize that every element of this arrangement is based on the reciprocal actions that need to be taken. not simply the promises that have been made.