[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                       HEARING ON COMPLIANCE WITH
                          COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESPONSIVENESS AND 
                         ACCOUNTABILITY TO OVERSIGHT

                                 OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                        THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-30

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
         
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]         


               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
               
                               __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
52-929                      WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                
                      COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

DARRELL ISSA, California             JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking 
KEN BUCK, Colorado                       Member
MATT GAETZ, Florida                  ZOE LOFGREN, California
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana              SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                  STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
TOM McCLINTOCK, California           HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin                   Georgia
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              ADAM SCHIFF, California
CHIP ROY, Texas                      ERIC SWALWELL, California
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina           TED LIEU, California
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana             PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin          J. LUIS CORREA, California
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
BEN CLINE, Virginia                  JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  LUCY McBATH, Georgia
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey            MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
TROY NEHLS, Texas                    VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
KEVIN KILEY, California              CORI BUSH, Missouri
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             GLENN IVEY, Maryland
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               BECCA BALINT, Vermont
LAUREL LEE, Florida
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina
                                 ------                                

           SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESPONSIVENESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY
                              TO OVERSIGHT

                       BEN CLINE, Virginia, Chair

JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey            ERIC SWALWELL, California, Ranking 
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas                   Member
LAUREL LEE, Florida                  GLENN IVEY, Maryland

               CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
          AMY RUTKIN, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
                            
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                        Thursday, June 22, 2023

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Ben Cline, Chair of the Subcommittee on 
  Responsiveness and Accountability to Oversight from the State 
  of Virginia....................................................     1
The Honorable Eric Swalwell, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee 
  on Responsiveness and Accountability to Oversight from the 
  State of California............................................     3

                               WITNESSES

The Hon. Zephranie Buetow, Assistant Secretary, Office of 
  Legislative Affairs, Department of Homeland Security
  Oral Testimony.................................................     5
  Prepared Testimony.............................................     7
The Hon. Carlos Uriarte, Assistant Attorney General, Office of 
  Legislative Affairs, Department of Justice
  Oral Testimony.................................................     9
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    11

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

All materials submitted for the record by the Subcommittee on 
  Responsiveness and Accountability to Oversight are listed below    35


 
                       HEARING ON COMPLIANCE WITH
                          COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT

                              ----------                              


                        Thursday, June 22, 2023

                        House of Representatives

     Subcommittee on Responsiveness and Accountability to Oversight

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:23 p.m., in 
Room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ben Cline [Chair 
of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Cline, Van Drew, Moran, Lee, 
Swalwell, and Ivey.
    Mr. Cline. The Subcommittee will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess at any time.
    Welcome, everyone, to today's ``Hearing on Compliance With 
Committee Oversight.''
    I would like everyone to stand for the pledge.
    All. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States 
of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one 
Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for 
all.
    Mr. Cline. All right. That is the first time a Subcommittee 
has probably ever been gaveled in by cell phone.
    Here's the gavel.
    Mr. Swalwell. Next time will be AI.
    Mr. Cline. That's right.
    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
    Welcome, everyone, to the third Hearing of the Subcommittee 
on Responsiveness and Accountability to Oversight.
    Today, the Subcommittee will work to get answers directly 
from representatives from the Department of Justice and the 
Department of Homeland Security.
    We also invited the Departments of State and Health and 
Human Services to testify today, and we are disappointed that 
these two agencies are not here to answer our questions, 
especially since the State Department has failed to produce 
documents pursuant to the Committee's subpoena. We look forward 
to their testimony in July.
    We also look forward today to engaging with the witnesses 
that have appeared to discuss the productions we have received 
to date and the status of our other outstanding requests.
    Since the beginning of the Biden Administration, Committee 
Republicans have made over 100 different requests for 
information and documents concerning the operations and actions 
of the Justice Department. The Committee has also made many 
requests for information and documents concerning the 
operations and actions of the FBI and DHS. The Committee has 
reiterated these requests for information and documents to all 
three agencies multiple times.
    On February 2, 2023, Chair Jordan issued subpoenas to 
Attorney General Garland and FBI Director Wray regarding the 
use of Federal law enforcement and counterterrorism tools to 
investigate concerned parents at school board meetings. To 
date, the responses to these subpoenas have been deficient and 
overdue. While the FBI has produced some documents to the 
Committee and made other documents available for review, 
questions remain, and the Committee awaits the Bureau's next 
production.
    On April 10, 2023, Chair Jordan issued another subpoena to 
Director Wray, concerning the FBI's anti-Catholic memo, which 
equated Catholics to violent extremists. The FBI's production 
to this subpoena has been deficient to date, and the FBI still 
needs to produce certain documents to the Committee pursuant to 
that subpoena, such as information regarding the genesis of the 
memorandum.
    On April 28, 2023, Chair Jordan issued a subpoena to 
Director Easterly to investigate the nature and extent of the 
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency, or CISA's, 
interactions with companies and groups over content moderation. 
CISA's response to date--a mere 200 pages that is extremely 
limited in scope--has been wholly incomplete and inadequate.
    The Department of Homeland Security is also here today 
because of multiple outstanding requests regarding immigration 
policies and actions. At the DHS oversight hearing on April 28, 
2022, then-Ranking Member Jordan asked Secretary Mayorkas 
whether 42 individuals on the Terrorist Screening Data base who 
were encountered at our Southwest border were released into the 
United States. Secretary Mayorkas promised a response over a 
year ago that never came despite Chair Jordan sending several 
followup letters, including two this year.
    On November 22, 2022, the Committee requested detailed 
information from DHS regarding the illegal categorical parole 
program created for Venezuelan nationals. Committee staff also 
requested the same information and documentation for the Cuban, 
Haitian, and Nicaraguan parole programs. To date, the Committee 
has not received a substantive response to its requests 
regarding DHS's illegal categorical parole programs.
    The department is also violating several laws mandating 
that those certain reports be sent to Congress. The Border 
Security Metrics Report for Fiscal Year 2022 is over eight 
months late. By failing to follow the law on this report, 
Congress does not know the number of gotaways, turnbacks, and 
the unlawful border crossing effectiveness rate during the 
worst border crisis in our Nation's history.
    The estimate-of-required-detention-space report is required 
by law to be submitted to Congress every six months. According 
to DHS, this detention report was ``discontinued,'' despite 
still being required by current law.
    While these agencies have begun to produce some documents 
to our other requests, the Committee continues to have concerns 
about the responsiveness of the agencies. For example, in 
response to a recent request from the Committee, the Department 
of Justice indicated that it will not be complying with our 
request. Rather, the department will instead, quote, ``speak 
through its court filings.''
    These hearings play a critical role in assisting the 
Committee in its oversight obligations, which in turn allows 
the Committee to examine potential legislative changes within 
our jurisdiction--and, I might add, appropriations decisions.
    The courts have recognized that Congress's power to conduct 
oversight is an indispensable component of our authority to 
legislate. Without the information that the Committee needs 
from the administration, we cannot do our jobs.
    We look today to engaging with the witnesses who have 
appeared to discuss the productions we have received to date 
and to discuss the status of our other outstanding requests.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Swalwell, for an 
opening statement.
    Mr. Swalwell. I thank the Chair.
    I just want to level-set what this is really about. It's 
about the client that the Law Firm of Insurrection, LLP, 
Chaired by Jim Jordan, represents: That's Donald Trump. It's a 
firm with just one
client.
    So, we're here today because Donald Trump has been 
indicted, 37 counts, for stealing and sharing classified 
information. So, this an effort to defend him in the court of 
public opinion, to taint the jury in the case against him.
    It's pretty rich to me that Jim Jordan is 400-plus days 
into being in violation of his own subpoena and we're hearing 
about lawlessness and violations of the law. I couldn't think 
of a greater prerogative Congress has than its oversight 
capabilities and making sure its subpoenas mean something.
    So, to our witnesses today, thank you for doing what Chair 
Jim Jordan was not willing to do, which was to show up in 
response to a request from Congress. So, he continues to be in 
violation of the law; you show up and honor the law.
    I have to say--and I think Chair Jordan will appreciate 
this--this is getting a little embarrassing, and it feels a 
little bit like the 2017 Cleveland Browns. You know how many 
games they won in 2017? Zero. They were 0 and 16. So, they'd 
suit up every game, they'd say the pledge, they'd take the 
field, and everyone was really rooting for them because they 
were told, as fans, that they're gonna win. They kept losing, 
and they kept losing, and they kept losing.
    So, I'm embarrassed for Chair Jordan. Because we were 
promised that the crime of the century was coming from John 
Durham, and then we learned that John Durham took two cases to 
trial, and he lost both of them.
    Then we were promised that Hunter Biden was going to go 
down for fraud, money laundering, and all this salacious stuff. 
Then we learned the Trump-appointed attorney where half the 
investigation was conducted under the Trump Administration 
indicted Hunter Biden for failure to pay taxes that he 
ultimately ended up paying.
    The Weaponization Committee--I don't know if you remember 
them; we haven't had a hearing in over a month from them--
again, has failed to prove anything other than it's just an 
obstruction-of-justice effort on behalf of Donald Trump.
    So, Chair Jordan's Committee is starting to look like the 
Cleveland Browns, and it's just goose egg after goose egg.
    So, we'll sit here, and we'll go through it. I know one of 
the issues is around the Mar-a-Lago search. So, what I want to 
know from Chair Jordan is, he used to love Bill Barr. Chair 
Jordan was thirsty for Bill Barr.
    We saw it and we heard it throughout so many Congressional 
hearings. ``Thank God for Bill Barr,'' he said on September 12, 
2019. On June 24, 2020: ``Bill Barr is doing the Lord's work.'' 
On April 10, 2019, Jim Jordan again: ``Bill Barr is pursuing 
the truth--exactly what Americans want from their Attorney 
General.''
    Now, if you're tracking, Bill Barr no longer is defending 
or doing the bidding of Donald Trump. In fact, as it relates to 
Mar-a-Lago, Bill Barr has said,

        The effort to present Trump as a victim in the Mar-a-Lago 
        document affair is cynical political propaganda.

Barr said earlier this month, ``Trump's toast.'' Then Barr also 
said, ``The government acted responsibly, and it was Donald 
Trump who acted irresponsibly.''
    So, my question for Jim Jordan is: If this investigation of 
Donald Trump is good enough for Bill Barr, who you love, why is 
it not good enough for you? Why are we going through this and 
dragging the department in, if somebody that you love, who's 
doing the Lord's work, says that the investigation is valid?
    By the way, we are defending all of this--and if we could 
show the next slide--the person, the client that's being 
defended, the actions are actually quite indefensible. This is 
what he wants, because this is what he posted this morning.
    Donald Trump said,

        CONGRESS, PLEASE INVESTIGATE THE POLITICAL WITCH HUNTS AGAINST 
        ME CURRENTLY BEING BROUGHT BY THE CORRUPT DOJ AND FBI, WHO ARE 
        TOTALLY OUT OF CONTROL. THIS CONTINUING SAGA IS RETRIBUTION 
        AGAINST ME FOR WINNING AND, EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY TO THEM, 
        ELECTION INTERFERENCE REGARDING THE 2024 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. 
        IT WILL BE THERE UPDATED FORM--spelling not necessarily 
        correct--OF RIGGING OUR MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION. LOOK AT THE 
        POLLS--THEY CAN'T BEAT ME (MAGA!) AT THE BALLOT BOX, THE ONLY 
        WAY THEY CAN WIN IS TO CHEAT. STOP THEM NOW!

``Stop them now.'' That's what this is. This is an effort to 
just follow the tweets that their client is sending them.
    By the way, we know what they think of law enforcement 
because their colleague--you can go to the next one--continues 
to post this. This is one of the colleagues who's joining the 
show here. There's not a respect for laws or law enforcement. 
They want to defund the FBI. They raised money off of defunding 
the FBI.
    So, again, we'll sit here for another Browns loss, but it's 
just too bad that the country's going to have to go through 
this when we're seeing healthcare not being addressed, our kids 
in classrooms not being protected, not taking on a climate 
chaos crisis across the globe. So many things people want us to 
focus on, and we're just going to do the bidding for 
Insurrection, LLP, for the client Donald Trump.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Cline. Without objection, all other opening statements 
will be included in the record.
    Mr. Cline. We will now introduce today's witnesses.
    First, the Hon. Zephranie Buetow. Ms. Buetow is the 
Assistant Secretary for the Office of Legislative Affairs at 
the Department of Homeland Security. She is the primary liaison 
to Congress and responds to inquiries from Congress; notifies 
Congress about the department's initiatives, policies, and 
programs; and advises the department's senior leadership about 
the activities of Congress.
    The Hon. Carlos Uriarte. Mr. Uriarte is the Assistant 
Attorney General for the Office of Legislative Affairs in the 
Department of Justice. He is the leader of the component 
responsible for managing the department's relationship with 
Congress.
    We welcome our witnesses and thank them for appearing 
today.
    We will begin by swearing you in. Please rise and raise 
your right hand.
    Do you swear or affirm, under penalty of perjury, that the 
testimony you're about to give is true and correct, to the best 
of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
    Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in 
the affirmative.
    Thank you. You can be seated.
    Please know that your written testimony will be entered 
into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you 
summarize your testimony in five minutes.
    Ms. Buetow, you may begin.

             STATEMENT OF THE HON. ZEPHRANIE BUETOW

    Ms. Buetow. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Cline, Ranking Member Swalwell, and distinguished 
Members of the Subcommittee, I am honored to appear before you 
today. My name is Zephranie Buetow, and I serve as Assistant 
Secretary for Legislative Affairs at the Department of Homeland 
Security, or DHS.
    With nearly a decade of experience on Capitol Hill, I have 
a deep appreciation for the important work of Congress and a 
true respect for its oversight responsibilities. Congressional 
oversight is vital to our functioning democracy.
    The Congressional affairs teams across DHS primarily 
consist of dedicated career public servants. The teams work 
tirelessly to respond to oversight requests, constituent 
casework, and other time-sensitive matters.
    The Department of Homeland Security is subject to oversight 
from over 70 Congressional Committees and Subcommittees. Since 
January 20, 2021, the department has responded to over 1,400 
Congressional letters.
    During the 117th Congress, DHS participated in 123 
Congressional hearings and over 4,500 non-hearing engagements, 
such as codels, staffdels, demonstrations, site visits, and 
roundtables.
    In the first few months of the 118th Congress, the 
department received over 200 Congressional letters, including a 
significant number of expansive requests for information and 
documents. Additionally, DHS provided 45 witnesses to 30 
hearings and participated in over 1,200 briefings and other 
nonhearing engagements.
    We are making great efforts to meet the increased oversight 
demands from Congress, all while balancing, as the Constitution 
envisions, the legitimate oversight interests of Congress with 
the department's law enforcement and national security 
responsibilities and the confidentiality interests of the 
Executive Branch.
    DHS depends on subject-matter experts throughout the 
department for the information needed to provide accurate and 
complete responses to Congressional inquiries. Not 
surprisingly, these efforts are often the same leaders and 
operators performing the department's many critical functions. 
As a result, the information needed may not always be available 
within the timetable requested.
    In some cases, operational dynamics or the need for 
interagency coordination may delay or limit responses. To that 
end, we conduct regular meetings with DHS offices and 
components to work collaboratively to respond to Congressional 
requests.
    The Committee indicated that today's hearing would examine 
responses to its oversight requests. Since the beginning of the 
118th Congress, the Committee has sent eight document-request 
letters to the department and its components, some of which 
incorporate or reference requests that were made last Congress.
    The department is complying with the Committee's requests 
in good faith, consistent with the accommodations process. To 
date, the department has produced over 2,200 pages of documents 
responsive to the letters received during this Congress, as 
well as over 500 pages responsive to requests made during the 
previous Congress.
    We are continuing to review potentially responsive records 
and will produce additional records, as appropriate, as they 
become available.
    We are committed to cooperating with the Committee's 
legitimate efforts to seek information, consistent with our 
obligations under the Constitution. We look forward to 
continued engagement with the Committee and thank you for your 
partnership and service to the American people.
    I look forward to answering your questions.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of the Hon. Buetow follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Ms. Buetow.
    Mr. Uriarte, you may begin.

              STATEMENT OF THE HON. CARLOS URIARTE

    Mr. Uriarte. Chair Cline, Ranking Member Swalwell, and 
distinguished Members of this Subcommittee, thank you for the 
opportunity to appear before you today for a second time this 
Congress.
    When I last appeared before you, in March, I committed to 
working with the Committee in the tradition of accommodation 
and good faith. Since then, the department has worked every day 
to meet that commitment by keeping open the lines of 
communication and by continuing to respond to your oversight 
requests.
    I'd like to start today by talking about the important role 
of the Office of Legislative Affairs and why I agreed to serve 
as Assistant Attorney General.
    As a former Congressional staffer, I believe transparency 
and accountability improve the operations of the Department of 
Justice. I also respect the important and distinct 
institutional roles that both Congress--to conduct oversight of 
the Executive Branch--and the Department of Justice play--in 
its part, to protect the integrity of its prosecutorial law 
enforcement efforts.
    I believe my role is to build bridges across these 
differences, to reach compromise on oversight matters, and to 
collaborate with you and your colleagues on legislation that 
helps the American people.
    This includes working to fulfill the department's robust 
legislative agenda, consistent with the Attorney General's 
mission to uphold the rule of law, to keep our country safe, 
and to protect civil rights.
    I'd like to raise three of these items with you today: 
Reauthorizing Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act, or FISA; the department's investments in 
State and local law enforcement through our various grant 
programs; and the department's Fiscal Year 2023 budget.
    This year, Congress is tasked with reauthorizing FISA 
Section 702. As a vital national security tool, Section 702 has 
been used to stop ransomware attacks, like Colonial Pipeline, 
and helps us combat international fentanyl trafficking.
    While the value of Section 702 has been well-documented, we 
also recognize the need to work with Congress on commonsense 
reforms that will assure the American people that this tool 
will be used appropriately. I am confident that, by working 
together, we can reauthorize Section 702 and retain this 
essential national security tool.
    Second, on a local scale, the department proudly champions 
grants in each and every one of your districts. In 2022, the 
department awarded more than $4.9 billion in grants to 
communities across the country. In 2023, we plan to award more 
than $6 billion. These grants directly support State and local 
law enforcement and make your communities safer by combating 
violent crime and gun violence.
    Third, the critical work of the department would not be 
possible without funding provided by Congress. In 2023, the 
department saw an increase in programmatic funding for the 
first time in years. This allowed us to make significant 
strides in fulfilling the department's mission.
    As the Attorney General stated before the Appropriations 
Subcommittee, we have serious concerns that any cuts to our 
budget will result in fewer Federal prosecutors addressing 
violent crime in our communities, fewer DEA agents fighting the 
fentanyl crisis, and fewer grants to support State and local 
law enforcement. Overall, budget cuts would have a significant 
negative impact on public safety.
    These are just some of the legislative issues that I and my 
small but mighty team of dedicated attorneys and support staff 
are responsible for managing.
    In addition to these priorities, we also spend a 
significant amount of time working with you and your staff on 
oversight requests. In the last six months, in response to 
multiple committees on both sides of the Capitol, the 
department and our components have testified at over 30 
hearings, provided more than 70 briefings, and sent over 200 
letters in response to hundreds of requests.
    For the House Judiciary Committee alone, the department and 
its components have produced more than 82,000 pages of 
documents, made eight current employees available for nine 
transcribed interviews, and provided or agreed to provide 
testimony by senior department officials at multiple oversight 
hearings.
    As I testified to you in March, to work most efficiently 
and effectively, the accommodation process must be a joint 
effort between me and you, our staff, collaboratively. We can 
best meet your needs and prioritize your requests if there are 
open and clear lines of communication between us, and I am 
hopeful today can be part of that dialog.
    In closing, I want to State on behalf of myself and the 
department that we value your partnership in working toward 
legislation that enriches the lives of your constituents. As a 
former Congressional staffer, I believe Congressional oversight 
is an important part of our system of government.
    I remain optimistic that, by working together, we will be 
able to satisfy the Committee's oversight needs while 
safeguarding the integrity of the department's vital law 
enforcement efforts and prosecutorial responsibilities.
    Thank you, and I look forward to a productive discussion 
today.
    [The prepared statement of the Hon. Uriarte follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Cline. Thank you.
    We'll now proceed under the five-minute rule with 
questions. The Chair is going to recognize himself for five 
minutes.
    Ms. Buetow, understanding CISA's role in censorship on 
social media is a crucial part of the Committee's investigation 
into the apparent collusion between the Federal government and 
technology and social media companies.
    Prior to today, the Committee had only received 200 pages 
of documents responsive to the April 28, 2023, subpoena. That 
subpoena was due on May 22, 2023. Mere hours before this 
hearing today, CISA produced additional documents pursuant to 
the subpoena, and we have not been able to review those 
documents before this hearing.
    During a June 2nd phone call with Committee staff, CISA 
committed to asking DHS's chief counsel's office about the 
production timeline and size. When does CISA intend to make 
another production? How many productions does CISA anticipate 
making?
    Ms. Buetow. Thank you for your question, Mr. Chair.
    I can appreciate a little bit of the frustration with the 
timeline of the document productions. It is correct that there 
was a production earlier today, and I am anticipating an 
additional production as soon as this afternoon.
    Anytime we make productions, we work collaboratively across 
the components with our Office of General Counsel and OLA. We 
will continue to work with you and your staff in a meaningful 
way forward.
    Mr. Cline. Two productions in one day would be outstanding. 
The same day as the hearing makes it a little challenging.
    Can you commit to producing additional documents, say, by 
July 6th? Is that--if you're looking at today, that would be 
reasonable.
    Ms. Buetow. Yes, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Cline. That's great.
    Now, why are the only documents that CISA has provided thus 
far are to the Committee's 200 pages of switchboarding emails?
    Ms. Buetow. So, as I mentioned, anytime we're doing any 
sort of document production, the Office of Legislative Affairs 
works with the components and the General Counsel to determine 
what is both responsive and appropriate and we continue to look 
for additional information. So, I think it would be beyond the 
scope of just the Office of Legislative Affairs to speak to the 
sequencing, but can commit to working with you moving forward.
    Mr. Cline. Now, you'd agree that the Committee's subpoena 
compels the production of additional categories of documents, 
correct?
    Ms. Buetow. Within the scope of the requests, we will 
continue to work with your staff, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Cline. For example, the subpoena compels the production 
of certain documents and communications between or among CISA 
and the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government, correct?
    Ms. Buetow. As the Assistant Secretary for Legislative 
Affairs, I leave it to the Office of General Counsel to speak 
to what the subpoena compels or doesn't compel.
    As for our office, I can commit that we will continue to 
work with your staff in a meaningful way.
    Mr. Cline. Can you tell me if those documents responsive to 
that request, certain documents and communications between CISA 
and the Executive Branch, are they included in the most recent 
production? Can you speak to that?
    Ms. Buetow. I'm unable to speak to that at this moment.
    Mr. Cline. OK.
    The subpoena also compels the production of certain 
documents and communications internal to CISA, correct?
    Ms. Buetow. Respectfully, Mr. Chair, anything speaking to 
what a subpoena compels or doesn't compel is squarely within 
the lane of our Office of General Counsel. So, that would be a 
little bit outside of my lane to speak to.
    Mr. Cline. OK. So, you can't speak to whether those 
documents--internal documents are in the production today?
    Ms. Buetow. I cannot.
    Mr. Cline. OK.
    The documents produced to the Committee contain redactions, 
numerous redactions, despite the subpoena explicitly 
instructing CISA to produce unredacted copies of the documents.
    The Committee is requesting that CISA prudence unredacted 
copies of the documents, as the subpoena compels them to do. 
Can you commit to that?
    Ms. Buetow. With regards to redactions, again, this is a 
space where the Office of General Counsel works with the Office 
of Legislative Affairs and our components. We look forward to 
working with your staff in terms of the accommodations process, 
but I would not say that I'm in a unilateral--I can 
unilaterally speak to what documents will or will not be 
redacted.
    Mr. Cline. Do you believe that it's appropriate for any 
agency, really, to fail to comply in a timely manner with the 
Committee's subpoenas and requests?
    Ms. Buetow. The department responds to every request it 
receives. As you can surely appreciate, we have over 70 
committees of jurisdiction, so not always in the timetable 
contemplated. We do, as a the department, have a responsibility 
to be responsive to Congress.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you.
    The Ranking Member is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Swalwell. For the Assistant Secretary, is it true that 
the department has responded to over 1,400 Congressional 
letters since January 20, 2021? Does that sound about accurate?
    Ms. Buetow. Yes.
    Mr. Swalwell. Recently, with the expiration of Title 42, 
what effect did that have across the workforce to try and 
control the migrant flow at the border?
    Ms. Buetow. With the lifting of Title 42, it was an all-
hands-on-deck approach. If we take the Office of Legislative 
Affairs, for example, we conducted over 40 Member-level 
engagements, staff briefings engagement with stakeholders. So, 
I would say that it was all hands on deck.
    Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Uriarte, Assistant Attorney General, am I 
right that there's been five letters sent to the department 
from this Committee and each letter has been responded to? Is 
that right?
    Mr. Uriarte. On the specific school boards topic?
    Mr. Swalwell. In the month of June. Sorry. In the month of 
June, how many letters were sent to you from this Committee?
    Mr. Uriarte. That sounds correct, sir.
    Mr. Swalwell. Is it five?
    Mr. Uriarte. Yes, that sounds correct.
    Mr. Swalwell. All five have been responded to?
    Mr. Uriarte. That sounds correct. Yes.
    Mr. Swalwell. Madam Assistant Secretary, I want to talk 
about the Disinformation Governance Board.
    Are you familiar with Nina Jankowicz?
    Ms. Buetow. Yes, I am.
    Mr. Swalwell. Who is she?
    Ms. Buetow. She was an employee through the department, as 
I understand it, related to the Disinformation Governance 
Board.
    Mr. Swalwell. Are you familiar with a post that the Chair 
of this Committee, Chair Jordan, made with respect to Ms. 
Jankowicz?
    Ms. Buetow. I am not.
    Mr. Swalwell. Not familiar with a falsely manipulated video 
of her head on a poster board, which was altered to make it 
appear that she supported a tool to alter Twitter posts?
    Ms. Buetow. I am not familiar with that, Ranking Member.
    Mr. Swalwell. Well, we ultimately learned, in light of the 
Chair doing it, that Ms. Jankowicz and her family received tens 
of thousands of death threats because of actions by MAGA 
individuals, including the Chair, who put that up there, and 
she had to engage private security. This happened at a time, I 
believe, that Ms. Jankowicz was nine months pregnant. Again, it 
was a misrepresentation to suggest she had done something she 
had not.
    Is there a cost when disinformation comes from Congress to 
the employees at DHS? Do they receive death threats? Are they 
put in danger?
    Ms. Buetow. Ranking Member Swalwell, I would say that there 
is always a human cost when individuals are encouraged to 
behave poorly or believe mistruths.
    Mr. Swalwell. With respect to your agency, is it true that 
your agency has voluntarily provided, Madam Assistant 
Secretary, five employees for transcribed interviews? Is that 
correct?
    Ms. Buetow. That's correct, Representative Swalwell.
    Mr. Swalwell. In addition, will Secretary Mayorkas be 
freely appearing before the House Judiciary Committee any time 
soon?
    Ms. Buetow. Yes. He will be appearing in July.
    Mr. Swalwell. What else is your agency doing in response to 
the Chair's requests, as well as other Committees with 
oversight jurisdiction over the department?
    Ms. Buetow. I appreciate that question.
    We are providing transcribed interviews to several 
Committees of jurisdiction. The Secretary has testified five 
times already this Congress.
    With respect to this Committee and the requests to appear 
here, the Office of Legislative Affairs provided a briefing in 
May to discuss and scope the requests from the Committee. We 
remain open to engagement and providing additional information 
as needed.
    Mr. Swalwell. Thank you.
    Mr. Uriarte, just so I understand--I know this as a 
prosecutor, but for the public: Will the department ever, in 
your mind--has it ever in the past, will it ever in the future, 
pierce grand jury secrecy in any investigation because a 
Republican or a Democrat asks? Why won't it?
    Mr. Uriarte. Well, Congressman, thank you for the question.
    As we've discussed previously, the department has a number 
of different confidentiality interests that are at play when 
there is an ongoing investigation. Those include information 
that would relate to the grand jury secrecy rules, which are, 
of course, statutory rules that require secrecy of information 
that is involved with a grand jury.
    So, that is an additional protection that we must take into 
account whenever we are talking about these types of 
Congressional requests, including Congressional requests that 
involve ongoing matters.
    Mr. Swalwell. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Lee. [Presiding.] Thank you.
    The gentleman yields back.
    At this time, I'll recognize myself for a period of five 
minutes of questions.
    On April 10, 2023, the Committee subpoenaed FBI Director 
Wray for information regarding the FBI's handling of domestic 
violent extremism investigations against Catholic Americans and 
its effect on protected First Amendment activity.
    On April 28, 2023, the FBI provided 248 pages of documents 
in response to the subpoena, but the FBI's production has still 
been partial and is deemed to be deficient at this point.
    We do appreciate the partial compliance, but I have a 
series of questions for you, Mr. Uriarte, about that production 
and what remains to be provided to Congress.
    In response to the Committee's April 10th subpoena, the FBI 
produced documents on April 28th. The production was 
accompanied by a cover letter from Acting Assistant Director 
Christopher Durham (ph) that said, quote, ``Upon the completion 
of our internal review, the FBI will provide additional 
information on its findings to the Committee.''
    Can you speak to what step in the process the Bureau is 
currently in on that internal review and when we can anticipate 
an additional production?
    Mr. Uriarte. Well, Congresswoman, thank you for the 
question.
    As we spoke about last time, this is something that I take 
personally, given how problematic that particular document was. 
I know the FBI takes it very seriously as well. That's why they 
have sought to do this internal review by the Inspections 
Division.
    I understand that this review is nearing the end. I don't 
know how close it is, but I understand it is wrapping up soon. 
The plan is, as I think has been indicated to the Committee 
previously, but just to make sure it's clear, the FBI plans to 
brief the Committee on the findings of that report.
    The intention of that report is to both walk through what 
happened here, how this happened, and how the FBI can make sure 
that another offensive product like the FBI Richmond product 
that we're speaking of now never happens again.
    Ms. Lee. Well, certainly good to hear that we share that 
last objective.
    One of the things that we believe is very pertinent to 
getting to the bottom of those important questions is 
understanding which personnel within either local law 
enforcement or within the Bureau were involved in the review 
and approval of the memo itself. That is one of the things that 
hasn't yet been disclosed to this Committee.
    Is that part of your ongoing work for information that will 
ultimately be disclosed to us?
    Mr. Uriarte. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
    Yes, certainly, we are taking into account all the requests 
that the Committee has made.
    Where we are in our own internal process is, we're 
continuing to work through a variety of information requests 
from the Committee, including the transcribed interviews. I 
mention those only because it is our understanding that the 
transcribed interviews have been a significant priority for the 
Committee, and that, as you know, takes significant time and 
investment on our end.
    We're continuing to work through the requests, particularly 
on the Richmond item, recognizing that it is a priority for 
this Committee.
    Ms. Lee. Last on that subject: Of the production that was 
previously made to the Committee, there were significant 
redactions therein of information that, to the Committee, 
appeared to be important for us to review.
    Is part of this internal review process also consideration 
of what, if any, portions of the prior production are 
appropriate for disclosure in an unredacted State to us in the 
future?
    Mr. Uriarte. Well, thanks for that question.
    As I think we've talked about before, I view my job as 
being in a position to be able to, as efficiently and 
effectively as possible, get the Committee the information it 
needs. That is part of why we will sometimes include redactions 
on documents that are produced to the Committee. It enables us 
to protect our confidentiality interests but focus on getting 
the Committee the information that it's in search of.
    When there are questions like you've raised about specific 
redactions or specific information that may underlie 
redactions, that is, part of the normal accommodations process. 
I'd love to have that continued conversation with you and your 
team.
    Ms. Lee. On May 3, 2023, the Committee wrote to Director 
Davis of the U.S. Marshals Service requesting information about 
why radical left-wing groups have not been arrested for 
harassing and intimidating Supreme Court Justices outside of 
their private homes, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1507.
    The submission deadline was May 17, 2023. To date, the 
Committee has not received a response to this outstanding 
request.
    We've since reached out to both DOJ and the U.S. Marshals 
regarding the request, including a call to the department and 
its component on June 7th.
    To date, we have not received a date certain by which we 
can expect a response. Can you provide insight for us on when 
we might expect a response to those requests?
    Mr. Uriarte. Thank you, Congresswoman. I appreciate the 
question.
    I know, again, we spoke about this previously. As you know, 
protection of the--
    Ms. Lee. I understand, Mr. Uriarte, but you're articulating 
one of the Committee's concerns, is that these are topics that 
we've now had to raise in the context of these hearings on 
multiple occasions, which is why you're hearing an emphasis 
today on a request for dates certain and the articulation of a 
timeline by which we might actually have the responses, so that 
we can obviate the need to have further hearings where we ask 
these same types of questions of you.
    Mr. Uriarte. Well, I certainly understand that interest, 
and I think we share that interest, Congresswoman.
    As I think you can appreciate, the letter to the Marshals 
Service was a change, and it addressed new facts that had not 
been discussed previously, right? That was something that 
happened between the last hearing and this hearing. So, that 
changed the focus of what we were doing, in terms of responding 
to the requests.
    Again, I think the important thing here is that we are 
continuing to work with staff. We had a collaborative 
discussion, as you mentioned, on June 7th. We hope to have a 
response for you in the near future.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, sir.
    My time has elapsed. I will now recognize Mr. Ivey for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Ivey. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it.
    Thank you all for being here today.
    I've got to express some frustration with the way the 
Committee and the Subcommittee are conducting themselves on 
this process. I think I said this at the last hearing; I know 
Department of Justice was at that one.
    It's a little disappointing to see--like, I was looking at 
this, for example. This is May 25th. This is a letter from Jim 
Jordan to the Attorney General. This is demanding documents 
with respect to the Internal Revenue Service. There's a 
Whistleblower issue, apparently, that he had questions about.
    One of the requests is,

        All documents and communications between or among the 
        Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service 
        referring or relating to any investigations involving both the 
        Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service from May 
        1, 2023, to the present.

    Now, I guess that's only a two-day period, but, of course, 
the Department of Justice has an entire division that does 
nothing but handle tax cases, civil and criminal. The timeline 
for turning that around was June 8th, so whatever that is--
what, 13 days or something.
    Even if they had a longer period of time, the request for 
that volume of potential documents is ridiculous--talk about 
unduly burdensome--and runs into implications for things like, 
for example, if you have ongoing criminal cases or 
investigations where production of those documents would be 
inappropriate because they could undermine a criminal 
investigation; could involve grand jury material, of course, 
which you can't turn over, as you just mentioned a moment ago, 
because of statutory restrictions, in absence of a court order.
    I just think if we want to try and pursue information in 
some of these issues--and, to be blunt, I think a lot of these 
underlying issues are a little on the silly side, too. 
Certainly, I think we've got other things we could be doing 
beyond, sort of, the Loudoun County School Board issue, for 
example, and the Nina Jankowicz issue, which--I think the 
Judiciary Committee already deposed her, but continues to 
pursue these documents.
    Just for background, Nina Jankowicz was an employee who, 
when her position was announced, you had Mr. Jordan and other 
Members of the House Republican caucus who raised issues about 
her that led to personal attacks on the internet and which 
triggered personal threats to her.
    She had to hire a private security firm to protect her. 
They told her she needed to move from her house. She was eight 
months pregnant at the time. The security officer told her she 
needed to go to her gynecologist--her prenatal meetings in 
disguise in case somebody was after her.
    To me, it feels like this is an inappropriate overreach of 
the authority to do oversight.
    I'll note this, too. The attempt to comply has been 
significant, despite the machine-gun submissions of document 
requests and subpoenas. It looks like here, I'm reading,

        The Department of Justice produced over 80,000 pages of 
        documents, made eight current employees available for nine 
        transcribed interviews, provided or agreed to provide testimony 
        by senior department officials at multiple oversight hearings.

That doesn't include briefings and the like.
    With respect to Homeland Security, the Secretary was up 
here before the Secretary was here and testified before the 
Homeland Security Committee.
    So, I think it's important for us to be reasonable about 
the requests we make, even though I think, frankly, a lot of 
these requests are unreasonable and out of line. I guess it's 
sort of consistent with some of the other things we've had 
happen this week. The censure of Mr. Schiff I thought was 
completely inappropriate. Today we had actual votes on 
impeaching President Biden, which I think is just thoroughly 
ridiculous.
    This seems to be consistent with that. That appears to be 
where the Republican caucus is going. That's disappointing, 
because the people have more important business to get done. 
That seems to be where we are.
    At this point, Mr. Chair, I would move to adjourn the 
hearing.
    Mr. Moran. [Presiding.] The gentleman's time has expired.
    We're not to the point where we're adjourning the hearing.
    Mr. Ivey. Can we have a vote on that?
    Staff. On a motion to adjourn, that's nondebatable, and you 
have to have a vote right away.
    Mr. Moran. All right.
    All those in favor of adjourning, say aye.
    All opposed?
    We're going to request a roll call vote.
    If the clerk would call the roll.
    Staff. We'll have to get the clerk up here, so--
    Mr. Moran. All right. The Committee will suspend while we 
get the clerk.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Ivey. In the spirit of cooperation, I will withdraw the 
motion.
    Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Ivey.
    All right. The motion to adjourn having been withdrawn, I'm 
going to recognize myself for five minutes. Then we'll exchange 
Chairs back to Mr. Cline.
    So, let's get back to the questions.
    Ms. Buetow--am I saying your name correctly?
    Ms. Buetow. Yes, Congressman.
    Mr. Moran. Good. I want to make sure I say that correctly 
for you.
    I want to talk to you a little bit about a May 5, 2022, 
request for documents about the Disinformation Governance Board 
that was reiterated on November 18, 2022, by then-Ranking 
Member Jordan and then again on January 17, 2023, by Chair 
Jordan.
    I want to show you a couple of documents up here, because 
we are talking about reasonableness. I appreciate Mr. Ivey 
talking about that. He talked about that extensively, about we 
want to be reasonable about what we're doing. So, let's take a 
look at these documents here for a second.
    This is a redacted document. Can you tell me anything about 
Page 1 on this document that's been produced in response to the 
request for information on the Disinformation Governance Board?
    Ms. Buetow. With respect to redactions, as I've mentioned, 
the Office of Legislative Affairs works with the Office of 
General Counsel and its components to determine what material 
will actually be redacted.
    Sitting here from this chair right now, I can't speak to 
the document that is up on the board at this time, but I'd be 
happy to work with your staff on any specific document 
production that you have concerns about.
    Mr. Moran. Are you able to tell me anything about any one 
of these four pages?
    That's Page 1 you see there. It's got the heading on it. Or 
Page 2, which is a completely blank document. I want to show 
Pages 3 and 4.
    If you know anything about these documents at all, are you 
able to tell me anything at all?
    Ms. Buetow. So, again, I'd be happy to work with your 
staff. The redaction process does not occur in a vacuum. As 
part of the accommodations process, we'd be happy to engage. 
Sitting here right now, I can't look at a whiteboard and speak 
to what's underneath it.
    Mr. Moran. I know. Neither can we. We'd like to know some 
of the information behind there.
    So, I'm curious. In preparation for the hearing today, did 
you meet with the Office of Legislative Affairs to talk about 
the reasoning behind any of the redactions that were made on 
this or any of the documents?
    Ms. Buetow. So, anytime we go through a document production 
process, again, like, that trifecta--the Office of Legislative 
Affairs, which I lead; the Office of General Counsel; and the 
specific components that are impacted--work together to make 
those determinations. We work collaboratively as a team to 
determine what to keep and--
    Mr. Moran. I've redacted a whole lot of documents in my 
career. I don't know that I've ever actually redacted the 
entire before. Is this a customary practice for the Department 
of Homeland Security?
    Ms. Buetow. I think that there is longstanding practice in 
terms of protecting both the attorney-client privilege, PPI, 
and other law-enforcement-sensitive information. The Department 
of Homeland Security is a very large department, and we are 
uniquely situated.
    Mr. Moran. How long have you been with the Department of 
Homeland Security?
    Ms. Buetow. Since February 27, 2023, so about 3\1/2\ 
months.
    Mr. Moran. Oh, you've only been with them 3\1/2\ months.
    Ms. Buetow. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Moran. All right. So, in your experience in your 
career, have you dealt with document production before, not 
just with DHS but other places?
    Ms. Buetow. I spent nearly decade as a Senate staffer, so 
I've been on the receiving end.
    Mr. Moran. Yes.
    Ms. Buetow. So, I can appreciate the frustration.
    Mr. Moran. So, when you were on the receiving end and you 
saw documents like this, did it frustrate you?
    Ms. Buetow. Yes, Congressman, it did.
    Mr. Moran. Yes. It frustrated you, because you really 
wanted to get some information to understand and hold to 
account the department you were talking to or get some 
transparency of the department. Is that right?
    Ms. Buetow. I consider the role that I'm in right now the 
opportunity of a lifetime. I can appreciate the frustration. I 
am committed to working with you and your staff to get you the 
information you need.
    Mr. Moran. So, when you can commit to get me the 
information--or, this Committee or the staff information about 
what exactly is behind the veil here?
    Ms. Buetow. So, with respect to redacted information, it is 
often a case-by-case basis. In putting a specific timeline, 
again, I'm happy to connect our staffs and work expeditiously. 
I can appreciate that all of you have been pushing for this 
information. I am happy to work for this department and this 
administration, and I'm looking forward to working with you.
    Mr. Moran. Yes. Same to you, because I know if you've been 
on this side of the dais before, it is frustrating when you ask 
for documents and you don't get anything.
    Quite frankly, I think the folks in the Committee and the 
Committee itself is being reasonable with respect to this and a 
lot of other documents and trying to just understand what went 
on with respect to the issues surrounding the Disinformation 
Governance Board.
    So how about in the next two weeks? Do you think you could 
look at just this document--let's just start with that--and 
tell us what's behind the veil and get that information to us?
    Ms. Buetow. Thank you, Congressman. I want to be respectful 
and careful to exactly what that one page is. I can commit that 
within the next two weeks that our staffs will get that 
conversation rolling, and we'll roll in the right direction, 
sir.
    Mr. Moran. OK. I appreciate it.
    I'm out of time. I'll yield back.
    We're going to start a second round--or Mr. Cline?
    All right. We've got a second round up.
    So, Mr. Swalwell, the floor is yours. You have five 
minutes, unless we've got another motion from Mr. Ivey.
    All right.
    Mr. Swalwell. Thanks.
    Mr. Uriarte, how many witnesses has Chair Jordan demanded 
that the FBI send for a transcribed interview?
    Mr. Uriarte. Congressman, thanks for the question.
    I don't have the exact number in front of me. I'm trying to 
read very small print here. I think it is about 20.
    Mr. Swalwell. How many have appeared?
    Mr. Uriarte. As I said, we've made eight current employees 
available for nine transcribed interviews.
    Mr. Swalwell. Broadly speaking, what type of prep is 
required before a witness can appear for a transcribed 
interview?
    Mr. Uriarte. Well, as you know, I'm sure, many of the 
people who they're asking to appear are career special agents 
at the FBI who don't regularly deal with Congress as part of 
their day-to-day jobs. So, they want to have a conversation 
with someone in my office, in the Office of Congressional 
Affairs at the FBI, to understand what this interaction looks 
like, to understand what types of questions they may get, to be 
able to ensure that the information they're providing to 
Congress is accurate.
    I think that is in not only the FBI and the department's 
interest, but also in Congress's interest, to make sure that 
those engagements are as fruitful as possible. That takes 
dozens of hours just to get one person available for a 
transcribed interview.
    Mr. Swalwell. OK. Well, Mr. Uriarte, please pass along to 
the Department of Justice my gratitude and, I actually think, 
the gratitude of most of my colleagues, Republicans and 
Democrats, for what law enforcement does every day.
    The way I see it, you all are working very hard to take 
down the bad guys. You catch the terrorists. You catch the bank 
robbers. You catch the people that exploit children. You go 
after people that abuse COVID funds. We're seeing billions of 
dollars of abuse there. You're making sure that there's 
integrity in public service. So, thank you for doing that.
    I don't want to defund you. The Chair of this Committee 
wants to defund you, and he and others are raising money off of 
the idea of defunding the police. I don't want to do that.
    I also just sit here stunned after this hearing, again--so 
if they're the Cleveland Browns, they've lost another game en 
route to a 0-and-16 season by the end of next year. I still 
don't understand now, and it was not explained to me by Chair 
Jordan or anyone a part of this Committee, why they're not with 
Bill Barr anymore.
    Again, just to recap, Jim Jordan loves Bill Barr. ``Bill 
Barr is doing the Lord's work,'' Jim Jordan said. ``Thank God 
for Bill Barr.'' It's biblical when it comes to Jim Jordan and 
Bill Barr. ``Bill Barr is pursuing the truth, exactly what 
Americans want from their Attorney General.''
    So, what does Bill Barr think about the Mar-a-Lago raid, 
which Jim Jordan and others are upset about and the reason 
they've dragged the Department of Justice here? Again, Bill 
Barr thinks, ``The effort to present Trump as a victim in the 
Mar-a-Lago document affair is a cynical political propaganda 
exercise.'' He says, ``Trump's toast.'' Barr said just this 
month, ``The government acted responsibly, and it was Donald J. 
Trump who acted irresponsibly.''
    So, I don't what happened. I can only assume that, when it 
comes to Bill Barr, Jim Jordan is all in until Bill Barr 
departs with the one client that this Committee fights for 
every day, and that's Donald Trump.
    That's too bad. That's too bad because, as we have seen, 
Donald Trump has no regard for the law. Anyone who defends him 
is going to be a foot soldier and a footnote in history books 
that chronicle his corruption.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Moran. The gentleman yields back.
    I'm going to recognize myself for a second round of 
questions, and then we'll go over to Mr. Ivey.
    Ms. Buetow, I want to come back to you really quick. I want 
to talk about some documents that were requested of information 
related to targeting parents at school board meetings. This 
week, the Committee received about 496 pages of mostly redacted 
documents relating to that specific issue.
    Do you know what the privilege was that was being asserted 
for any of the redactions in those documents?
    Ms. Buetow. With respect to redactions, the purpose of 
redactions from the department are typically attorney-client 
privilege, deliberative materials.
    Without looking at a specific document, I can't speak to 
it. Additionally, I'm not certain, in that space, it would be 
appropriate for me to speak to that, in this venue. Again, I'd 
be happy to work with you.
    Mr. Moran. How would we be able to get somebody in front of 
us that would be able to talk about those issues specifically?
    Because what we really need out of a witness here is to be 
able to talk about the privileges asserted and what the basis 
is for them and why we're getting so many redacted documents.
    Though I sympathize with your position, having just been 
there three, four or five months and maybe not having taken an 
integral part in the production of these documents, when we ask 
for a witness to come here, we need a witness that can actually 
give us those answers.
    Who would we talk to about that?
    Ms. Buetow. So, I can appreciate that concern. I think the 
role that I play here and any of leg. affairs offices are to be 
a conduit between Congress and the agency.
    Each one of these redactions, none of them exist in a 
vacuum, so we take them on a case-by-case basis. So, with 
respect to the document you're referencing now, happy to see if 
through the accommodations process, we get you additional 
information. I commit to working with you.
    Mr. Moran. Yes. My line of questioning now really just 
relates to the 496 pages of mostly redacted documents that were 
just recently given to the Committee--this week, in fact, just 
this last week. Did you take part in gathering those documents 
together and producing those documents? Was that part of what 
you did?
    Ms. Buetow. With any document production, including 
redactions, it is a collaborative effort between the Office of 
Legislative Affairs.
    Mr. Moran. I get that. I just want to know if you were 
involved in that.
    Ms. Buetow. With respect to this production, as you know 
this request has been outstanding for some time and it's been a 
ruling. So, some materials may have gone into process before I 
was even at the department. So, yes, I participate. I can't say 
that page A started before I got there or after I got there, 
but yes, I was part of the production.
    Mr. Moran. OK. Who was the person, because I know when we 
produce documents on behalf of the client, somebody at the end 
of the day looked at the bevy of documents before they went out 
the door and said, OK, here is what we've got, here is what 
we're giving. Who was that person?
    Ms. Buetow. Congressman, I understand it is dissatisfying. 
It is a collaborative effort.
    Mr. Moran. I get that. Collecting the documents, get them 
together, yes. At some point somebody is actually going to 
review the last set of documents going out of door. They are 
going to say, OK, I approve this going out the door. Who's that 
person?
    Ms. Buetow. I don't believe it comes down it a single 
person at the end of the day. That's not how it operates within 
the department.
    Mr. Moran. Somebody has to send those documents out of 
door. Right?
    Ms. Buetow. Yes.
    Mr. Moran. So, who is the person that sent these 496 pages 
out the door? Was it a secretary, was it an assistant? Was it 
somebody with authority to look at the stack of documents and 
say, yes these are the ones we approve to send out.
    Ms. Buetow. Congressman, I want to verify, but I believe at 
the end of the day the person who actually pushes the button is 
not necessarily someone who is part of the chain of determining 
what goes out of the door.
    Mr. Moran. That doesn't give me warm and fuzzies. You said 
the person who kind of pushed the button is not really involved 
in determining what goes out the door. It seems like that is 
the person determining what goes out the door. So, who is that 
person?
    Ms. Buetow. With respect to correspondence, inquiries, 
productions. I do believe, as you've notated, I've been at the 
department for 3\1/2\ months. We typically have a process where 
we receive incoming information. It is then designated to 
various components. If it goes to a component or if it's 
addressed to headquarters, it goes to headquarters. In an 
instance where there is a component element that is where 
legislative affairs works with the component, works with 
general counsel, everyone works together. There is an executive 
secretary that pushes information out. I do think there are 
some nuances with respect to document production, but I want to 
make sure I don't get too far--
    Mr. Moran. I know. I feel bad for you, because you're here 
and you're trying. You don't really have all the information to 
give us the answers we need. I feel very bad for you because 
you're in that position. That's why I'm asking who needs to be 
in this spot, who needs to be in the hot seat so we can just 
ask questions.
    I haven't been rude to you today, I don't think. I haven't 
asked any unreasonable questions, not to my knowledge. I am 
really just trying to ask reasonable questions and I need 
answers to those. You can't give them to me, so I need to know 
who is that person.
    Ms. Buetow. Congressman, I appreciate the treatment here 
today, and I'm honored to be here. I am also honored to be in 
this seat. You will get the answers you're seeking.
    Mr. Moran. OK. I will take you at your word.
    Ms. Buetow. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Moran. Mr. Ivey, you're up next. The floor is yours.
    Mr. Ivey. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it. Just along 
the lines of the last couple of versions of the conversation. I 
know you were asked about identifying the redacted documents, 
and I guess I'm trying to figure out what kind of timeline you 
could provide answers about them.
    I guess I would say as having been at the other side of 
that is it's hard for you to make that kind of assumption or 
guess even because you might not know the reasons for why it 
was redacted. So, even though you might be able to physically 
produce it in a matter of hours, if there's a legal requirement 
that required the redactions and say a court order is necessary 
to get beyond the redactions and produce the information, you 
can't do that without the court order and you don't know what 
the timeline is going to be for that.
    With respect to the--who can give the answers about timing 
and some of the specifics about the document request, my 
suggestion is also a former staffer just like you, what we did 
during the Whitewater hearings was that we actually had 
meetings between the staff and members of those departments who 
were making those decisions.
    What was good about that was for example if you have a 
redaction discussion that involves information that's 
confidential or otherwise not to be made public, trying to have 
that discussion in a public hearing doesn't work very well.
    So, having them behind closed doors where you can have 
candid--why was this redacted? Well, it was redacted because of 
this. So, my suggestion would be to have much more robust and 
extensive meetings at the staff level of the Committee prior to 
us having a Committee hearing. Include us as well on the 
minority side so that some of these answers can be addressed I 
think in a more productive way than having hearings for these 
sorts of things. Whereby necessity, they sent one person up who 
doesn't have all the answers because there are multiple 
departments that are involved in making these decisions.
    With respect to CISA, you know, we got a lot of this on the 
Homeland Security Committee, and this goes to the conspiracy 
theories with respect to disinformation, namely that the Biden 
Administration is attempting to mislead the public or abuse 
social media and the like. The only conversation I would say--
the part of the conversation that's missing there is the fact 
that the United States has competitors like China, Russia, 
terrorists Sinaloa Cartel, and others that are actively engaged 
in disinformation in the United States.
    That includes in elections, and we know the Russians were 
involved in submitting disinformation in 2020. In fact, Mr. 
Durham said that yesterday at the hearing when he came up here 
to testify. So, it's important I think for the United States to 
try and address that.
    Unfortunately, Chair Jordan, Mr. Gaetz, and some others 
engaged in disinformation in some of the comments they made 
about the panel that was set up at the Department of Homeland 
Security, and that included the personal attacks on Ms. 
Jankowicz, which undermined our ability to respond to some of 
these sorts of disinformation pieces.
    I would just say this too, I know there's a sense that with 
respect to disinformation the government can't and shouldn't be 
in the business of determining what's true or not. I think we 
do have to be careful, especially when it comes to political 
positions. There's also points where we clearly need the 
government to be involved and it's really made a difference.
    Just a couple of quick ones. Information about tobacco when 
I was a kid it was--and I lived in North Carolina, so tobacco 
was everywhere. It wasn't known that tobacco was killing 
people. Public efforts and public campaigns to address that and 
provide information, accurate information to the public made a 
difference there, even though the tobacco companies were saying 
at the time that the public--the government was providing false 
information. Drunk driving was another one, seat belts was 
another one, too.
    One of the ones we've got right now, there is sort of a 
growing movement with respect to active shooter issues. People 
making false calls about whether there's actually an active 
shooter in a local school. I think it would be good for the 
government, whether it is a local or State government in that 
community to put out the correct information, no, there's not 
an active shooter going on. That sort of information, emergency 
scenarios and the like. I think it's important for us to be 
able, the government, Federal, State, and local to be able to 
put out information and that addresses these sorts of issues 
because I think it benefits the public.
    With that, I'll yield back.
    Mr. Cline. [Presiding.] I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Uriarte, on May 24, 2022, we sent a letter to FBI 
Director Wray for information about nearly 3.4 million queries 
that the agency made to a data base of information collected 
without warrants under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act or FISA.
    The Committee renewed this request in the 118th Congress 
via letter dated January 17, 2023. The FBI produced classified 
documents on March 14, 2023, and scheduled a demonstration of 
its FISA 702 capabilities for Committee staff. In April 2023, 
the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released 
its annual statistical transparency report for calendar year 
2022, which noted that the FBI conducted over 200,000 
warrantless queries of U.S. person communications that year.
    Still the Committee's request from its May 24, 2022, letter 
remains outstanding. When can the Committee expect that these 
requests be fulfilled.
    Mr. Uriarte. Well, Congressman, thank you for the question. 
As we've discussed previously when renewing FISA and Section 
702 specifically is a high priority for the department. In this 
instance as you identified we have taken steps to try to be 
responsive to the Committee's request. I was not tracking 
frankly that there were still outstanding aspects of that 
request, but I'm happy to take that back.
    I'm confident that we can get that information to you. 
Again, we believe that Congress is--authorities here are 
important, particularly the oversight matter. Our goal is to 
have a robust and candid conversation about reforms of FISA, 
including with this Committee to make sure that we can 
reauthorize this Committee to protect the American people.
    Mr. Cline. Well, it will definitely be candid. How robust 
it will be and how frequent these will be always is determined 
by the responsiveness of you and the agency. Has the FBI made 
any efforts to calculate the number of unique query terms that 
refer to U.S. person? Does the FBI have the capability to 
calculate that number?
    Mr. Uriarte. Congressman, that's a very good question. I 
don't have the answer sitting here today, but I'm happy to take 
that back.
    Mr. Cline. In addition to the request in the May 24, 2022, 
letter will the FBI provide a full accounting of the U.S. 
person queries conducted by the FBI in calendar year 2022?
    Mr. Uriarte. Again, I'm happy to take that back, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Cline. Can you commit to providing the Committee with 
additional documents responsive to the Committee's request by 
July 6th?
    Mr. Uriarte. I don't want to overstate my ability to commit 
by the date certain, but I am confident that we can work with 
you and the staff to get you that information.
    Mr. Cline. OK.
    With that, I'm going to yield five minutes to--
    Mr. Ivey. Mr. Chair, if I might.
    Mr. Cline. The gentleman from Maryland.
    Mr. Ivey. The speaker said we should be on the floor by 
3:25 p.m. In the spirit of cooperation, I said we could move 
forward. I note some Members have just arrived and I normally 
wouldn't object to anybody having a chance to speak, but I 
would ask that we be given the chance to go to the floor.
    Mr. Cline. My understanding is 4:00 p.m. is when the 
address begins.
    Mr. Ivey. The address begins at 4:00 p.m., but thought, as 
I said, I thought the speaker told us to be there at 3:25 p.m. 
and--
    Mr. Cline. I appreciate you listening to the speaker on 
this occasion.
    Mr. Ivey. It's been tough to do this week, I must say. 
Yesterday, in particular, was extremely tough.
    Mr. Cline. We'll get you there. We'll get you there.
    Let me recognize the gentleman from New Jersey for five 
minutes and we'll go from there. I'll talk to the gentlelady as 
well. I think she has some more questions as well.
    OK. Hang on.
    She only did one round. So, since you got two. Let me go to 
the gentleman from New Jersey, he's recognized for five 
minutes. I only took half of my time.
    Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Here we are once again, finding ourselves in a time when 
justice once a pillar supporting our democracy seems to become 
a simple commodity. Available in different forms and delivered 
at varying speeds depending upon who the target is. There is no 
clearer example of this than our Federal government's treatment 
of Hunter Biden. Just this week Americans watched in 
disappointed awe as the son of the President of the United 
States received a sweetheart deal on tax fraud and a felony gun 
possession. Can you fathom for a moment the consequences for 
one of my constituents if they committed even a fraction of 
what Hunter Biden has done? If any of you did it, you'd be in 
jail. A gun infraction of that magnitude, putting a false 
Social Security number in an application while you're high.
    Yet, we have hundreds of probably thousands--I'm wrong, not 
hundreds, thousands of individual people who've committed 
accidental mistakes with a gun where they didn't have their 
permit with them, where they went into another State where they 
are not permitted. It just happened recently to a young Black 
woman a little time back. She had no infractions against her. 
Didn't do anything wrong, didn't even have a parking ticket and 
she crossed over from Pennsylvania, where she had a license to 
carry, into New Jersey. She was stopped by a State trooper. The 
first thing she told them is I have a gun. I have a license for 
it. She didn't realize she needed to have a separate license 
for the State of New Jersey.
    Never committed any crime whatsoever, not even a speeding 
ticket. Single, Black mom. You think she got the treatment 
Hunter did? She didn't, she got three years in jail, three 
years in jail. Justice for you, but not for me. Is that what's 
coming out now? This behavior is why so many in our country, me 
included, continue to grow more and more frustrated and angrier 
and angrier with their Federal government.
    So, while the DOJ lets Hunter Biden walk free and continue 
to parade around the world doing God knows what--and some more 
information just came out today that's unbelievable from the 
IRS Whistleblower, it's going to really rock everybody's world 
a little bit and it involves the President. We're going to push 
for answers. We're going to push for answers because that's 
what the American people want. What do you know, the same DOJ 
letting Hunter Biden off the hook also continues to slow walk 
any and all material requests on this topic despite months of 
requests. We get it, we know what you're doing.
    Mr. Uriarte, you're a nice day. I really do, I think you 
are. You're a nice man. I like you. I thank you for coming back 
today. Enough is enough. We must either be on the side of a 
system of justice that ensures fair and equal treatment for all 
or you're on the side of a system that caters to the privileged 
and the powerful.
    A system that bends the rules for those with connections 
while the average American is left bearing the brunt of its 
harshness. There is no middle ground here. There is no room for 
compromise.
    So, Mr. Uriarte, I will ask you very clearly again, given 
the gravity of this Committee's concerns, why did we receive an 
insubstantial response from the United States Attorney, David 
Weiss, rather than a direct response from the Attorney General 
of the United States to whom we addressed our May 25th letter 
regarding the removal of an IRS Whistleblower--some of that 
more is coming out today from the Hunter Biden investigation. 
If you can do it quickly, I'd appreciate it. Thank you.
    Mr. Uriarte. Congressman, thank you for the question.
    As the Attorney General has said, our goal is to treat like 
cases alike and to in this circumstance ensure that we can 
demonstrate some independence related to this matter. The 
Attorney General has supported U.S. Attorney Weiss who was 
appointed under the prior administration continuing this 
investigation and response to the letter that we received from 
the Committee which had specific questions about his 
investigation.
    Mr. Van Drew. Thank you. We've heard that before. Can you 
guarantee that the Committee will receive a detailed and 
substantive response to our May 25th letter, that was a long 
time ago, by July 6th from Attorney General Garland himself and 
not from a delegate, not from one of his delegates. What does 
he think? What's he going to say?
    Mr. Uriarte. Well, Congressman, part of my responsibility 
under the Justice Manual is to respond to letters from 
Congress. So, that is obviously something we'll take into 
account as we determine how best to proceed from here.
    Mr. Van Drew. I still have no answer.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. Lee. [Presiding.] All right. The gentleman yields back.
    I will have a brief second round of questions myself, Ms. 
Buetow, on April 28, 2022, the Committee held a hearing 
entitled, ``Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security,'' 
with DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas testifying as the 
witness. Chair Jordan then in his capacity as Ranking Member 
requested information as to whether 42 individuals on the 
Terrorist Screening Data base who were encountered at our 
Southwest border were released into the United States. Despite 
Secretary Mayorkas saying, ``Congressman, I will deliver you a 
response'' this Committee still does not have this information.
    In the meantime, the department has encountered another 136 
individuals on the terrorist screen data base between our ports 
of entry at the Southwest border. Chair Jordan repeated this 
request for information in a May 2, 2022, letter to DHS which 
was reiterated in the January 17, 2023, letter containing an 
itemized list of all outstanding requests.
    When will the department provide the Committee with a 
number of illegal aliens on the terrorist watch list who have 
been encountered at the Southwest border and subsequently 
released into the United States, as well as the current status 
and disposition of each of these cases?
    Ms. Buetow. Congresswoman, I can appreciate your question 
and your patience. We are currently in the process of 
scheduling a classified briefing for both members and cleared 
staff. We at the department want to be responsive while also, 
respecting our obligations to privacy, national security and 
other interests.
    Ms. Lee. Do you have any sense of the timeline for setting 
said classified briefing?
    Ms. Buetow. Thank you. I can get right back to your staff 
today actually with more of a timeline. I know the conversation 
are ongoing.
    Ms. Lee. On November 22, 2022, then Ranking Member Jordan 
and Senator Grassley requested information from the department 
regarding the categorical parole program created for Venezuelan 
nationals. The department partially responded to this letter on 
April 28, 2023, but failed to provide any responses to 23 of 
the 24 requests for information. Instead, the department's 
response contained a large amount of unrelated language related 
to the desire for unrelated legislation.
    The Committee reiterated this request multiple times and 
updated the request to include the additional countries the 
administration has added to the illegal parole programs. In a 
meeting with DHS staff on May 16, 2023, the department stated 
that there was an attachment that was intended to accompany the 
letter that was not included. Can you tell us what steps have 
been taken to provide the information requested and on what 
timeline we might receive it?
    Ms. Buetow. Thank you. I understand that there was an 
attachment that was intended to be attached to a response to a 
letter that was not. The department takes its obligation to 
provide accurate and complete responses very seriously and we 
will work to achieve that end. With respect to a timeline for 
additional information, this is an issue that we are working 
very, very hard on. I would expect movement on this production 
within a very short timeline. Again, I don't want to, like, 
over commit a specific day, but I can tell you we are tracking 
this very closely and I would anticipate something very soon.
    Ms. Lee. All right.
    I would like to thank the witnesses for appearing today at 
today's hearing and the Committee Members for their 
participation. This concludes today's hearing.
    Without objection, Members will have five legislative days 
to submit additional written questions for witnesses or 
additional materials for the record.
    Without objection, this hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:44 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

    All materials submitted for the record by Members of the 
Subcommittee on Responsiveness and Accountability to Oversight 
can be found at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent .aspx?EventID=116140.

                                 [all]