dr. patrick o'gara talks about the health care law and the latest advances in heart representative jason chaffetz is our guest for the next half hour. our reporters questioning him, stephen dina and and matt fuller. stephen, we will start with you. stephen: we are learning more details about this. i was wondering what the latest you have heard. if heard it might have expanded to millions more former employees. what is the latest your hearing? what is your take on it at this point? is this a willful negligence bad management, a goof or an act of god disaster that is unavoidable and we will have to get used to as we go forward?

rep. chaffetz: we should have seen this coming a long time ago. there are very nefarious actors across the world who have been trying to penetrate our i.t. infrastructure. there have been multiple reports warning, telling them that they need to make sure that these things are encrypted. they did not do that. there are literally millions of records with highly sensitive information that is out there. on tuesday, we are going to have a hearing. right now the office of , personnel management is being very resistant to agreeing to attend. i'm prepared to issue a subpoena to get them there. i think the public needs to hear about this public employees need , to hear about this. it may be the single biggest breach of data that our government has ever had. stephen: obviously there is a lack of security. did they not follow i.t.

recommendations? is this something hackers are using that we were not aware of? rep. chaffetz: they are very sophisticated but there are basic things on our computer systems that were not implemented. government watchdog groups that came in who did look at this who we do hope to hear from -- they issued warnings multiple times over a long period of time . i don't think our government took it seriously enough. it did not implement these things. the worry is somewhere between four months and perhaps a year these hackers were able to extract information about personnel records, social security numbers. we are worried about medical records potentially. we don't know that definitively yet. that is part of what we want to have come out of the hearing. then to know who has security clearances so you can understand

if it is somebody like china that they have a vested interest in understanding who their targets should be. matt: congress has had its hands in hillary clinton's e-mails a little bit already. i'm wondering what responsibility you think the oversight and government reform committee has in looking at the e-mail scandal and what was going on with hillary clinton using a private server. rep. chaffetz: what is curious about this is secretary clinton come on the day she started her confirmation hearings, set up this private server evidently. i have told our folks that i think the right position has been, we should not be any tougher on her just because she is the former first lady, a candidate for the presidency of the united states of america. let's also not be any easier on her. she was the secretary of state for a significant period of time. we do have the federal records

act, which is within our jurisdiction. i think they are legitimate questions. trey gowdy, one of the best members of congress in a comprehensive way, he is the chairman of the benghazi select committee. they are taking the lead on that. we will let them push that as far and wide as they can. i have concerns about the safety and security of putting our men and women in jeopardy. about allowing the intelligence agencies of other countries to be able to hack into this information. i think it it it's is a very legitimate thing for congress to be able to access that information, as well as the public. we have a freedom of information act that public should be able to get to. if they don't have those four years of e-mails, then nothing was fulfilled in its totality. matt: should there be hearings

in your committee about hillary clinton's private e-mail server? rep. chaffetz: we will see where it goes. susan: can i ask whether or not you have seen the stories that have been percolating about the foundation and donations to her foundation being appropriate? rep. chaffetz: there are some things we're looking at. there are some things that we are very concerned about. one of those things has to do with some of the visas that were granted. we have question marks about that along the way. they have an important role to play and there are questions in somethings the committee is looking at. i'm not prepared to divulge them all. there seems to be an overlap. look we will let the truth , prevail and follow the path wherever it may lead us. if it is a debt in and there is nothing there, we will move on. there are a lot of question marks. stephen: do you have concerns about the clinton foundation's tax status, given the details we

have heard about -- at least accusations of them getting donations and dealings with the state department at the same time. are you planning on looking into the foundation in that sense or anything else about the foundation itself? rep. chaffetz: there are some outstanding concerns about what did the foundation do? was there any crossover with somebody who was in office? when you have a secretary of state, how does that clearance happen? how does that clearance for speeches, money, and revenue to come in to any foundation happen? so, there are highlights in haiti and other places where contracts were given and money changed hands. we will see how that plays out. we are not the only committee looking at that. there are other committees looking at that. we are not targeting, going after secretary clinton, but she was the secretary of state and we are going to pursue wherever

that path may lead us. matt: you mentioned the freedom of information act. i know you had a hearing on this last week. what do you think needs to happen on the freedom of information act? should this be a a rewrite in this congress or whether this is something the agencies themselves can handle. rep. chaffetz: they have not been handling it. in the obama administration, 550,000 plus times they claimed exceptions and that they could not fulfill these request. we heard from panelists that worked for or are currently working for the new york times, the associated press, others that came and testified that they have a terrible time getting information from the administration. they also said that was a problem in the bush administration. we need to change the law so that no matter who is in the executive branch that the public, which has the right to know, can access that information. darrell issa and elijah cummings

have a good piece of legislation. i would like to tighten it up in two ways. i want there to be a consequence for the administration if they do not, in a timely way fulfill those requests and i want to , limit the number of exceptions. i think you'll see us past that legislation and make the government more transparent. matt: you're have been a stern critic of the freedom of information act. last week you said to the justice department that people are living in a la-la land. what score would you live congress' transparency. rep. chaffetz: the agencies were rated and the ones that were there, they all got the highest

possible score, yet we heard two panels saying, it is not working for anybody. for them to give that kind of score, it is obviously not working. the legislative and judicial branches live under a different set of rules. what we have in place is the freedom of information act that does require the executive branch and the execution of those laws to be open and transparent. that is the way it has been for decades. i think congress could improve its openness and transparency , but we are trying to be as transparent as we can along the way. but it applies to the executive branch. matt: it is used to shield certain activities. the reason case with guns being left in bathrooms the media , cannot access police reports because it is shielded by congress's exemption from the freedom of information act. i'm wondering if there's

hypocrisy that congress has extended itself and is going after agencies were being less than transparent on the freedom of information act when congress itself is not subject to those same sorts of rules. rep. chaffetz: the judicial branch also falls into that category. i don't think there has been suggestion that that include congress. there are places and ways to get access to an awful lot of information but the current law, as it is written the executive , branch is not living up to those standards. they are not fulfilling it in any way shape or form. stephen: one of the other agencies you had at that hearing was the irs. an observation real quickly about the number of the folks you have, i found in my experience with freedom of information act, you have to be willing to sue these groups. if you're going after sense of data, you have to be willing to put a lawsuit behind it to free that information and deal with the court's, which is an

interesting way. it is an extra step with regard to the freedom of information act. i'm wondering, lois lerner, you had an exchange with the ig at a previous hearing a couple months ago where they mentioned there might the criminal investigation into the tapes and backup tapes. can you tell us where things stand and what your understanding is of that investigation of the doj's investigation? and whether we are going to see charges at any point. rep. chaffetz: the inspector general has indicated to us that we are days away from having them be prepared to introduce their investigation. the conclusion of their investigation into the disposition of the lois lerner e-mails. from the irs we have heard that these tapes were destroyed recycled. we heard we had all the e-mails. we have heard everything other than my dog ate this.

we've heard that. but now that the inspector general has gone back in, they have found thousands of e-mails that were not previously given to congress, even though they said they had given everything to congress. we are just literally days away from the inspector general being prepared to testify, i hope before the oversight and government reform committee. this is not right. this is the irs targeting people for conservative, political views. that cannot stand. either side of the aisle, no matter your political disposition, you cannot have an irs that is politically targeting people. we are going to get to the bottom of it. matt: there are two different explanations here. one, that it was bureaucratic bungling and the tapes got lost between the different divisions and whatnot. the other is that there was actually some obtuse station attempted

to hide them. do you have any idea which one that might be? stephen: that it was rep. chaffetz: it may be something in between. the irs had taken years to look at and said it would take years more to get. the inspector general took 15 days to find them. when they spoke with the person who was there in the so-called cage with the locket takes the , person said, nobody has asked us for them. it really does reek and smell and looks like an obstruction of congress. when we have a duly issued subpoena, there is an obligation at the highest levels for the irs to comply. if the irs was coming after you as an individual, asking for your documents and you did not provide them, what do you think the irs would do? we will hold them to the highest standard. i expect professionalism. i expect them to fulfill a duly

issued subpoena and request from congress. they have not done that, and we are going to hear the perspective of the inspector general. stephen: the justice department's investigation. i'd want to follow up. in the days after we learned about this in 2013, that has gone quiet at this point. i'm wondering what you understand about that. at this point, if you are thinking it is better just to wait for the next administration? you hope you do not get an answer out of this administration and it carries over. what are your thoughts on how that stands? what the administration is putting into this? rep. chaffetz: the department of justice, the person they put in charge of this investigation from the department of justice was a max out donor to president obama. there are some of us that really question if we will get a fair hearing. we talked to the victims of this.

people who have been on the receiving end of not being able to get the information out of the irs, who were clearly targeted by the irs. the fbi did not ask them a question. then you have the president of the united states in an interview on the super bowl sunday say there is not even a smidgen of corruption here. how did he come to that conclusion? the department of justice had not completed their report. congress had completed its report. the inspector general has not completed his report. how did the president come to that conclusion? i do not think there is anything signaling to his political allies this is the conclusion we're going to have. that is not what congress is going to do. we are going to let the facts dictate the response and the , next step is hearing from the inspector general. >> 10 minutes. matt: wondering what you think needs to happen with secret service. rep. chaffetz: we have had scandal after scandal.

there is a deep-seated cultural problem. there is a lack of leadership within the secret service. that is a difficult ship to turn around. it is a no failed mission for the secret service. we have had multiple mistakes. i think the president and country has gotten lucky to this point. we have thousands of good people who honorably and patriotically serve this nation but when the , average secret service agent the average secret service officer who is working has 25 minutes during the course of a year of training, there is something fundamentally wrong at its core. the scandals have got to stop. they have to be able to fire people who do not act in a responsible and ethical way. all the scandals and you have not seen the secret service fire anybody. matt: these are difficult issues. i wanted to return the one

thing you said last year. you said, after another one of these people i jumped the fence, do you stand by that comment? rep. chaffetz: the inevitability that the secret service would prevail if some nefarious person off of the fence or tried to take up the president, that the secret service would prevail without question, that shine is gone from the general copter, to the fence jumper to all the incidents that have happened previously. what happened in atlanta with close proximity of a person with a gun. that gives crazy folks a lot of ideas and terrorists encouragement that they might avail. i want those agents and officers to know i got there back. use unbelievable force. use excessive force. do whatever it takes but you

, never, ever get close to the president and you never get in that white house. no question. it cannot happen. a guy in crocs who had foot surgery hopped the fence and ran all the way to the white house. that cannot happen. stephen: you recently returned from a trip to the border to investigate a shooting of a marine helicopter. i wanted to ask what your impressions were from having been down there. what you believe the security situation is on the border. a lot of debate with last summer surge. those rates have dropped down. homeland security secretary jeh johnson said the apprehensions are at their lowest rate since 1972. what is your impression of border security at this point? in particular, that exchange of fire with the cartel. rep. chaffetz: if apprehensions are at their lowest level, does that mean security is better or worse? the reality is that

statistically, hundreds of , thousands of people are able to cross our border unimpeded. that scares the living daylights out of me. i feel for the people in mexico. they are our friends, our neighbors, we trade goods and services with them, but there are about people who have died 100,000 in the drug wars in mexico in the last year. that is a lot of people. if you look at the state near brownsville and laredo on the mexican side of the border, you don't have a police force in nuevo laredo. you have the army and navy from mexico trying to create law and order but it is one of the most , dangerous places on the face of the planet. i went there. i have seen it. we just had an incident a week ago where a border patrol, homeland security helicopter was shot from the mexican side and that pilot was almost killed.

they've had to put that helicopter down. it hit his bulletproof vest. i do not see this administration taking it seriously. i think they're doing a public a disservice by telling them how safe and secure it is an how the border is not a problem. the border is a problem. i have seen it. i went out with those agents and it has to change. jeh johnson, a great deal of respect for him, but he is doing this country a disservice by telling them apprehensions are down so it is safer. i will show him any place he wants or they are able to cross by the hundreds on a nightly basis. stephen: you're currently probing the state department about its consular activities and whether state department employees are safe. should we pull those officers out of there? or are there other steps we should take?

rep. chaffetz: we ask the men and women who serve in the state department to be in some the most dangerous places. it is not just the people at the consulate. we have thousands of people doing business on a daily basis in places like nueve laredo. those types of areas. what are they doing? i do not think the state department is giving enough attention. based on the information i have been able to gather, since secretary kerry has been in office, for two and a half years do you know how many times he , has been to mexico to work with our neighbors and friends to the south? one time. he spends an awful lot of time in france, riding his bike. he is been to the middle east, and that's a troubled situation but we have 100,000 people who , have died in mexico in the last nine years and our secretary of state has been there once? that does not sound to me like a priority and i think it should , be. matt: your committee voted to

overturn one of the first laws -- a d.c. law, the ban on employees being discriminated on the basis of reproductive decisions. what should the legislation be in the district of columbia? rep. chaffetz: just as our founders laid it on the constitution. washington, d.c. is not a state. if they pass a law, congress has the opportunity within 30 congressional business days to be able to express an opinion. if there is a resolution of disapproval that passes the house, the senate, and ultimately the president's desk that law can be repealed or , taken back. we passed it out of the house. the senate did not take it up. we needed to express our concern and frustration with the direction of this law. a law that the former mayor had been opposed to because he thought there were constitutional problems. a law that the -- i believe it

was the attorney for the city said had constitutional problems , and it had an overwhelming vote in favor of it. matt: you do not think the district of columbia has evolved at all? we are now at city of more than 500,000 people. rep. chaffetz: it is a big city. no doubt about it. i think there is a way to get them representation if they want to. if we were to retro see thecede the residential areas of washington dc, we could get them not only a member of congress but two senators, state legislature and a governor. if they want full representation. it is not something we are striving for but for me, that is , the way i look at it. the district of columbia was set up separately. consequently, members of congress, representatives from around the country all get a say in what happens in washington, d.c. >> just two minutes left.

stephen: you have a hearing i believe coming up on drones in commerce. i'm interested in what you're looking for and how you evaluate the current federal rules for using drones for commercial and law enforcement and whether you foresee the need for congress to get more involved in setting those rules. rep. chaffetz: it is an emerging technology and something we will have to address. at what point is the airspace in our nation federal? at what point is it a local or state issue? if you are going to have some new innovative technology where , they are delivering packages for instance, which is exciting technology. i am excited about the positive things it can do, but we have to make sure that they are not bumping into each other, running into airplanes. it is more exploratory in its nature. we have not come to any conclusions. how do drones work? there is a wildfire in the west, and we think it is a great way to get technology to help. you have exciting companies like

amazon who are trying to do exciting things, so we were will hear from all of them. susan: a lot of friction under the last chairman three at how . how are you approaching the relationship now? rep. chaffetz: i have the great respect for elijah cummings. we disagree on a lot of issues. i was coached by john boehner and he said, you can disagree, do not be disagreeable. that was some of the best advice i got. i went out and visited a elijah cummings' district in baltimore. we walked the streets. he showed me things. i took him out to utah to see the red rocks and federal lands issues we're dealing with. will disagree, but i think we will do it in a respectful way that everybody can be proud about and write home and say look how this went.

even though it was contentious it was respect respectful. susan: thank you for your time on newsmakers this week. gentleman, what is the committee like under his gavel and what do you think of the kinds of issues? there were often accusations by the democrats that under chairman i said there were politically motivated investigations. stephen: you have had some of the same accusations, but at the same time the freedom of information act hearings are something you see a lot of bipartisan support to continue those investigations and make sure the process is working. that the law is working as intended. you are the congressmen say that the bill that is the freedom of information act is sponsored by mr. issa and mr. cummings. there are things where they can do bipartisan action. but there are going to be places where they clash. some of the clinton investigations will certainly be places where they clash. that is the nature of that committee.

we have not seen the sort of explosions that we saw with the former chairman cutting off microphones and whatnot. there has been a tenor difference, but you will still see clashes. susan: what a wide birth this committee has. your questions illustrated that, everything from district of colombia outlaws to drones and commerce. i'm wondering what your senses are. where do you go to really matter? matt: so much under his jurisdiction. it's really a question of what ogr wants to do. it seems from the early tells that he wants to address the freedom of information act and get some accountability from the administration on answering these requests. it is unclear whether that means reforming the existing system or a total rewrite. he seems open to overhauling the

system. susan: that must be good news for you two as reporters. you trust him on congress and its transparency. a rewrite sounds like it wouldn't include extending to the legislative branch. matt: he was clear that he does not believe congress should be subject to the freedom of information act. there has been some recent momentum. for a lot of americans, it is jarring to see a congressman pressing for transparency and then having this criticism congress is not subject to those same laws. why is it that we need to see hillary clinton's e-mails but we can't see jason chaffetz'? a lot of americans are asking themselves the same question, and it is still something under negotiation right now. susan: there is this question about investigation of hillary

clinton's e-mails, of the foundation, etc. with the presidential campaign going on, what did you learn from his answers about the direction the taking? stephen: he said we should not be investigating her more than we would anybody else, but she was secretary of state. there is some role there. i thought that was a careful answer. it will be interesting to see whether the temptation doesn't get the better of house republicans. they do investigate her more than something else. the tone he was taking there there are some areas of legitimate inquiry, but they will not go after her just because she is a presidential candidate. matt: it was a very nuanced answer. he is saying, i will give the committee on the latitude they need in investigating but there is a component we addressed, his committee. if it comes down to getting that one bite of the apple, hillary

clinton's contention that i will testify once. susan: let's talk about the irs. a sense of frustration from the chairman. stephen: it has been boiling up for a while. i think it was interesting that he, the fact that we are going to see the inspector general's report on the e-mails and backup tapes. that would be very interesting to see. he does sound like he does not believe -- i believe he used the words obstruction of congress. they will have a decision to make on how they pursue that and whether they asked the justice department to pursue criminal charges. the justice department turned that request down. it will be interesting if the ig comes up with those findings what they do.