[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]