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 the problem 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 do 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? and so, if it is the former, then we need to address that and be communicating clearly with us about the impact of the request, and how we can better work together. if it is the latter, then you will just be dragged into this committee, and subcommittees until the end of time. because it is disrespectful not to address congress is right to have information. so, we need to figure out which one of these things it is. in the department of human services there was a request regarding secret service misconduct. there were a number of issues which were already addressed. my understanding is there is one more issue that is outstanding.

i'm not quite show what it is, are you aware of it? it is one of 16 issues that have been identified and have been responded to. >> with regard to the secret service request, we're dealing with two different documents. one was the february 18 letter, that contained 16 requests. complying with the request as a matter of fact. the process worked as it should. the request was very broad. so we went back to the committee and asked the committee to prioritize and that we could prioritize. which, in fact, the committee did. you prioritize for lines of information which we were producing. in the course of that production, ultimately the july 9 subpoena came forward. it also had 18 requests.

most of which were overlapping with the february 18 letter, but it brought in the aperture. as a result, we have been producing on both of those documents. we continue to produce, even last night be produce documents in response to the federal -- every 18th request. -- february 18 request. if there is an outstanding do you have any idea or any estimate of the time that it would take to have that request answered? >> we are continuing to comply. letter,ebruary 18 to there were 16 requests. 12 of them are closed. for remain open. we produce last night for two more.

that means there is to that remain open on the request. on the july 9 subpoena to 18 requests. wee remain open, and continue to produce some of those. give you a definite timeline, but we have been producing and continue to produce. we will continue into such time as we can close these out. >> the department of justice issue is a little bit different. versus our committee's perspective. what form and the great we are entitled to information. but for the rest the department, are we in agreement there are outstanding requests that have waybeen responded to and a that this committee deems appropriate? >> we do about sending requests

for the committee. but we are working to meet those request. yes, my answer would be the same. >> sometimes a think you're talking what apples and were talking what oranges. there remains one request which we will produce documents for. >> i simply want to echo our desire to work together to have the information we need to represent the people that sent us here to represent their interests. we are equally engaged in making americans are safe and secure end of the benefit of all the services. it seems to me what we are trying to accomplish as the oversight committee. i would hope that it would be reasonable you could tell us which one to think are closed in which one to think us to open. when i hear from staff that if we make it does requests and you say it or close we don't know

which ones are still open. i hope that is a reasonable ask. is that fair? anybody want to actually say that and be recorded as saying yes? let's go down the line and ask that is a reasonable request. >> we can give you the status of each of your request. kadzik? that ismart, i get it, good lawyering. we're asking a direct question. mr. kadzik: i think we -->> know i'm asking you will you tell us on the outstanding requests moving forward -- will you tell us that? have, and: i think we will continue to do so. ms. johnson: when we produce, we tell you what we are producing.

the production last night -- >> when it is completed, tell us it is complete. son: yes and we said this is the requested document number four this is what we found. >> or one outstanding request remains open. >> will he tell us in the future when you have completed the request. ms. fucile: yes, as i just said it is still outstanding. will, we can indicate when it is closed. we believe we will let you know when things are close. >> optimism that is come with five requests. we just need to know which are close within the body letter.

>> in august of 2014i wrote to the attorney general. i expressed serious concerns about alterations made to prosecutorial guidelines that requested information about this decision from empress becton agency. -- a respected agency. operation streamline was being terminated and that the u.s. attorney's office will no longer be prosecuting first time undocumented immigrant. guidance is of great concern because it undermines the mission of local law enforcement agencies throughout the county for 100% prosecution of those entering the united states illegally in order to curb the entries. the chairman also stated during an interview with a defendant from a recent smuggling case the subject told investigators that

sense he had been in jail he and other partners are moving to other areas due to the hard stance on smuggling and the fact that if you are caught you go to jail. the federal government's failure to address immigration crisis and forcing cities in my district to step up and prevent the massive flow of illegal aliens entering the country. of no5 a combination tolerance owned and increase manpower drawn the down a number of apprehensions in the region by nearly 95%. just over 6000 and 2013. despite this remarkable success unilaterally crippled law enforcement and terminated operation streamline as well as other worthwhile border programs. tooctober 10 the doj replied my letter from august 28 about operation streamline being terminated. while i appreciated the prompt response, frankly i'm shocked

that it took that long. considering it essentially resembled a simple copy, cut, and paste. with such generic basic language that in no real terms could be considered an actual response. rather than answering my question or providing any reasoning as to why it had been terminated, the department of justice responded with a letter it is ated long-standing practice not to provide specific information regarding criminal law enforcement policies. that is just of the outrageous. i don't think i am really anybody special. i'm just a dentist impersonating a politician. i don't expect any special treatment from anybody. but i was elected. in accordance to the constitution of the united states, to have to service representative for the people of arizona.

including government oversight, before i asked the question i would like to add these three letters into the record. chairman chaffetz: so ordered. >> centura both here, i will ask you one more time, which one of your agencies made the call to terminate operation streamline? congressman, within the last two months we conducted briefings with respect to the status of immigration enforcement. i apologize if your staff was not invited to that briefing. but i would be happy to have that briefing provided to members of your staff give you the current status of immigration enforcement. >> i ask you a specific question. who in your agency decided to terminate operation streamline? mr. kadzik: i can't tell you that it has been terminated. i would say that as it letter

unitedes the local states attorneys intimate prosecution policies. >> but those company doj directly. if asking you this question, he don't know the answer simply state the answer that you don't know. mr. kadzik: i can't say i don't know because i don't believe that it was terminated. >> it has been terminated, you don't know the answer, ms. johnson how about you? ms. johnson: operation streamline is not department of homeland security operation. don't have confidence to stick to that. -- speak to that. >> does the department of homeland to carry shrug off information requests of individual numbers of congress performing oversight duties? we johnson: no caucus meant, do not shrug off requests that we received.

documentsproduce the that have been requested. >> doesn't make a difference if there's more than one? maybe 30 or 40 members writing a letter? as i can more attention? -- does that get more attention? ms. johnson: we do have to prioritize when you're subject to 92 to committees and subcommittees. have to prioritize. requests, we task them out to the appropriate components to search for the documents. >> as a doctor, it seems to me a problem has been misdiagnosed. if you can't keep up with congress, i understand that congress is a third-party. if you can't keep up with a document requests a view should reevaluate your conduct. quit abusing the laws and follow the law. mr. kadzik: we do recognize the

gentleman from california. >> thanked the ranking member for -- forgive me for being naive. both theeem that committee and the department should be less pull and tug and gray areas. it strikes me that public documents are public documents. the sooner you have the documents i think it does is all well knowing there was some political latitude. my question is specifically to i had a specific letter that i sent to the department of justice and the attorney general. let you just have it on the record. it was vis-a-vis the ability to enforce the clean air act versus potentially or going to the due diligence when it comes to volkswagen. i have read interpretations that

said this gap there was the letter that we said recklessly got a response. i will give that. if you could go back and let our office now -- what i was asking -- is there a possibility because it seems to me that is ,he only motivating factor having spent a long time in california. when it comes to break the date regulative agencies my question would be, can you pursue criminal acts. given that as a pacific -- specific requests cap me. is there a tactical reason why don't want to respond. it would be helpful for me to understand type can communicate that.

with that, i give you the opportunity to respond. suit did file a civil against volkswagen. i'm not familiar with what criminal authorities we may have. >> i yield back. mr. kadzik: thank you for a much. chairman chaffetz: they give her much. how long you been in your position? mr. kadzik: about three years. chairman chaffetz: what to do before that? mr. kadzik: i was in private law. >> iq geomet to what mr. lynch said -- i keep going back to what mr. lynch said what appears to be never certain situation. it does appear to be that for some i don't care how you look at this.

thought you've been there longer than that. when you all of you this, do you view it as adversarial? mr. kadzik: we don't. i think we've had a good working relationship with this committee during the past year. and we look forward to continuing to cooperate with you and the chairman to continue as much information as we can consist in with how law-enforcement responsibilities and confidentiality in the executive branch. i don't want it to be adversarial, i don't view it as adversarial. expect and you require cooperation, and we hope to provide it. >> i don't think it should be adversarial. i worked on capitol hill for over 20 years. i have seen it for both sides. i think it can work invested we have a collegial relationship we

can sit down and go over priorities and sequencing. problem, we have to grapple with that income to the solution. i think it would be less frustration if we could just sit down and say these are the priorities. where the document all the documents, we need all contracts. then canthere and build on that later. we can continually talk to the staff. i feel like i have had good relationship with your staff. they can call me at any time, i can call them. i think that is the way that it works best. not having a sort of confrontational relationship. information as opposed to having a blanket kind of request would help. mr. kadzik: yes. chairman asked for, notification various embassy construction projects.

that was a very clear direction from the chairman. we were able to respond to that in a few weeks. then if anyone wanted more or different we can go on from there. i feel like that is the constructively to work with this committee. not that we are balancing many requests. many more than we frankly can deal with in a very constructive way. we will get the better. we are getting better. they will be less frustration if we can go over the plan. i recognizeffetz: the gentleman from new york -- gentlewoman from new york. prophetess, -- my apologies, we now recognize for five minutes.

>> i want to visit with you about the waters of the u.s.. when you give your testimony, you called it clean water rule. that was a new moniker that was given to that rule. over the christmas holiday. in full knowledge that it was always called that rule and has been so thoroughly rejected by the people of this country. that caused the new name. one of the reasons you are here today is because even though your agency is exhausted from the work you had to do. smallit, you are a agency, and that was an enormous

legislation. but they would not even speak to congress about the omnibus until the first agree to strip from thatbill all of the riders had to do with policy including our decision to not fund the waters of the u.s. rule. this is the position administration took on that rule. easily one of the top 10 worst rules that has been adopted during the course of this administration. in fact, so bad that a federal district court blocked the rule in 13 states, calling it an exceptionally expansive interpretation of federal jurisdiction. that would irreparably diminish the state power over their waters. thes so serious that covercircuit expanded to

the whole nation. this rule has the whole nation up in arms, which is why we want more information about it. we ask forand may 12 information about this rule. 4th, no documents were produced. signed -- notter documents were produced. subpoenaedittee these documents. we requested all documents and communications referring to the rule. a few documents were reduced -- produced, many of which were a printed copy of the rule. october 28, a letter was signed by this chairman, and others, and there has been no response.

that is the reason you're here today. when afrustrated that rule that is this expansive and this provocative of states's promulgated, and the administration would even talk to us, to congress. and the, having all of those stayedsue to have it that we can get the information we are requesting but how this rule came about from the get go. question, has it searched those whoof all worked on this rulemaking? ms. fucile: as part of our search process we are in the

process of going through all of the documents related to the review of the orders of the u.s. and we are in process of that. as the request came in it was for a nine year. . 2014 so we6 until are going through that. >> how many custodians have you identified? ms. fucile: i don't have that information. would like to request, how many have you identified today? that is a request for information. asked all staff to produce copies of documents related to the waters of the u.s. rulemaking? processle: the search has gone through identified

custodians, i don't know exactly who those are. i can find that out. >> i am requesting that. irawant to know whether the o toff has documents related the rulemaking. we want to know if they have produced all potentially responsive documents for review. ms. fucile: as i said before, we are continuing -- we certainly have not produced all documents. >> pursuant to those earlier requests, i renew those requests. chairman chaffetz: you committed to providing all of those documents? ms. fucile: we committed to providing the committee the issue that -- the information they need. chairman chaffetz: we decide what we need. will he provide all the documents?

why isn't that a simple yes? you can't say yes to that? we are committed to getting the committed the information you requested and going through all of these documents. that is a process long-standing practice between this administration and other administrations to make sure the documents are relevant and make rere that these documents adhe to privacy concerns. also come all the information you have given you so far has been complete without redaction. we are committed to this process. chairman chaffetz: i want to know if you're committed to giving us all the documents, yes or no? ms. fucile: we are committed to giving you the information you need, and continuing to produce documents. chairman chaffetz: why can't you just say yes or no? part of the problem is -- i personally don't know

what all the documents are. we are committed to getting you the documents. chairman chaffetz: when? we have increased our production responsive rate, i expect -- chairman chaffetz: you had enough information to actually peruse a rule, why can't you bring those underlying documents to congress? as the congresswoman pointed out, there is litigation that increases the amount of work that needs to go down and be done in terms of producing documents. we are committed, i expect we will continue to produce documents that will continue this month and next month. when is itaffetz: reasonable to give us the documents? i'm looking for a date. ms. fucile: i can't give you a date because the breadth of the request is so broad.

wow, this isfetz: what we're up against. i do recognize the gentlewoman from new york. >> about to thank the chairman and the ranking member and all the panelists today. i think we can all agree on a bipartisan way that congress has a right, and is essential that access to all the information it needs to provide proper oversight. i think we can all agree to that. but today's hearing seems to be focused on production delays by a few agencies for a handful of documents. although these agencies have produced large numbers of information to this committee. thatld like to suggest rather than suggesting that

executive agencies generally do not comply with congressional oversight requests, the facts show the exact opposite. and assistant secretary frifie ld, in your testimony you said in 2015 the state department 3000ded more than briefings and responded to more letters and appeared at 168 hearings. that is a staggering amount of response. it's almost amazing -- are these numbers correct? ms. frifield: yes, they are correct. >> you also said the state department is responding to dozens of investigations again by a staggering nine different

committees. is that correct? ms. frifield: yes, it is. >> then you said this is twice as many as it was in 2014, is that correct? ms. frifield: yes. according to our records come out committee held a 90 hearings last year. those agencies were testifying and playing a crucial role in 65 of them. my question to you, do you have time to do anything else after responding to all of these congressional responses and requests, and investigations, and hearings, and letters? it is a staggering amount of work. i thank you: it is, for acknowledging that. we take a lot of pride in what we do. is verythat it important. we are, in many ways, the advocate for you on the hill. we work with our agencies to make sure that people on the

hill get but they need. most of us come from a hill background. we understand the pressures and the demand on members of congress. our job is to make should they get what they need. certainly, with the state department and the crises around the world we know that congress is intimately involved in many aspects of those. our job is to make sure you have the information you need to make decisions very important decisions on everything going on. you do anything else but respond to congressional requests? ms. frifield: that is most of my job. >> 90% or 80%? ms. frifield: it is my entire job, pretty much. 100% of your job is to respond to congressional requests. in fact, more than 45 witnesses who testified last year came from the five departments represented today. that is aware that

happening? i guess you do. this committee received more from200 letter responses executive agencies in 2015, for example the committee sent about 60 letters to the department of justice and received 28 responses. does that sound about right? mr. kadzik: yes it does. >> again, that it is staggering amount of work. the big provide information on topics from immigration and visas to water and transportation security. during the investigation the secret service who received 17 briefings and transcribed interviews. director clancy's testimony we received twice, more than 15,000 fous of documents and

interviews. r in camera. my understanding is that the office management and budget has pages ofmore than 9000 documents in response to the committee and response to this -- more than this committee, but it has repeatedly asked that this committee for further guidance. does that sound about right to you? >> that does. is continuing to produce documents from is the correct? ms. fucile: correct. >> today's hearing also highlights requests the committee has made to the office of personnel management, and director levine, opm has produce responsive documents to each of these requests. and there's continuing to do that. is that correct? yes, that is

correct. i want to congratulate you on responding to a staggering amount of requests. i know it is difficult to get it done as quickly and responsibly as you have. i want to thank you for your public service. chairman chaffetz: i recognize the gentleman from the carolina. on whatt to follow up you have been talking about. your characterization with my good friend mr. connolly troubles me. that becausecated of those in the wide breadth of the requests that is caused due to not fulfill what initially started out as a very simple request. so what you are indicating today is that you got no guidance from this committee on any

priorities? >> that is not what i stated. i did say we had no guidance. it is very wide. >> so you have gotten guidance. ms. fucile: and i would say in one instance when we got guidance we were able to respond very successfully. asked us for information about personal e-mails and we responded to that. that kind of give-and-take -- me go, i have five minutes. it was a going to bring this up. this is the entire response that we got from omb with regard to two letters and a subpoena. the problem i have with it, all of this is either the proposed role of what could be found this isand in 10 months all that we have gotten from you. i went through and most of this is duplicates. is this the best you can do?

>> a lot of the communication between senior officials has to deal with comments on iterations of the rule. we include the iterations of those. >> this is an e-mail chain. let me just tell you what offends me. we send you a simple request, thingsat you give us his and we can get our own staff to look up. question to you, as a follow-up what the chairman throughat have you -- your? process -- decided not to give this committee ms. fucile: we have not decided not to give this committee anything. >> you decided to give us anything you look at? is that your testimony? ms. fucile: the documents we have reviewed be have turned over. other ones remain in process. i said earlier we will provide

more documents this coming month. we have not redacted anything. >> that is not true. ms. fucile: e-mails is what has been redacted. >> i have read all of the e-mails. you atam suggesting to this particular point is -- what theory would you invoke to not give this committee the documents that regard this rulemaking? ms. fucile: we have not said we are not giving you documents. we have given every document. >> so you're going to give us all the documents? it is a simple question. are you going to give us all the documents? ms. fucile: the more direction we have in terms of what is more helpful to more responsive -- we will continue to provide the committee that it requests. >> so the answer is no.

either you will give us all the documents or the other side is what would be the rationale to not get this committee documents. yes noor no? ms. fucile: i don't want to speak documents i haven't seen. me suggest there is no reason to give the committee all the documents. there is no reason. unless you can testify -- ms. fucile: because under litigation there are lots of be concerned about. the results of we need to make sure there is nothing in documents -- can we count on all responsive documents every three weeks. can we get responsive documents on a regular basis? you have four custodians, two of them haven't given us anything. can we count on that on a three-week basis? is that reasonable?

i don't feel comfortable saying every three weeks. >> well you don't feel comfortable, i am not going to give up on this. you just need to tell your staff are not going to give up on it. simple requests are think that you can get done very quickly. we talked about these overstays. there is an internal document that has a number of these overstays,- visa that document to be produced within 24 hours. are you willing to produce a document to this committee? ms. johnson: congressman, the ofretary is keenly aware this committee, and other committees desire for the visa overstays. i know that he put specific attention to getting a report completed. >> high don't want a report, i

want those documents. can you produce those documents and give them to this committee in short order within a week? or is there a national security concern? congressman, i honestly don't know what documents they are. >> where both people have a knowledge that our internal documents that has the number of these overstays on it. an internal document that you could produce within a week. are you willing to produce that? ms. johnson: i'm not prepared to say that. if we have a request -- >> you do. report wen: well, the admit is overdue. and the secretary is committed to getting that out. going to make that official request that i would like within seven days those internal documents which should be only a few pages submitted to

this committee with the number of overstays, unless there is a national security concern. ms. johnson: i have never seen the documents. >> let me, i've been watching try to answer these questions. it seems as if there is something blocking you from being able to give a definitive answer. out,ust trying to figure are you the appropriate person we should be asking? i don't know -- whether you have to report to a higher authority, whether there s you have to go through. in fairness to the committee and efficiency, is there somebody else we need to be asking? do you follow me?

>> i understand your question. my hesitancy is more about making a commitment to something in the abstract while i'm under of that i just don't know about -- oath that i just don't know about. we haven't withheld anything for that production hasn't been fast enough. it can and should be better. but i'm not saying we will not produce all the documents because we will hide and that but i do want to get myself in trouble by promising something in that there was some issue that right now i don't know anything about. >> that makes sense. that makes a lot of sense. i can tell you if you make a commitment, then don't keep a commitment, you will catch pr oblems. that makes sense. i was just wondering.

>> before the gentleman yields back, the concern here is mr. meadows first made his request in march of last year. you're here is we still don't have this information. that is why you have this whole committee frustrated. do you understand that? ms. fucile: certainly, i appreciate that. i admit our production is not been fast enough. we will do better. chairman chaffetz: just turn on the photocopier. ms. fucile: it doesn't work that way. the search process doesn't work that way. chairman chaffetz: you have enough material to make a rule but if somebody comes to the conclusion -- we want to see that information. ms. fucile: and i have committed we will work to get you that. i'm here to help, chairman chaffetz: you are very nice person, but we're not seeing the results. you cited aing,

couple of times that there are different stakeholders. that is causing some delay. , whatntioned litigation does that have to do with congress is right to review documents? ms. fucile: with any document arearch, different equities given the opportunity to make sure there is a sensitive matter we are not aware of. that is our standard practice. chairman chaffetz: what is it you believe congress should not look at? ms. fucile: we haven't had that anything should not be looked at. we haven't said no to turning anything over. chairman chaffetz: then why not give us everything? ms. fucile: we are working on that, it is an incredibly broad subpoena. chairman chaffetz: you give us handfuls of documents.

when we were the most successful was roomy had a conversation with your staff. we have been asking for meetings with your staff and until yesterday they weren't available. chairman chaffetz: that is not true. ms. fucile: it is true. chairman chaffetz: you are infuriating. this is infuriating. this request came in march. here we are turning in the new year. you one more time, then we would go to mr. cartwright. articulate for me what you .elieve congress should not see ms. fucile: we have not said that you cannot see anything. it has been no document we haven't given you that we have looked at. chairman chaffetz: and why not give it to us? you haven't -- have you give us all the documents at march? ms. fucile: i have said the

document request is still outstanding. i said i will work with you even more. i cannot do more than that. chairman chaffetz: you actually can come and you're not. >> mr. levine, i had some questions for you. you're the director of the office of congressional legislative and intergovernmental affairs. mr. levine: yes. >> thank you for being here today. i think you are nice, and sweet too. mr. levine: i appreciate that, so does my family. >> i am particularly interested in opm because we had a data breach. we had a couple of significant breaches that impact that really millions of current and former federal employees.

this committee has been investigated in the process of those breaches with the goal of has the that opm necessary tools to prevent this kind of thing from happening. part of the investigation this committee sent formal requests for documents for information. hasf today, i know that opm produced documents responsive to each of the requests. my correct -- am i correct? ms. johnson: yes. >> is that what you spend the majority of your time doing as well? mr. levine: yes, i would say the overwhelming majority of the time has been in the area of responding to both in respect to andcongressional requests others. as well as providing information to members in the case workers in the desert -- district

offices. >> one of the things that we did in addition to asking for we also asked contractors. you are aware of that, right? had the key point to ceo in here for a hearing not too long ago, a gentleman to admitted that he point was -- keypoint was responsible. just to make it clear, is that part of your document request response? or is that there's a separately? mr. levine: i don't believe it is. >> i didn't think so, either.

that begs the question are you aware of why either the ceo of beenint or anyone has not having takentify index is a five months to respond? are you aware why we didn't get a request from this committee? mr. levine: i am not aware. >> i am not either. i am concerned about that. committeebefore this the people who have responded. my understanding that keypoint has still not responded to all the requests. are you aware of any reason why they should not ever spotted 100% to our document request? mr. levine: i am not. >> what about opm? has opm documents

produced? mr. levine: i want to say in the thousands, probably over 5000. what we tried to do to the chairman's request is focus on the ones that were the most responsive to provide that information. >> has opm ever taken the position that they will no longer respond to this committee's request? mr. levine: no. course ofthe identifying and gathering in producing documents, can you tell us what challenges -- and during the course of identifying and gathering and producing documents, can he tells what challenges you faced? are avine: i think they small agency that in the past been challenged with

this level of document production. recently did not have the infrastructure in place whether simply staffing level to produce document. in this way, the priority of the agency, since the breaches has withon being responsive respect to document request, as well as information about the services. it has been a combination. there have been delays. we would like to do things out of quickly as we can. we have been moderately successful. i think it speaks to the volume

and lack of preparedness for the volume. >> i thank you for your testimony. i thank you for your efforts in complying with these great gust -- requests. thank you for working with us to make sure these data breaches do not happen again. i yield.haffetz: >> on the summer 21st, the chart and -- the department of justice and a letter to state and local law enforcement with no warning in deferring payments. i would like to submit this letter. chairman chaffetz: accepted. >> we depend on these funds. thesel the rug from under

law enforcers without warning is preposterous. is as effective the -- effective immediately, the department defer all equitable payments to the state, local, earners and transfer any items for official use. why would the department of justice with no warning on december 21 day program is either -- it is not safe what degree. can you explain? quickly understanding is the funds that were part of that program were reallocated by congress in the budget. there was no money to distribute. according to this, it says it was a decision by the department of justice. i will come back to that. sheriffsof shares, -- talk about what happened in november 2015, mr. shea fits submitted -- mr. chairman shea

fits submitted a number of records. --dominantly a sheriff and in our district, concerning how the department of justice has terminated to refuse or renew grants to local police department space on allegations of discrimination. these questions seek to learn how often and under what circumstances these grants have been made. did you receive these? >> i believe we did not. >> what was the submitted response? >> my understanding is those responses are being prepared now and will be submitted probably. >> -- submitted promptly. >> what is the timeframe? >> i would be happy to get back. vets them? >> the various people in the department.

sk, i wouldo a like to follow-up on the answers that you are saying you will probably provide. is there a mechanism in place to submit to how that works. quickly could submit to the attorney general army. -- >> he could submit it to the attorney general or me. outstanding ones, we will respond to the ones there. asking the same question does not make it easier. >> do you consider it part of your mission to be helpful to the members of congress. >> absolutely. >> i want to conclude with this question, when you say prompt, can you give me a timeline? two weeks, four weeks, months? this is then that's been going on for seven years. -- this has been going on for seven years. recently the department of justice made a decision, no

wrongdoing. the friday before he was supposed to get it, though department of justice appealed this decision. what is promptly mean? >> i don't recall the volume of what we received. i will try to provide a timeline. cooksey he will try to provide a timeline on when you could respond. that is what frustrates us. the ambiguity. sit, maybe end of january, first of february. to me that is prompt. use of the word prompt. response that i can let this sheriff who has gone through seven years of hell, get past this and get his grant for defensive weapons were his deputies, officers, so he can protect the community. what is a prompt response?

>> not familiar with the particular question that was ask or the circumstances, i cannot tell you for cicely what that would be. as i said, i would be happy to go back and in higher -- inquire on the status. >> maybe it is best not to use the word prompt. german shepherd -- chairman: recognize the ranking member. >> with regard to mr. walker's request, one of the things that happens in congress sadly is that in order for us to get answers we have to wait until people like you get before us. it should not be that way. we should really get the answers. all of us have been in the position of mr. walker. it is very frustrating. when he goes back to his district, his people will say, i thought you on c-span, you had

the people before you, what did they say? i guarantee you. by the time he gets to his office he will have somebody calling. somebody is going to say thank you. they will say thank you for raising it. then they will say did you have a conversation afterwards? to make that a priority. thank you. -- the stateretary department faces huge challenges with document management systems. you heard my complaints. that has been decades-old. previous of administrations, wouldn't you agree? >> yes, sir. documentseciate the from last year. however, there is no denying some responses have taken wanted

than you or we would like. you have your own significant professional experience on capitol hill. is that right? you are familiar with the information demands that congress has come is that right? >> yes. bossu could get no better than the senator. her standards are extreme lehigh, when to agree? -- wouldn't you agree? >> absolutely. >> the standards are not ideal. your position as the head of legislative affairs of the state department, you have the ability to talk to secretary kerry about the challenges you face. >> yes. >> have you done that? >> yes. >> heavy proposed changes to the current systems, if so, what is the risk of? -- response? >> yes, we have created a holy system. -- a whole new system.

we have gotten support from the state department and secretary to do so. it is only recently up and running. we are working out some of the kinks. i am hoping this will transform the way we can respond to congress and enable it us to do it in a quicker and more convenient way. more of this century than the way we used to do it. >> did you propose creating a congressional document production branch? >> yes >> can you tell it more about why you wanted this new unit in what your vision is? >> it enables us to computerize and make it more technologically happy -- technologically savvy system of collecting document. we sat to compete for resources with others. now we have separate entities which is able to help us process just documents are congress. >> how did that help you?

>> it is the first major step in the process of collecting documents. physically collect them, collate them, number them come and get them ready. that makes the whole early part of the process much easier. it is not entire process. if i could also say, sir, the secretary recognizing larger issues we have with some of the information management. asked the oighe to do a report on how we do our record management. he also appointed a transparency coordinator, former ambassador, who is actually helping a simple that the changes across the board. we are hoping that we are able to edelman changes that make it better in our system and congressional production system. >> you said you had document production systems more accessible. can you briefly explain the technology in the process changes. . >> yes.

for many years we would provide them on paper inboxes there were a number. staff had to dig through what they were looking for. now it is more professional on disks. >> would you agree there is a lot more work to be done? >> absolutely. >> i just want to be effective and efficient. i tell my staff to work -- two words they control everything, effective and efficient. we have a limited amount of time to do the job we need to do. we just want to get it done. if there are deficiencies in your operation, please, try to address them. are there things we can do? are there things you would like to see us do other than the things i've already talked about. -- talked about, it seems are there things we can do to help you do your job so we can do our job?

anyone? speak now or forever hold your peace. >> thank you. theou specifically noted ability to work with your staff and the chairman's staff and committee's staff on prioritizing the information they can be the most helpful for you and them is the most helpful step that you can provide us as we work through requests. we appreciate when they have done that. we can -- we hope we continue the dialogue. >> anyone else? mrs. johnson? ms. johnson: the same thing. the most example thing we did with the secret service request was coming back to the committee. asking you to prioritize the 18 categories. you identified four. we immediately searched and produced on those. yes, the constant dialogue between our offices and your staff is extremely important.

a collaborative spirit is important. whatever we can do to try to narrow and focus the request allows us to do the searches, to do the reviews, and produce documents faster. >> i would echoed the comments of my colleagues. the narrowing, limiting, and prioritizing to help us. -- do help us. >> as i said in my opening hadement, i believe we have a cooperative relationship with the committee. we look forward to committing the dialogue -- continuing that dialogue. that will make us more effective and efficient. chairman: now recognized settlement from alabama -- recognize the gentleman from alabama. year,june 19 of last senator mark warner's office, maybe was 2013, no, toy 14 --

2014, his office and a letter to opium questioning the agencies monitoring contract. it appears from our records that his office received a reply four days later on june 23. however when this committee sent a letter requesting information, the committee did not receive a response until one month later, which incidentally was 17 days overdue. what i want to know, what accounted for the extended time it took to respond to this committee, versus the >> turnaround -- the faster around for senator warner's office. do we need to assess the senator to get a timely response -- ask the senator to get a timely response? mr. levine: with respect to

senator warner's letter, if i understand correctly, two major differences, one, it was not a request for documents, it was a request for information. >> words? mr. levine: no, the large distinction being that the senator asked for information, and we provided it. >> do you prioritize certain requests? do you get -- give more priority with certain individuals or agencies than others? let me just tell you, i have sat here for an hour and a half, two hours, listening to this. mr. meadows from north carolina, and his discussion about the lack of response from the office

of management but should -- budget. i have to question whether or guys respect the constitutional authority that is in this committee. oversight.ibility is we owed it to the american people. i have heard example after example today of how your agencies continue to impede this committee's ability to carry out our oversight response abilities . there a pattern here, mr. chairman. was a member of congress, before in this committee -- before i was in this committee, there was a -- 47 others 42, is that correct, mr. chairman? in their letter, i believe this

is unprecedented. the oig office seleka had to send a letter to this committee because federal agencies were impeding investigations i withholding documents -- by withholding documents. it seems to me that's continuing now. if this were a department of , if the department of justice sent out a request for documents in an effort to do due diligence investigating an issue, i doubt seriously the department justice would look kindly upon the kind of delays this committee has expanse. -- experienced. i daresay, they might even issue a wore it. -- warrant. they would probably rise to the level of obstruction of justice.

to delay is to destruct, in my -- obstructed in my opinion. obstruct, in my opinion. mr. chairman has requested time and time again for documents. -- itms to me you think appears to me you have been very well coached and how to respond to these requests. it appears to me, mr. chairman, they have no intention of producing the documents. that is frustrating. it is a violation of the public trust. i yield back. chairman: now recognize the gentleman from florida. >> thank you. the chairman and myself have sent a letter to the justice department in december requesting the case file for the prosecution. forever the end of the

month, we have not received it, not a surprise, given what people have said. i wanted to ask, will be department produce the case file? >> we are willing to come in brief on the issue. presenting prosecution files present particular law enforcement sensitivities. i know the issue that you and the chairman are interested in is whether or not they have selective prosecution. >> there are a number of issues we would like to review. we want to get prompt responses. we don't want this to turn into the irs or some other investigations that have been stonewalled to death. the case is over. there is no ongoing investigation. the sentence has been served. clearly, we have a public interest in conducting oversight on how the department is doing its job. we fund your agency. i think we are entitled to the

files. we don't want the briefing, we want files. will you produce those? >> i would be happy to take that back. as i indicated, the particular sensitivities -- >> such as? >> the names of witnesses, individuals who cooperated. there is the internal deliberations of the prosecutors. >> basically if a prosecutor did have illicit motivation, we are not entitled. the public will never know whether someone had ill intent when they were providing cases. is that what you're saying? >> no. >> how they discover the truth? >> if i could finish, if that issue is raised before the court, and the court says they did not provide evidence. >> because the defense did not have access to what we are trying to seek access to. as i understand, it was in the middle of the case there was an

adversarial system. you start getting into strategy, that is not the way the system functions. that ship has sailed. the case is over, and the books. prosecute, felony, served the sentence. the whole argument is gone. the interest is done. it is your view that -- you talk about law enforcement sensitivities. does that trump a subpoena from the congress. case file,t get the obviously through the request, then we may issue a subpoena from the committee. >> as i said, we would like to find a way to accommodate the committee and provide information it needs. the first step would be everything so you can ask questions and receive information. then we could see what further accommodations would be necessary. when can youan -- let us know what the decision on the file is? sking when you can

produce it. i assume you employee interns who could make copies. when can you let us know when you will respond to the committee? >> i think we can respond to the next two to three weeks. >> i don't think it should take three weeks. i think we would like an answer towards the third week of this month. if we don't get back, then we will continue to press the issue. i look around, i hear the stories -- at the end of the day, it is not members of congress being stonewalled, it is the american people. our constituents asking about about things. they come and see a government that totally is unresponsive. the government is difficult to get answers from. i don't think that is the way the system was designed. we will wait for that response.

we will be in contact one way or the other. i'll back. -- i yield back the balance. chairman: i do appreciate your personal responsiveness. i would expect the highest standards of responsiveness given your expertise and approach. toquestion is in follow-up his, if the inspector general was to come and look at the case file, what would they not be entitled to look at in your opinion? but i am no expert on the general -- a thicker general, my -- inspector is general, my understanding is, in the present state of the law, the only possible information it would potentially that -- that would potentially be excluded is grand jury information protected by wiretap.

i believe the fair credit reporting act protection protects information. chairman: for memories of the committee, that is something we need to look at more broadly. we are the oversight committee. we are charged by the constitution to provide that oversight. we should have access to at least the same amount of information. i have a series of specific things i need to go through. we will work to wrap this up. fucile, we put in a request for transcribed interviews. you have not responded. tell me why i should not issue a subpoena? fucile: the request for transcribed interviews has been

taken back. my understanding is not all of those folks work there. chairman: if your response is they don't work here, i could find them somewhere else. i think it is more complicated. there are people that work there that we want to have interviews. they are trying to avoid subpoenas. i have done about a dozen or so. you leave us with no choice. i hope you understand that. i hope you take that back. week can you respond? fucile: we will follow up with in the week. chairman: thank you. mrs. johnson, let me give you background, there were a series of problems and challenges of the secret service. and if so that secretary johnson put together a protective mission panel. people from the outside came in and let.

secret service and homeland security the information, and they produced a very important and signal picket -- significant document. i was impressed with their conclusions and the depths of their work in such a short amount of time. in fact to me, i thought, that is what we aspire to do. my understanding is, you provided them -- homeland security provided that panel pretty much anything and everything they wanted in order to get information for the secretary. here we are in congress trying to have the same type of responsiveness, and one of the things that we asked for in february of 2015 was -- this is -- i thought this was the easiest of all the requests, if that all documents and indications were produced to the recent protected mission panel which operated until december 2014. that is photocopying.

there was a set of materials but together, given to the protective mission panel, we wanted to see that same thing. yet, we did not get anything, nothing. you gave us nothing until we got to june when i had to issue a subpoena. why is that? why would you not provide this to congress? why did i have to issue a subpoena? microphone. johnson: that predates me coming in as assistant secretary. i am not sure what was the result -- i am not sure why there was the delay. i am looking at my chart, i know that the majority of documents have been produced and made available. chairman: why not all of them? you produced all of them to the panel. why are you holding stuff back from us? miss johnson: chairman, i cannot answer the question because i do not know it has been produced.

all of that occurred before he became the assistant secretary. chairman: we get the answer? -- will you get the answer? i think it is reasonable. we want the panel to come up with the best possible recommendations for the president of the united states and best recommendations for the homeland security, you given document. i want to make sure we are performing at that same level. we want the same documents. do you want funding for the american people? there are all sorts of things. you only given this image of it -- you only gave a percentage of it. us.are holding back from it is not reasonable. miss johnson: i will take that back. as i said, it is my understanding the majority of documents have been produced. we are currently still producing them. i will take that back. chairman: i think you are accurate.

i take you at your word come and look forward to seeing it. the frustration is, this has been going on since february of last year. we talking one year, and we still have them. it has been a year. -- we still do not have them. it has been a year. we issued a subpoena. i did this jointly with the democrats. this is a bipartisan request, you still have not settled it. -- the filled. -- fufilled it. september 23, john mica and die, the chairman of the sick -- subcommittee on transportation sent a request on airport i did a vacation -- i to navigation. five requests, not a single document. wife? hy? i mention this earlier. they will be producing the documents fairly shortly. chairman: ok.

let's go to the state department, if i could. we're trying to wrap this up. ,e had four members of congress myself, elijah cummings, stephen lynch, bipartisan request on october 16 for a bipartisan danger pay. it was not a long request. barely a page and a half. two requests, i don't have a single document from you. >> we have provided a briefing. we are preparing the documents and hope to have been delivered in the near future. chairman: i have a series of other things. my last bit of frustration with noticede department, we this hearing, and suddenly the -- breaksrakes open open. we got 2300 pages on a congressional certification. out letter that

was nearly two months old. last night, after hours you gave us 3958 documents related to the saudi facilities. some of these requests are old. i mean really old. mysteriously, we get them the night before his hearing. -- this hearing. it leads me to believe, we have to do this on a weekly or bimonthly basis. it is really hard for us to understand. i would rather not even hold his hearing. i don't want to have to hold it again. can you understand that? >> i absolutely do. we were discussing it. in your letter you very clearly articulated what where your priorities. we had been focusing on jakarta. we thought we would get as much done with that first. you say you have five you want us to do at the same time. chairman: it was in august.

that was in august. we got at the night before. october 7, we didn't get that. when will you get those? >> we have given you a few documents, but we are briefing and continuing to gather them. chairman: i guess we got as last night. i need to get to the floor. we have some things happening there. i appreciate the member participation. please know there are a lot of good people in your organization's. s. we appreciate the good work. so much happens the right way, but it is these headaches that we have to figure out. we appreciate your participation today. this committee stands adjourned. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy.

visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] 6] announcer: on the next washington journal, massachusetts congressman jim mcgovern discusses a recent report on hunger and federal nutrition assistant programs. after that louis gomer with the organ militia standoff. calls him ahone

facebook comments comment week. all on washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on seas and -- th c-span. >> we need to know how many people are reading us. we need to know how they are coming to us. if they are not coming direct me to the website, they are coming through based occurred google or twitter or or reddit, weat should know that. q&a,ncer: sunday night on washington post editor talks about the changes and he took over in 2013. he also discusses the depiction of his work as editor in chief of the boston globe in the movie, spotlight. >> i think the movie is faithful to the broad outline of how the investigation unfolded. i think it is important to keep in mind it is a movie, not a document or he. eat -- not a document or a. you had to include a seven month plus investigation.

you have to introduce characters and themes that emerged the course of the investigation. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on q&a. students around the country are studentcamc-span's documentary project. they are telling us the issues they want the president to discuss. we're following a month -- a media -- social media. is a tweet, canterbury fort wayne eighth-grade students were excited to hear real ben carson address them. another one, a principal at eastern middle school tweeted, this week two ems students interviewed eric holder for their project to allow. tweeted i waskus interviewed earlier by students for their c-span project. there's $100,000 in prizes with a grand prize of five --

$500,000. the winners will be announced on march 9. for more information visit our website, student cam.org. announcer: at a campaign event in meredith, new hampshire, public and candidate carly fiorina answer questions from voters about gun control, abortion, and her chances in the general election. this is an hour and 20 minutes. s president carly fiorini. [applause] >> thank you so much. thank you and good evening. all the people who supported me and thank you so much ladies and gentlemen who work so hard to put this event together. i have so much to thank the people of new hampshire four. when i watch my candidacy on may 4 i was 17 other 16.

the pollsters did not even asked my name. literally. they did not ask my name because less than 3 percent of you had ever heard of me. everybody wrote me off. you the citizens of new hampshire actually take your responsibilities very seriously. you came and listen the main dining rooms and living rooms and community centers and diners and you carry me this far. thank you for giving me an opportunity to talk with you. [applause] now i hope you are going to carry me all the way. the citizens of new hampshire think it is your job to that candidates. i have to thank you for something else as well. it is here in new hampshire were 1st started thinking about running for president.

i was giving a speech, it was the summer of 2014. i was at her recalled. and before i gave this speech i sat down at the lunch table to eat and this gentleman came up to me. he was a tiny bit hostile and said i am not going to agree with you. why is that? well, i'm a democrat. you might be surprised. i gave a speech said they on human potential. it is the only limitless resource we have. it is the only resource we need to solve every problem. most people have far more potential than they realize. this nation is extraordinary and has always been exceptional because more thinks have been more possible for more people for more places here than anywhere else. at the end of the speech this gentleman came up to me again and looked at me and said amen. and then he said this, you

know, we all think of ourselves as a nation of limitless possibility more. limitless possibility. this is always been a nation possibility. something is very hard to do. this is always valued merit hard work. we never accepted the way things were. they focused and achieved what should be a notice been a nation of limitless possibility.

the business, done charity, and policy work and keep the aware. it was only in this nation typing in filing in the middle of a deep recession only 70s. become the chief executive and run for the presidency. [applause] i have had people come to me and say settle down. down challenge the status quo, except the way things are.

sit down and be quiet. don't rock the boat. just settle. and i refuse to accept that advice all my life. i am running for the presidency of the united states because i think thei think the american people are being given the same advice and ii think we have been getting the same advice for too long. sit down, settle, don't challenge. why ladies and gentlemen should resettle for a nation where record numbers of men out of work? why should resettle for a nation where record numbers of women are living in poverty comeau why should resettle for a nation where young people are no longer sure the american dream applies to them, why settle for working families whose wages have stagnated for decades now, why should resettle for a nation we are literally destroying more small businesses every day that we are creating and with those small businesses that are going under, the

entrepreneurial spirit and a job creating ability of this great nation. the reality that all that is going on the rich get richer, the powerful get more powerful. wildly settling for government that no longer serves the people pay for it but instead serves itself for protect itself pictures and nourishes itself. the vast plymouth rock that has become so inept and so corrupt it can no longer care for veterans, it can no longer and is in securing our border, keeping our nation safe. why should resettle for a professional political class of both parties, people who spend their entire life running and winning, running a winning saying what they need to say in the drawing

rooms of manhattan by the dining rooms of ireland say whatever it takes to win and doing exactly as they please. and why should resettle for an establishment in a media that the size they get to pick the cannabis,canvas, decide who you hear from instead of allowing you to do your job as the 1st in the nation primary and that and when all the candidates. if i sound angry it is because i am and you are too. americans feel as though we are powerless. powerless to control our own futures got powerless to hold the government accountable and cut it down to size. and yet we have enormous power, but we are not using it. you see, every problem that we have solved, and all of our in the field that we can only do this if you remember

who we are. ours was intended to be a citizen government. we know in our bones that power dispersed in the hands of the many is always more confident, more compassionate, more wise, more just than power concentrated in the hands of the few. i am running for the presidency of the united states as i believe it is my calling to return this nation to a citizen government, running for the presidency because i think it is time. citizens, it is time to take a future back. it is time to take a politics back. it is time to take our government back. it is time to take our country back. [applause] >> this is why i have rolled out my blueprint.

it is a statement of commitment to you the citizens of this great nation, a set of things that we must do 1st to restore possibilities in the nation, to cut the government down to size, to restore the character of our nation what to protect our nation and keep americans safe, and i want you to hold me accountable for this. i have to stop and tells you an interesting story. a rather seasoned political reporter said you are not used to level of accountability. i should really -- is a chief executive our executive you know what i have to do every 90 days, stand up and report results in excruciating detail an

answer every single question in public and the project forward but we were going to do in excruciating detail. if i misrepresented those results of projections i will be held criminally liable. imagine if we all politicians to that standard. [applause] you see, i come from the same world you do. we actually know that actions speak louder than words.words. we know that if you say your going to do something you better do it and that we judge the content of people's character not by what they say below what they do. i rolled out the blueprint because i want you to hold me accountable and come back in january of 2018 and ask you how am i doing. these are not the only thing you must do, but they are

the 1st things we must do. wedo. we have to live the burden of an incredibly complicated tax code for 73,000 pages., 73,000 pages. that is where tax code looks like today. let me ask you something. you understand the tax code. no, i do not. my dad was a professor of tax law. it will books the federal tax law. i will never forget my dad would say. the tax code is how government exercise power, and that is right. 73,000 pages of the tax code crushes the small on the powerless and elevates the big in the powerful. we got to go from 73,000 down to three. we have to change of the government takes your money.

they need to take less. now you know there is a 20 -year-old plan. that is what we got to do. the pundits have said you can't do that. yes, we can. it has been sitting around for 20 years and never gets voted on. think about going from 73,003. i'm going to ask you to help me get that done. we go through 73,000 to three me quite as many irs agents. more than the cia and fbi combined. does that strike you as a problem? you bet. ask yourself this, how is it

possible that every year the government spends more and more money under republicans and democrats alike and never has enough money to do the important things. how is that possible? we never have enough money. you know why? you know why we can't ever reprioritize? the way the federal government budgets all the money is spoken for. if you for. if you are a government agency and i give you money you never get it back. we actually have to force the government to budget the way that you do. examine every dollar. you can cut in a dollar, moving the dollar. that is how we do it. you know what that is called , fancy term for comments and subject. we will force the government to examine every dollar.

how are we going to get those things done? there is a bill for zero-based budgeting sitting on the floor the u.s. house. no one is voting on it. why? all those professional politicians, that rattled the cage, challenge the status quo. i'm going to use the power of the citizenry and how i will do that is walk into the oval office and ask you take out your smart devices, if you have a flip phone you might want to upgrade. just a suggestion. and i am going to say to you , do you think finally we should pass that bill? one for yes, to for now. there is map for citizen

government. technology is an incredibly powerful tool, and i will use it to harness your anger and frustration but more importantly your common sense and good judgment. and then the next thing i'm going to ask you is should we finally actually repeal obama care and replace it with a common sense healthcare system that will work? surely stand up and restore the character of this nation by protecting religious liberty, a principle upon which this nation was founded and religious liberty is under assault? should we finally quit talking about it and actually secure the border? how long have we been talking about this? twenty-five years. politicians will stand up and talk to you about their plan but somehow i just never gets done.

i am going to get it done and who will enforce a pro- american immigration system. we need to lead again in the world. we must start by defeating isys and be clear right about who are our allies and adversaries. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, we can do all these things. we can solve all these problems, heal all these wounds the 1st we have to beat hillary clinton. that is the 1st order of business. now, you might want to ask yourself, what does it take? we are not going to beat her with a nominee who routinely insults weapon and everyone else, not was someone who says one thing and one place and another thing and some other place, not with someone who is not tough enough to have the fight or

someone who does not have the experience to make a tough call because they have never made tough call. whether you have decided to support me yet are not, and i know the people of new hampshire take responsibility and i respect that. a lot of people say well, i have only seen you one time. or maybe i've only seen you twice. okay. i also know in your heart of hearts he cannot wait to see the debate between hillary clinton and carly fiorini. [applause] you know what's going to happen. besides all that you know what will happen. we have to win, ladies and gentlemen.

none of this that i'm talking about is going to be quick and easy. this is hard work. they can all be done. quick and easy is not in the american character they are prepared to do the heavy lifting. this is always been an exceptional nation. we believe profoundly and the value of every life. and we know in our bones power dispersed in the hands of many is far more competent, compassionate, competent, compassionate, wise, and just then power concentrated in the hands of a few. we need a pres. of the united states who

understands how the economy actually works so that we can get it going. i believe we need of president who understands how the world works and who is in it as well as some of our adversaries know our military and intelligence capability intimately and well. the need a president who understands bureaucracy. the federal government has joan and to have grown-- grown into one giant inept bureaucracy. she must understand technology. mrs. clinton, you don't wipe the server with the towel. yes indeed you can have more than one account on a device that technology is an incredibly powerful tool that i am going to use to restore power to you, but it is also a weapon. 11 that is being wielded against aspire enemy, and when it's a president who understands hundred do with that. perhaps the most important thing of all is we need a president who understands what leadership is.

when i was a secretary i thought this leader was whoever had the big office, whoever had the big title, or read the best parking space, whoever had the parks. and then i got a little older and wiser and learn that there were people with big offices, big titles, big egos who were not leading. leadership is not about the size or even the shape of your office, and it sure is not about the size. go. the highest calling of the leader is to unlock potential and others. i believe my highest calling is to restore a citizen government to this great nation. citizens, i am prepared to count on your common sense and good judgment. something going desperately wrong in the country. i am also prepared to count

on your courage and wisdom and fortitude to do what must be done now. i ask you to join me for stand with me, support me, vote for me because it is time to take our future back. it is time to take our politics back. it is time to check our government back. join me. it is time to take our country back. [applause] >> questions. >> the core principles i agree with. there are lots of republicans i don't agree with. the republican party is the party of abraham lincoln.

in order to win, in order to win we have to i think reintroduce conservative values and principles to the station. i was on the view. [laughter] i know. twice actually. ..

>> why are you she asked me? why are you? and that is the question we to answer to win. we have to attract others. i said rosie i am a republican because i know no one of us is better than any one of us. each of us are gifted by god. all of us have to capacity to live lives of dignity and purpose and i know our principles and values work better to lift people up. i will tell you we have had a lot of republican whose have gone against those principles. let's be honest, ladies and gentlemen, crony capitalism is alive and well in washington, d.c. and republicans are just as guilty as democrats.

when you become a member of the professional political class of either party you don't challenge the status quo. that is how under republicans and democrats alike our government has gotten bigger and bigger for 50 years and more complicated and what happens when government gets big and powerful and complicated? only the wealthy, powerful and big handleal it and the small and power less get crushed. when i say i am a republican i am a republican because i believe that people have the capacity to live lives of purpose and dignity. it is also you -- you can applaud. it is okay. it is rue whatever your party or affiliation and i have democrats and republicans and independents show up at my events but the american peopl