as i've contemplated on what we've heard in the last two days, i'm just absolutely convinced that foia really isn't the problem. it's just an evidence within an outcome of the problem. increasing size of government and the criminal of government is the problem. i mean it's an absolute fact that we have amongst the highest paid bureaucratsed a smin tering these programs in government anywhere in world. we have the highest technology at least amongst the highest technology of any place in the world to administer our bureaucracy. we have the largest number of bureaucrats in the world to administer our bureaucracy. and with the size of government

like this, why would we expect anything other than a huge, huge number of foia requests coming from increasing number of american citizens who feel under attack from their own government. they're regulated. they're taxed. they're supervised. they're overseen. almost more than any other free country in the world. so i look at our panel of witnesses and i say how in the world can you be expected to do your job in a way that satisfies not only congress but the people of the united states. they're going to ask more because they don't trust us. they're tired of being overrun. i'll get to my questions. also with all due respect, if dollars, more dollars were the answer, then the war on poverty, the war on hunger, the war on pollution, the war on crime, the war on many other things would be ended. by the way fast and furious,

benghazi, irs gate would be taken care of. we would know the answers. attorney general holder, former attorney general holder wouldn't have been held in contempt of congress. lois lerner wouldn't have been held in contempt. foia isn't the main problem. liberty to mab's transparency from a limited government to succeed and we're not succeeding in addressing the concerns of our people. government has grown and thus it is increasingly mistrusted and it will be mistrusted in all sides of the aisles, politically speaking. so mr. chairman, i again thank you for these hearings.

it just makes it clearer and clearer why we are in the bat wl the budget to reduce government to the size that liberty can expand and not-m2 ms. neuman, dhs has the largest backlog of any federal agency. how does the duplicative process of requests contribute to a processing of requests contribute to backlog? and i refer specifically to the relationship between uscis and i.c.e. >> thank you. i appreciate that question. let me just say that with respect to the backlog, any significant delays in processing requests don't meet my standards and i expect to see improvement. that goes for duplication as well.

and as you may be aware, the gao studied that aspect of our foia operations and made some recommendations that we are implementing in a number of ways. uscis and i.c.e. receive a significant number of our foia requests many of which are immigration related. there may be instances where one or more of those components holds files or holds records that are contained in the alien file. we do not, we do not support unnecessary duplication and we have -- >> will the two agencies be put together in the arrangement that was in place before 2012 where they weren't duplicating? >> that's really not my decision to make. >> whose decision is it? >> it's up to the members of congress who write the statute. i will also tell you that we've implemented technology measures -- >> i don't understand that's our responsibility. it worked before 2012, at least they worked in that nonduplicative arrangement. why can't it be put back in that? it's not congress. >> so my focus as the chief foia officer on connecting requesters

with their records. and i have got to spend my time looking at the way the agency is constructing now, what infeshcys if any are preventing us from meeting our transparency mission. >> so the answer is you're not going to do anything to put the two component parts back together to stop duplication? >> i'm focusing on connecting requesters with their records. >> mr. chairman, my time expired and i didn't get the answer were on i guess i did. >> i now recognize the gentleman mr. lynch for five minutes. >> thank you chairman and ranking member for your courtesy this morning. i want to thank the witnesses if are your help in addressing this issue. ms. barr, there has been a lot of discussion up to now about secretary clinton and her use of personal e-mail for official business. it's my understanding from the documents that we have here that secretary rice, con da leeza rice, did not use a personal

e-mail account for official business. is that right? >> yes, that's what i understand. i understand that she used -- she has told us that she did not conduct a lot of official business over e-mail but when she did, she used the state department account. >> ok. how about secretary of state colin powell. in his auto biography he admits that he used his personal e-mail account for official business all of the time. i have a great quote here. he says, this is a quote from former secretary of state colin powell, quote, to compliment the official state department computer in my office, i installed a laptop computer on a private lane.

my personal e-mail account on the laptop allowed me direct access to anyone online. i started shooting e-mail to my principle assistants, to individual ambassadors and increasingly to my foreign minister colleagues who were trying to bring their ministries into the world at the speed of light. so do we have any e-mails from secretary powell? >> no, we do not have any e-mails from secretary powell. we did ask him if he had any official records. he noted when he came back to us that, you know, he started at what was then the beginning of the state department e-mail age but he did not have any records to return to us. >> and you know, there was some critical decisions made, his speech before the u.n. about the existence of weapons of mass destruction. we don't have any e-mails regarding that decision and how

those statements were made? >> i have no personal knowledge about that, sir. >> yeah. you know this is troubling because it seems in the case of secretary clinton, the way people handle their e-mails, at least it's been suggested that really determine her fitness of whether or not she can be president. that's basically the statement that is being made today. and i'm just, i'm puzzled because secretary rice did not perform in this manner secretary colin powell did not perform in that manner. and i'm just wondering if we have a uniform standard here, it doesn't seem from the federal records act that it requires people to not use personal e-mail. >> when we are dealing with the federal records act, of course we have to work with employees to maintain records.

but with regard to using nongovernment e-mail services, if people do that, we ask that they capture those records by copying their official account. we are working very hard looking forward to make sure that people understand what their requirements are under the federal records act. if, for example, they are out and their blackberry stops working, to make sure that they copy their accounts. but overall i would say that what is most important to us is that we have that collection now and we are processing it accordingly. >> appreciate it. i only have a little bit of time left here.

it's my understanding that former secretary clinton delivered about 55,000 pages in e-mail. >> that's correct. >> have any of the other secretaryies of state during your time, you've been there a while, secretary rice, secretary colin powell? >> no, only from secretary clinton. >> all right. that's about my time, mr. chairman, i yield back. thank you. >> i'll now recognize myself for five minutes. ms. howard, the white house on april 15th, 2009 sent a directive out, it says from gregory craig, counsel to the president, says, quote, this is a reminder that executive agencies shall consult the white house counsel's office on all document requests. this need to consult with the white house arises with respect to all types of document requests, including congressional committee results, judicial subpoenas and foia requests.

so my question to you, ms. howard, what percentage -- when congress sends you a request for information, what percentage of that do you share with the white house? >> to the extent that i've been involved in responses to congress or responses to foia we have never shared information with the white house. i became aware of this memo when we were asked for some information to actually demonstrate how many times we had this interaction. it was a foia request. i was curious as to why that we were getting a foia request since we don't have interaction with the white house on foias. >> so you've never sent anything to the white house? >> i can't speak for the entire irs. i mean that would be a question for chief counsel or the commissioner. >> so if you get a subpoena from the united states congress, you

get a subpoena from me, you don't share that with the white house? >> the fact that it exists? yeah, we may share the information that we got the subpoena or we may share the fact that we're working on a subpoena. but the actual documents produced for the subpoena. >> yeah. >> we would produce those documents and redact them for 6103. again that might -- >> what percentage of those do you share with the white house? >> what percentage do i share with the white house? >> yes. >> would be zero. >> you do not shoir thoseare those to the best of your knowledge -- >> the disclosure office does not consult the white house. >> the white house told you're supposed to do it. the white house directed you to do that. are you telling us that you didn't comply with the white house request. >> kind of towards the end of my career i'll be real honest with you. i saw this memo. i was amazed to see the memo. it's written to agency counsel which is not me.

i looked through the procedures that we have in our internal revenue manual which is basically how we run the operations and i never saw this. >> before -- >> i never saw any evidence that this was incorporated and i ignored it. >> when you respond to a letter from congress or there's a response to a subpoena from congress, who sees that before we get it? >> in most instances, counsel would look at something like that, the chief of staff or the commissioner. again, that's really a question for the commissioner in -- >> lois lerner request for documents from lois lerner, who saw those documents? who did you have to get clearance from before we get those documents? because we still don't have them all. >> the 6103 redactions, as i said in any testimony, were done by chief counsel, the office of chief counsel. we may have redacted some of those documents -- well you

don't get the foia redactions. >> what signatures do you need to see on there before you send it back to us. >> i'm not certain because i'm not the one doing the sending. >> but you're the direct of this and you've heard of lois lerner i would hope by now. >> i know lois lerner. >> who do you have to check off with before we get the documents? >> again sir with all due respect that was not a process that i was personally involved in. >> you had to guess that e with would ask about lois lerner. >> which is why the commissioner thought that perhaps he might be the best to answer your questions. >> you're the director. it's your job and role and responsibility. >> no, sir. my job is the foia program. >> your title, correct director, privacy, governmental liaison and disclosure. >> right. >> that is your title. >> that is my title. what you are telling me you are not responsible for the governmental liaison and disclosure part of that? >> not in the context that you're asking me. >> why because it's lois lerner. >> no. because i think it was an

unprecedented voluminous -- >> what was unprecedented about asking about information about lois lerner. >> i think lois lerner was the tip of the iceberg. >> really. so do we. what makes you think it's the tip of the iceberg. >> in terms the way the request was structured. >> what was so striking about it? it's pretty simple. we're asking for all of her e-mails in a certain time frame. how hard is that. that should take about ten seconds, right? what's so hard about producing those documents? why does it take them so long. it's taken years. >> i cannot talk to the specific documents about lois lerner. >> so when a request -- >> insight into -- >> when the request came in a letter and a subpoena, who does that go to? >> the commissioner. >> it doesn't go to you? >> no. not at first. >> but when we send these documents over, this doesn't land on your desk?

>> it does not land on my desk. >> does it land on any of your staff's desk? >> no. it landed on the desk of the commissioner and the chief counsel. >> they're solely responsible for the fulfillment of that request and for the subpoenas, correct? if it doesn't go to you, you're the director of privacy governmental liaison and disclosure and you're telling me that your department, your group doesn't get that because it came from congress, right? >> no. because we made a business decision that because of the scope of that request we would set up a special project team and that -- >> who decided that? i want some names here. >> i think it was before his time. i guess the acting commissioner. it was before my time too. it's whatever i tell you is just hearsay. but it was my understanding that the -- >> we expect a little bit more. >> again it was not, it was not, it was not directed -- >> it doesn't come through your office, your department, your group, whatever you want to call it. >> we might be involved in it but so are the i.t.

people. >> was the lois lerner case dealt with differently than anything else? you said it was unprecedented. i want to know why. >> i think because there was a lot of 504 c3 documents that were requested at the same time. >> so anything that had to deal with those documents, the c 4 documents, went a different direction than normally. >> it went into sort of a project team where we felt that we could handle -- >> there's a special project team that's set up. >> there was at the time. i don't believe it's still functioning. >> why was there a special team set up? >> because of the volume of -- >> it didn't have anything to do with volume. it had to do with the topic, didn't it? >> i don't believe so no. it was a business decision of how we would best use your resources. looking back on it, it was a positive thing for the disclosure office because we could do all of our regular foia

work except for those particular topics. >> so i mean what you're telling me is anything that came in on this topic, c 4, not just lois learn, c 4 went in a different rout, to commissioner and the general counsel. there's only two political appointees in all of the irs the commissioner and the general counsel, only two out of 90,000. and you're telling me that those requests went a different route than normally anything else does and it went to them, correct? that's exactly what you told me. >> i don't want to go on record as saying that i know specifically where requests went to. my understanding is that requests from congress are given a certain level of respect and concern so that they go to the commissioner's office first and are parcelled out as to who is going to work them after that.

>> do you know who the lead of that special project team was? >> i do not. >> all right. my time has expired. we'll now recognize mr. cummings for five minutes. >> thank you very much. mr. neuman you've said there was room for improvement. can you tell us what those improvements might be that you were talking about? you know, i want to get to the bottom line and be effective and efficient. so tell me -- >> as do i, congressman cummings. one of the things i did when i first came aboard was to try to understand where some of the bottlenecks were in the department in terms of the component backlogs and understand what the reasons for those backlogs might be. in doing so, i did identified some of the systemic challenges and decided that we really did need to address in the long term

an independent comprehensive review of what these systemic challenges are are what the reasons are and then get some best practices place for dealing with those, in the interim, i decided that i could implement some more immediate measures to address some of these challenges. for example. >> i want to know what still needs to be done to improve, i don't have a lot of time. >> sure, we, i personally believe the that we can leverage technology and deploy much more advanced technology throughout the department to, that can be used to the address. >> what's it going to take to make that happen? >> we're not process of doing that already. we rolled out a successful pilot to reduce the backlog and duplication and it's been adopted by 11 components thus far and others are in line to adop it.

>> how many components are there? >> there are 15, 11 of these components have adopted this -- >> so you need four more, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> four to go. when do you expect that to happen? >> i personally don't, i'm not aware of the time frame. i would be happy to confer with my staff. >> confer, i would appreciate it if you confer and get back to me and let me know when that will happen. i'd also like for you because i don't have a lot of time, i'll ask that you-all give us your recommendations, you know, as i listen, you don't make everything sound so rosey and i want to try to get to the bottom line of what the problems are. we heard a lot of testimony yesterday and all fairness to you, i think all of you are probably doing a whole lo of good things, but the the same time we have to balance that against what we have heard over the last day or so. i want to ask you, will you do that for me ms. newman. >> yes, i will. >> i want to ask some key

questions because i want to follow up on what mr. lynch was talking about and thank you for being here there have been intense discussion about former secretary of state hillary clinton and her use of personal e-mail for official business. however, new documents, new documents, which we received late last night raised significant questions about the e-mail usage of former secretaries of state condoleezza rice and colin powell, the state department sending letters to the former secretaries of state last fall requesting information about the use of personal e-mail for official business. on december 5th, 2014, secretary clinton and her attorneys responded by providing more than 30,000 e-mails totaling 55,000 pages.

the state department now has those e-mails and is currently reviewing them to make them available to the public. is that correct, everything i just said? >> yes, sir. >> all right. neither secretary rice nor secretary powell provided any e-mails to the department in response, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> not one. we notice secretary powell used a personal e-mail account for work because he wrote about this in his buy ogdeniography and talked about that. unlike secretary clinton secretary powell did not preserve any of these e-mails, is that correct? >> yes, he told us he did not have access to those anymore. >> so that means you didn't have access to them? >> no. >> last night the committee received new documents regarding former secretary of state condoleezza rice. in 2007, the watchdog group citizens for responsibility and

ethics in washington submitted a foyer request seeking state department policies governing the use of secretary rice's e-mail e counselaccounts and requested e-mails as well as quote e-mail messages that have been sent by the secretary of state from any private mail account and that pertained to official government business end of quote. we received the state department's response to this inquiry last night, i states that although department officials are still looking and i quote, no responsive material was found end of quote, so are you aware of any e-mails that have been identified from secretary rice's e-mail account? any? >> no, i'm not aware, well, i want to make sure they understand your question, are you asking me if i'm aware of

any e-mails from her account that should be regarded as responsive material to this request? >> that's right. >> ok, no, i'm not aware of any that are responsive to this particular request. >> all right. we already know you don't have e-mails from secretary powell, is that right? >> yes. >> do you have e-mails? >> i have -- you mean personal? >> no, no, no, no, no response to your request. you sent the request. do you have any e-mails with regard to the request? >> no. >> so ms. bar, as you stated today, can you tell us with certainly whether secretary rice even had an official state department e-mail account?

>> yes, it is my understanding that she had an official state department request. >> account. >> account, sorry. i would also like to say that e mails are not the only way we capture records, we have cables, memos, agendas, we have lots of other ways that we capture official records so while in these two instances, we did not have e-mails to respond to requests. we have other types of records that rewe maintain that are looked at to see if we have responsive materials when people ask us through the process. >> i appreciate that. right now i'm talking about e-mails, you don't have e-mails from secretary powell. >> that are responsive to the request. >> yes, ma'am. and you haven't gotten them from secretary clinton, i'm sorry,

secretary rice. >> that is correct. >> it's amazing, secretary powell and rice served during critical times in this nation's history during 9/11 attacks, the war in afghanistan and the war in iraq, yet, as far as we can tell, state department officials don't have their e-mails from this eight-year critical period. ms. barr secretary powell is straightforward about his failure to preserve e-mails but secretary rice has never spoken publicly about hers, in response to the state department's letter last fall, her representative responded by proclaiming and i quote, secretary rice did not use a personal e-mail account for official business end of quote. do you know if secretary rice's attorney conduct add thorough review of her personal e-mail a account like secretary clinton did? >> i'm not personally familiar with what her attorney did to respond to that request.

>> my time is running out. these new revelations are startleing so i hope we'll look at that era look we've been looking at the present here with regard to these e-mails, already. >> i think we recognize mr. meadows. >> thank you, mr. chairman, let me come to you, did you watch the testimony yesterday where we had 12 different witnesses across two panels talking able foyer requests? >> i didn't watch it but i was keeping up with it throughout the afternoon. >> so you are aware of their less than flattering testimony as it relates to your particular involvement with foyer requests, maybe not yours personally but the justice department, are you aware of that? there was less than flattering. >> i don't know if i would agree with that, i don't agree with

that characterization. i understand that requesters have examples of things that are frustrating experiences. >> so what you're saying is that the testimony that we heard yesterday was just a few examples of frustrating because that's not what i got from the that and i would characterize it as less than flattering. i'm having a hard time reconciling your opening testimony with the testimony of a number of witnesses yesterday with regards to the department of justice and your responsiveness because you're opening testimony provided very glowing terms so i guess my question for you is on scoring different agencies on how they respond, who gets the best marks and who gets the worst marks on your scoring?

ms. pustay: right, we do an assessment every year. let me -- mr. meadows: just who gets the best ones? i don't need -- i've got five minutes, who gets the best scores and who gets the worst scores? ms. pustay: well, we have, if you look at the assessment, we have a range of milestones, over 20 some milestones, we rank and score on a bunch of things. >> how does the justice department score on those milestones? >> justice department scores quite well. mr. meadows: would you suggest if you're seeing the milestones and you're scoring the milestones that the testimony from all these other folks who if they set milestones, they wouldn't give you high marks, how do you give yourself high marks? ms. pustay: i actually for the past two years, congressman, have been working collaboratively to set the milestones, it's actually been a joint effort. mr. meadows: ms. atkinson gave

us an example of foia requests and it taking ten years, her daughter was eight. she was 18 by the time the foia request. would you say that that is a great response? >> no, of course not. mr. meadows: would you say that that response is unique, that the there are none others like that throughout the foia requests? >> of course not, as well. >> so what part of violating the law and it gives particular responses, what point of violating that law does the department of justice condone? >> i think that it's important, it's important to look at areas that need improvement in foia. >> what part of the law.

>> improving -- >> does the justice department condone? >> we -- >> so you don't condone violating the law? >> of course not, of course not. >> so i would think that would be your answer. do you violate the law? >> of course not. >> so you never violated that law? >> we work hard very, we work very hard at my office. >> i believe that. >> to promote transparency and compliance with the law. >> i believe that. so the question under sworn testimony today is the justice department does the not violate, has never violated the foia law, is that your testimony? ms. pustay: i think what you're asking me is do we ever respond to requests beyond 20 working days. mr. meadows: is that the law? ms. pustay: the law allows for extensions of time. mr. meadows: have you ever gone beyond the law? ms. pustay: so, i wouldn't characterize it as going beyond the law because the law actually recognizes in many different aspects the foia recognizes the reality, congressman, the need

for agencies to take more time to respond to certain requests. mr. meadows: all right. is there anything in the law, so let me ask you, is there anything in the law that would ever give you waivers to the allow ten years to respond to the a foia request because i can't find it, can you show, direct me to where it would be ten years? ms. pustay: sure, sure, the way the timing provision is set out in the foia is in section 6. there is a basic response time of 20 days and you can ask for ten additional days and steps agencies can take if they need beyond the additional ten days. there is a series. mr. meadows: can you show me where it's ok for ten years? do you believe it's in there for ten years? ms. pustay: what i know is in there is working more than ten days.

mr. chairman: now recognize the gentleman from virginia. >> thank you mr. chairman. ms. barr, i must say i am reeling from the stunning revelation that you have no e-mails from two former secretaries of state who covered the entirety of the bush administration, and i want to make sure i understood your answers to mr. cummings very clearly. you are the top foia official at the department of state, is that correct? >> yes, sir. mr. connolly: if i understand your sworn testimony, you're saying that as of right now, the state department has the not been able to identify any e-mails from secretary powell or secretary rice, is that correct? ms. barr: what i was saying is that the state department did not have any e-mails that were responsive to the request.

mr. connolly: do you have other e-mails? ms. barr: i know that we have other e-mails for secretary rice. i'm not sure what we have in our collection for secretary powell. my statements were based on what i understood to be a summary of how we had requested a number of former secretaries to come back -- mr. connolly: ms. barr, my time is limited. my time is limited. i'm going to help you clarify your testimony. so are you saying you actually do have e-mails from secretary powell that -- ms. barr: i'm not sure if i have actual e-mails from secretary powell in general. is that what you're asking? mr. connolly: i'm asking is there any evidence at all of any e-mails from secretary powell on his official or personal e-mail accounts that you have access to as the head foia official as

department of state? ms. barr: i know that he did not provide any copies of e-mails of official records. mr. connolly: really? for four long years -- ms. barr: please let me finish ok? mr. connolly: please do so in a concise fashion. i only have five minutes. >> yes, sir. i don't have any e-mails that were responsive to the our request. mr. connolly: you keep using that phrase. do you have e-mails from colin powell that you have access to. ms. barr: my personal knowledge of what we might have in general, i'm not sure. mr. connolly: you're not sure. do you have access -- ms. barr: i thought the question asked to me before was much more specific. mr. connolly: do you have access

-- since you're not sure about colin powell, which i still find stunning, there is no evidence of any but you're the not sure. what about secretary condoleezza rice? ms. barr: i know she used a state.gov account and i'm sure we have access to them but i thought the question was in the context of responsive material or -- mr. connolly: what do you mean? ms. barr: because we had a request. mr. connolly: and your testimony was there is no evidence of e-mails from her responsive to the requests. ms. barr: yes. we didn't provide any. mr. connolly: what happened to them? ms. barr: it's not responsive we don't supply it but that doesn't mean that the e-mails, that the there are no e-mails period from her. mr. connolly: but there are some e-mails from her? you're not sure about colin powell but you're sure about secretary rice.

ms. barr: i know secretary rice used the state.gov account. mr. connolly: which means they are preserved somewhere. ms. barr: somewhere. mr. connolly: have you ever seen one? ms. barr: no, not personally. mr. connolly: i find that amazing as well. do the federal records act apply to secretaries powell and secretary rice? >> yes, it applies to all but again, federal records can be more than e-mail. >> i understand that. but let's stick with e-mails for a minute. >> ok. >> so is it in compliance with the federal records act to in fact wipe out e-mails whether they are on your personal or your official account? >> it is not, people are, we ask each employee to preserve official records and that's the responsibility for every employee. >> right. ms. barr: and we have to depend on individual employees to carry out their responsibilities. mr. connolly: so just to summarize, if i get, and please

correct me if i get it wrong your testimony is you're unaware of surviving e-mails from secretary powell response -- ms. barr: you said personally. mr. connolly: i understand, you have a title. presumably, you would know if anybody knew, but we'll use your phrase, responsive to the request. in that lane, there are no surviving e-mails from secretary colin powell that you're aware of. ms. barr: that are responsive. mr. connolly: with respect to secretary rice similarly, you're unaware of surviving e-mails from secretary rice responsive to the request? ms. barr: that is correct. mr. connolly: there may be or in fact your guess is there are surviveing e-mails from her but they are outside that lane of responsive to the request? >> yes, sir. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we'll recognize mr. heist for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

yesterday, as you well know, this committee heard testimony from several esteemed members of the press and outside groups who have experienced tremendous problems with foia requests and quite frankly, i was shocked and astonished by the testimony we heard yesterday. several comments stick to my mind, one in particular who used the phrase criminal obstruction to describe foia requests with the irs's targeting of groups and an official told him if you scrutinize the government, the government will scrutinize you. moments ago, ranking member cummings said all of you are making things sound rosey. we have a mess with potential criminal obstruction taking place. ms. howard, is that what tom fitten described common practice with the irs?

ms. howard: it's not my experience it's any practice within the irs. i don't see an intent -- mr. rice: so you see no targeting take place. you would deny what came out nationally. ms. howard: outside my area of expertise. i can speak to the records production. mr. rice: if someone makes a foia request to the irs, is that personal potentially a target for retaliation? ms. howard: no, sir. mr. rice: ok. so you would deny that there has been any type of retaliation, audits, that type of thing from the irs because of people so-called scrutinizing. ms. howard: the way foia requests come in logged into a system and the folks that work the foia requests have access to

the system and rest of the irs has no need for access -- mr. rice: that's not my question. my question is has the iirs participated? ms. howard: i have no direct knowledge of audit side of the house. that's not my area of expertise. mr. rice: but you have knowledge of foia side of things. and you're denying there would be any such retaliation. ms. howard: i have not shared any information with anybody that would be in a position to retaliate. mr. rice: ok. let me go further to a comment you said made a little bit earlier with the chairman regarding lois lerner, are you saying and i just want to clarify your testimony here today, are you saying there was no special treatment that was given to her for protection in spite of fact that you yourself

said that her case was the tip of the iceberg? ms. howard: when i meant was the request for her e-mails was part of the request this committee and other investigators made for information on the issue. one of the things i do want to clarify -- mr. rice: please be quick. ms. howard: ok. is that the title governmental liaison in my title is not the liaison with congress, but with state and other federal agencies, that's where my area of responsibility is in addition to foia. so a lot of the requests that would come from congress would not automatically land -- mr. rice: we're not talking able request from congress, we're talking about foia request and the other request. we're trying to get to the bottom of what appears to be out right obstruction and getting a rosey picture that is not an accurate picture. i want to shift to ms. neuman, in your testimony, you mentioned that your agency avoids foia requests that might be operation licensetive material, is that a correct --

ms. neuman: no, it's not. we don't avoid any foia requests but we do consider foia requests that may be seeking information that is operational licensetive. mr. rice: is operationally sensitive. ms. neuman: it would incloud in -- include law enforcement national security issues and we when we get a request. mr. rice: so there would be no other case where information -- listen, we had testimony one after another after another and i don't know where you guys he some of your information, quite frankly. we had people saying the average wait is years to get foia responses. i wish i had more time, my time is running out. the foia request is absolutely essential to government transparency and constitutional rule of law, and the evidence is

abundant this is being obstructed. this is an issue we got to get to root of and you folks are part of the problem. mr. chairman: i recognize the gentleman from illinois ms. duckworth for five minutes. ms. duckworth: in september of 2012 the issued a report on the foia program, office of information programs and services and the report states and i quote, the departments foia process is inefficient and ineffective, are you familiar with this report? ms. barr: yes, i am. ms. duckworth: i know you had only been on job a few months before when it was issued but i

wanted to ask you a bit more about it, report focused on the office of information programs and services, that office is within the burro of administration i understand, and you serve as the assistant secretary for that burro, is that correct? ms. barr: that is correct. ms. duckworth: i would like to through issues raised in the report. it said, i just want to quote the report, it says persistent neglect of fund mental leadership responsibilities and management practices had profound consequences, the oig team's observations, discusses with staff and responses to oig's questionnaires indicated an office with problematic morale, perceptions of favoritism, micro management practices and confused lines of authority. this really concerns me. i understand that you had only been on the job just six months so this investigation probably took place before you got there but how did you respond to those findings? ms. barr: well, i took those, that oig report very, very

seriously. it was within the first six months of my tenure and i immediately became involved in doing everything i could to address the issues. in addition to just devoting my personal time to doing whatever i could to make sure employees received proper leadership leadership training, that there were clear lines of authority, we actually moved some people around. one part of the problem is there were supervisors who were not physically located close to the employees that they were supervising. in addition to that, at that time i did have some positions that i was able to reallocate to that section. we also had a number of vacancies and in fact, at the

beginning of that period, we were able to hire a new director who made a huge difference in that section. it is something that i am always involved with any of my units but this report was like the first very negative report i had received on one of my units when i started, so i took it seriously. ms. duckworth: are you still dealing with the issues in the report? ms. barr: >> yes, we've closed most of the recommendations, but some of recommendations the that involved other burros, we're still working on it but the this is something, you know, we have to do a quarterly report to ig so it's something that i talked to the senior management in that section about all the time. ms. duckworth: ok.

the report found flaws in the department's records management. and it stated that the department's records management infrastructure is inefficient and ineffective and said failure to develop systems resulted in poor performance. is the state department overall taking steps to improve the record's management processes? ms. barr: yes, we are. first of all, we're participating in a government-wide working group that is dealing with records management, and i have been in a couple meetings and i can assure you that they are very passionate and involved people working very hard on this. in addition to that, as i mentioned earlier in my oral testimony, the secretary himself is very much committed to preservation and transparency and has asked the oig to look into a number of issues and what we are doing on records management is one of those issues.

ms. duckworth: thank you. i hope that the state dpepartment will continue to make this a top priority. foia is important and i'm sure you know that this, i'm sure this committee and myself personally will be following up to make sure that process continues, thank you. i yield back, mr. chairman. mr. chairman: we recognize mr. carter for five minutes. mr. carter: thank you, mr. chairman, mr. chairman, members of panel, in preparation for this hearing, i actually used my search engine on my computer to look up foia request and i was quite surprised and somewhat disappointed, i have to be honest with you that one of the results is what i hold in my hand and this is handout from the website of the minority leader, the minority party leader in the senate, senator harry reid. i is a document that encourages deferred action, applicants to

file foia requests, to file foia requests for records and immigration files so the lawful permanent residents here now can actually find out and be prepared when the parents of their child file for deferred status. i was shocked. it's quite impressive and offers tips as to what they should do to file the foia requests but clearly states in this handout it clearly states that the united states citizenship and immigration services is not currently accepting any applications because of the court order that we're familiar with. yet, it still encourages them in this document to go ahead and file. it still encourages them to do that. ms. neuman, the foia backlog has more than doubled.

why is this? do you know why it's more than doubled? ms. neuman: congressman, the foia backlog more than doubled in parabecause we've received an enormous increase in the request for fiscal year 2014. ice and uscis are the recipients of most of these requests as many of these requests seek immigration related records. i can't -- mr. carter: so you do think that it's a result of people encouraging these app these applicants to file requests? ms. neuman: i can't speak to that but the trigger search in request. mr. carter: you do admit they are related to immigration requests? ms. neuman: i am saying if i understand your question correctly, that a significant number of the requests received by the department are request

for immigration records. mr. carter: fair enough. in your opening statement you said that the number of requests through dhs increased over 182%. since president obama took office, that's correct. is that correct? ms. neuman: since he issued his open government directive. mr. carter: so do you think since he issued his open government directive. ms. neuman: 2009. mr. carter: so you think it's a result of the deferred action program? ms. neuman: again, i can't speak to the many events and activities out side of the department that may trigger a surge in foia requests. i can't speak to whether or not anyone is encouraging requests and whether those words of encouragement encouragement. mr. carter: ms. neuman, are you familiar with the g-639 form? ms. neuman: i can't say i am.

mr. carter: when did you take over in this department? ms. neuman: at the end of fiscal year 2013. mr. carter: that form i believe was just introduced in your department in year, so i would think that you would be familiar with it. ms. neuman: if you might remind me what that is. mr. carter: it has to do with the applicants to help expedite that. do you know whether that, those number, that form has been used, the increase in the usage of the form? ms. neuman: i personally don't have awareness of the specific form you're talking about. i would be happy to consult with my staff and get back with you. mr. carter: i hope you will. i would think you would have complete awareness of that being the director, if there was a new form implemented to expedite some foia requests coming through. ms. neuman: i'm not aware of specifics with respect to the processing of specific cases or specific types of cases.

mr. carter: ok. can you get back with us on that and please provide for this, not only that but what it's used for specifically because that's what i understand it's used for and if that form has been used and how much it's increased. ms. neuman: i'd be happy to do so. mr. carter: thank you, appreciate that. i want to mention to you again mention to you, as well, ms. neuman, i have a bill to address foia backlog requests. the majority of foia backlogs exist at dhs, so this is something i hope you will look at and i hope it will be something to assist you and help you and help us to eliminate the backlog as best we can. ms. neuman: thank you. mr. carter: thank you, mr. chairman and i yield back. >> thank you. i'll recognize the gentleman from the virgin islands for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. good morning, witnesses, good

morning to you all and thank you for the information you're providing to us. one of the things the that i really wanted us to focus on is my colleagues here discussed there is a problem and everyone is aware there is problem, i don't think you sitting here are the problems. i think that there are processes and directives and issues that have happened within your agencies that create these backlogs we're talking about and i would like to try and get to the root of what the what is the reason for this. we've talked about in some instances, ms. pustay, you have more requests and you highlighted in your testimony that the federal government receives 714,231 now foia requests in 2014, is that correct? ms. pustay: that's correct.

ms. plaskett: in the beginning of fiscal year 2009, i understand that the there were 557,000. that's an increase of 28%. ms. pustay: exactly. ms. plaskett: so that's one variable that become as problem for us, which is the increase in the number of foia request. ambassador barr, i understand the department of state has an increase in over 300% of foia requests, is that correct? ms. barr: yes, since 2008. ms. plaskett: so that's one side of the equation, i think what we haven't talked about is the other side, which is the amount of resources that you have and i would have hoped that you all would have brought that to light in some of your testimonies, so i wanted to dig into that a little as well. in 2009 instructed agencies with sizable backlogs to reduce those by 10%. was that correct? that a directive given to each one of you? yes?

everyone issued that? ms. pustay, you said quote, we roughly estimate this three-week period could have resulted in 32,000 more foia requests being processed, right? ms. pustay: that's correct. ms. plaskett: have you increased the resources you have to address the backlogs? ms. pustay: well, i can tell you that the challenges that we've identified that agencies are facing with backlogs, number one as you mentioned, the steady increase in incoming requests and staffing has been at its lowest level this past fiscal year. it was lower than it's been for six years, so resources, hiring freezes, government shutdowns where requests can come in but nobody at the government can process them, they all impact. ms. plaskett: so ms. pustay, with that you're talking about decreases. your office of information

policy during fiscal year 2014 there were 3,838 full-time foia staff devoted to the administration of foia throughout the government. we understand that that is a 9% decrease in the amount of full-time foia staff from year before, but does that figure sound correct? ms. pustay: it certainly is not the size of oip, we're about 43 people at oip. ms. plaskett: throughout government to handle foia request. ms. pustay: definitely the staffing level across the government have decreased. ms. plaskett: how does that impact the processing of the foia requests? ms. pustay: >> we're trying very hard to find ways to gain efficiencies in processing utilizing technology and that's a big factor that we've been, a big area where we've been putting emphasis and there are efficiencies to be gained with technology but at the end of day, you do need trained foia professionals who can analyze

documents for disclosability and so there is no substitute for personnel to handle requests. ms. plaskett: so it's your belief that having additional staff to process these backlogs, as well as the additional foia requests would be the best way in which to handle these backlogs. ms. pustay: i think having resources for both staff and technology together will be a very effective way. ms. plaskett: ms. neuman, would you agree that would help your agency? ms. neuman: in my case, i don't want to get too far ahead of the inden penalty -- independent review. the value of staff resources with enhanced use of technology. ms. plaskett: secretary barr would you say that would assist you, as well?

ms. barr: yes, i do believe it would a assist me, but i think that, you know, within many agencies, we are all trying to meet our priorities and -- ms. plaskett: so the foia requests a priority? ms. barr: yes, it is a priority. ms. plaskett: what would be the best way to address that priority? ms. barr: i think we have to work with technology to see if we can gain additional efficiencies, but i also see that the increasing request are also part of the american public's increasing interest in what we do and i don't expect don't expect that to abate. ms. plaskett: how do you address it? with technology alone or staff as well?

ms. barr: we're all competing for resources. ms. plaskett: that's what you come to congress for is to ask us for those resources, so you have an opportunity here to do that and i think you would avail yourself of that opportunity. >> yes, ma'am. >> i yield back my time. >> before you yield back, if you'll yield me a moment. >> of course, mr. chairman, always, well not always but in this instance, yes. >> ms. pustay, you said resources are down but if i heard you correct, can you please clarify from your perspective what subpoena happening? mr. fontenot: we've increased our resources related to foia. in 2014 we had 151 full-time employees and that's a 21% increase over the prior two years. >> so to say that personnel resources across the board

government-wide, ms. pustay are down, my team doubled the number of full-time employees dedicated to foia. that's not a decrease, increase quite dramatic. we appreciate the dedication you made. ms. pustay: mr. chairman, if i could correct the characterization, when i give the figure about staffing, i'm giving an overall number. the number of requests overall has increased overall -- mr. chaffetz: i understand the question requests but you were talking about personnel. they doubled the number of personnel. ms. pustay: i'm giving the figure for overall. each agency reports in the annual foia report the number of foia staffing so it's easy to look which agencies increased and decreased the exact numbers for them.

chairman chaffetz: you said they all decreased and he said they doubled. ms. pustay: all staffing has decreased, government figure overall. mr. cummings: yeah, just real quick, i understand what you were saying about overall because i said it in my opening statement. and i just wanted to make sure we're clear, although, there are agencies that may have increased overall, government and foia personnel decreased. ms. pustay: absolutely. thank you. mr. chaffetz: further yielding part of my point is it's in their best, some think it's in their best interest to just slow this down, ride it out and others have given it more priority. we'll now recognize mr. cartwright. mr. cartwright: mr. chairman, in the wake of the edward snowden revelations, obviously, there has been a debate and public outcry over what some are seeing as the government's overly

aggressive reaches into people's personal lives. i don't think most people would question that the need for the government to retain secrecy is important, in my mind, though, there is still an important role for foia requests to shine a light on government actions that might the not be in line with the core values the that make our country great, ms. neuman, i want to ask you with decreased funding and a shrinking number of foia staff what has the effect been on the ability to hold judicial and executive branchs accountable? ms. neuman: well, certainly with the backlog that has impacted the speed, the speed with which we can respond to requests and fulfill those requests.

i will say that dhs processed 238,031 requests up from 2013 so that's a 16% increase in the number of processed foia requests from the previous fiscal year. i would like to see greater improvements to fulfill the values of transparency and shining a light on executive branch operations as you know that's embodied in the statute. and our professionals are working hard to fulfill those requests and shine that light. mr. cartwright: wouldn't hurt to have more professionals doing this man and woman power work, right? ms. neuman: these are lean times for all federal agencies, as you know. mr. cartwright: you are being very diplomatic but i have to move on, in his testimony, david

mcgraw, says there are three areas of foia delays that need to be addressed. unresponsiveness, second agencies deferring responses to other agencies and third, there are times where the information being requested is submitted by companies to regulators so the agency had to resolve private industry privacy concerns, congress is working on legislation to expedite the sharing of cyber threat between companies and also within the the government. here in this committee, we passed out with approval, hr 653, this committee reported it out with approval this year. ms. pustay would you comment on 653? are you familiar with that legislation? ms. pustay: i'm not prepared to comment on any specific legislation, congressman. i certainly can speak to some of concepts that you just mentioned.

mr. cartwright: well, let's do that. do you have recommendation how they might be applied to increasing government transparency? ms. pustay: i think one of the key things that we've been doing just to take an example, after meeting with civil society representatives during my tenure as director of oip, i was, i have been very impacted by the concept of better communication can go a long way to making the process seem more understandable and flow more smoothly and prevent disputes from happening. so in that sense, it's been a focus of mine. i have done two separate guidance articles on the importance of good customer services and making sure requesters understand what is happening with their request. that they have a point of contact at an agency. mr. cartwright: i don't mean to cut you off.

would you forward those to my office? ms. pustay: absolutely. mr. cartwright: thank you. i want to conclude by following up on something mr. connolly from virginia was talking able talking about secretary of state condoleezza rice's e-mails and you were testifying your understanding was she used an official account to do e-mails, although you had not ever seen one of those e-mails from her on that account or any other. my information is that secretary rice has not disclosed whether she used a personal e-mail account for official business. she has not disclosed whether she used a private e-mail account for official business. and ms. barr, can you confirm or deny? do you know either way on that question? it's a yes or no. i have to hurry, yes or no? do you know? ms. barr: secretary rice told us that she did not use personal

e-mail for official business. mr. cartwright: well, i'm going to invite my dear friend from south carolina who i know is looking into the question of e-mails of secretaries of state to really delve into whether secretary condoleezza rice used private e-mail accounts for business. mr. chaffetz: now recognize the gentleman from south carolina. mr. gowdy: ms. barr, you previously testified that the former secretaries e-mail arrangement with herself was not acceptable. those were the words you used, not acceptable, what made it not acceptable to you? ms. barr: i thought that -- i

know that in my oral statement today i was talking about it. i think in my former testimony that was being asked if i thought in general it was ok to use, if any employee would use a private e-mail account. mr. gowdy: it was in response to the question when you testified before the senate and i'm sure the circumstances were was it ok to exclusively use personal e-mail with which to conduct public business and you used the phrase not acceptable. what makes it not acceptable? ms. barr: what we want to make sure that we do under the federal records act is to capture official records, so they are available to what we do

and how we come to those decisions. we don't like for records to be separated from the agency, so we were very pleased to have these records back in our possession so that they are paraof our collection and that we can make them available to the public. mr. gowdy: do you recall why secretary clinton availed herself of a personal server and used exclusively personal e-mail? do you recall the explanation given or have you been given an explanation why she went that route? ms. barr: >> i can't speak to authoritatively. my understanding is that the secretary said that she did i as a matter of convenience. mr. gowdy: and you know what -- ms. barr: i don't know that

personally. mr. gowdy: that's my understanding, too, in part because that's what she said. i guess my next question would be if it was solely for convenience, why not return the records the day you separated from the state department? ms. barr: i have no information. mr. gowdy: has she explained why she retained custody and control of the public records for almost two years after she separated? ms. barr: i'm not aware of that, sir. mr. gowdy: do you know what prompted the former secretary to return those public records to the public domain? ms. barr: we sent a letter to secretary clinton, as well as to secretaries rice, powell and albright and asked if they have records the that might have been generated on non-department systems that should be part of our official records. mr. gowdy: how were you able to compile with foia requests in that almost two-year interim

between the time you wrote the letter and when she retained control of the public records? ms. barr: sir, e-mails are not the only records. mr. gowdy: right, but as part of the record, if you receive a foia request that would have included e-mails, how would you have been able to compile with the foia request given the fact you had neither care, custody or control of the records? ms. barr: we would still search all of our records, and we would still look at things like cables, decision memos, other types of documents that we keep to provide a record. mr. gowdy: you would have given what you had but made no representation what you provided was complete because you didn't have the full public records. ms. barr: well, we always look at what we have, sir.

mr. gowdy: you can't give it if you don't have it, which raises the next question i have, i was listening to my friend from maryland and my friend from virginia make note of the fact that former secretary did return e-mails, what guarantee can you give my fellow citizens what you have now is complete public record? have you been through all of her records to determine what is public and what is private? ms. barr: we are processing them now and no, we have not completed. mr. gowdy: you're processing what was originally on the server or what she provided to you? ms. barr: we're processing what she provided to us. mr. gowdy: do you know what mechanism she would have gone through to determine what was public record or private or mixed use? do you know what made that initial determination? ms. barr: she told us she erred on the side of inclusion.

mr. gowdy: did she tell you she personally reviewed the e-mails or retained counsel to do so. ms. barr: i'm not aware if whether she personally did i or retained counsels. mr. gowdy: thank you for answering my questions, i'm over time and suffice to say i have a number of additional questions in this area. >> just for a moment -- mr. gowdy: i'm out of time but if i'm not, i'm not. mr. cummings: just one question ms. barr, what e-mails are you processing for secretary powell and secretary rice? you said you're processing e-mails. ms. barr: for clinton. mr. cummings: i mean, yeah, but what e-mails are you processing for secretary powell -- listen to me -- secretary powell, any? ms. barr: no. mr. cummings: are you processing for secretary rice? ms. barr: no.

mr. cummings: all right, thank you. i yield back. chairman chaffetz: i recognize the gentleman from the district of colombia, ms. norton for five minutes. ms. norton: i understand ms. barr, while we have the secretary clinton's we don't have any from secretary powell because he didn't save his, is that right? ms. barr: yes, ma'am. ms. norton: thank you. now, when we have a chronic problem like the this that keeps coming back, we often set up an officer or another department or another part of the government to help us out, so i noticed that of course, notice indeed in fact in hr 653 there is creation of a chief foia officer counsel. it could be run jointly by the doj and office of information. this is for ms. pustay because

your office would be task to run the information services. do you support the notion of a chief foia officer's counsel? ms. pustay: i'm not prepared to answer any specific questions about a specific legislative proposal, but what i can tell you is that chief foia officers who are designated high level officials, designated by law with foia as it currently exists, i think really hold the key to helping improve foia across the government and we do a lot to work with chief foia officers because the idea there is that you want a high level official in every agency who has authority and responsibility to make sure that the foia operations have sufficient staffing, have sufficient attention, have the resources that they need to operate and gearing off that important role

that a chief foia officer plays. starting in 2009 with the attorney general holder's foia guidelines, we have the chief foia report and every year we ask, we at oip at the department of justice, we ask chief foia officers to report on the steps they have taken to improve compliance and address a range of issues, use of technology proactive disclosures timeliness in responding to the a request and every year we have been changing the metrics that we ask and the questions that we ask of those chief foia officers because as we see foia processes improve or as we see steps taken to approve foia, we want to keep agencies to do more and better so we -- it's an evolving process for us. so i think that we have a lot of good mechanisms in place right now that take advantage of the position of the chief foia

officer. ms. norton: well, let me turn to the chief foia officers. how do each of you feel about the notion of a chief foia's counsel. would it be beneficial to you in any way? ms. neuman: it's an interesting idea. i would have to give that some thoug thought and after doingm so, i would be happy to share my thoughts with you. ms. norton: have you given any thought to that, mr., you seem to be the ones that ought to be consulted about that. mr. fontenot: yes, ma'am, i have the not given thought to this as of now but i'm happy to take that back. ms. norton: well, i think the committee would benefit from your advice and counsel particularly since there is a

subcommittee hearing here on government operations had a foia hearing and heard from frederick sadler. he had previously served as a foia officer at the food and drug administration and let me read what he said. it would seem appropriate to require agency representation at the highest level possible when the individual is also the most knowledgeable. past experience has shown that not every chief foia officer has the skillset since this is by definition not necessarily that individual's specialty. ms. barr, i'll start with you. do you agree with mr. sadler's comment? ms. barr: i think it would depend on how that person, you know, each agency organizes this

issue differently. for the state department, i'm the chief foia officer, but i also have a lot of other responsibilities, so i have a deputy assistant secretary who is an expert in the issues and i consult closely with that person. ms. norton: what about exchange of ideas across agency lines? do you believe sharing of information about agency experience and their ideas and own best practices, what they have done right or wrong would improve the implementation of foia, would the foia officers have a view on that? ms. pustay: i can certainly tell

you that we definitely think that's incredibly important. we have what i mentioned, the best practices workshop series where the whole idea is to identify a top pick and as i mentioned, our very first top pick is improving timeliness and identify agencies that have achieved success in that area and then have them come and speak to a gathering of anyone every interested agency employee, and share their best practices so that we can leverage success across the government. then what we've done at oip is take that further in that we are, we created a dedicated web page on the website where connected to the best practices workshop series where we list the best practices that came out of each of the sessions. we've also issued guidance in relation to the best practices so it's something that we've been doing already for a full year now and we feel that it's been very successful and it's a very important way to have agencies be able to capitalize on the good things and the innovation that one another is doing.

chairman chaffetz: we'll now recognize the gentleman from north carolina for five minutes. >> thank you. i would like to yield my time to the gentleman from north carolina. mr. gowdy: i appreciate you talking with me earlier, i want to pick back up where we were. i was seeking some level of assurance from you to the extent you could give one what was produced to the state department did in fact represent the full universal of what would be public record and i have no interest in private documents. i could care less. i'm interested in making sure the whole public universal is complete, so what assurance can you give the public that state department has everything that would be considered a public record from her tenure as secretary of state? ms. barr: she has assured us that she gave us everything she

had and like we do with other federal employees, we have to depend on them to provide that information to us so i have documents and, you know, we've accepted her assurance that she's given us everything she had that should be part of our official records. mr. gowdy: well, you mentioned other federal employees which got me wondering and i wrote down a list of some other cabinet level folks that i have worked with in my time here. attorney general holder, did he have his own server? ms. neuman: are you asking me? mr. gowdy: i'm asking whoever can answer it. ms. neuman: attorney general holder used official doj mr. gowdy: he did. how about new attorney general lynch? does she have a personal server.

ms. neuman: same, as well. she's using an official doj acounsel. mr. gowdy: what about president obama, if you pursue theory of convenience, i can't imagine a busier person on the globe than president obama. did he have his own personal server? ms. barr? ms. barr: i have no knowledge. mr. gowdy: well, well, reason i'm asking is because you said that you're doing it the exact same way as any public official and my point is because of this of this arrangement that former secretary had with themself you're not in a position to do the same you would with any public official because vice president biden and obama don't have their personal attorneys going through the e-mails to decide what to return and not. i assume in your position as an apolitical, non-political unbias position. am i correct? ms. barr: yes, sir. mr. gowdy: i believe the department of state has an

insect torepector general, am i right? ms. barr: i asked them to look into system of issues. we are cooperating with them. mr. gowdy: do you know who nominated the kerr renl current inspector general? ms. barr: i don't have that information at my fingertips but i can get back to you. mr. gowdy: you don't have to. it was president obama. do you know who controlled the senate when he was confirmed? do you know what the vote was? it was unanimous. ms. barr: i knew you were going to give me that information. [laughter] mr. gowdy: it was unanimous. i do know the answer to those two. he was unanimously confirmed by a senate controlled by the democrats which makes me think that he, like you, is a neutral detached person that is separating what should be in the

public domain from what should be personal. why not let the inspector general look at all the records just to make absolutely sure and that way we're not in a position of having to take someone's lawyer's word for it. why not do that? ms. barr: well with, it was my understanding -- you're talking about the e-mail collection, not the entire process? mr. gowdy: no, i'm talking about -- you had been put in the position of having to take a lawyer's word that you have all the public records, and perhaps it's just being a lawyer, i'm just wondering who with a duty to public instead of former secretary hiring an attorney to do it, why can't the attorney that works for us, why can't the inspector general do it? ms. barr: so you're asking me why can't the inspector general make the determination of whether we received all of e-mails?

mr. gowdy: yes. ms. barr: i really can't speculate. mr. gowdy: i'm out of time. hopefully we can he more time and we can speculate together. mr. chaffetz: i recognize mr. duncan for five minutes. mr. duncan: mr. chairman, thank you for having these hearings. this is very, very important and i would simply say that the record the testimony, the record on these foia request is simply horrendous. we heard yesterday cheryl atkinson say foia is a pointless, useless shadow of its former self and testified it took ten or 11 years to get a request she submitted submitted. another witness said that the pentagon, told him it would take

15 years to give him one and they said they would if he agreed to never file another foia request and the court ruled in his favor captioning -- and said it was ridiculousmr. mcraw said they had to file eight different lawsuits last year, and i have told their 424 lawsuits from 2014. we had another witness you told about the year she had spent litigating for you -- foia and brought in numerous notebooks full of pages that were sent to her with practically everything, thousands of pages with 100% on most of his pages totally

redacted, and it was useless. i can tell you the american people think the federal government is already far too weak, too out of control, and party she could give -- far too secretive, and the american people will not stand for more secrecy from the federal government. i would say to you foia officers who are listening, if you do not start it better, this congress will have to come down very hard and come up with legislation i am sure none of you are going to want to live with at all. but, ms. pustay, can you assure me if chairman ja chaffetz

calls a hearing, that we will hear better things? surely, you do not accept a system that takes 10 or 15 years to grant a request? ms. pustay: i am looking at what we do every day is work very hard to try to help agencies approve their administration of the foia. we want fundamentally or all agency professionals who are a late request to understand the law and are obligations and that is why we focus on training and why we are happy to be able to complete e-learning resources. we need trained professionals. we want to make sure there is good customer services so that requesters understand the process and know what is

happening. we want to use technology to find greater efficiencies in processing requests so we can proceed more quickly. there is a lot of things we can do, and we are trying very hard to help agencies to better. >> i hope there are requests being granted without forcing lawsuits, but i am told almost all of these lawsuits have ended up with rulings in favor of the plaintiffs and against the department. ms. pustay: that is not accurate. the number of lawsuits is really small in comparison to the request. we get 700,000 requests, 400 lawsuits. we do not want anybody to go. it is an important right to have the judicial review of an agency's actions but we do not

want requesters to feel that is where they have to go. we want to have -- mr. duncan: you agree that the system must approve and must be faster? ms. pustay: we are constantly looking for ways to improve it and be faster. the administration conference that a study of who prevails and who does not prevail in lawsuits, and they found the government revealed in for oia lawsuits 80% of the time. i want to correct that the statement -- that misstatement. mr. duncan: you do agree that if it takes that are 15 years the system is broken.

ms. pustay: since 2009, the agency has responded to more than 4 million requests. that is a success story for foia. i'm not saying there is not problems and there is areas we can improve, and that is what i tried to focus on in my office every single day, to try to help the agency improve. mr. dumpncan: we heard yesterday about problems that we should not have heard about. >> we hurt and exchanged earlier with the chairman you represent that reference a special team created to deal with requests for information concerning the targeting and a former employee at the irs, lois lerner. when did this special project

team start? >> my understanding was it started soon after the request from congress and other investigators asking for documents around the issue. that would have been somewhere in spring or early summer of 2013. mr. jordan: and that was the reason why do deal with requests from congress? was also request from outside. like folks we heard from yesterday, who will deal from that as well? ms. howard: it was understood that most of the documents -- so we centralized the process for gathering them and redacting them. mr. jordan: was that unusual? ms. howard: it was a usual response. i see the irs doing that on an

ongoing basis -- mr. jordan: it was not unusual? ms. howard: if i gave you the impression there is a title called special-teams, -- mr. jordan: that is what you said, special project team. it was on that? -- who is on? -- who is on it? ms. howard: i cannot tell you. mr. jordan: was the chief counsel part of the teams created shortly after it became known that there was targeting going on two years ago? ms. howard: i have no knowledge of. mr. jordan: we will do that.

is it your assumption or do you believe -- you are the one who brought a special counsel in response to mr. chaffetz earlier, and you think that the chief counsel as part of the team? ms. howard: it was a production team. it was a way to amass documents and that's produced them. mr. jordan: you were asked by the chairman earlier about did you have any interaction with the white house before you released information? i am quoting from what your response in, we have never shared information with white house. accurate? ms. howard: yes. mr. jordan: i cannot speak for the irs. i can speak for the disclosure office. do you know if the special project team that was put together gathering all this

information most likely have the chief counsel on it -- do you know if they were checking with the white house before the game information to congress and other foia requests? ms. howard: i have no knowledge except that they amassed hundreds of documents. this jordan: is it -- mr. jordan: is it likely? ms. howard: i do not know. mr. jordan: that would be in contradiction to the memo second 2009 respect all types of document requests, gao requests, and foia requests. we had this memo to all cheap ief counsel.

you're telling the specialty was created and you think it is unlikely they actually collect it -- ms. howard: the memo specifies documents with white house equities. i am not sure the documents we -- mr. jordan: you do not think the white house has any interest in the irs targeting people? equities is an interest. they have an interest in it. all documents requests that may involve white house interests. that is pretty broad. the gives clarification and says requests, which he said the reason team was created, gao and foia requests. i would say the chief counsel

if he is likely part of this shooting, he would not be following the memo if he was not consulted with the white house. do you agree? ms. howard: the team was put together not because of the response to this review, but because of that volume and a number of invest gators -- investigators and a scoop of documents needed. it was a business reason. mr. jordan: i'm out of time. thank you. mr. chaffetz: i will recognize myself. ms. howard i want you to talk about the i.t. challenges. what sort of software are you dealing with and how bad is it? ms. howard: it was cumbersome and carter when he was speaking preferred to the fact that he had that opportunity to go on to a search engine on his personal computer, put in keywords that had to do with foia, if the

button and all kinds of responses. that is not the way it works in irs. we do not have a library of electronic documents that we can go and search to a google or bing or other search engines that you might have. we need the ability to tag those records so we know what they are, who created them -- mr. chaffetz: do you do keyword searches? ms.ms. howard: you cannot do a massive look. >> what software do you use? ms. howard: on my computer. a microsoft suite of products

includes outlook. >> use outlook. you cannot typ it were into outlooke and search a database? is our: in my -- ms. howard: in my own account. >>i want to add that the documents you have to go through line by line to look for 6103 reductions. it is not just about the i.t., but that is a huge thing in irs. >> ms. neuman, you mentioned the budget detail worksheet that would be released in june of this year. you have that yet, and can you provide it to this committee? ms. neueman: i am not aware it has been completed. i will check with my ticket the

debt my deputy chief. -- my deputy chief. >> can you share that with this committee? what the charges that are given to the public and the expenses they have. let me start with you, go back to ms. howard here. oftentimes people are frustrated because the law says you need to respond within 20 days, but oftentimes it is months before they hear again. how do you pick those dates? ms. howard: they are an approximation of when we think the document production will be done. in the case of the c4 cases we had no idea the volume of documents that would be required how long it would take for the response to congress and the investigators to be complete. mr. chaffetz: you count on

them to do it? there is not a foia office they can get in there, pull up every relevant e-mail -- ms. howard: there is no library -- mr. chaffe is wrong to say there's notz: library. it is called e-mail. thate reason we moved away from warehouses with file folders is electronically you can push a button, to a search and generate that. this is the year 2015 here. we are not in the stone ages trying to not something out and copy it on a stone. do not tell me it is a database. it is called e-mail and microsoft. ms. howard: folder by folder by folder by folder, account account by cap by kent. mr. chaffetz: it is magic, you can get a 20-year-old person in

there and make can find it in a couple hours. we do not believe that. ms. howard: the capabilities of the systems we had do not enable us to that. mr. chaffetz: i do not understand that and do not understand how you pick dates. we do not have time. would take you 10 minutes each to explain this. if they do not get exposure, sometimes they were asked months and years, sometimes very legitimate. they need some exposure to that, that there seems to be this great deal as mistry -- ulf mr. as one using it will be july angela comes in the next thing is october, and it seems a slow walk. you expect us what you th think that they -- and that date --

pick the date? the law is the law. ms. howard: are you asking the question. the gao report recommended we finalize our interim regulation which embodies foia policy and guidance. rulemaking process is underway. you are preparing to issue for public comment after which we will review the comments carefully -- mr. chaffetz: we will be watching, because this is one of the frustrations. foia is what it is, but every time you get to do for ages is, they have different standard spirit you do not -- standards. that is a frustration. >> the rule is not intended -- >> blair fascinated.

you think i'm frustrated, we talked about the scorecard,. you do this evaluation and there's a color code, different categories of presumption of openness and place for responding proactive disclosure, backlog reduction. if you listened to the some testimony of today and compare it yesterday, we had as white a rate of people as you can -- wide array of individuals as you could possibly have. as wide a swatch of people as you could. nobody believed that things were going well. and you do your score card, at the department of justice, you are solid green. you give yourself five of five on perception of openness,

effective system and place for responding. proactive disclosure -- are you kidding me? department of justice gives themselves a five out of five on progress disclosure? you really think anybody in the world believes that department of justice -- they are at the top of their game, they have been a+? >> i do. >> you are living in la-la land. you're a very nice person. is that a presumption of openness? that correct disclosure? i've they differ. where is the heart of what i think there is a problem because you think you are doing a great job. ms. pustay: we are constantly

evaluating with the are doing. you're looking at the whole-- >> presumption of openness? >> respond to requests? we can argue about this. i baked it in. yet people yesterday who differed. there is nobody who would agree across the board, and most everyone of you got great scores i do not buy. want to ask me about the department of justice. arqule cute able to conduct an electronic search -- are you

able to conduct an electronic search? >> what you are talking about is a really important improvement to foia administration and we have within oip tools that are more sophisticated that are used in the discovery context that allow individual e-mail accounts to be dumped or collected into one bucket. >> research the universal index? >> we have that allow us -- >> uni? >> they allow us to search multiple custodians simultaneously. >> you search electronic case files? >> sometimes. mr. case files were relevant to a particular >>. what i want to emphasize that technology is incredibly

important to foia administration. we had been at the forefront of pushing for use of more sophisticated technology to handle requests. we did a pilot several years ago to show the benefits of being able to do things like searching multiple custodians at the same time. >> understanding is the fbi conducts searches on the index, but that does not allow for text-based searches it is not search the electronic case filing that contain versions of the punisher to investigative records and the ecf is text for. i do not expect a response, but i want you to get back to us on this point, if you would. ok. i have a few more questions.

i want you to go down the line. let's go back to ms. barr this is my lesson questions before. i changed my mind. i want to know what is the construction you believe you have been given to direct with the white house? percentage of documents to get to the white house or somebody who represents the white house? what is the expectation that you share information within? this directive is concise, clear, three paragraphs. they want you to give them everything. my question is what you have to do in order to fulfill the demand from the white house that you give it dos or -- to us or the media or the judicial branch? >> have a standard process that follow for foia, at it includes

if the white house has equity in a document that we are working on we consult with them as appropriate. we followed the standard f -- we follow the standard foia process. when we get a request we have 18 of reviewers. -- we had a team of reviewers. for the most part they are retired foreign service officers and some of them are for investors. yet quite a few. they look at it, you decide where any church for document, and then once we get the results of that document search back, we go through line by line had at that point we look at whether or not need to coordinate with

other agency. and that would be when we would include the white house, after they get these materials by, the site have interest in that. >> could you send it to? >> i'm not sure exactly. >> if you could get back with us. >> but i can tell you is the process of consulting with other agencies which would include the white house has not changed. this memo is a practice we had administration to administration. a long time. the word equity is a more modern term is captured by the memo and what has been consistent from the administration to administration is when an finds communication that originated with another entity or reflected a vacation entity, that is an

agency as a matter of good practice consults the other agency. oftentimes that can include getting interviews it's ok to release the material. it is communication is what happened. >> is a big source of what it has slowed down. but first -- what percentage of the information you give to the white house for you shared us? >> i do not percent that have the equity any particular -- >> ms. neuman? >> it happens very frugally. -- very infrequently. >> why: >> it is my understanding i do not get involved in these consultations, understand the

kind we get did not involve white house equities. when the request if there is indication it is a request for records or information, that would trigger the confrontation. >> i'm not a view that white house. and say if you wish in your possession, at homeland, against the foia request, it should be shared with the white house? you tell me you do not do that? >> we follow guidelines require consultation -- >> what about the white house guide? you tonight i buy it -- you do not abide by it? >> we adhere to this memo in accordance with the doj guidance. we report all such consultations publicly in our foia reports. he asked whether these consultations create additional

delay, i have made procedures to minimize that delay -- associated with consultations directing one senior official member of my team to be a point of contact. >> and they communicate to who at the white house? >> i will have to ask them. >> i do not process requests treasury falls the guidance from 2011 concerning foia requests. we consult agencies concerning documents that originated at this agency or in communication with those agencies. in this respect treasury -- when those documents it originated or are late the white house. we treat the white house like

any other agency. >> you're on a roll. you are nuts if you think you treat the white house exactly the same as you treat them bureau of indian affairs. there is no way that happens. with due respect, we are to get our hands on it. we would like feedback on it. i think the director of the white house is crystal clear and we will proceed with that. i am well over time. mr. cummings: i think a lot of times i sit in these hearings and try to figure out where we are going. you will have to help me help you. i sent the -- i said to you ms. neuman, i wanted you to get back to me information as to --

all of you -- as to things we could do to make things better. it is hard to do that when you think you are almost perfect. i am serious. i mean, some kind of way -- did you watch the testimony yesterday, any of you? hello? anybody? ms. barr, did you watch any of the testimony yesterday? ms. barr: i heard some of it, but wanted to focus on preparing today. >> i got updated throughout the day on the testimony. >> i watched part of the area. >> i watched most of it. after coming -- mr. cummings: when you heard the testimony of seems like a world of difference. and let me tell you what i think