how much the brutality of the so-called islamic state has affected them. unfortunately, those yazidi women, girls who escaped have not got the kind of support that they need either. so there are many, many challenges. and there is no question that there is a widespread breakdown in trust. the yazidi community feel that those who have to protect them are not protecting them. so we have a big, big challenge. just to give you an example, basima, a 34-year-old mother is in indefinite detention by the kurdish regional government since 2014 because she is accused of complicity with the islamic state. so it's absolutely right that the islamic state is held to account for their crimes against the yazidi community. but also far beyond that. but we know for a fact that accountability cannot be partial. accountability of authority in iraq and syria is equally important because the crimes on the international law go far

beyond those committed by one or two actors. the case for example where 36 men in our view were executed after a flawed trial with confessions extracted under torture is one example of that. international authority should first and foremost ensure justice and ensure victims have access to remedies. but we're far from that situation. they're not able to do that. and sometimes they're not willing to do this. i raise this with prime minister abadi and with president barzani and the kurdish regional government. some of the perpetrators are also in syria. and so we shouldn't forget that this cuts across iraq and syria. international justice mechanisms are relevant. but we know that neither syria nor iraq has the commissioners just mentioned have ratified the statute. they should do that immediately and accept jurisdiction from 2002. the security council should stop playing politics and actually make sure that they take care of

their responsibilities. all governments should exercise universal jurisdiction over those commits crimes on international law. the hybrid court proposal is good as long as it's impartial and independent. and i wanted to say one thing in closing that the post daesh iraq that we're talking about will have to be survivor and victim-led. trust across all communities is very weak. we're talking about the yazidi communities here, but i think if we talk to the sunni community, i met many of the kurdish leaders in the kurdish region. i think there is a general feeling that this is a moment for the shias and the kurds to compensate for all the attacks they faced under the saddam regime. we cannot have this situation. and ultimately simon wants me to close now that we are sitting today here when the refugee and migrant summit is going on. and we cannot look at these issues as separate. if we treat this issue of -- we have to understand that those who are fleeing from war and persecution have to be treated with dignity and rights.

which countries should accept more refugees into their country. if we treat this as a war against islam and not the islamic state, then we're going to have a lot of trouble in the future. thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you, salil. i'm going to say my thank yous now. i thank the foreign ministers of iraq, belgium and uk. i'm going to give the floor to the u.n. special adviser on the prevention of genocide to provide concluding remarks. thank you, adama. >> i would like simply to echo some of the point that have already been made. before i do, i would like to pay tribute as i many have done to the immense bravery of nadia murad in the face of extreme traumatic events that led us to two years ago.

i think nadia is definitely an inspiration for all of us. it is clear from the statement that we have heard today that we all agree that there must be accountability for the brutal crimes committed by the so-called islamic state, by daesh. the investigation undertaken by the united nation have found that these crimes may cute wonse crimes against humanity and were part of a policy that communities based on their religious identity. we are also in agreement that while iraq has the primary responsibility to protect its populations, we owe member states, the united nations, the broader international community have a responsibility to assist and support the iraqi government in this regard. the responsibility to act is in

our hands. we owe this to the victims and the survivors who like nadia live with the scars of those events. taking step towards accountability for the crimes that have been committed against them cute a moral obligation to each one of the survivors. we owe this to all those who have suffered directly at the hands of daesh and those who have suffered indirectly as a result of daesh actions, both as individuals and as members of their communities. accountability is essential. and not only to hold the perpetrators to account and obtain justice for the victims, but also demonstrate to all communities whatever their ethnicity, race, or religious belief, that they have a future.

fighting is both about dealing with the past and about building solid foundation for the future. in iraq, the commissioner of serious violations that may constitute crimes has undermined the social fabric of the country. in syria, since the beginning of the conflict, rampant immupugni affords to end the conflict. accountability for is important to rebuild public trust in justice and institutions. reinstate the rule of law and prevent future crimes and violations. and i do hope sensibly that measures will be taken also so that the perpetrators of the serious crimes committed in syria are brought to justice. and it is urgent. today we have explored options for bringing perpetrators to justice.

i applaud the commitment expressed by minister al jaafari. your leadership on this matter is essential. national and international efforts can and should be complimentary. international support can serve to strengthen national capacity. in addition, efforts to strengthen mutual legal assistance and facilitate prosecution of perpetrators outside of iraq, whatever their nationality can contribute to national and international accountability process. your excellencies, there has been worldwide condemnation of the unspeakable acts committed by daesh. now we must work together. we must work together so that we can see the perpetrators of these acts are held to account. we owe this to nadia. we owe this to all the victim of

daesh wherever they are. and i look forward to working with you to take that commitment forward. and once again, i would like to thank all of you for your commitment. and i sincerely hope that all together in this room we will join hands and continue this fight against these criminals. >> thank you. >> thank you. [ applause ] >> foreign minister of iraq has just asked to very quickly just have a final word before we all leave the room. >> translator: i would like to express my thanks, my deepest thanks for your world of sympathy and support for all the suffering of iraq.

and we are deeply appreciative to you for your position. but solidarity is a first step. it's not enough. we need to have a working plan. because the crimes of isis have all encompassing. they covered all spheres of life and activity in iraq. i am speaking of some young girls, shiite young girls who have been burned alive, torched alive after being raped. these are unspeakable horrors. and we have to be extremely deliberate in our efforts. this is our civilization that is

at stake. this murderous group is trying, is not leaving any stone unturned in order to destroy the roots of our civilization. it is stepping up its barbaric acts. and that's why we also have to step up our efforts. and we have to enlist the help of the icc. we have not requested the setting up of a special tribunal so far. but i would like to enlist your help, all of you, in order to use the mechanism that we have at our disposal. without delay. thank you so much. >> thank you, everybody.

c-span's washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. and coming up tuesday morning, national journal hotline editor kyle trig stand will talk about 2016 and the chance that democrats will retake the house in november. and kay heimowitz, senior fellow and the the manhattan institute will be on to discuss hillary clinton and donald trump's proposed child care and family leave policies. be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal" tuesday morning. join the discussion. cia director john brennan moderates a discussion tuesday on intelligence and national security issues. he'll be joined by other foreign intelligence leaders at an all-day symposium hosted by george washington university. see that live at 1:15 p.m. eastern here on c-span3. and then texas congressman

michael mccaul holds a news briefing on counterterrorism efforts. he serves as the chair of the house homeland security committee. see that event live at 3:00 eastern. also tuesday, james clapper, the director of national intelligence looks at intelligence gathering and current national security threats. he'll sit down for an interview with david ignatius of "the washington post." and that will be live at 6:00 p.m. eastern, also here on c-span3. for campaign 2016, c-span continues on the road to the white house. >> we all want to get back to making america strong and great again. >> i am running for everyone working hard to support their families. everyone who has been knocked down but gets back up. >> ahead, live coverage of the presidential and vice presidential debates on c-span. the c-span radio app, and c-span.org.

monday, september 26th is the first presidential debate, live from hofstra university in hempstead, new york. then on tuesday, october 4th, vice presidential candidates governor mike pence and senator tim kaine debate at longwood university in farmville, virginia. and on sunday, october 9th, washington university in st. louis hosts the second presidential debate. leading up to the third and final debate between hillary clinton and donald trump. taking place at the university of nevada las vegas on october 19th. live coverage of the presidential and vice presidential debates on c-span. listen live on the free c-span radio app, or watch live or any time on demand at c-span.org. now the house oversight committee holds a hearing on the state department's response to freedom of information requests dealing with former secretary of state hillary clinton's e-mails. the hearing comes after chairman

jason chaffetz requested the justice department to hold another investigation into clinton e-mails deleted by a denver-based tech firm. the fbi decided not to press criminal charges after its own year-long investigation. this is three hours. >> oversight government reform will come to order. without objection authorized to declare a recess at any time. a very important hearing today. as you know, the committee has jurisdiction. they have jurisdiction on federal records. have jurisdiction on the freedom of information act, have jurisdiction on the national archives. it's a very important part of our process. we're unique in our nation. we are transparent. we do provide access to the american people for what they paid for. as you also know, secretary clinton served as the secretary of state from early 2009 through early 2013. but here is the problem. since 2009, there have been thousands of congressional

inquiries, thousands of foia requests, subpoenas, media inquiries. and if any of those required secretary clinton's federal records, ie her e-mails, there was not a way for those requests to be fulfilled. this has created a mess, a disaster for the people on the front line who have to deal with this. and we're thankful for the four people that serve the united states. they serve in the state department. we appreciate them being on this panel and having to deal with this mess that hillary clinton conveniently created for the state department on her way out the door. remember, when she left in early 2013, it wasn't until december 5th of 2014 closing in on two years later that secretary clinton returned 55,000 pages in hardcopy format to the state department. roughly six months later, this prompted ambassador kennedy to

ask for the electronic copies of these records. but later the fbi swooped in because they had been given by the inspector general, the inspector general had highlighted that there was classified information residing in a nonclassified situation with people who did not have the proper security clearance. inspector general found this. they did what they were supposed to do. they contacted the fbi. the fbi swoops in and they find thousands and thousands of additional e-mails, many of which were classified. most were not. most were unclassified. but they nevertheless found federal records, not just her e-mail, federal records and it's important to note that the severity of this. because the classification ranges everything from confidential to secret, top secret. you even have special access

programs. required a code word access. this information was found on there. i'm sure there will be discussion about how few they were. but there is a reason in this nation why we go to such great lengths to classify this information and make sure that the adversaries do not have access to it. to address this nightmare, the state department had allocated roughly in $200812.6 million to fulfill the foia requests. that has now soared to $33 million that the state department is having to use. unfortunately, they're using millions of dollars in lawsuits. now keep in mind what the state department is doing. they're using this taxpayer money to make sure that this information never gets out to the public. the public paid for this information. they have access to this information. and the federal government is suing to make sure that they don't get that. now fortunately, the state department keeps losing these lawsuits. that's why we start to get and

have this revealed. congressional inquiries sometimes are feckless, because state and others -- and it's not just the state department. i want to be fair. but state department is one of the worst from my vantage point in terms of providing documentation that we asked for and congressional inquiries. it's very frustrating. and now we're starting to realize why this information is so incomplete. because even the state department themselves didn't have hillary clinton's federal records during the four years that she served. and here we are in 2016 still trying to untangle this mess. and these people have to deal with this. you have people like the judicial watch and the associated press and others. you shouldn't have to go to court and sue in order to get access to information that should be readily available. under the freedom of information act, you're supposed to have a response within 20 days. but look at the kiss of the associated press. the associated press i believe was 2010 just asked for a simple

thing. show us hillary clinton's calendars. her calendars. they wait years for a response. they get a trickling of a little bit. they finally go to court. and even with the court, state department is saying we can't produce these. are you kidding me? her calendars? i'd like to see the hillary clinton's calendars. you're telling me you can't produce those? what is going on? so we have a duty. we have an obligation. hillary clinton created this mess. hillary clinton set up this convenient arrangement with herself. hillary clinton picked this timeline. i know people are going to say oh, it's the political season. i just got this information from the fbi. we are days, legislative days after this has happened. i flew in to go see and read the documents downstairs. and i tell you, we're going to move in a rapid pace no matter the political calendar. and we would be derelict in our

duty if we didn't do it. that's what we do in the oversight committee. it was founded in 1814. that's what we do. we oversee what happens in the executive branch. i do appreciate the four people that are here today. they have served this country and served it honorably. we appreciate their service to their country. they have been left a mess. we're trying to untangle it. all we ask that you do is share with us the truth and perspective as you see it. and that's what we're seeking. no matter what it, we just want to get to the truth. so let's recognize the ranking member, mr. cummings for his opening statement. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i want to make sure mr. kennedy and witnesses that as we address this mess and as we address this disaster as the chairman has

described it, and as we enter this hearing entitled "examining foia compliance at the department of state" that we make sure that we look at the entire problem. i want to know how far back it goes. and we are about the integrity of this committee. and truly addressing foia compliance will take a look and see what happened even before hillary clinton and what happened afterwards. integrity of the committee. integrity of what we are supposed to be about. integrity of using the taxpayers' dollars wisely.

so we might be effective and efficient in what we do. i wish i could say that i support today's hearing. but i think everyone in this room knows what is really going on here. this hearing is not about an effort to improve foia or federal record-keeping. this is an attack. an attack on hillary clinton's candidacy for president of the united states of america. and just the latest in a series of attacks. the republicans started with their discredit of benghazi investigation accusing secretary clinton of all kinds of unsubstantiated conspiracies.

when they turned up nothing, they just made up new accusations against hillary clinton. then when fbi director mr. comey sat in that very seat, in that witness chair and debunked those allegations, the republicans responded by attacking the fbi director and then making up more accusations against secretary clinton. when mr. comey came before us, i told him that unfortunately while at within time he was the darling of the republican party, now he was being placed on trial. chairman sent a perjury referral to the justice department that is ludicrous on its face.

then he sent another referral accusing secretary clinton of obstructing justice. these actions had their desired effect. they kept repeating the headline that hillary clinton is under investigation. over the next five days, this committee will hold three hearings, focused directly on hillary clinton. one today, one monday, and one tuesday. this frantic preelection fervor is an egregious abuse of taxpayer dollars for political purposes. today this hearing is supposed to be, supposed to be focused on

a report issued by the state department inspector general that highlighted long-standing challenges, long-standing. challenges. with foia across five different secretaries of state. yet the republicans splashed only one picture across the advisory they sent to the press. a picture of secretary clinton. the ig identified four of the challenges under secretaries albright, powell, rice, clinton, and kerry. but republican memo for today focused only on one. you guessed it. secretary clinton.

last night we obtained an e-mail in which secretary powell back in 2009 provided advice to secretary clinton on how to skirt security rules and bypass requirements to preserve federal records. although secretary clinton has made clear that she did not rely on this advice, in this e-mail, secretary powell appears to admit that he did it, did this himself. he also said he disregarded security warnings and used his personal mobile device inside the state department's secure space. now let me make it very clear. secretary powell is the man i admire greatly.

and i have tremendous respect for secretary powell and his decades of service to our nation, despite the poor judgment shown in this e-mail. however, rather than responding like republicans have done by making a series of frivolous criminal referrals just to generate headlines to help donald trump, our goal as a committee should be to ensure that historical record is complete. not limited to secretary clinton, but the other secretaries -- albright, powell, kerry. sent nongovernmental service at

aol and did not preserve these records. yet the republican memo focused only on the period between 2009 and 2013 when hillary clinton was secretary. this memo says the department, and i quote, lost an untold number of federal records due to inappropriate recordkeeping practices by secretary hillary clinton and her senior staff, end of quote. yet secretary clinton produced some 55,000 pages of e-mails while secretary powell has produced none. if we truly are concerned with preserving the entire historical record, why hasn't a committee sent a letter asking aol to see if any secretary powell's e-mails are recoverable?

the ig also reported that secretary powell sent classified information from his aol account. yet the committee has never asked aol to scan its systems, sequester national security information, or identify employees who may have had access to that information. on this final issue, classification i do believe our committee can play a constructive, a very constructive role. i want you to shed light on this, mr. kennedy. but only if we do it in a bipartisan way. this whole idea of classification. as part of our review so far, we have seen all kinds of ridiculous outcomes. we've seen agency as disagree on classification decisions. we've seen one agency say a document is classified, and another agency say a document is

not classified. we've seen unclassified documents suddenly become retroactively classified. we've seen documents with classification markings that were completely wrong. and we've seen documents that are explicitly marked unclassified become classified after the fact. i do not know how anyone can decipher this broken system. and there is no independent airporter within the executive branch to handle these kinds of issues. this is exactly the type across agency issue that our committee was intended to address. and i hope we can do so together in a bipartisan way, or we're going to find ourselves in these predicaments again and again and again where one agency says it's

classified. another one says it's not. retroactive today, wasn't before. and some kind of way, we need to address that, mr. kennedy. you've been around it long enough. and hopefully you and the others here can shed some light as to how we as a government oversight committee after all, we oversee state and intelligence and others trying to figure out how we can make sure that we avoid those clashes in the future. with that, mr. chairman, i thank you and i yield back. >> thank you the gentleman. hold the record open for five legislative days for any members who would like to submit a written statement, will now witness our witnesses. we're pleased to welcome the honorable patrick f. kennedy under secretary for management of the united states department of state. it is proper to address him i believe as ambassador. and my apologies that your name plate doesn't say that. but it should. the honorable janice jacobs is the transparency coordinator at

the united states department of state. ambassador, we thank you for being here as well. mr. karin lang is the director of the executive secretariat at the united states department of state. and mr. clarence finney jr., deputy director for correspondence, records and staffing division at secretariat at the united states department of state. we welcome you here as well. and thank you. i believe you've been in this role since 2006, correct? we welcome you all and thank you for being here. pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses are to be sworn before you testify. if you'll please rise and raise your right hands. thank you. do you solemnly swear or afrontal system that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. it's my understanding that you're all representatives from the department of state, that rather than giving individual

statements that ambassador kennedy will give one statement. we're very generous with our time here, ambassador, please feel free. the time is yours. >> thank you very much. chairman chaffetz, ranking member cummings, committee member, good morning. thank you for your invitation and your interest in foia. i appreciate the opportunity to discuss the state department's ongoing efforts to improve our foia process. i am joined today by my colleagues ambassador janice jacobs, director jacobs, director lang, and ambassador jacobs return the to the state department in 2015 to be the transparency coordinator. lang is the director of the executive secretary of staff, and among many speedometers, she is responsible for coordinating the executive secretary's response to foia requests, and clarence is one of ms. lang's deputies responsible for

matters. the state department is committed to openness and encouraging openness in u.s. foreign policy. two important efforts underscore commitment to openness. first, preserve a complete record of u.s. foreign policy under the federal records act, and secondly, our efforts to ensure that the american public can gain access to that record using the freedom of information act. it is clear to the committee, to us, and to anyone reading the news that the state department struggles with the volume of foia material. since 2008, our new foia requests rose 300% from 6,000 to over 24,000 requests per year. we face a backlog of approximately 30,000 requests, 17 direct requests to the state department, and 13,000 referrals from other agencies to the state department that need our response or contribution as well. i want to make clear that this backlog is not acceptable, and

we're working to reduce it. the rate of incoming cases is increasing, and many of these cases are increasingly complex. it is our experience that questioners come first to the state department to request information on any and all national security issues. these requests are a mixture of complex subject matters including terrorism, armed conflict, foreign government relations, security, and diplomacy. these complex requests require multiple searches throughout the state department and throughout often any of our 275 embassies, missions, and consulates around the globe, often due nto review as well as in-depth coordination with other federal agencies. the most common complaint received from the public is delays in receiving timely responses. our goal is toot everything we can to complete each request as

quickly as possible with as much response and information as we can and the foia staff works dim gently to make this happen. to address these challenges, the department undertook steps recently to improve records management, including our response to foia requests. we are working closely with the national archives and records administration, secretary keri focused attention on foia, and asked the inspector general to review issues, and we've dire directed more resources towards foia processing. working with nara, we ensured we are capturing records appropriately. in 2014, the state department adopted the approved capstone approach to preserving e-mails, which captures all senior e-mails, and we started that in 2015. this program has been expanded to over 688 senior state department officials including secretary keri, and we'll deploy a tool to capture these

materials by the end of the calendar year. increased use of e-mail, however, strains our decades old records management systems, but we're on schedule with the additional resources we've deployed through the assistance of all the work ambassador jacob's has done to meet the deadline to manage our e-mail records electronically. efforts by secretary keri. earlier this year, the department wide notice reminded employees about the foia responsibilities and need for transparency. we're training in ways on record preservation to have a high level review on the issues, last september, the secretary appointed jacobs as the transparency coordinator, focusing on records management improvements including processing by moving from a 20th century paper-based system to a modern electronics system.

we can answer any questions, describe efforts to identify procedure bureaucratic and technological solutions. the inspector general's review. last year, secretary kerry asked to review the issues. the i.g. issued four reports with recommendations for improved records managements including foia and all the oig's recommendations resolved and implemented the majority of them. the others are still in process because of time and resources constraints. in january 2016, the oig found weaknesses in the foia processing by the executive secretary, which the executive secretary acknowledged. improvements have been made so far including establishing written procedures for foia, searches in e-mails, increased training, better oversight by staff. the may 2016 report concerned e-mail practices of five

secretaries of stapt, in shortcomings in oh e-mails were p preserved in the past. it is clear they should have done a better job as secretary of state and senior staff going back several administrations. the didn't is much better situationed today than during the historical periods reviewed by the oig. by 2015, we took a number of important steps. for instance, as noted, they both agree past preservation problems of secretary clinton and immediate staff were mitigated by the production of e-mails to the department. we then worked dill gently from may 2015 to february 2016 to release more than a 52,000 pages of secretary clinton's e-mails. the e-mails are now a part of the department's permanent records available on the foia website for the public to see. we recently received additional clinton e-mails from the federal

bureau of investigation which we have begun processing. it's noted, state is automatically archiving secretary kerry's e-mails through the capstone program along with 687 other senior officials. increased resources for the foia office, the department has reallocated and reprogrammed from 18 million in 2014 to $26.2 million in 2015, and 32.5 million this year. over the past year, foia office added 25 additional full-time positions and converted another 25 positions from part-time to full-time. this comes at a time when the department's operational funding has increased 25% in constant dollar terms over the last five years. we're taking it out of high. while there was a request

service team to answer questions about specific status requests, a new foia officer joined the state department in may to enhance responsibilities to be responsive to the american public. have these steps made a difference? yes. we are beginning to see results. in fiscal 2014, we achieved a 23% reduction in our appeals backlog by streamlining our case processing. in fiscal year 2015, the department closed nine of the ten of its oldest foia requests. later this year, we plan to start posting nearly all documents released through foia no matter who the requests were through the public website resulting in more material on broader ranges of topics, potentially reducing the need for anyone to file a new request for information that is, in fact, already been reviewed. the department is committed to finding more ways to streamline the foia process and review the back lock. we look forward to exploring the

issue today. mr. chairman, that concludes my statement. i have a written statement to be included in the record. >> absolutely. >> and i and my colleagues are open to your and the committee's questions. thank you, sir. >> i now recognize myself. i have to address the secretary powell issue. important differences. first of all, the inspector general, who we rely on heavily, went back to speak with the former secretaries of state except hillary clinton, who refused to be engaged with the inspector general. in secretary clinton's case, it's the only case i'm aware of where there's an accusation of destruction of documents that were under subpeana. the fbi director testified before the committee that they didn't look at the comments secretary clinton gave under oath, and i point back to the

january letter of this year, looking back 15 years, not just picking on one, but 15 years, which is a long, i think, exceptionally long time, but looking back, e maims changed, and, finally, i would just suggest that i think there are legitimate concerns about retroactive classifications, over redactions, those types of thinks, and pleased to report to the committee because mr. cummings has legitimate concerns to question the people on monday. that's why we have the hearing. it is an embarrassment that the unclassified, unclassified documents residing in the gif, unclassified, are only reviewed by members of this committee, and the appropriations and judicial committee. if you reside in another committee and are a member of congress, you're prohillary clintoned by this administration from looking at unclassified documents. i don't know how to explain that. i think it's absolutely wrong.

you are on the front lines. i know the management team at the state department didn't want you here because we issued you to be here, and i don't make you in your personal capacity to make the decision. nevertheless, we're glad you're here. you didn't ask for this. i'm sympathetic. you have not testified before congress. i just ask you to be truthful, say how you saw it, what happened, and we will do everything we can to make sure that you get your story and version of what happened out there. when did you first know there was a problem? go ahead and move the microphone up close. there you go. >> sir, i want to thank you for giving giving me the opportunity. i always wanted to speak the truth at this particular

situation and the comfort zone. >> sure. go ahead. when did you first notice a problem. >> notice a problem as far as records? >> yes. with secretary clinclinton, and records. >> first time i noetsticed a problem is when we noted that we received documents. there was initially a letter that went out, and once we started receiving documents from secretary clinton, that's when we realized -- >> when was that? >> i can't tell you a specific date. >> i don't expect the day of the week, but roughly, when was that? >> i can't tell you the time. i just know when we had actually started receiving the actual documents -- >> after she had left? >> yes. >> did you raise any concerns prior to that? any questions about, did she have a dot-gov account? ms. lang said in a deposition she did. you raise concerns -- >> yes, sir. the concern was, basically, when she came on board, we asked the

question, will she have a state-dot-gov account, and said she would not. that was not uncommon because the secretary prior to her did not have an account, and the previous secretary did not have one. >> the fact you didn't have records from hillary clinton did you raise that question, that concern. were you told -- what did they tell you to say or not say about that? >> no one told me anything to say or not say. again, because she did not have a state dot-gov account, that was not abnormal because previous secretaries did not have a state dot gov account. the records received were placed into our repository, which is a track in the system. >> you got the secretary clinton dump of 55,000 pages, almost two years after she left. correct? >> i don't know the exact time frame, sir, but, yes, we

received it. >> i believe it was december 5th of 2014 when mrs. secretary clinton returned 55,000 pages of e-mails. has the state department after december 5th, 2014, had the department received any additional hillary clinton work e-mails that were federal records? >>. >> after the 55,000? >> yes. >> recently, my office was involved in records that just recently receive, but in that particular case, the only purpose i was involved with was just looking at the records, seeing if they were personal or work-let related, and that's why we were involved in the process because the department received so many records and the staffing was lacking. >> so, how many records did the state department receive after

december 5th, 2014? >> i'm sorry, be more specific, talking about from secretary clinton, from other former employees? >> talking specifically about hillary clinton work e-mails that were federal records. how many did you get after december 5th? >> the federal bureau of investigation has transferred a number of documents to the state department -- >> what is that number? do you know the number? >> those are still undergoing records review. >> was it 17,448? >> my office in the executive secretary of staff is not leading that effort. i would -- >> so who is? who knows this number? ambassador kennedy? >> chairman, to the -- we received a number of disks from the fbi. we are in the process of inputting them into our classified analysis system and counting them, and we know of 14,900 odd documents, and the

fbi mentioned there could be tens of thousands of others in the string of disks we're processing now. >> all came after december 5th, 2014. >> all of those, mr. chairman, received in the last month. >> ambassador kennedy, may 22nd, 2015, you asked as representative of the state department, you asked secretary clinton's attorney for an electronic copy of the 55,000 pages of e-mails. when did secretary clinton provide the electronic copy to you? >> intervening in that thing, mr. chairman, the fbi then took possession of all the electronic material that mr. kendal had, to the best of my knowledge. >> so did secretary clinton fulfill your request to return the federal records via

electronic format? >> the secretary clinton's attorney to the best of my knowledge provided that electronic material to the fbi. >> or service seized, one of the two. it's embarrassing that you had to ask them to return in electronic format. they wouldn't print it for hard copy, so did they ever give you an electronic copy for your request? >> to the best my understanding, mr. foreman, they no longer have electronic copies because it was in the possession of the fbi. it was seized, right? yeah. so you have since asked the fbi to turn over that? we asked the fbi to provide any material they have in their possession that's federal records. as i mentioned, mr. chairman, they provided us with a number

of disks. we are loading those disks into our system so we can disaggregate the time periods because there's potentially records there prior to being secretary of state and after being secretary of sate, and secondly, this is recoveries from her service; there could be material in there which are federal records and material which are not federal records, so we have to disaggregate those and process all federal records as we do for any. >> what number are you up to now, do you know? >> as i said, we are up to 14,900 documents we're reviewing in both the two stages of disag gags first. >> last question. i exceeded my time, but how do i get hillary clinton's calendars? why does that take long?

the request came in 2010. you argue in court you still can't get it done by the end of the year. the judges had to intervene to force you to produce calendars. how difficult is a calendar? who is in charge of that, by the way? >> mr. chairman, when we have 30,000 requests pending, we have requirements under schutd to do what is historical declassification, which we moved 24 million pages in the last five years -- >> wait, i'm trying to talk about hillary clinton's e-mails. hillary clinton's calendars. i would like to see, as chairman of the oversight committee, i'd like to see hillary clinton's calendars. when can you provide that to me? >> i will find a time and get -- i'll find when it is and get back to you. >> when will you get back to me by? >> by tuesday, i can give you an idea when that information might be available. if i might, sir, the ab request

was part of a larger swath of six foia requests that were engaged in. >> okay. if i might, another thing, what's relevant here and addresses the point that the ranking member may, the way the law is constructed now, we are required to produce responses within 20 days. given the volume and complexity, given the classified material and begin other document requests for the foreign relations series, historical declassification, there's no way, mr. chairman, i can deal with every government agency and 275 posts in 20 days. that is simply a physical impossibility. that's why we're sued because i cannot, literally, unless i turn

the entire state department off of every mission it had and put it on foia. eventually, i'd produce no new documents, and there's no problem, but there is a true resource time and other issues that have to be dealt with here, sir. >> to be clear, i would like to know how many different versions of calendars hillary clinton has, and i'd like to know when you could provide to this committee her calendars while serving as secretary of state, and you'll get back to me roughly a week, is that fair? >> i can get back to you with a report on how the processing is coming, yes, sir. what we did for all the requests, we treated -- >> my request is not a foia request. i don't understand the foia part, but asking -- >> i understand fully. i think this becomes the 24th request that this committee has made of us in the last year. we produced 185,000 pages of

documents and will continue to work to provide more. >> thank you. i now recognize the gentleman from massachusetts. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to point out that you went over on your time, and i just pray for equal time, thank you. mr. kennedy, i thank the witnesses for cooperating with the committee and helping us with our work i want to ask about powell's e-mails from the aol account and point out he served between 2001 and 2005 as secretary of state, and during his tenure, there were 92 million data breaches at aol. so as secretary powell laid out in his own book here, and, look, i have enormous respect and admiration for secretary powell and remain as a country thankful

for the service, but what i want to point out is the desperate nature of the inquiry and how we ignore what secretary rice did and secretary powell did, and, instead, the committee with nine separate investigations and counting has targeted hillary clinton for her conduct under similar circumstances. so secretary powell on page 109 of the book, might as well plugged it. it worked for me, "life and leadership: colin powell," to compliment the state computer in the office, i installed a laptop computer on a private line, it was an aol account, my personal e-mail account on the laptop allowed me direct access to anyone online shooting e e-mails to my principal assistants, individual ambassador, and increasingly to my foreign

minister colleagues, like me, trying to bring ministries into the 180,000 miles per hour second world. so a lot of communications, ambassadors, foreign ministers. arguably, some classified information in there, but it's being done on a completely private line. the program is that unlike secretary clinton, secretary powell apparently did not stave or print out any e-mails. i have a letter you sent on november 12th, 2014, asking unanimous consent to submit in the record. i'll -- in your letter, you asked secretary powell's representative to provide all of secretary powell's records that were not in the state department's recordkeeping system, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> okay. that would have included e-mails from his aol account work related, right? >> yes, sir.

>> did secretary powell -- let me ask, how many e-mails did he produce pursuant your request? >> secretary powell responded that he did not have access anymore to any of those records, sir. >> didn't have access to them? >> yes, sir. >> the number would be zero. >> yes, sir. >> okay. i have another letter from you dated october 21st, 2015. in this letter you asked secretary powell's representative to contact aol to determine whether any e-mails were still on their system, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> okay. to the best of your knowledge, did secretary powell do this? >> we never received a response to the request, sir. >> okay. i got another letter. from you. ambassador kennedy. dated november 6, 2015. this letter, you inform eed the national archives that secretary powell never contacted aol,

isn't that right? >> that is correct, sir. >> okay. again, ambassador kennedy, july 2015, the chief records office rt national archives asked the state department to contact aol directly to determine, and i quote, whether it's still possible to retrieve e-mail records that may still be present, close quote. mr. kennedy, did you ever contact aol? >> our lawyers advised, sir, that we are not a party to -- >> would that answer be a no? did you contact aol? >> no, sir, we did not contact aol. >> we have the chief records officer asking you to contact aol, and you're saying no, and your attorneys say no. >> saying we cannot make a request for someone else's records from their provider. the request has to be made by them, sir. >> at some point, the secretary informed you secretary powell sent classified information from his personal account.

did you contact aol then? >> same answer, sir. we asked -- >> we -- >> we asked secretary powell contact aol. >> that answer would be no. you had a responsibility here, though. you admit that, virtue of position. >> yes. we contacted secretary powell. >> how many documents have you given to the committee pursuant to investigation of secretary clinton? what's the number there? >> i -- i know that it's somewhere probably in the neighborhood of the 50,000. >> just 50,000? >> so far. >> given to this committee, pursuant to investigation of secretary clinton? i thought we said earlier there were 168,000? >> that's not -- those -- we have 23 different requests from this committee -- >> okay. let me ask you, how many documents have you provided this committee pursuant to our investigation of colin powell? >> i believe -- we provided this committee the three documents

that -- >> great. >> that the fbi -- >> 50,000. that's a lopsided focus here. to your knowledge, have they picked up the phone to ask aol about the requests? >> as i said, in response to your earlier question, sir, it is -- we cannot get records of another individual from their provider. they have to do it. >> i don't get this. this is ridiculous. this is the national archives asking you to contact aol, but you didn't do that. you asked secretary powell to contact aol. he didn't do that. we have -- here's now -- served at a critical time, dubious information provided about weapons of mass destruction in

iraq that led the country to war. e nor consequences. ? committee is to pursue the truth. your cooperation, advice of counsel, i think is putting the country at a particular point of vulnerability with respect to the investigation. and i just think -- if we're going to do this, if we're going to put our secretaries of state and our national leaders under the microscope, it shouldn't be just, you know, half -- shouldn't be just the democrats under investigation. that's what i feel is going on right here. that's what i feel is going on right here. that we got tens of thousands of

documents produced as a result of our investigation of secretary clinton, and we got -- zero, well, three, three documents that you say you provided with respect to secretary powell. this is a shame. i think the comments of the republican leaders earlier indicated this whole account was to rip down hillary clinton and ruin her reputation. that's what this is about. we're spending, look, i didn't have to spend any taxpayer money to get powell's admission to say he used a private e-mail, unclassified system, on aol, hacked 92 million times during his tenure. i didn't have to spend tax mayer money to see what he did. just read his book, his own words. here we are, like i said, the ninth investigation, another one

i expect, just to rip down hillary clinton, and the only reason we're.cc it because she's running for president of the united states. that's the plain and god awful truth. that's what it's about. it's a shame. it's a shame. i yield back balance of my time. >> i thank the gentleman. the letter sent in january of this year asked the state department for the current and past four secretaries of state, and i'd ask unanimous consent to submit this record into the record. >> 16 or 15? >> chairman yields. >> sure. >> document, and wondering, what was the follow-up from these folks? >> it's incomplete. we don't have all the information. we have some -- >> on powell and rice? >> asked for the current and

past four secretaries of state. >> i just want to know what we've got. >> i'll get it from the staff. it's an appropriate question. we'll follow-up. we asked for it, not just of the current one or past one, but the past four. so -- >> what about aol? can we ask them to get us that information? i mean, the fervor of which we go after hillary clinton seems like we have so much pour over, seems like we want to get the recor records. >> first order of business, i ask to enter it intoed record, without objection, so ordered. i will work to get the records -- >> all of them. >> all of them. >> all of them. >> all of them. we use the power of the committee to extract them --

>> hear that, we'll work with you to get it done. >> yes, sir, one thing? >> sure. >> in consultations with representatives of the four prior secretaries of state, neither secretary albright or rice used e-mail. not -- they have certified that to us. >> yes. and that -- that's my understanding. i would also know we rely hvm on inspectors general, and there's not an inspector general report on this, which is frustrating. they are partial to do their job. the only person that refuses to interact is hillary clinton. that's just the fact. that's not political. it's just a fact. she won't cooperate with the inspector general. even the state department asks for an electronic copy that was not provided. there is but one investigation. one investigation that we are conducting relating to what's

happening here and these federal records as potential obstruction. we have other inquiries of the state department, embassy security, things we are doing in very much a bipartisan way. be careful how we represent. there is one investigation. we were quiet until the fbi testified they didn't ask these questions. begs to e question we have a job to do. >> mr. chairman? >> yes. >> i know we want to move on, but looking forward to working with you to get all the records. i think the american people deserve that. >> yeah, i agree. >> i don't want it to be any one-sided single investigation of hillary clinton because i do think it goes against the integrity of the committee. >> i hear you. >> mr. chairman? >> yes. >> just in terms of investing in the last comments that he reached out to secretaryalbright, secretary rice served from 2005 and 2009, well into the era of e-mail.

have you checked, did she have a personal account? they certified they didn't use e-mail, i find that hard to believe. >> i -- i have spoken personally with secretary rice's attorney and that was his response, sir. >> okay. >> i believe he was asking about ambright. >> both. >> i recognize the regime from florida. ? again for the record, you did see they did not use the two previous did not use e-mail, is that correct? >> that is what -- we have -- we have no records and talked to their representatives to confirm that. >> so, again, the way we got into this folks, and we have an investigation about benghazi,

and it was discovered by accident. the fact is, how long have you been in your position with state over a correspondence of records? >> yes, sir. i came to the state -- >> i can't hear you. real loud. >> real close. >> yes, sir. >> what year? >> came to the state department in july of 2006. >> the fact is in 2011, actually, you were first alerted to the use of the secretary. here's a picture of the secretary. this is an article from a publication that says you nighed in 2011 or raised questions about how the secretary was operating, and i guess, did you go to lang? lang made you aware that she was using a private server? how did you find out she was using a private server? you asked the question, was she using a government account? the response came back no.

who told you that? >> that was told to me by within the rm, specific person, i can't remember. >> that goes back some time ago. you have an important responsibility. you have to keep the records and correspondence when they leave office and you meet with folks. these are members of congress. we have the same obligation. we are custodians and trustees of information, and some of that e we can want take with us. you're not supposed to. in fact, i think it's against the law. isn't there a statute prohibiting taking that with you? i'm not an attorney. >> yes, sir. >> okay. yes. you met with secretary clinton's staff, did you not? did you meet with the secretary, or just her staff? >> with her staff, sir. >> is that dean, she there, and you told them that the obligations of what they had to turn over, did you provide them with that information?

>> you told them what were the requirements were, returning information? >> yes, sir, myself, and the records office. >> at the time, did you mention anything about this? >> anything dealing with public information part 6 state department documents? >> briefed them about responsibilities are. >> how long did it take? we heard request went in, and is that correct, ambassador kennedy? how long before -- when did you get the first dump of

information from clintons. >> december, sir. >> of last year? >> of '14. >> two years after they left. >> i had two and a half years. >> i had all the information, all the information they had. >> talking about the delivery? >> yes. 455,000 -- >> is there transmittal documents? >> they -- >> saying this is all we have or everything we found. >> i believe it's something it's with the fbi, data to you all, records that they found, that

they did not provide, right? >> what the fbi essentially did to the best of my understanding, sir, is use forensics to go -- >> department under law to turn over the document, and this gentleman is responsible, he told them what to do and the terms of the law are the regulations, and they were to comply. they did not. i want to know about the destruction of the hammering of the blackberries. those were personal blackberries that the secretary owned? is that what i'm told? that was not federal property? do you know? you're the custodian of the properties or the data. >> the records of the individuals who are --

>> they also have to give over property. you don't know anything about the hammering of the blackberries or whether they're -- i'd like to know for the record, too, the staff blackberries turned over, if any of those were not turned over, if they were destroyed too, mr. chairman? >> i requested that information. i yield back. >> i now recognize ranking member. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> the, mr. kennedy, ambassador kennedy. i'm extremely concerned as i've said before about this issue of classificati classification. people are accused of crimes, and a lot of it, it's becoming very significant. what's classified and what's not. i think -- would you agree with that? it is significant. >> classification is always significant. >> yes, sir, mr. ranking member.

>> yeah. i want to ask you about instances when experts from different agencies, disagree whether information is classified. i have an e-mail here dated april 10th, 2011. it was dated based on a phone call from christophkris stevens envoy to libya. it's on the screen. first line of the e-mail says, and i quote, svu, special envoy stevens, end quote. what does svu mean? >> it means sensitive, but unclassified, sir. unclassified. >> e e-mail was explicitly mark ed unclassified, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> appears the envoy considered the information unclassified, is that correct? >> that is correct, stir. >> anyone reading this e-mail would assume that it was not

classified, is that correct? >> that is correct, sir. >> the problem is that at some point after the e-mail was sent, they came in and claimed it was classified, on september 15, 2015, the state department has a letter to senator corker, explaining that the intelligence community was wrong. the letter stated, and i quote, someone with intelligence community later subsequent to the posting claimed should have been redacted as secret. the letter from the state department goes on to say that the suggestion that the e-mails should have been treated as classified was, i quote, surprising and in the department's judgment, incorrect. end of quote. ambassador, why was it surprising to someone in the intelligence community who claimed this e-mail was classify

ed we did not classify it. as this is going on, the intelligence community through human intelligence or national technical means in effect steals

the same information. or something close to, and they classified it, and they classify it because of the sources and methods in obtaining it. we often see parallel reporting. state department in classified reporting, and intelligence community reporting talking to the same manner, and, therefore, you can have a document that is very close. we looked at it carefully and surprised, which is why we use that term in the letter, is because a number of the data points in this letter -- excuse me in the e-mail reporting ambassador steven's conversation are different, and, therefore, these are separate. the problem, ranking member of parallel reporting is something we see all the time, but it's

actually a good thing because no government wants to operate on a single thread. >> it's a bad thing, though, when the fbi could possibly bring charges against somebody charges for disclosing documents that they claim to be classified when, in fact, they were not classified, so, i mean, you call it healthy all you want -- >> mr. ranking member, what i'm saying is we did not classify information in the e-mail you are referencing, mr. ranking member, but information that parallels public press briefings from the nato press officer in brus sells. if the fbi came to us and said we want to take if as a court action, it's unclassified, we would certify it as we have. >> just the last question, this gets more confusing because when the fbi issued the report to

congress, they told us that this e-mail was classified at the time that it was sent. did the fbi ask the state department whether you consider this e-mail to be classified. >> i can't give a particular information. we provided information to the fbi, and this was one of the documents certified. >> do you have any suggestions as to how we go forward, with regards to trying to clear up these kinds -- there's arbiter, is that right? is there an arbiter? in other words, if you get intelligence saying it's unclassified -- it's classified, you got state saying it's unclassified, who arbitrates this? how is there a conclusion? >> as i understand the rules, mr. ranking member, that each agency is the authority over the documents that it produced. the state department produced this document. the state department said it's unclassified, and, therefore, de facto de jure, it is

unclassified. could i ask, since you made reference to letter to senator corker, i ask that letter be entered into the record. >> i meant to do that. i ask the letter dated november 24th, 2015 senator corker be a part of the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> thank you very much. >> recognize the gentleman from ohio. >> how long have you worked in the state department? >>. >> a little over years, sir. >> you're responsible for maintaining records and complying with reference and archives laws, right? >> i am senior agency official. i have a number of people assisting me. >> you sent a letter to four former secretary of states, about records and getting information about the previous secretary of states, accurate? >> yes, sir.

>> lawyers there? >> attorneys there or senior staff representatives. >> when did you send the letter? >> i believe it was sent in 2014. >> that's what i thought. why did you sent that letter? what prompted you to decide to send that letter to previous secretary of states? >> basically, we had been reviewing thousands of pages of documents in response to a number of requests including requests from there committee. regarding the benghazi temporary special mission attacks, and as we worked through all the documents, all the volume of material involved in the process, we noticed there was

the use of a nonstate e-mail address that apparently may have come from secretary clinton. >> that's not what you said in february, but did it because of nara concerns. >> yes. >> is that the same difference? >> same difference. >> all right. >> we saw a potential federal record, and therefore -- >> what prompted you was the benghazi request and foia request, and that you were not complying with the law, right? >> no. we were -- we were looking through documents in response to a committee request. >> okay. >> we saw evidence that there might be a federal record from a n nonfederal source which trips our requirement -- >> by the time you knew, when this prompted you, requests, law, everything else, when this prompted you, between the time you knew you had to do something different and when you actually sent the letter, did you talk to

any of the former secretaries of state, any of the four, or any of their four december knsignat? >> not to my recollection. >> did you meet or talk about any subject? >> i regularly am in communication with former -- one of the responsibilities of the position of the undersecretary for management is to be in contact with former secretaries of state on manage, ad min straitive support issues, so the answer so that is yes. >> let me get specific. did you talk to cheryl mills between the time you knew you had to do something different with record retention and when you sent the letter? >> i don't remember. >> not at all? >> i don't remember talking to her about the records. >> meet with her at all in that time frame? >> cheryl mills was and remained

beyond the departure secretary clinton as the fesspecial representative for haiti, because of the -- >> you told us in february, you had lunch with her in this time frame meeting with her on numerous occasions? >> is that accurate? >> that's what i'm saying, sir. >> you asked, when we asked you, i said, between the time you learn eed you needed something different with record retention, and you acceptability the letter, had conversations with mills, but none dealt with this issue. >> that is correct. >> because -- >> you anxioused s eanswered sa tipped her off. is that accurate? i'm quoting what you said in the depositi deposition. >> i'm not changing my deposition one ida, but two things, sir. one is i was not brought up to date immediately on the fact that my colleagues and staff had come across this one e-mail thing, and then were researching through the material.

that was not brought to my attention. much later. >> here's what i want to get to. fbi released a report friday. they say on page 15, during the summer of 2014, state indicated, state department indicated to mills a request for clinton's work-related e-mails would be forthcoming. in october of 2014, the state department followed up by sending an official request to clinton asking for work-related e-mails. now you just said in february when you were under oath and deposed in front of the benghazi committee you never tipped her off. somebody tipped her off. during the summer of 2014, she got the heads up that this letter was coming. you know who tipped her off? >> no, sir, i do not. >> it was not you, ambassador kennedy? >> to the to the best of any knowledge, no, sir. >> were you interviewed by the fbi? >> yes, sir. >> ambassador jacobs did you tip hillary clinton off? >> no, sir, i did not. >> interviewed by the fbi.

>> >> no, i was not. >> ms. lang, did you tip her off in the summer of 2014? >> no, i did not, sir. >> interviewed by the fbi? >> no, i was not, sir. >> did you tip mills off? >> no, sir. >> did you tip hillary clinton off? >> no, sir. >> were you interviewed by the fbi? >> no, sir. >> so somebody who was interviewed by the fbi told the fbi we tip her off. have you done an investigation, ambassador kennedy, who tipped off? this is what it gets to. once again, hillary clinton gets treated different than anybody else. she got tipped off. i don't think ambassador powell was tipped off. have you started an investigation, ambassador, who tipped her off before getting the letter requesting documents? >> i have not. >> any idea who did? >> no, sir. >> okay. i yield. >> i thank the gentleman. i recognize the gentleman from pengz for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ambassador, i want to ask questions about the three e-mails out of the 30,000 that

fbi director referenced. s classifiy eied douchlts to be marked, and identify the original classifier, correct, ambassador kennedy? >> that is correct, sir. there is, in effect, a four-line marking. >> must identify the agency was office of origin? correct? >> yes, sir. >> must identify the reason for classification? correct? >> yes, sir. >> it must identify the date for

declassification right? >> yes, sir. >> and classified documents typically have to have a banner or a header at the top and bottom that say classified along with the level of classification, correct in that? >> yes, sir. >> so five requirements in the manuals, and testified about had none of these indicators, correct in that? >> that is correct, sir. >> not one of the five require ed marking requirements? >> correct, sir. >> okay. the e-mails had none of them, as a result, the director, sitting where you are right now, testified that it would be reasonable for somebody looking at a document with none of these required markings, immediately to infer they were not classified. are you aware of that testimony? >> i am aware of it, sir. >> do you agree with the director that someone familiar

with properly marking classified documents would reasonably consider such a document without any five requirements not classified? >> i fully agree with the director. >> state department spokesman said that the parenthesis markings, ones referred to confident rl, lowest level of classification, on three e-mails, he said those mashings themselves were in error, not, quote, necessary or appropriate at the time they were sent for an e-mail, that your understanding as well? >> yes, sir. >> i want to show you one of the e-mailings dated august 2, 2012. the markings, it's on the screen as well. have that, ambassador? >> i do, sir. >> all right.

it was in the beginning of the e-mail, marking of the state department, said it was a mistake, you see that? >> yes, sir. >> and then four paragraphs followed, do you see them? >> yes, sir. >> each of the paragraphs says sbu, which we covered, sensitive, but unclassified, right? >> that means, yes, sir, and it means it does not have to be moved in classified channels. >> so every one of these are unclassified, right? >> yes, sir. >> so this e-mail is, in fact, unclassified, and it always has been. >> yes, sir. >> and did the fbi consult with you about the classification status of this e-mail? >> they did not consult with me, personally. i know the state department provided some input to the fbi, but their decisions are their

decisions. their writings are their writings. >> when you say "their," who do you mean? >> the fbi, sir. >> all right. >> do you know why the fbi did not consult with you about the classification status of the e-mail? >> i would have to check congressman to see if they consulted with someone else in the state department. i know they did not consult with me. but as you correctly point out, the subject line there is not having classify material in it nor does the text of that. even redactions there, redaction for deliberative process, not for classification. this document is unclassified. >> i thank you. i yield back. >> we'll recognize the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, panel, for being

here. when did you first become aware of the extent to which secretary clinton relied on private server, e-mails, to address her conduct, her responsibilities, and state department business? >> sir, i couldn't give you a date and time frame, but i do know that when we started receiving the actual documents, at the state department, that's when i realized she was using another device.

>> no, sir, we did not have e-mails, did not have a state gov account, so we just searched records we had, sir. >> so you -- so then you -- because i understand it, did not realize extent to which secretary used her private e mate server? on the basis of that, you're saying you couldn't do anything about it? >> did not know about the server or other e-mail account she was using until received in the department. >> how was, if this request was made in 2009, how was the

department able to close request for correspondence covering secretary clinton when the department did not have access to all of the e-mail correspondence from secretary? >> again, sir, i would have to see the specific requests, to see when they were asking, and see if they -- >> but they asked. there's a lot of that. >> again, sir, i have to see if the executive secretary received it because when foia comes in, they do not come directly to the sec fairs, and prior to closure she used a private server, private e-mails for conducting official business? >> not even going to answer the question, because i'm only responsible for the dpektive secretary. >> who is responsible for that? mr. kennedy, now that you know it? >> that is why congressman we

posted all of the 52,000 e-mails we received on the state department's public website so that if there was an e-mail that we now have what we did not have then, and, therefore, since we did not have it, we were telling the truth in response at that moment, if anyone thinks that one of their inquiries did not get a full response, we posted all the of that material, all 52,000 documents to public foia website in a searchable form. so that can't be, in effect, retroactive any earlier inquiries, did not have records of that. >> wow. so anyone who made a request that can know go -- >> so we got the request. >> par top? >> we have the request? that's what you're saying pb?

>> if we did not respond before because we did not have records then, and we have the record now, the 52,000, all 52,000 is accessible. >> again, mr. chairman, that's the republican for the hearing. the sloppiness, messiness, and difficulty for a secretary of state to do something that shouldn't have been done. do you recall a request from august 27, 2010, a request e hail sent to higt? >> not offhand, sir. >> it was marked pending given that this request was asked to about e-mails sent not secretary. your processing should have, as

i understand, a review of the inbox. did that process take place? >> again, sir, i have to see if, in fact, executive secretary received the request. >> mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. >> before, just yield for a second. there was a choice. secretary had a choice. she chose to not abide by the rules of the state department, and she went off for her own and created her own server and own mess. >> federal records. >> federal records. there was a choice. it's not a mistake, a mistake is putting the letter e at the end of potato. this is a conscious decision. use the dot gov account. that's why it's there. safe ape secure. there's two systems at the state department. you can't just take classified

information you didn't forward. it doesn't work like that. we got to get into the depths of this. that's part why we have the hearings next week, but there's a conscious choice, and she chose not to use the safety and security and expertise of the state department. she put the country and federal records in jeopardy and has to clean this mess up for years to come. recognize mr. lou from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> ambassador kennedy, it's true, isn't it, the freedom of information act does not apply to members of congress? >> to the best of my knowledge, syr sir, it is true. >> i have to let that sink in for a moment. we, in congress, passed this law asking other federal agencies to meet these standards that we ourselves are unwilling to meet. it is pure hypocrisy.

it is a double standard. it's worse in this case. did you know, ambassador, that all members of congress get security clearances? >> i believe so, yes, sir. >> we get it not because we go through a background check, but because we have to win the most number of votes in our district. and as members with security clearances, we get to have private e-mail servers. we can have one private e-mail serves, five, 27. we can have private e-mail accounts and conduct official business on the private e-mail server on the private e-mail account. so i'm not going to participate in the hypocrisy of today's hearing, but i want to use my time to talk about an issue that actually matters. that is the slaughter of children and civilians in the country of yemen being enabled by the u.s. department of state. as under secretary, i'm sure

that you know last year the state department provided material assistance to saudi arabia led coalition in the country of yemen. are you aware of rights watch and reporters on the ground reported numerous war crimes committed by the saudi arabia led coalition? >> congressman, i've seen references to that in the press, but if i might, not in attempt to avoid the question because i would be glad to arrange for someone to -- there are six under secretaries at the state department. i'm the undersecretary for managements. my writ is rather large, but it does not encompass political military activities or foreign military assistance. >> i understand. >> i'll be glad to work with you, though. >> i understand. as a member in a minority party, i do not set the agenda, and i'll ask these questions.

are you aware that there was a report documenting at least 33 cases with the saudi arabia coalition with the system of the united states targeting and killing civilians, many of them not military targets. answer yes or no. >> i have not seen the report, sir. >> are you aware just last month the saudi arabia led coalition targeted and killed a chern at school, 28 kids, 18 injured, 10 killed, young as 7 and 8 years old. aware of that. >> no, sir, i'm not. >> aware that the coalition struck a fourth hospital facility last month, this time a doctors without borders hospital, killing numerous doctors and staff. >> i think i saw that, sir. >> it's a war crime to kill

civils nowhere near military targets? >> i'm not a lawyer, sir, but, obviously, the direct targeting of civilians without any other justification is certainly not acceptable. >> thank you. >> you're aware that the united states providing refuelling saudi arabia jets, missile support, intelligence, and other assistance, correct? >> i'm aware that we are assisting the saudi arabia to combat terrorist activity, yes. >> the state department proposed another sale of billions of dollars of arms, safety department notice when congress was in recess, little time to act on it, is that correct? >> i'm not aware of that congressional notification, sir.