[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
SECOND SESSION
__________
TUESDAY, MAY 7, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-76
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
55-662 WASHINGTON : 2024
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair
DARRELL ISSA, California JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking
MATT GAETZ, Florida Member
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona ZOE LOFGREN, California
TOM McCLINTOCK, California SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
CHIP ROY, Texas Georgia
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina ADAM SCHIFF, California
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana ERIC SWALWELL, California
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin TED LIEU, California
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
BEN CLINE, Virginia J. LUIS CORREA, California
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
LANCE GOODEN, Texas JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey LUCY McBATH, Georgia
TROY NEHLS, Texas MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
BARRY MOORE, Alabama VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
KEVIN KILEY, California DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming CORI BUSH, Missouri
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas GLENN IVEY, Maryland
LAUREL LEE, Florida BECCA BALINT, Vermont
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina
Vacancy
------
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
AARON HILLER, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, May 7, 2024
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............................................ 4
WITNESSES
The Hon. Melanie Egorin, Assistant Secretary for Legislation,
Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of Health and Human
Services
Oral Testimony................................................. 7
Prepared Testimony............................................. 10
The Hon, Zephranie Buetow, Assistant Secretary, Office of
Legislative Affairs, Department of Homeland Security
Oral Testimony................................................. 14
Prepared Testimony............................................. 16
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 36
An article entitled, ``Jayapal Lectures GOP for Exposing Murder
Case Details, Then Reveals Minor MS-13 Suspect's Name,'' Apr.
30, 2024, Breitbart, submitted by the Honorable Ben Cline,
Chair of the Subcommittee on Responsiveness and Accountability
to Oversight from the State of Virginia, for the record
HEARING ON COMPLIANCE WITH
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT
----------
Tuesday, May 7, 2024
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Responsiveness and Accountability
to Oversight
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:37 p.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Ben Cline
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Cline, Van Drew, Moran, Lee,
Swalwell, and Ivey.
Also present: Representative Massie.
Mr. Cline. The Subcommittee will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time.
We welcome everyone to today's hearing on Compliance with
Committee Oversight.
I recognize myself for an opening statement.
Today the Subcommittee will continue in its efforts to get
answers directly from representatives from the Department of
Homeland Security and the Department of Health and Human
Services.
We look forward today to engaging with our witnesses to
discuss the production that we have received to date and the
status of our other outstanding requests, as well as the
agencies' compliance with the Committee's subpoenas.
Since the beginning of the Biden Administration, the
Committee has made numerous requests for information and
documents concerning the operations and actions of the
Department of Homeland Security. The Committee has also issued
various subpoenas to DHS.
To date, DHS has yet to fully comply with the Committee's
subpoenas, as well as certain requests for information and
documents.
For example, due to DHS's lack of compliance with our
requests, the Committee subpoenaed DHS for immigration
information and records known as Alien Files, or A-Files, of
criminal aliens allowed entry into the country by DHS.
To date, the responses to these subpoenas have been
deficient and overdue. While DHS has produced some of the A-
Files the Committee has requested, those produced contain
redactions, contrary to the subpoena's explicit instructions
which require the production of unredacted documents.
The Department has dragged its feet for months before
producing these A-Files, while additional A-File requests for
even more criminal aliens released into the country by the
Biden Administration languish with the Department despite
regular followup from the Committee.
DHS has also dragged its feet in producing information
responsive to items the Committee has prioritized in its
subpoena to DHS about the illegal immigration crisis that
occurred in Eagle Pass, Texas, last fall.
As thousands of illegal aliens streamed into the United
States, the Nation watched as DHS officials, no doubt ordered
to do so by their leadership, cut and removed barriers placed
by the State of Texas, helping the illegal aliens to cross.
The Committee has subpoenaed DHS for communications,
documents, and other information relating to this incident,
including the identification of the DHS official who ordered
the concertina wire to be cut and removed, but DHS has
stonewalled us every step of the way.
Instead of telling the Committee who at DHS ordered Texas'
border structures to be removed, DHS has provided the Committee
with just one production, much of which is publicly available,
duplicative, nonresponsive, or substantially redacted.
Following the disastrous border chaos that took place in
Eagle Pass, Texas, last fall, Secretary Mayorkas visited Border
Patrol agents in that area in January of this year. While in
Eagle Pass, the Secretary reportedly admitted to the agents
that more than 85 percent of illegal aliens encountered at the
Southwest border were being released into the country--85
percent.
The Committee subpoenaed DHS for that information as well,
but so far DHS has refused to provide it, instead pointing the
Committee to outdated public information.
The Committee has also conducted oversight of DHS's lax
enforcement of the immigration laws, including through
transcribed interviews with ICE officials. During these
transcribed interviews, ICE officials could not answer all the
Committee's questions.
The Committee issued a subpoena to compel the production of
this information, including documents and information relating
to aliens who have absconded, aliens on the terrorist watch
list arrested by ICE, and the lack of effectiveness of ICE's
Alternatives to Detention program. DHS's response has been
deficient so far, producing information responsive to merely
two of the eight categories listed in the subpoena.
Over a year ago the Committee also issued a subpoena to the
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, housed within
the DHS, for documents and information in furtherance of its
investigation into the nature and extent of the Agency's
interaction with technology companies and groups over content
moderation.
To date, CISA has only provided the Committee with 2,300
pages. Last week's production from CISA was a mere 75 pages.
On March 20, 2024, the Committee wrote to CISA to note the
documents and communications related to CISA's partnership with
the Pennsylvania Election Threats Task Force are responsive to
the Committee's subpoena.
Although CISA has committed to producing documents and
communications related to its involvement with the Pennsylvania
Election Threats Task Force, no documents have been received by
the Committee to date. No documents related to CISA's
Pennsylvania involvement were included in last week's
production.
Additionally, Director Easterly testified before the House
Appropriations Committee last week, on April 30th, and provided
numerous examples of how often CISA worked with certain
parties, including social media companies, regarding elections.
She specifically mentioned 200 instances in which social
media companies were alerted of election-related information.
The Committee has not received all responsive documents and
communications related to these instances.
In addition to subpoenas, the Committee has a number of
outstanding requests with the Department. Chief among these is
the Committee's request for information relating to the
whereabouts of illegal aliens on the terrorist watch list
encountered by Customs and Border Protection at the Southwest
border.
Since April 2022, then-Ranking Member Jordan has been
asking DHS for this information. Although Secretary Mayorkas
promised to deliver a response to this question in 2022 and
again last summer, DHS has refused to provide the information
to the Committee for the past two years, only very recently
offering to allow review of the case dispositions but in a
classified setting.
We stopped listening to Secretary Mayorkas a long time ago.
Given that information about the custody and disposition of
illegal aliens on the terrorist watch list encountered at the
border, as frequently reported on by the press, it remains
unclear if all this information is truly classified or if DHS
and Secretary Mayorkas are just embarrassed to admit the truth.
The American people deserve to know if DHS is releasing
these illegal aliens on the terrorist watch list into their
communities.
We are also here to hold the Department of Health and Human
Services accountable. We've sent numerous letters and issued
three subpoenas to the HHS.
Our requests and subpoenas cover a range of topics,
including the censorship of free speech online and the failures
of the Unaccompanied Alien Children program under the
leadership of Secretary Becerra.
Under the Secretary's leadership, longstanding protections
for UACs were pared back. As a result, as The New York Times
has reported, between 2021 and early 2023, the HHS lost contact
with at least 85,000 unaccompanied children it released to
sponsors--85,000.
Since the Committee's June 2023 transcribed interview with
the Office of Refugee Resettlement Director Robin Dunn Marcos,
the Committee has sought to understand the up-to-date total
number of UACs with which the HHS has lost contact.
To date, the HHS has stonewalled these efforts, and the
only information it has provided is skewed data that is not
even current, obscuring the true number of UACs with which it
has lost contact.
Secretary Becerra's emphasis on the speed, rather than the
integrity of UAC placements with sponsors has no doubt played a
part in the failures of the UAC program.
The Committee has accordingly expressed its desire to hear
from the Secretary as the politically accountable head of the
HHS at a hearing before its Subcommittee on Immigration
Integrity, Security, and Enforcement.
After declining to make him available on dates that have
been offered and delaying the scheduling of his appearance, the
Department has finally agreed for the Secretary to testify
before the Immigration Subcommittee. We look forward to his
appearance.
We also know that the failures of the UAC program have led
to UACs being released who have gone on to victimize Americans
through heinous criminal acts.
One such UAC that the Biden Administration's the HHS
released to a sponsor did just that, brutally assaulting and
murdering an innocent 11-year-old girl in Texas in 2023. The
Committee has asked the HHS for the case file of the alien
charged with this heinous crime, among others.
After the HHS obstructed the Committee's efforts to
understand what went wrong in this case and others like it, the
Committee issued a subpoena to the HHS for this information.
Despite the subpoena's legal obligations, the HHS has
produced heavily redacted copies of these materials and allowed
the Committee staff to review a small subset of these materials
in-camera with only some of those redactions lifted.
Although no legal principle applies to justify the HHS's
refusal to turn over unredacted copies of these case files to
the Committee, the HHS has refused, citing its interest in
protecting the privacy of a charged murderer.
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.
The courts have recognized that Congress' power to conduct
oversight is an indispensable component of our Article I
authority to legislate. Without the information that the
Committee needs from the Administration, we cannot do our jobs
for the American people.
I now yield time to the minority Ranking Member for his
opening statement.
Mr. Swalwell. Chair Jordan may believe that everyone on
this Committee has amnesia, because for the last 18 months,
almost every time we have come into this room, we have been
promised evidence of crimes that will impeach President Biden,
over and over, noun, verb, impeachment.
President Biden has been subjected to the worst
accusations. He and his family have been called the worst, and
you've been promised the most as it relates to what's going to
be delivered.
I think it's cute, it's adorable that we're having this
hearing now on oversight of the border, and we're going to, I
guess, go back in time and question whether the vaccine for
COVID really worked. That's great.
We're not going to erase what was promised to the American
people, because Chair Jordan doesn't have the goods. ``We've
got the goods. We've got the receipts.'' I want you to know
what you were promised and what you're now going to be given is
something completely different.
So Joe Biden sold out emergency fuel reserves to a Chinese
company tied to Hunter Biden. That's an impeachable offense.
Said Judiciary Committee Member Andy Biggs.
President Biden himself may have committed impeachable offenses
relating to treason, bribery, or other crimes,
Says Congressman Jodey Arrington.
His actions as Vice President are a blatant crime and an
impeachable offense. The tragedy is Washington has known about
these crimes for years and done nothing.
Says motion to vacillate--I'm sorry--motion to vacate author
Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Certainly, impeachable acts have been committed by President
Biden.
Says Clay Higgins.
All these are impeachable offenses, and to my Republican
colleagues who say, ``No, it's not, that's maladministration,''
they're wrong.
The Rep. Chip Roy.
Paul Gosar says,
Joe Biden obstructs Hunter Biden's cooperation with impeachment
inquiry. Speaking of subpoenas, add obstruction of justice to
the list of impeachable offenses committed by Joe Biden.
Greg Murphy:
I don't throw around the word ``impeachment'' lightly. I don't
throw around the word ``impeachment'' lightly. But, in my view,
President Biden has committed two major impeachable offenses.
Doug LaMalfa says,
Joe Biden obstructs Hunter Biden's cooperation with impeachment
inquiries. Speaking of subpoenas, add obstruction of justice to
the list of impeachable offenses committed by Joe Biden.
James Comer, he's got a couple doozies.
Overwhelming evidence shows President Biden lied to the
American people about his knowledge of and participation in his
family's corrupt international and domestic business schemes.
Then he said--this is the guy who's in cahoots with Chair
Jordan to impeach Joe Biden:
I mean, there's no doubt that Joe Biden committed impeachable
offenses.
It sounds like there's some doubt. It sounds like there's
some doubt. Eighteen months in, and we're now two-plus months
from the last hearing they've had on this, they won't declare
it dead because they need the smear to perpetuate all the way
into the election. They just want a cloud hanging over the
former--they just want a cloud hanging over President Biden
because they work as a law firm on behalf of the former twice-
impeached President Trump.
Every day the House of Representatives has worked as the
largest law firm in Washington, DC, on behalf of just one
client. They brought all this nonsense into this room promising
evidence of impeachment, and they've delivered zero.
Who has actually delivered? The FBI. Because they keep
arresting the best witnesses they have for their own work on
behalf of Russia and China.
So, they bring these witnesses, they make these
allegations, and the FBI says:
Actually, the guy that you're relying on, he's been telling you
lies that have been fed by Russia.
Their own Intelligence Committee Chair--this is a
Republican--said that,
Most of the claims going on in this building about Russia on
their side is Russia propaganda being filtered to them by the
Russians.
So, I don't expect you're going to hear the autopsy report
on their impeachment investigation, but the President certainly
deserves to hear this.
In light of Republicans producing absolutely zero on
impeachment, let's just declare from here forward, until they
put up some evidence, that Joe Biden has been acquitted of
every single MAGA smear. Acquitted. It's over. They're 0-for-
impeachment.
They tried to impeach Secretary Mayorkas, and it took a
second serve. They tried. Their own side voted against it. They
had to bring one of their Members, the poor guy is suffering
from cancer, they bring him out of his treatment to come in to
deliver the one-vote majority they need to impeach Secretary
Mayorkas, and then it goes nowhere in the Senate. It was a
second serve impeachment. It's embarrassing.
Now, this hearing today is about the border. We want to
help fix the border. In fact, the second-most conservative
Member of the Senate, according to the American Conservative
Union, is James Lankford of Oklahoma, the second-most
conservative Member of the Senate. He has the crazy idea that
we should surge resources to the border, put more judges there
to adjudicate claims of asylum, give the President the
authority to shut down the border if it's being overwhelmed.
The President in good faith engages. Many Democrats,
including myself, in good faith engage. Then Donald Trump
realizes: Wait, if we solve the border crisis, I can't
politicize the border crisis. So, he tells them: ``Don't pass
that bipartisan legislation.''
Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, said,
I'm not giving up. It's not about Trump, and it's not about me.
It's about our country.
Senator Todd Young from Indiana said,
I hope no one is trying to take this away for campaign
purposes.
Senator Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana, said,
How does Trump know it's a betrayal if he hasn't read it? I
mean, don't be ignorant. Read the bill.
James Lankford, the author of the bill, said,
It's interesting. Republicans four months ago would not give
funding for Ukraine, for Israel, and for our Southern border
because we demanded changes in policy.
Now, it's interesting, a few months later, when we're finally
getting to the end, they're like,
Oh, just kidding. I actually don't want a change in law because
it's a Presidential election year.
One side wants the fix. One side wants the fiction. That's
entirely what this is about.
So, we'll engage you in this exercise, and you can send
your letters about what you'd like to see on the border, but we
actually stand ready to get things done.
What you're seeing today is not oversight. It's overkill.
I yield back.
Mr. Cline. The gentleman yields back.
Without objection, all other opening statements will be
included in the record.
Without objection, Mr. Massie will be permitted to
participate in today's hearing for the purpose of questioning
the witnesses if a Member yields him time for that purpose.
We'll now introduce today's witnesses.
The Honorable Melanie Egorin. Ms. Egorin is the Assistant
Secretary for Legislation at the Department of Health and Human
Services. She was confirmed by the Senate on December 30, 2021.
The Honorable Zephranie Buetow. Ms. Buetow is the Assistant
Secretary for the Office of Legislative Affairs at the
Department of Homeland Security. She is the Department's
primary liaison to Congress.
We welcome our witnesses and thank them for appearing
today. We will begin by swearing you in.
Would you 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 may 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. Egorin, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MELANIE EGORIN
Ms. Egorin. Chair Cline, Ranking Member Swalwell, the
Members of the Committee, I appreciate this opportunity to
testify before you for a second time on behalf of the
Department of Health and Human Services. I am Melanie Anne
Egorin, the Assistant Secretary for Legislation at the HHS.
Prior to serving as the ASL, I spent more than 15 years
working in the Legislative Branch, including on the
professional staff of the House Committee on Ways and Means for
nearly a decade.
I deeply value the work Congress does and the important
role that Congressional oversight plays in our government. It
is very important that Congress conducts oversight to improve
program integrity and strengthen Federal programs that work to
improve our healthcare system, as well as the overall health of
the Nation.
The the HHS's mission is to enhance the health and well-
being of all Americans. Our 12 operating divisions administer a
wide variety of health and human services programs on behalf of
the American people and the world. The the HHS provides access
to healthcare coverage for more than 100 million people through
Medicare, Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program,
and the Health Insurance Marketplace.
We also provide vital services to the Indian Health
Service, Community Health Centers, and the U.S. Public Health
Service.
We protect Americans from health, safety, and security
threats, both foreign and domestic, and we oversee safety
effectiveness in the quality of foods, drugs, vaccines, and
medical devices.
We help provide affordable, high-quality childcare for
working families and provide critical early learning and
development services to children and families through the Head
Start Program. We promote upward economic mobility through
programs such as the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program,
Child Support Services, and Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families.
As part of our important work, the HHS regularly interacts
with Congress as policymakers develop legislation and respond
to Congressional oversight requests.
the HHS remains committed to continuing to work with
Congress in good faith. The Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Legislation serves as the liaison between the Department
and Congress and works to facilitate responses to Congressional
oversight.
Given the breadth of the work the HHS does, the Department
receives inquiries from virtually every Member and regularly
receives oversight requests on any number of topics from
multiple Committees in both the House and the Senate.
In the 118th Congress, the Department produced over 50,000
pages of documents in response to oversight requests from a
multitude of Congressional Committees. We've responded to
hundreds of inquiries. The department officials have
participated in transcribed interviews, provided briefings, and
testified at oversight hearings, including in front of your
Committee.
To respond to a variety of oversight requests, we engage in
the accommodation process, seeking to balance Congress'
interest consistent with Executive Branch interest, always
being mindful of our resource constraints.
We have and will continue to actively engage with this
Committee regarding the multiple oversight requests involving
different operating divisions in the Department.
To this Committee alone in this Congress, the Department
has facilitated four transcribed interviews, provided the
Committee more than 14,000 pages of documents, arranged for
over 3,600 pages of sensitive records to be reviewed in camera,
and provided detailed information regarding the Department's
programs.
Additionally, the Department has continued to engage with
the Committee on accommodations, addressing followup requests,
including those on particularly sensitive information.
We continue to work in good faith on the Committee's
oversight requests, including making two document productions
just last week.
The the HHS has a demonstrated record of working to address
Congressional oversight requests, including the requests of
this Committee, and the HHS is committed to continuing to
engage with this Committee and all of Congress in good faith.
I am happy to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of the Hon. Egorin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cline. Thank you.
Ms. Buetow.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ZEPHRANIE BUETOW
Ms. Buetow. Chair Cline, Ranking Member Swalwell, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. I'm honored to
appear before you here today. My name is Zephranie Buetow, and
I serve as Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs at the
Department of Homeland Security, or DHS.
I last appeared before this Committee on June 22, 2023.
Since that time the Department has continued to work tirelessly
to respond to the oversight requests from this Committee, as
well as the over 70 Congressional Committees and Subcommittees
that have jurisdiction over DHS. Congressional oversight is an
important priority for both the Department and our democracy.
Congressional requests for data and documents have
significantly increased during the 118th Congress, particularly
since January 2024. In the past four months, DHS has received
33 letters from this Committee alone, including requests for 27
sets of immigration records and three subpoenas.
By comparison, the Committee requested 20 sets of
immigration records and issued two subpoenas in the entirety of
2023.
We are making great efforts to meet the increased oversight
requests from Congress with our existing resources.
One of the challenges the Department faces is balancing
legitimate oversight interests of Congress with the
Department's law enforcement and national security
responsibilities, as well as the Executive Branch
confidentiality interests.
DHS is the second-largest Cabinet agency, with eight
primary operational components and multiple other mission and
support components. It is not uncommon for Congressional
requests to span multiple components and offices.
Individual offices often use unique and incompatible data
systems, requiring extensive consultation, collaboration, and
veri-
fication to ensure the accuracy, completeness, and data
integrity.
Fortunately, DHS has made significant strides in this area.
For example, in November 2023, the Department launched the
Office of Homeland Security Statistics, or OHSS.
OHSS coordinates the collection, validation, and reporting
of key data. This includes the monthly Immigration Enforcement
and Legal Processes Report, which captures 10 years of
encounter data for the Southwest border.
DHS has also made significant progress in reporting
component-level statistics. As of January 2024, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement began publishing
enforcement data on a public-facing dashboard. Now, these
dashboards are sortable by date, country of citizenship, area
of responsibility, and other filters.
Although collecting and validating data remains a time-
consuming process, DHS has nonetheless achieved an
unprecedented level of data transparency.
We remain committed to providing Congress with objective,
timely, and authoritative statistical data on a consistent and
predictable basis.
I understand that today's hearing is focused on our
responses to this Committee's oversight requests. The
Department always attempts to cooperate with the Committee's
requests voluntarily and in good faith, consistent with the
accommodations process.
Since the start of this Congress, the Committee has issued
five subpoenas to the Department for documents and data. In
each case DHS staff was already actively engaged with the
Committee staff in the accommodations discussions prior to the
issuance of the subpoena. In most cases, the Department had
already made significant productions and expressed the intent
to make subsequent rolling productions.
The Department remains committed to cooperating with the
Committee's legitimate efforts to seek information and will do
so in a manner that safeguards the sensitive law enforcement
and national security interests at the heart of our mission and
consistent with our obligation to protect the Executive
Branch's recognized right to confidentiality.
We thank you for your partnership and service to the
American people, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of the Hon. Buetow follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cline. Thank you, Ms. Buetow.
We'll now proceed under the five-minute rule with
questions. I recognize myself for five minutes.
Ms. Buetow, since the beginning of the 118th Congress, the
Committee has sought information regarding criminal illegal
aliens allowed entry into the United States. These requests
languished with DHS for months, despite the Committee staff
following up with DHS regularly.
As a result, the Committee ultimately subpoenaed DHS for
these materials on December 8, 2023. Of the 14 A-Files DHS is
compelled by the subpoena to produce, only 11 have been
provided.
Despite the Committee's subpoena production deadline
lapsing on January 8, 2024, DHS has failed to produce the
remaining A-Files, citing the, quote, ``corruption,'' of the
documents as an excuse to Committee staff in April 2024.
When did DHS begin the process of responding to the
Committee's June 9th, July 31st, and September 14th requests?
Ms. Buetow. Thank you for your question, Mr. Chair.
With respect to the A-Files, the Department responds to
each Congressional request we receive. Whether it's a document
production, a letter, etc., the Department always responds.
With respect to the A-Files, in particular, they don't all
live in the same place. So, it is a time-consuming process,
whether it's a file that lives with CBP versus ICE, etc.
So, at the time that we would have received the initial
request, that would have begun the process of working with the
components to identify where information resides, and some of
these files are incredibly large, so that is a time-consuming
process.
Mr. Cline. You're stating that you began the process when
you received the initial request?
Ms. Buetow. Anytime we receive a request, that is when we
begin the accommodations process, plus the identification
process, which I think is slightly different.
Mr. Cline. Because my kids like to wait until the last
minute to do their homework.
Can you State with absolute certainty that it was before
the Committee's December 8, 2023, subpoena?
Ms. Buetow. Yes.
Mr. Cline. Has the Department compiled the remaining A-
Files that are due to the Committee?
Ms. Buetow. So, I would like to first thank your staff. We
have been in constant communication with regard to the A-Files,
and we've begun the process of prioritizing some of these
files.
Some of the files are incredibly large. Some of them are
smaller. So, we have, I believe, as recently as this week
continued to push some of the ones that were more of a
manageable size, and we will continue to do so.
Mr. Cline. So, you're still pulling relevant documents?
Ms. Buetow. Yes.
Mr. Cline. Can you commit to producing the remaining A-
Files by May 17th?
Ms. Buetow. Mr. Chair, it would be irresponsible for me to
commit to a date when I cannot identify each particular file,
and where each particular document is. What I can commit to is
aggressively working with our team to be responsive to the
Committee's request.
Mr. Cline. So, you can't give me a date today?
Ms. Buetow. I don't believe that--recognizing that I'm
under oath, I would love to say that the 17th would be a date
certain, but I don't think that would be appropriate.
Mr. Cline. If I said June 17th, or would you like to
confirm that you can't give me a date today?
Ms. Buetow. Chair Cline, I can commit to you that we will
aggressively work toward getting those files as soon as
possible. My understanding is we have worked through a process
of triaging, which I think would help facilitate faster
movement on the remaining files.
Mr. Cline. OK.
In one A-File produced to the Committee, an annotation was
included that reads, ``Consultation with the White House,''
right there.
Did the White House play any role in DHS's clearance
process of this production?
Ms. Buetow. I don't believe so, Congressman, but I would
have to verify.
Mr. Cline. OK. Can you explain the annotation?
Ms. Buetow. I cannot, and I'd be happy to take that back
and get clarity on what that is.
Mr. Cline. Thank you. We would like to get that
clarification immediately if possible. During this
administration--
Mr. Ivey. Mr. Chair, is there, like, a Bates stamp number
on the document there or something? I'd like to see the
document as well.
Mr. Cline. It's in our possession. We'll make sure that we
circulate that. It's been provided by the witness to us and so
we have that.
Mr. Ivey. I would like to see it all.
Mr. Cline. Sure, sure.
During this Administration, did the White House ever play
any role in DHS's clearance process for any materials requested
by the Committee?
Ms. Buetow. Congressman, as I stated in my opening
statement, we work very hard to cooperate with the Committee
and work through the accommodations process while also
balancing the Executive Branch's confidentiality interests. So,
I think we are in constant communication across agencies with
the White House as the Executive Branch. With respect to any
one particular file or request, I wouldn't be in a position to
answer that today.
Mr. Cline. Well, generally then, did the White House ever
play any role? You're telling me the answer is yes?
Ms. Buetow. I think as a general matter the Office of
Legislative Affairs works with the Office of General Counsel
and any individual components, and it does not--I would say in
my tenure, standard practice, that if there's a production
that's being requested, it goes much further than the
Department itself.
Mr. Cline. OK. So, I'll take that as a yes.
Mr. Swalwell is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Swalwell. In the Department of ``You Can't Make This
Up,'' the Chair of the whole Committee is approaching 700 days
being out of compliance of a subpoena that was issued to him.
He was a witness to one of the greatest crimes that has
ever occurred in America, the attack on the Capitol on January
6th, spoke to the President at the time, multiple times, was
asked by a bipartisan Committee investigating that crime where
hundreds of people have pleaded guilty. Not were found guilty.
On their own pleaded guilty. Others were found guilty.
The Chair was asked to cooperate and tell the bipartisan
investigators what he knew. We're approaching 700 days in where
he refuses to do that.
So, the fact that you are here, you are doing more than the
Chair of the whole Committee is willing to do. You're willing
to answer questions and engage in a helpful dialog.
Would you agree, Secretary Buetow, that if the Republican
majority would just prioritize for you what they needed that
would be more helpful than just sending scattershot subpoena
requests?
Ms. Buetow. Thank you, Ranking Member Swalwell.
I think it is always helpful when we are able to triage and
prioritize requests, particularly when an individual letter may
request 10 different things that may live in 10 different
places within the Department. They do tend to start piling up.
Mr. Swalwell. Secretary Egorin, would you agree it is more
helpful when you prioritize rather than hit send with a
scattershot list of requests?
Ms. Egorin. Ranking Member Swalwell, it is always helpful
to understand the priorities of the Committee. It is also
helpful for us to be able to share back expectation settings
based on those priorities.
Mr. Swalwell. I know you're trying to do that.
I'm just going to go out on a limb here. I think they may
be trying to draw the foul.
I think the approach here is to over request, to overkill
on their search for documents and put you in an impossible
position where you can't comply and they're unwilling to
prioritize what they want, and then they bring you here and,
again, now it's the foul.
You can't keep up with the overwhelming requests of
nonsense that's coming from them, and they won't prioritize,
and then they want to try and dirty up the Administration and
say: Well, they're not complying, they have something to hide.
Actually, Secretary Buetow, from the requests that you have
received, is it true 87 letters have come from just this
Committee?
Ms. Buetow. Ranking Member Swalwell, that's correct.
Mr. Swalwell. In response to those letters, the Department
of Homeland Security has participated in 10 transcribed
interviews? Is that right?
Ms. Buetow. Yes, sir.
Mr. Swalwell. There are two additional interviews scheduled
for the future. Is that right?
Ms. Buetow. That's correct.
Mr. Swalwell. Can you confirm that the records for
individuals on the Terrorist Screening Dataset have been made
available to this Committee's staff for nearly 300 cases?
Ms. Buetow. We have done a camera review and briefings on
that subject matter. I know that this is an ongoing
conversation, but I believe that number is accurate.
Mr. Swalwell. Secretary Egorin, despite the majority's
unwillingness to prioritize what they want, is it true that
you've provided the Committee with more than 12,000 pages of
documents in response to the requests?
Ms. Egorin. Congressman, we have provided 1,400 pages in
production, as well as an additional almost 4,000 pages of in
camera review.
I would also like to emphasize, in your terms of
prioritization, the other thing is we have received inquiries
from 17 different Committees, both in the House and Senate. So,
when we talk about prioritization, it's prioritizing for this
Committee, but it's also understanding the larger context of
oversight within the 118th Congress.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Cline. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for having
this hearing.
Ranking Member Swalwell, man, he's good at it. You've got
to admit, right, he is really, really smooth.
So, we're going to look at the shiny object over here.
We're going to look about--we're going to talk about Clay
Higgins, Chair Jordan, James Comer, and Marjorie Taylor Greene.
We're going to talk about impeachment. We're going to talk
about January 6th.
I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to talk about the
Department of Justice going into traditional Roman Catholic
churches. I'm not going to talk about our Department of Justice
going into school boards. I'm not going to speak about the
Russian collusion hoax and how it was untrue, and the FBI was
actually the one that colluded. I'm not going to speak about
Biden's FBI Director saying how dangerous things are here, his
own Director of the FBI, because of all the undocumented
illegal individuals coming across. I'm not going to speak about
Mayorkas, who has knowingly, purposely--you want to talk about
why he was impeached? That's why he was impeached, because he's
allowed this to happen. I'm not going to speak about Joe
Biden's meetings with Russian oligarchs. I'm not going to speak
about his meetings with Burisma and his son's business or the
Department of Justice working with President Biden and others
to try to get a real big sweetheart deal that no other American
would ever get for his son.
No. Let's stick to what it's about, let's talk what this is
about, because they want to pull us somewhere else.
Let's be clear, when agencies delay or fail to comply with
Congressional subpoenas, they're obstructing our ability to
legislate and address the issues affecting the citizens we
serve, period.
That's the purpose of this Committee. That's why the Chair
wisely called this meeting, because we want to know what's
going on, because we represent the people of the United States
of America.
When they fail to turn it over, and especially the
documents relating to the Southern border, they're delaying our
ability to identify the many disasters that could occur and,
quite frankly, the disasters that have been created by this
administration.
So, let me talk about something.
Ms. Buetow, thank you for being here.
I'd like to specifically revisit a meeting on January 8,
2024. Secretary Mayorkas in a private meeting with Border
Patrol--you know about it--admitted that more than 85 percent
of illegal aliens encountered at the Southwest border were
being released into the country. That's a fact.
Following the statements, the Committee requested data
about this alarming admittance by our own Secretary. We
requested it. We should get it. The American people should
know. We wanted to know what's going on.
Typical fashion, DHS refused to comply with these requests,
and the Committee was forced to issue a subpoena on April 17,
2024. That's why we do subpoenas. It's unfortunate.
Your Department has assured us that it is committed to
giving Congress timely, objective, and precise data on
immigration enforcement. Earlier today your staff communicated
with our Committee that it will be sending a production to the
Committee today.
So, I want to know, if it had it for weeks, it told the
Committee initially that we had to wait for six months, why did
it change now from weeks and why do we have to wait to six
months? Why are they available now and they wouldn't have been
available before?
Ms. Buetow. With respect to the 85 percent comment, I
believe the Department has spoken about that issue, as has the
Secretary.
With respect to the request for information on that topic,
my understanding is DHS staff and the Committee staff have been
in conversations about producing what was requested in the
subpoena, and we will continue to work through the
accommodations process to get it.
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you for your answer, Ms. Buetow.
Yes, but initially we were told six months, and the answer
is on 85 percent. That's such an egregious statement to make,
this is just not sufficient, and that's why we actually put
forward a subpoena to get the real information.
By the way--and this is something that I don't,
tangentially, I don't have enough time to talk about--Chair
Jordan, I think it was two years ago, asked where the
individuals who are on the terror watch list, who are they,
where are they, what are they about, and what do we know about
them. We still haven't gotten that information.
So, let's understand it. Let's not look at the shiny
object. Let's look at the real world here. People on the terror
watch list are in this country. We don't know where they are or
who they are. We subpoenaed the information two years ago. We
still don't have it. Why?
Ms. Buetow. With respect to the TSDS, I understand that
there's a great deal of interest in this.
Mr. Van Drew. No kidding.
Ms. Buetow. DHS is a user of the information that is on
that list. We are not the owner of that information. We have
been in constant communication with staff, and we will continue
to do so.
Mr. Van Drew. See, that's gobbledygook, no offense to you.
I respect you. I'm glad that you're here.
Any Americans that are watching this--and I don't how many
are, to be honest with you--they don't want to hear that
answer. They want to hear the answer that I want: Where are
they? What are they doing? Are we safe? That's the real deal,
and we're not getting the real deal.
I yield back.
Mr. Cline. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
Mr. Ivey. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm kind of frustrated with this, I must say. The irony
here is that they're going after you for not producing things
for X number of months.
The last time we had a hearing like this was November 30th,
and I asked the Majority explicitly for the email exchanges
that go between majority staff and whatever department they're
making these requests for.
The reason I requested that was because we come back here
over and over again, and they make these allegations about
refusal to comply, and I want to see that. Because whenever we
actually have conversations in the hearing room, that's not the
case.
You talk about rolling productions, which of course makes
sense, and of course that's the way it works in court as well,
especially given the volume of data requests that have been
made, the thousands of them.
This notebook here, this is just one that we compiled. This
is just from the Committee for your two agencies, this whole
book. That doesn't even count--I'm on Homeland Security as
well. We've got the same volume of document requests coming for
you over there too.
By the way, when the Chair said we can't do our jobs, I
mean, my reaction was kind of this. Homeland Security wasn't
trying to do its job. It was trying to do this fake impeachment
of Mayorkas.
Fortunately, it went over to the Senate and got the back of
the hand, which is what it deserved, because it was a sham
impeachment, it was totally unconstitutional, ect.
I'm at the point now with these that maybe they just need
to go to court. Maybe we just have to have a third party, like
a judge, take a look at these and say, ``You know what? The
government's response is reasonable.''
You need to make priorities, Republican Committee leaders.
If you're going to make this many data requests spread out
over, like, what is it, 70 Committees and Subcommittees, you
have to prioritize.
Some of the requests for the data is just overbroad on its
face, all documents and communications between DHS on its
components referring to or relating to Secretary Mayorkas'
statement about the 85 percent, and this is sent back to 2021.
That's a broad data request. We can make something narrower
than that. Presumably the reason you would have these email
communications would be to narrow that down if the Committee is
acting in good faith and trying to do that.
I do want those emails. I want to see those.
With respect to what's coming next week, I guess, this is
the next step on this, Department of Justice. This Committee
has sent subpoenas to live criminal prosecutions, ongoing
investigations. They brought up prosecutors here in the middle
of those criminal investigations, which is something I have
never seen before. I first came to this Committee in 1987 as a
staffer.
Completely over the line. You don't want to interfere with
a criminal prosecution. Because there they are complaining
about the inability to go after Hunter Biden, and then they're
going to drag in the prosecutors who are leading those
prosecutions in the middle of the investigation? That doesn't
make any sense.
Next week, I guess what it'll be, they're talking about
contempt proceedings against the Attorney General. I think you
should take it to court.
Now, that's a sad statement, I feel, because I'm on the
House Judiciary Committee. I'm a Member of the House of
Representatives. I'd like to preserve our priorities and our
authority. It looks like it's at the point now where it just
really has to be challenged, and we'll need judges, and
Appellate Court judges as well, to make decisions on what makes
sense and what doesn't.
I've got to finish up with Mr. Swalwell's comments with
respect to Chair Jordan. It's not just Chair Jordan. Former
Speaker--actually former Congressman--Mr. McCarthy also ignored
the subpoenas that were issued by the House of Representatives,
and the Select Committee. What was that, two years-plus now?
Mr. Perry, Mr. Biggs, same thing.
So, the irony of them sitting here and basically accusing
you all ignoring subpoenas or data requests or whatever, when
we have these four Republican Members who completely
stonewalled them and made no efforts to produce anything, I
think is unfortunate.
So, the last time we had this, this was Hunter Biden, and I
actually made a proposal to reach a compromise on that, which
ended up being accepted by Mr. Biden's attorneys and the
Committee. I don't think I'm going to do that again when we
come to this next week or whatever the next time is where we do
these.
My suggestion to the Administration is just litigate it,
force them to go to court, and let's hash it out then. Or you
can do the same strategy that they did, which is to drag your
feet and wait until the next election and hope that you're in
the majority after that, and then you can just ignore the
subpoenas without consequence.
So, with that, I yield back.
I apologize for you continuing being dragged up here for
these reasons.
Mr. Cline. The gentleman apologizes.
The gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Secretary Buetow, I'd like to direct my questions and
comments to you if you don't mind. I want to talk about Eagle
Pass and the document production request as relates to Eagle
Pass.
Of course, in September 2023, while thousands of illegal
aliens flooded into Eagle Pass, Texas, shutting down lawful
commerce across the bridges, DHS cut and removed concertina
wire and fencing installed as a deterrent by the State of
Texas, an action that helped actually the aliens cross
illegally.
Accordingly, the Committee requested information from DHS
and followed up on these requests on numerous occasions,
ultimately sending a subpoena to DHS for this information.
In response, DHS did produce 1,083 pages, 714 of which, I
will note, were comprised of publicly available materials,
largely public court documents.
Setting aside that in particular, I want to talk about that
production request, and I want to make reference to something
Mr. Ivey just said.
He wanted us to prioritize. So I'm just going to put on the
record, as it relates to that February 29th subpoena to DHS,
items 1, 2, 3, and 9 are the priority.
Also, if we're talking about--if we're going to get into
some arguments about being overly broad or not overly broad,
let me just point out one. This is item number 3: ``Documents
sufficient to show the identification of the individuals who
made the decision to cut the concertina wire.''
I can assure you that is a very narrow request. Ironically,
we haven't seen any documents that would actually give us the
information about who made the decision to cut that concertina
wire.
So, let's talk about the request that you did produce or
the documents you did produce.
Out of 1,083 pages, when you search the term ``gotaways,''
when we're talking about a request that wants to know what was
going on with the gotaways, only one document even referenced
the term ``gotaway,'' one page out of 1,083 pages that was
actually provided to the Committee.
That seems like it probably is not the full scale of the
documents that we're looking for to understand the full scale
of how many gotaways have crossed over that you know of in DHS
or that you assess in DHS.
When can the Committee expect to receive documents and
communications relating to the total number of known and
unknown gotaways as noted in the ninth category of the
Committee's February 29th subpoena?
Ms. Buetow. Thank you, Congressman, for your question. It's
good to see you again.
I would say it is indeed very helpful when we have
prioritization of what is top of mind for Members when they
make these requests. So, identifying 1, 2, 3, and 9 is
incredibly helpful.
As you know, we've made two productions to date with
respect to the specific subpoena. I'm happy to work with my
staff to kind of drill down on the things that are most front
of mind for you.
Mr. Moran. Front of mind on this question is about
gotaways. So, when can we expect documents on the gotaways?
Ms. Buetow. Specific, as you well know, we work across our
components. I would be cautious not to put a date on it, but I
can assure you this week we'll followup and get the balling
rolling, narrowing down the scope of the particular ask here.
Mr. Moran. Prior to today and your commitment to do that in
the following days, what action is actually going on or has
gone on in the past couple weeks to try to identify documents
related to gotaways?
Ms. Buetow. So, I think with any of these productions, not
just specific to gotaways, but when we have a request from The
Hill, we take every action to identify information that would
be responsive and that we can share.
As I noted in my opening statement, in each of the
instances where subpoenas have been issued, we were already
engaging in the accommodations process with the Committee to
identify this information and continue a rolling production to
get it in the hands of the Members.
Mr. Moran. All right. Let's shift to identification of the
person who made the decision to cut the concertina wire.
Would you agree with me that the request I read is not
overly broad? Just to identify, it doesn't say all documents.
It just says documents sufficient to show the identification of
the individual who made the decision to cut the concertina
wire. That could just be one document. We just need to know who
made the decision.
Would you agree with me that indeed that is a narrow
request?
Ms. Buetow. Congressman, your framing of the question was
quite narrow and direct. I also think that in the scope of this
particular issue, as I'm sure you're tracking, there have been
litigious issues, there's the Executive Branch issues. So, I
don't want to give an overly broad response here, but what
you're asking, as it's framed, is not overly broad at all.
Mr. Moran. When can you commit to producing that
information to identify the person that made the decision to
cut the concertina wire?
By the way, I want to go back and say, I read into the
record the four priority categories. The staff had already told
you guys that. You know that. They'd already communicated those
four specific requests as the priority requests. I'm just
reaffirming that today.
When can we expect to know the identity of the person that
said cut the concertina wire?
Ms. Buetow. I understand that our staff have been in clear
communication on this issue. I'm happy to continue engaging in
that accommodations process.
I do not know if there is a document that actually exists
that has someone's name on a piece of paper. I understand and
hear you loud and clear, Congressman.
Mr. Moran. I yield back.
Mr. Cline. The gentleman yields back.
The gentlelady from Florida is recognized.
Mr. Ivey. Mr. Chair, if I could ask. The communication--
Mr. Cline. Point of parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. Ivey. Yes. Well, it's actually just a request to the
Full Committee.
The discussion about the communications between staff and
majority with respect to the four priorities, if that was done
in writing, I would request the document.
Mr. Cline. Well, the gentleman's request is not at this
time. If you want to let your staff know and we'll have staff
have a conversation about that.
Mr. Ivey. We should probably do it in writing at this
point. So, we'll make a written request to the Subcommittee
Chair and the Full Committee Chair.
Mr. Cline. Thank you.
The gentlelady from Florida is recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Lee. Good afternoon, Secretary Buetow. Thank you for
joining us here again this afternoon.
I have some questions that I would like to ask that are
specifically related to CISA and CISA's role in elections.
Specifically, CISA coordinated in some instances with
social media companies about elections-related information, and
our Committee is interested in investigating that role and that
involvement of CISA in information that was posted or removed
from social media during the elections process.
To date, the Committee has received 2,300 pages of
documents responsive to the April 28, 2023, subpoena. The
production at this point is still incomplete.
I know you have shared with other Members of the Committee
who've inquired so far limitations on your ability to give a
specific date. Nonetheless, I'd like to hear from you about the
status of that review and production and any timeline you can
give us on when you think these documents may be available.
Ms. Buetow. Congresswoman, good to see you again as well.
As you noted, we have produced over 2,000--I believe the
number is closer to 2,500 documents with relation to this
request. We've also provided transcribed interviews with CISA
employees.
There's a lot of material that exists, and as we identify
information, we are continuing to make rolling productions.
I would think that the Committee would appreciate continued
productions of materials as opposed to productions that are not
fulsome, accurate, and complete. We will continue to work
toward that end.
Ms. Lee. In particular, we heard mention earlier about
Director Easterly's testimony in front of the Appropriations
Committee last week.
Director Easterly specifically mentioned 200 occurrences
where an elections official had flagged information for CISA
and that was passed along to social media companies. So,
documents and communications related to these 200 incidents
specifically would be responsive to existing subpoenas.
Are you aware of the progress on that particular request
and the timeline when we might receive those documents?
Ms. Buetow. So, I understand that this is a reference to
testimony this week or last week, and I'm happy to take that
back and look at that testimony and see what we can get in your
hands in that.
Ms. Lee. One particular thing that we are interested in; on
March 20, 2024, the Committee wrote to CISA to request
documents related to CISA's partnership with the Pennsylvania
Election Threats Task Force. These documents are responsive,
again, to the April 28, 2023, subpoena.
We received responsive documents May 6, 2024, the day
before this hearing, 140 pages of responsive documents, but
half of those were publicly available in a report by the
University of Pittsburgh's Institute for Cyber Law.
So, one question we have is when CISA started to compile
documents related to the Pennsylvania Election Threats Task
Force in response to the Committee's subpoena.
Ms. Buetow. As I have stated, the Department always
responds to incoming document requests and letters.
As I sit here today, I cannot say on January X they began
their process. I do understand that they are continuing to look
to have a response imminently with regard to this.
Ms. Lee. That is one that I know we would be interested in
you going back and actually trying to identify that timeline
for us, because it was a longstanding request and a clearly
identifiable set of documents.
One other concern we had related to those documents, in
particular, is the heavy amount of redactions in what we did
receive. We can see here an example of one of those documents
that came back to us heavily redacted, which of course hinders
our ability to understand or analyze the contents and relevance
of the information contained in those documents that are
produced to us.
Do you know who within CISA is responsible for reviewing
and making decisions about what information is redacted in
documents that are produced?
Ms. Buetow. So, any time there is a request for documents
or data, redactions are made in individual components.
Typically, it would be my assumption that they're working with
their Office of General Counsel or Legal Counsel, whatever the
relevant scoping is. So, you would imagine our intel components
would be looking for intel information and that would guide
what is redacted.
I don't believe, as across the Department, there's ever
just a single individual. It is always a cooperative process
for identifying redactions.
Ms. Lee. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Cline. I thank the gentlelady.
All right. We're going to proceed with a second round. I
recognized myself for five minutes.
Assistant Secretary Egorin, on April 5th, the HHS provided
a response to inquiry about--stating that in calendar year
2021-2023, the HHS made contact with either an unaccompanied
child, sponsor, or both in 308,833 households. the HHS noted
that in 66,622 households the HHS was unable to contact with
both the sponsor and the UAC.
However, not included in the HHS's production was the
number of safety and well-being calls in which the HHS was
unable to make contact with the UAC themselves. As The New York
Times previously reported in February 2023, the HHS was unable
to contact through safety and well-being calls 85,000 UACs.
More than a year later, that number is likely far higher today.
Will you commit to provide information about when we're
going to receive--by the end of the week--the total number of
UACs with whom you have lost contact?
Ms. Egorin. Congressman, I want to first reiterate our
commitment to making sure that when children are placed with a
sponsor that they have services available to them.
Unfortunately, as you saw in our President's budget
proposal, we are limited in our statutory authorities as well
as our funding for post-release services.
What I can commit to you today is to come back to you with
an estimate and to continue to work with your staff regarding
when we can have information available.
Mr. Cline. The information that the HHS provided on April
5th, was not current through 2024 and only captured calendar
years 2021-2023.
Will you also commit to providing this information through
the present date as the subpoena compels you to?
Ms. Egorin. Congressman, we will continue to work with your
staff and can see what data is available and continue to work
through an accommodation process.
Mr. Cline. All right. Well, let's shift a little to
criminal aliens' case files.
In response to the Committee's February 20, 2024, subpoena
that compelled the production of case file materials for
several criminal alien UACs that were released from the HHS
custody during the Biden Administration, the HHS has produced
2,476 pages.
However, the materials produced were replete with
redactions even though the case file materials are not
classified or subject to any applicable privilege.
Would you agree?
Ms. Egorin. Congressman, we've made over 3,600 pages
available for in camera review, and we at the Department take
our obligation to protect these children's personal health and
personal identifiable information seriously.
Mr. Cline. Why did the HHS provide the Committee with case
files that contained redactions when those redactions were not
contained in the case files Committee staff initially viewed in
camera?
Ms. Egorin. Congressman, as we discussed when I was before
the Committee the last time, we will continue to make sure that
we work through individual redactions, and my understanding is
we have worked with your team to lift specific redactions and
prioritize specific pages.
In terms of the differences, it had to do with how the
accommodation process and how the Committee staff had released
information previously without letting us know that this
information--that did have sensitive information--would be
released publicly.
Mr. Cline. Will you provide the Committee the documents
governing the HHS redactions and how they're applied?
Ms. Egorin. Congressman, redactions are applied to protect
the personal identifiable and personal health information. We
are happy to continue to have conversations around specific
redactions.
Mr. Cline. Do you have guidance? Do you have guidelines for
redactions?
Ms. Egorin. Congressman, we provide--
Mr. Cline. Yes or no?
Ms. Egorin. Congressman, we continue to--
Mr. Cline. I'd like a yes or no on that one.
Ms. Egorin. Congressman--
Mr. Cline. Do you have internal guidelines on redactions?
Ms. Egorin. Congressman, we look at the individual material
and redact to make sure that we are protecting personal health
information and personally identifiable information of the
children in our care.
Mr. Cline. Where does that come from? Does that come from
guidelines, or does that come from something you've made up
yourself?
Ms. Egorin. Congressman, as you know, there is a
constellation of factors that can be used to identify any
individual. We are all at risk of that.
So, we look at documents to make sure that--
Mr. Cline. You do understand Congress is not under the
Privacy Act, correct?
Ms. Egorin. Congressman, we take our obligations for
personal health information and personal identifiable
information very seriously.
Mr. Cline. Well, apparently not serious enough to follow a
subpoena from Congress. Now, I'm going to--
Ms. Egorin. Congressman, it is my understanding of the
subpoena that we have been incredibly responsive. We have
answered followup questions, and we have--
Mr. Cline. You know that's not accurate.
I'm going to yield to the gentleman from California--oh,
OK, the gentleman from Maryland for five minutes, Mr. Ivey.
Mr. Ivey. Just so I'm clear on that conversation, is this
about juveniles?
Mr. Cline. Yes.
Mr. Ivey. OK. I had thought that juvenile information was
protected and not made publicly available, but we'll set that
to the side for the moment. I appreciate the fact that you're
offering to have the communications ongoing.
I wanted to go to the CISA discussion that's come up,
because, again, in Homeland Security we've spent a lot of time
on this issue. This Committee has as well. For example, they
did a deposition of Ms. Nina Jankowicz, a like four-hour
deposition here, and others on these issues.
I wanted to ask--actually, I don't want to ask. I'm going
to say this.
The CISA mission with respect to protecting elections from
challenges that we've seen, and we've discussed this at
Homeland Security, and this is publicly available information,
but the United States in 2024 is facing clear efforts by China,
Russia, Iran, and other groups and countries to interfere in
our elections.
One of the things that CISA is trying to do is to find ways
to protect the election integrity, whether it's at the State
level or the Federal level as well. Part of the way that they
do that is to work with State legislatures, State Secretaries
of State, and also, in some instances, social media platforms.
So, the hearing we did, we've done several of these in
Homeland Security, and maybe these are some of the thousands of
documents that you've produced, but I've seen them already as
well as part of those hearings.
Those are communications between frequently--on occasion
it's somebody in the Federal Government--but, frequently it's
between people in the social media platforms, Microsoft or
whoever. In many instances they're State Secretaries of State
or State officials who have a question about misinformation or
false information. For example, poll X is closed right now when
actually it isn't.
They want to make sure that that misinformation is taken
down so that the electoral process isn't undermined and people
who have the right to vote don't have that taken away from them
by this kind of election interference effort.
I actually saw Republican efforts when they identified
misinformation with respect to polls. I think one of the
instances they had, and I had an email about this and made it
part of the record in Homeland Security, they called the social
media platform themselves and said correct that information and
take it down so people and voters, don't get the wrong
information.
So, what I saw of it was that it was bipartisan, at least
on the ground. It's morphed into something different here in
Congress, at least with respect to the House Republican
leadership and some of the ways they've tried to approach this
and turn it into something where it's an effort to steal the
elections or something along those lines. It might've been in
the Committee next door where they argued these were First
Amendment violations.
It's important for the American people to know that we have
adversaries out there who are trying to undermine American
democracy, and the 2024 election is at risk, frankly, by some
of these foreign agents that are trying to find ways to
undermine it. I really want to commend CISA and the Department
for trying to find ways to attack that.
I don't want to attack the private sector people, some of
the social media platforms who've been participating and trying
to work with the government, State or Federal, or any other
actors who want to try and protect elections as well, and
recognize that social media platforms, in some instances, have
been used by some of these foreign adversaries to spread
misinformation and disinfor-
mation in an effort to undermine our democracy. That's not just
for elections; that's other scenarios, too.
So, I want to thank you for the work that you're doing.
I also wanted to just, before I run out of time here, raise
my concern about this Committee's attacks on government
employees, Federal Government employees in particular, who are
really just trying to do their jobs.
Ms. Jankowicz was one of the worst examples of that. She
ended up having to hire security to protect her from people who
were making threats, some of them fed by people in the House of
Representatives on the Republican side as we sit here now.
That's not the way this should work. It really isn't.
People who are just trying to do their jobs, work for Uncle Sam
and do the right thing to make America better, safer, and
stronger don't deserve to be attacked in that way.
So, I see my time has expired. Again, I hope that we can
find a bipartisan way to stop attacking you for these issues
and protect our elections from some of our foreign adversaries
who are actually trying to undermine them as we speak.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Cline. I'd just inquire, the gentleman is not
suggesting that anyone on this Subcommittee is attacking
government employees by inquiring about the status of subpoena
replies?
Mr. Ivey. Not this Subcommittee at this moment, but in the
transcripts that this Subcommittee and this Committee will not
release publicly, that's absolutely the case.
That's also absolutely been the case in social media
statements that have been made, whether it's on X or Twitter or
whatever. I don't want to name people because then we get into
that issue.
Yes, Nina Jankowicz was personally attacked by Members of
this Committee.
Mr. Cline. Full Committee? Is that what you're suggesting?
Mr. Ivey. Yes. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Cline. All right.
Mr. Ivey. Absolutely. I can share the information with you
whenever you'd like, and we made it part of the record actually
during her deposition here and when she testified in Homeland
Security. So, it's not a secret. I'm happy to share it.
Mr. Cline. I appreciate the gentleman. The Subcommittee
controls what it can.
The gentlelady from Florida is recognized.
Ms. Lee. Mr. Chair, I yield my time to the gentleman from
Kentucky.
Mr. Cline. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. Massie. I thank the gentlelady from Florida.
Assistant Secretary Egorin, there are some documents that
we have been trying to get hold of for years and you all are
withholding them, and I'm going to give you the story behind
that and demand that you deliver them.
So, in December 2020, the CDC produced an MMWR--that's one
of their newsletters, kind of their version of an academic
paper--characterizing the Pfizer trials of the vaccine, of the
BioNTech vaccine, and the FDA had summarized the Pfizer trials.
When the CDC's MMWR, they said that the vaccine was 92
percent efficacious for those who had already had COVID, I was
struck by this claim because--well, first, I was interested
because I had already had COVID and I was wondering whether to
take the vaccine or not. I had studied the Pfizer data, the
top-line data and the FDA characterization of it.
You know what? The problem with the CDC's claim is it was
completely inaccurate. The trials didn't prove that at all. The
trials weren't designed to prove that.
So, I called up the CDC, and I recorded the phone call, and
they said,
We'll get the top scientist on the line with you and we'll find
out what the deal is here.
They got their top scientist on the line. She said,
Wow, you found a mistake in our paper. I can't believe this was
in there. We will fix this. We're going to call you Eagle Eye
Massie over here at the CDC.
I said,
OK, that's great. Appreciate you fixing this, because there is
no data to support this.
So, a month goes by, and on January 2021, I call up and I
look at their website--lo and behold, nothing has been fixed.
I then started contacting people at the CDC and they were
very averse to fixing it, the misstatement. This began a saga.
Just three minutes--or three hours into the Biden
Administration was one of these phone calls when the coverup
started to begin.
They were conflicted. They wanted everybody to take the
vaccine. They didn't have data that showed it would help
anybody who had already had the COVID infection, but they
didn't want to change this.
So, I made lots of calls, recorded them all. They admitted
to me that they were wrong and said they would fix it. They
eventually changed it, but they never fixed it. OK.
So, then a FOIA request went to CDC, and they produced over
1,000 pages, most of it redacted like this. The FOIA request
was every conversation about Congressman Massie at CDC. It
produced over 1,000 pages. Imagine that. They were mostly
redacted. They didn't want to say what they were saying about
the truth that I was giving to them.
So, then I've been trying for years, and I tried in
October, and I tried in December 2023, to get these unredacted
emails. Well, right before this hearing, lo and behold, you
produced some unredacted emails.
Here's the problem: You left out dozens of them, dozens of
the emails that were responsive to the request. It was not by
accident. These aren't minor oversights.
Like, here are the kind of redactions. The whole entire
email is redacted. The subject is, ``The call from Rep. Thomas
Massie.'' I mean, these are the kind of redactions. Look at
this. Entire pages redacted.
My question is, when are you going to produce these? Why
are you not producing these? Why are you even--why are you
pretending that these emails don't exist? Some of them are in
my inbox. Some of them are to me. They're not in your
production. Why?
Ms. Egorin. Congressman, I want to thank you for
acknowledging the production that my team did last week to you.
If there are specific documents that are not included and you
can identify them, I am happy to continue to work with you and
with the Committee staff for productions.
That production, as with all the requests before this
Committee, have not stopped. We are happy to continue to work.
We are happy to continue producing documents on a rolling basis
or if there's specific requests for specific documents.
Mr. Massie. Did you think this one was responsive? The
subject is,
Call with Rep. Massie.
Anne Tatum (ph), Christina Serna, and, a month ago, Dr. Amanda
Cohn and I had a call with Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky
regarding concern about language in an MMWR from December 13th
that was inaccurate. Redacted, redacted, redacted. He called
again yesterday and is raising concerns about the issue,
including on Twitter. Redacted, redacted, redacted, redacted. I
wanted to let you know in case you hear any more about it--
redacted, redacted, redacted--but wanted you to be aware this
issue is continuing. Dr. Schuchat spoke with Rep. Massie
today--redacted, redacted, redacted. Let me know if you have
any additional questions [inaudible].
Why did you think this is not responsive to my request?
Ms. Egorin. Congressman, I'm not saying this was or was not
responsive. We did a production last week. We did not say that
our productions were finished.
I'm happy, if there are specific other documents, if there
are specific things that you have that you would like us to
produce, if you would like us to continue to work, we are happy
to continue the accommodation.
Mr. Massie. I've told you specifically what it is. We're
four years into this. We gave you the list of things to give
us. We said the things that were responsive to the FOIA
request. You conspicuously left out the most relevant emails.
We're out of time. You are out of time. We are tired of
this. It's not incompetence. It's insolence.
I yield back.
Mr. Cline. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from California is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Swalwell. I guess we're talking about COVID again.
That's all right. I'm old enough to remember when the former
President, President Trump, wrote out,
Looks like a third rate grandstander named Thomas Massie, a
Congressman from, unfortunately, a truly GREAT State, Kentucky,
wants to vote against the new Save Our Workers bill in
Congress.
That was a COVID bill that we were considering. That was four
years ago, and my colleague from Kentucky is still on this
COVID kick.
I want to set the record straight.
Secretary Egorin, is the COVID vaccine safe and effective?
Ms. Egorin. Thank you for the question.
The COVID vaccine is safe and effective. Thanks to the
COVID vaccine and the efforts and funding that we did get for
the vaccine, we were able to reopen the economy.
Mr. Swalwell. How cooperative has the HHS been regarding
this particular line of inquiry from Mr. Massie? How many
witnesses have been brought in for transcribed interviews?
Ms. Egorin. Congressman, across the requests related to
COVID vaccines we have facilitated three transcribed
interviews, including one just last month. We have made four
productions across multiple of the divisions in the Department.
Mr. Swalwell. Can you just lay out broadly how many people
are dedicated to responding to requests from Congress? Is this
the only Committee that is sending you requests?
Ms. Egorin. Congressman, as I said in my testimony, the HHS
is committed to being responsive to Congress. It's not just
oversight requests; it's requests for technical assistance on
the legislation that policymakers are drafting; it is providing
witnesses for hearings, including senior officials, to talk
about the President's budget request; it's providing policy
briefings and updates on legislation.
So, the responsiveness to Congress is both oversights, but
the larger legislative mission of Congress.
It's across the Department. It's not just in the Assistant
Secretary of Legislation. It is in each of the operating
divisions. We currently, just in terms of oversight, have 150
oversight request letters from 17 different Committees.
As I said, this is one part of what we do to be responsive.
We are very happy to continue to work with Congress as they
develop policy and have additional requests.
Mr. Swalwell. What are the dangers of Congressman Kennedy--
I'm sorry, Congressman Massie's fear-mongering against a safe
and effective vaccine that saves lives against a virus that
killed over a million Americans?
Ms. Egorin. Congressman, as the Secretary has said, as our
senior leaders and public health officials have said, the
vaccine for COVID is safe and effective. It reduces
hospitalization. It reduces risk of death.
Because of the investments that we were able to make in
providing free vaccines during the Biden-Harris Administration,
we were able to reopen the economy, reopen schools, be able to
celebrate holidays.
Mr. Swalwell. Go to church?
Ms. Egorin. Go to church, gather. All of that is very much
a reflection of our ability to, as not just COVID vaccines but
all vaccines, help improve the public health of the country.
Mr. Swalwell. Yield back.
Mr. Cline. All right. That concludes today's hearing.
Before we adjourn, I'm going to ask unanimous consent to
enter into the record an article from Breitbart entitled,
``Jayapal Lectures GOP for Exposing Murder Case Details, Then
Reveals Minor MS-13 Suspect's Name.''
Without objection, so ordered.
Without objection, all Members will have five legislative
days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses
or additional materials for the record.
I thank our witnesses.
Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:04 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=117256.
[all]