[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMPLIANCE WITH COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESPONSIVENESS AND
ACCOUNTABILITY TO OVERSIGHT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-8
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
51-634 WASHINGTON : 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair
DARRELL ISSA, California JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking
KEN BUCK, Colorado Member
MATT GAETZ, Florida ZOE LOFGREN, California
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
TOM McCLINTOCK, California HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin Georgia
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ADAM SCHIFF, California
CHIP ROY, Texas DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina ERIC SWALWELL, California
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana TED LIEU, California
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon J. LUIS CORREA, California
BEN CLINE, Virginia 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
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESPONSIVENESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY
TO OVERSIGHT
BEN CLINE, Virginia, Chair ERIC SWALWELL, California, Ranking
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey Member
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas GLENN IVEY, Maryland
LAUREL LEE, Florida
CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
AMY RUTKIN, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
C O N T E N T S
----------
Thursday, March 9, 2023
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Ben Cline, Chair of the Subcommittee on
Responsiveness and Accountability to Oversight from the State
of Virginia.................................................... 1
The Honorable Eric Swalwell, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee
on Responsiveness and Accountability to Oversight from the
State of California............................................ 2
WITNESSES
Hon. Carlos Uriarte, Assistant Attorney General, Office of
Legislative Affairs, Department of Justice
Oral Testimony................................................. 5
Prepared Testimony............................................. 8
Hon. Gwen Graham, Assistant Secretary, Office of Legislation and
Congressional Affairs, Department of Education
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 42
Materials submitted by the Honorable Jeff Van Drew, a Member of
the Subcommittee on Responsiveness and Accountability to
Oversight from the State of New Jersey, for the record
An article entitled, ``Showdown before the raid: FBI agents
and prosecutors argued over Trump,'' The Washington Post
A letter to the Honorable Merrick Garland, Attorney General
Department of Justice, May 11, 2022, from the Honorable
Jim Jordan, Ranking Member of the Committee on the
Judiciary from the State of Ohio and the Honorable Mike
Johnson, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties from the
State of Louisiana
Materials submitted by the Honorable Glenn Ivey, a Member of the
Subcommittee on Responsiveness and Accountability to Oversight
from the State of Maryland, for the record
An article entitled, ``Family of Georgia's secretary of state
was still getting death threats months after election,
report says,'' CNN
An article entitled, ``Elected officials are being threatened
and attacked. We're tracking that,'' The Washington Post
An article entitled, ``I'm a Florida school board member.
This is how protesters come afer me'' The Washington Post
An article entitled, ``Proud Boys Regroup, Focusing on School
Boards and Town Councils,'' The New York Times
COMPLIANCE WITH COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT
----------
Thursday, March 9, 2023
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Responsiveness and Accountability
to Oversight
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:03 p.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ben Cline [Chair
of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Cline, Jordan, Van Drew, Moran,
Lee, Swalwell, and Ivey.
Mr. Cline. The Subcommittee on Responsiveness and
Accountability to Oversight will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair welcomes everyone to our first
hearing of the Subcommittee.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
Swalwell, to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
All. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States
of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one
Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
all.
Mr. Cline. Thank you.
This Subcommittee will play a vital role this Congress by
ensuring that the Committee is effectively able to obtain
information relevant to our oversight obligations.
Throughout the course of this Congress, the Subcommittee
will work to get answers directly from the departments and
agencies that our Committee oversees and hold their
representatives to Congress accountable.
We've seen time and again that the Biden Administration's
response to legitimate Congressional oversight is to obstruct,
delay, and obfuscate.
Since the beginning of the Biden Administration, Committee
Republicans have made at least 107 different requests for
information and documents concerning the operations and actions
of the Justice Department.
Further, the Committee has made at least 50 different
requests for information and documents concerning the
operations and actions of the FBI since the onset of this
administration.
Additionally, since the fall of 2021, the Committee has
requested information and documents concerning the operations
and actions of the Department of Education.
The Committee has reiterated these requests for information
and documents to all three of these agencies multiple times.
On February 3, 2023, in the face of continued obstruction,
Chair Jordan issued subpoenas to Attorney General Garland, FBI
Director Wray, and Education Secretary Cardona for documents.
While these agencies have begun to produce some documents, the
Committee continues to have concerns about the responsiveness
of these documents.
For example, the Department of Education's document
production contains heavy redactions. The Department of
Justice's document production also contains redactions.
Additionally, on March 1, 2023, the day the FBI was to
comply fully with a subpoena, the Bureau produced just four
pages of school board-related documents.
Outside of their initial productions in response to the
Committee's subpoenas, the agencies have not substantially
complied with other longstanding requests for information and
documents.
Now, we invited the FBI to testify at today's hearing, but
the FBI refused. While we are disappointed that the agency is
not here today to answer our questions, we look forward to
seeing the FBI at the Subcommittee's next hearing at the end of
this month.
We also look forward to engaging with both Mr. Uriarte and
Ms. Graham today to discuss the production we have received to
date and regarding the status of our other outstanding
requests.
Both officials are Senate confirmed and charged with the
responsibilities of working with Congress. They lead large
departments with substantial budgets and play a key role as a
gatekeeper of witnesses and information.
By being able to conduct expeditious and thorough
oversight, the Committee will be able to examine potential
legislative changes that will help our Nation as a whole.
This Subcommittee will work in a judicious and thoughtful
manner to ensure that this Committee obtains the information it
needs to do its job.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, the gentleman
from California, Mr. Swalwell, for his opening statement.
Mr. Swalwell. The Chair just referenced ``in the face of
continued obstruction.'' I think it's quite rich that we are
talking about subpoena compliance under a Chair of the Full
Committee who was absolutely out of subpoena compliance in the
last Congress.
So, we're going to haul witnesses in here today and claim
that they did not comply with subpoenas or requests, and that
request is so rich because it's coming from a Chair who himself
did not comply with the January 6th Committee's requests.
So, May 31st you see a letter sent to then Representative
Jordan asking that he honor his subpoena. He was asked over and
over and over: You were a witness to a crime, you were a
witness to the greatest crime ever committed, with the most
criminals ever indicted in America. Will you help your country?
Will you comply with that subpoena?
No compliance, crickets, absolute defiance of the subpoena.
Because of that defiance, the Chair was referred--and it's
still pending--to the House Ethics Committee. Why? Well, it's
because he took an oath.
I want to have the Congressional oath put up there.
[Slide.]
Mr. Swalwell. The Congressional oath mandates that Members
of Congress defend the Constitution ``without any mental
reservation,'' or, as it says on the slide, ``purpose of
evasion.'' Not responding to a Congressional subpoena is a
direct purpose of evasion.
So, this is our Chair hauling all of us here, everyone here
today, people at the Department of Justice, the Department of
Education, who are doing important work, to claim they are out
of compliance when he, himself, is currently out of compliance.
I also want to go through what is being requested of the
Department of Justice and the Department of Education, because
they're actually in compliance.
In fact, the first request that was sent to the Department
of Justice followed--by the way, it didn't have a date on it as
to when the compliance had to exist. Hundreds of documents were
sent back.
The request was so vague it would be like typing in Google
Search: What is Earth? The Department of Justice is saying: Can
you just be a little more specific and we will get you these
documents? They sent hundreds of documents back.
The claim here is that the Department of Justice has
designated parents as domestic terrorists. You will see in the
Department's October 4, 2021, memo that they never used the
phrase, from the Attorney General to anyone else in any of the
documents produced, ``domestic terrorists'' as a way to label
parents.
They are concerned, as local law enforcement is concerned,
as State law enforcement is concerned, as Federal law
enforcement must be concerned, that threats are being carried
out to local volunteers on school boards all over America.
Apparently, the majority is here today to defend those who
are making those threats. Taking time away from hanging out
with the January 6th defendants at the D.C. jail, they're here
today to defend threats like this, a threat that says:
It is too bad that your mama is an ugly communist whore. If she
doesn't quit or resign before the end of the year, we will kill
her. But first we will kill you.
That was a threat sent to a child. These guys are defending
that threat. They don't believe law enforcement has any
business investigating that threat.
I don't know what happened to the Republican Party that
sided with law enforcement and law and order and public safety,
but we're here today because they believe that threat is OK and
no one in law enforcement should investigate it.
Let's look at some of the other threats. ``We are coming
after all of you, traitors of America,'' a threat sent to a
school board member in Dublin, Ohio. ``This is why Hitler threw
you,'' ``C'' word, ``in a gas chamber,'' anonymous threat sent
to a school board member in Pennsylvania.
These are the people you want to have this hearing for? You
go and sympathize with the January 6th defendants. You are
going to stand up for the people making these threats, and you
are going to haul in people who are working hard for their
country, and we're going to defend these people?
Well, knock yourself out, because what you are going to
find is they are doing nothing but protecting innocent
volunteers across America who want to make sure our kids and
the parent volunteers are safe in their school.
Finally, I actually think when it comes to subpoena
compliance, we should follow the Jim Jordan standard.
[Slide.]
Mr. Swalwell. Back in 2019, Jim Jordan and Elijah Cummings
agreed:
A Congressional subpoena is a powerful and coercive tool. It
should be only used when attempts to reach an accommodation
with a witness have reached an impasse or when necessary to
obtain certain sensitive information, such as financial
information, or through a so-called friendly subpoena to
protect a witness.
This is the Jim Jordan standard set back in 2019. Just like
the subpoena he defied when the January 6th Committee sent one
to him, he is defying his own standard here today by not
accepting what both departments are asking you to do, which is
to be more specific in your request, to meet with their staff,
and go through an accommodation process.
So, again, we can waste our time. You can stand with the
January 6th terrorists. You can stand with the terrorists who
made these threats. If you're just a little more specific, I
think you'll get everything you want from the witnesses we have
here today.
I yield back.
Mr. Cline. I thank the gentleman.
Without objection, all other opening statements will be
included in the record.
I want to welcome the Members of the Subcommittee: Mr.
Moran from Texas, Ms. Lee from Florida, on my left, Mr. Ivey
from Florida--no. I'm sorry, Maryland.
Mr. Ivey. Maryland.
Mr. Cline. Yes.
Mr. Ivey. Although, I like Florida too.
Mr. Cline. I do too.
We are glad to have all of you on the Subcommittee.
Before introducing today's witnesses, to respond briefly,
what I did see after the oath of office that was displayed, I
did not see the letter that the Chair of the Full Committee
responded to his subpoena to the Chair of the January 6th
Commission. It was quite a lengthy letter. Maybe it wouldn't
have fit up on the screen. It was quite detailed about engaging
with the January 6th Commission and those prepared to engage in
a conversation about cooperation. He never received any further
input from Chair Thompson.
So, when the last effort at establishing that dialog was
made by the Chair of the Full Committee and we were awaiting a
response from the Chair--
Mr. Swalwell. I would just seek a point of order. Are we
responding to opening statements now? Because I'm happy to
listen to yours and give a rebuttal, but I thought we had
witnesses here.
Mr. Cline. I'm just briefly stating a fact, as is the
prerogative of the Chair, and I'm happy to introduce the
witnesses and move ahead with our questioning of them as well.
Mr. Ivey. Would the gentleman yield for a moment?
Mr. Cline. I'm happy to allow for a conversation to occur,
but I think it's going to occur. So, let's go ahead with the
witnesses' opening statements, go ahead and get them sworn in.
Mr. Ivey. I'll be very brief, and we can come back to it.
The comments that you just made are, I think, contradicted
directly by the report that was issued that dealt with this
issue specifically, as well as three other Members of House
Republicans who received subpoenas as well.
So, I can read through that later, but I did want to raise
that now.
Mr. Cline. I appreciate that.
All right. Let's introduce today's witnesses.
The Honorable Carlos Uriarte is the Assistant Attorney
General for the Office of Legislative Affairs at the Department
of Justice. In that role, he is responsible for managing the
Department's relationship with Congress.
The Honorable Gwen Graham is the Assistant Secretary for
Legislation and Congressional Affairs at the Department of
Education. In that role she acts as the liaison between the
Department and Congress. She also represented Florida's Second
Congressional District here in the House during the 114th
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 are about to give is true and correct, to the
best of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you
God?
The record will reflect that the witnesses have answered in
the affirmative.
Thank you. Please be seated.
All right. 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.
The microphone in front of you has a clock and a series of
lights. When the light turns yellow, you should begin to
conclude. When the light turns red, your time has expired.
Mr. Uriarte, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF STATEMENT OF THE HON. CARLOS URIARTE
Mr. Uriarte. Good afternoon, Chair Cline, Ranking Member
Swalwell, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. Thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you today and discuss
the efforts of the Department of Justice and its components to
respond to the information requests since the beginning of the
118th Congress.
Not too long ago, I was sitting on the other side of this
hearing room serving as a staffer, first on the House Oversight
Committee under the late Elijah Cummings, then on the Select
Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis under then Chair James
Clyburn.
My time as a Congressional staffer showed me firsthand how
transparency and accountability can improve the lives of
everyday Americans. It also informed my belief that oversight
can help the Department better fulfill our mission to uphold
the rule of law, to keep our country safe, and to protect civil
rights.
Shortly after the start of this Congress, on January 17th,
Chair Jordan initiated oversight by sending the Department a
letter with more than 80 separate requests for information.
Three days later, I responded, outlining how we can work
together productively to get the Committee the information it
needs to meet its oversight responsibilities.
I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate a few of
the points in that letter.
First, the Department and Congress have a long history of
working together through the constitutionally mandated
accommodation process. While this Congress is just two months
old, we look forward to following that well-worn path with you
over the next two years.
Second, the constitutionally mandated accommodation process
requires good faith efforts from both of us to accommodate each
other's interests. Most of that effort takes place through
staff-level discussion and negotiation.
Third, the Department is committed to responding to the
Committee's oversight inquiries to the fullest extent possible.
As outlined in the 1982, ``Reagan Memorandum,'' we will do so
while abiding by longstanding precedent which protects the
integrity of our work.
As I mentioned earlier, staff-level discussions are at the
heart of the accommodation process. Historically, these have
been working conversations where Department staff meet with
Committee staff to better understand the Committee's interests.
On the Committee's end, staff may explain broad requests
and clarify whether certain materials are of interest and to be
able to share how the Committee expects to use the materials.
Where, as here, there are many Committee interests, we ask
staff to help us prioritize.
To be clear, prioritization doesn't just mean: What do you
want first? It means: What are you really interested in
learning and how can I help you get the information you need?
On our end, we try to identify the most efficient way to
meet the Committee's oversight needs, which includes
identifying any department equities and crafting solutions to
address both the Committee's needs and those equities.
As of today, a mere two months into the new Congress, the
Committee has sent 11 letters to the Department and its
components identifying 183 information requests. These include
at least 155 requests to search for and produce documents and
28 requests for transcribed interviews. They implicate the
records of potentially thousands of Department of Justice
employees and will take significant resources and staff time to
process.
Given our unambiguous commitment to work with the Committee
to meet its oversight needs, we were surprised the Committee
deviated from longstanding practice and, instead, decided to
issue subpoenas at this early stage.
Nevertheless, as is consistent with decades of practice,
the Department began responding to the Committee's requests in
good faith, making an initial production of documents last week
that I think we can all agree is a good start.
I am hopeful that sitting here today I can learn more about
the Committee's interests to better inform how to leverage the
Department's resources to fulfill your informational needs.
I want to reiterate my commitment to working with the
Committee in the tradition of accommodation and good faith
negotiation, as articulated by President Reagan in 1982.
I look it forward to a productive discussion today and
throughout this Congress.
[The prepared statement of the Hon. Uriarte follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Uriarte.
Ms. Graham, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GWEN GRAHAM
Ms. Graham. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chair Cline, Ranking Member Swalwell, and
distinguished Members of this Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to address the Department of Education's response
to the Committee's requests.
As a former Member of Congress, I can tell you, the
Department recognizes the critical importance of Congressional
oversight to our functioning democracy. We work every day with
Members and Committees to provide Congress with accurate and
timely information, irrespective of party or position.
Accordingly, the Department has been responsive to
Congressional inquiries regarding the topics of interest to the
Committee for more than a year, and we continue to voluntarily
engage with the Committee about its informational needs.
On January 17, 2023, Chair Jordan sent a letter to the
Department of Education about three topics. First, Chair Jordan
inquired about a letter a school board association sent to the
President. Second, the letter asked about a Department of
Justice memo. Third, the letter asked about an appointment to
the independent, nonpartisan National Assessment Governing
Board.
Immediately, the Department began to voluntarily engage in
the standard accommodations and compromise process with the
Committee, resulting in our February 2nd response expressing
our readiness to work with the Committee regarding its
oversight requests.
The Department's response also noted that an independent
investigation commissioned by the School Board Association had
already addressed these issues in May 2022, more than nine
months ago. However, despite our February 2nd response, the
Chair served a subpoena to the Department for documents the
next day.
On February 13th, Department staff communicated that a
document production would be forthcoming by the date specified
in the subpoena and reiterated our commitment to continue to
engage with the Committee on the matter.
However, on February 16, 2023, nearly two weeks before the
Committee's requested production date, I received notice that I
would be called to testify about the Department's response.
As promised, on March 1st, prior to the Committee's
requested production time, the Department transmitted more than
a thousand pages of responsive material to the Committee, and
we continue to engage with the Committee about its
informational needs.
The Department of Education has a critical mission: To
promote student achievement and preparation for global
competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and
ensuring equal access.
As part of that mission, we believe that parents play a
critical role in their children's education and that education
leaders at all levels provide opportunity for parents to be
heard.
Our significant and timely production of responsive
documents and ongoing engagement with the Committee demonstrate
the Department's continued commitment to working with Congress
in good faith while ensuring that we fulfill our core mission
of fostering educational excellence for all our students across
this great country.
I look forward to your questions about this process and
thank you.
[The prepared statement of the Hon. Graham follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cline. Thank you, Ms. Graham.
We will now proceed under the five-minute rule with
questions, and I anticipate we will have two rounds of
questions today. I will recognize myself for five minutes.
Mr. Uriarte, how many staff members do you have at DOJ's
Office of Legislative Affairs?
Mr. Uriarte. Congressman, thank you for the question.
The Office of Legislative Affairs at DOJ is actually a
relatively small component. We have a total of 25 full-time
staff positions. I believe we have 21 total full-time people
currently in our office, in addition to some detailees.
Mr. Cline. How many are dedicated specifically to
responding to subpoenas from Congress?
Mr. Uriarte. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
The way that we have structured the team is to have a
number of different attorneys who can do multiple different
things at the same time. So, depending on what the matter is
and how it comes into the Department, et cetera, we may staff
it differently. So, it really just depends on the matter.
Mr. Cline. No one has their job description solely as
responding to subpoenas?
Mr. Uriarte. No, that's correct, Congressman.
Mr. Cline. How many members of your staff are working
remotely?
Mr. Uriarte. I don't know the answer to that question, but
we have implemented some flexibility in our work arrangements
with our staff to accommodate various requests and, frankly,
have found it to be quite productive.
Mr. Cline. Would you say that would be deterring any
production of our requests?
Mr. Uriarte. Absolutely not.
Mr. Cline. OK. Who makes the final decision about what
requests to respond to and how much information to provide?
Mr. Uriarte. I appreciate the question, Congressman.
What I can tell you is that at the Department we are always
going to be guided by finding the most efficient and effective
way to get you the information you need. That means that we
will work with the impacted components. We will work with them
to identify what materials are at issue, how we can get you the
information, et cetera, and then we will try to get that
information over to you.
There's no specific one person who is making that decision.
It is a number of different equities within the Department that
come together to provide Congress with the information they're
looking for. Again, what will guide us there is defining the
most efficient and effective way to get you the information
that you're looking for.
Mr. Cline. OK. So, your first go-to when deciding about
what request to respond to is not Paul Coburn (ph)?
Mr. Uriarte. Congressman, actually the first go-to that I
would start with in determining what to respond to would be to
work with your staff, frankly.
I think that conversations that happen between our staff
and your team are the most productive and can really help guide
us to what are the priorities of the Committee, what are the
key informational interests of the Committee, and it really
helps us to do our job of being efficient, as efficient as
possible.
Mr. Cline. OK. Let's talk about your budget. Can you
estimate your budget for Fiscal Year 2023?
Mr. Uriarte. So, the Office of Legislative Affairs falls
within the GA bucket. I think that's the General Administration
bucket. We don't have a specific line item in the budget. I
know the spend plan is still pending before the Appropriations
Committee, so I don't have that precise number on me. I'm happy
to followup with your team on that.
Mr. Cline. How much of your budget would you say--since you
can't articulate what your budget is--how much do you think you
spend on responding to these requests?
Mr. Uriarte. I think it would be hard to put a number on
that.
What I can say is that it is something that takes up a
significant amount of staff time within the Office of
Legislative Affairs. That's because it is a priority for us. As
the Attorney General has articulated previously, being
responsive to Congress is significant to him. It's a
significant priority to him and to me personally. As a former
Congressional staffer, I think this is really something that we
ought to be prioritizing.
So, it's harder to talk about it in terms of dollars and
cents. What I can certainly speak to is the amount of staff
time that we dedicate--
Mr. Cline. Well, quantify that then. Quantify that staff
time for me. Half? Quarter?
Mr. Uriarte. It really depends on the moment in time you're
talking about, but it is a significant investment of time by
the staff in our office.
Mr. Cline. OK. How many are on staff at the FBI to respond
to these requests? How much of their budget is dedicated to
responding?
Mr. Uriarte. It's a good question, sir.
I can tell you they have about 30 full-time staff members
in their Office of Congressional Affairs. They work with others
out of the FBI office to respond to your requests, and I know
they share my commitment to being responsive to your requests.
Mr. Cline. Can you speak to the specific dollar figure for
their budget?
Mr. Uriarte. I cannot, but I'm happy to get back to you.
Mr. Cline. OK. We definitely expect you to speak for the
FBI, because that's what we were assured of today, was we were
told: Oh, the FBI doesn't need to be there because DOJ can
speak for them.
So, if you don't have those numbers for us right now, I'm
disappointed, but I would appreciate you getting them for me.
What was the policy of the DOJ in responding to requests
from the minority last year? Did you respond?
Mr. Uriarte. Congressman, last year we did send a number of
responses to the Committee. I believe in response to 48 letters
from Ranking Member Jordan, we sent 34 letters in response.
Mr. Cline. What about documents?
Mr. Uriarte. I don't have that number in front of me, but I
can tell you that certainly in this Congress we are committed
to producing documents and information in response to the
Chair's letters, and we're going to continue to do so, just as
we did in the first production to the Committee a couple weeks
ago.
Mr. Cline. Thank you.
The gentleman from California is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you.
I want to thank both of our witnesses.
Congratulations. You have done something that Chair Jordan
was not willing to do. You were invited to come and talk to
Congress about information you had, and you showed up, and now
you're being asked questions and you're answering them. It
doesn't seem so hard, because you took an oath to follow the
law. So, we're grateful that you you're here and doing
something that the Chair was unwilling and is unwilling to do.
Mr. Uriarte, I want to ask you, though, I read the Jim
Jordan standard to you, which was a pact that he and Elijah
Cummings made in 2019.
A Congressional subpoena is a powerful and coercive tool. It
should be used only when attempts to reach an accommodation
with the witness have reached an impasse or when necessary to
obtain certain sensitive information, such as financial
information, or through a so-called friendly subpoena to
protect a witness.
So, Mr. Uriarte, thus far, has Chair Jordan followed his
own Jim Jordan standard in his request to you and your
department?
Mr. Uriarte. Congressman, thank you for the question.
I think what you're talking about here is generally the
constitutionally mandated accommodation process that I talked
about in my opening.
My experience over many years of doing this work is that
this is a back and forth between the Committee and the
Department, where we understand from the Committee what their
needs are, we work through voluntary production of documents,
et cetera, and that, yes, when there is impasse, from time to
time, there will be a subpoena that may be issued by Congress.
What I find is that the most productive conversations we
can have are those about voluntary production of documents and
information. Especially given where we are in this Congress, it
certainly--there was no reason to send a subpoena. We were
ready to voluntarily comply with the Committee's requests.
Mr. Swalwell. So, speaking of voluntary compliance, you
received your first request for documents on January 20th. Is
that right?
Mr. Uriarte. January 17th, I believe, was the first request
in this Congress.
Mr. Swalwell. How many days did it take you to respond to
that request?
Mr. Uriarte. We sent a letter back on the 20th, three days
later.
Mr. Swalwell. OK. So, three days.
In that letter did you offer to meet with the Chair's staff
to discuss the request?
Mr. Uriarte. We did.
Mr. Swalwell. Did they take you up on that offer?
Mr. Uriarte. They did not.
Mr. Swalwell. Have you ever heard the phrase ``won't take
yes for an answer''?
Mr. Uriarte. I have, sir.
Mr. Swalwell. Does that sound apt here?
Mr. Uriarte. Certainly, I can tell you that we are looking
forward to continuing to dialog with the Committee staff and
certainly hope that we can do so in the spirit of accommodation
that I mentioned earlier.
We do have a good relationship with the Committee staff,
and we appreciate that. We certainly hope that we continue to
bolster those conversations by additional dialog about the
Committee's interests and what the Department can do to meet
those interests on a voluntary basis.
Mr. Swalwell. So, after Chair Jordan wouldn't take yes for
an answer, he followed up with a subpoena with nine requests
for 94 field offices asking for documents from 118,000
employees. Is that right?
Mr. Uriarte. That is correct.
Mr. Swalwell. How much time did it take you to prepare for
this hearing, you and your staff?
Mr. Uriarte. It took dozens of hours.
Mr. Swalwell. What would you have been doing otherwise?
Mr. Uriarte. We would have been working on the Committee's
requests and producing documents to the Committee.
Mr. Swalwell. If you weren't doing that, though, what other
Department of Justice public safety priorities could you have
been working on?
Mr. Uriarte. Well, certainly the Office of Legislative
Affairs works on a number of different issues, including
helping Congress with legislation, providing them information
about grant-making, activities of the Department about what's
going on in their districts.
More broadly across the Department, when we do receive a
request like this, it will impact the law enforcement
components and prosecutorial components of the Department.
In this instance, there was a significant volume of
materials that we had to collect from the Executive Office for
United States Attorneys, and certainly that does take away from
their time to support the United States attorneys in their
mission to protect the United States.
Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Uriarte, at your Senate confirmation vote
how many Republican Senators voted against you?
Mr. Uriarte. On the floor vote, it was a unanimous vote in
my favor.
Mr. Swalwell. Ms. Graham, our dear missed colleague, in
your confirmation vote how many Republican Senators voted
against you?
Ms. Graham. Thank you, Ranking Member Swalwell.
My vote on the floor was, again, was unanimous as well.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you.
OK. So, you're looking at two bipartisan, unanimously
confirmed witnesses who, again, did something that the Chair of
this Committee was not willing to do, which was follow a
subpoena request.
I yield back.
Mr. Cline. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Van Drew, is
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you both for being here today.
Just something I want to correct in, I guess, the way we
speak and the vocabulary we use. When Mr. Swalwell, Ranking
Member Swalwell, says we won't take yes for an answer, a yes
answer is giving the documents. A yes answer is not saying:
Well, we'll meet. We'll talk. We'll use some slick language--no
offense--but you're not actually getting the documents.
A yes is a yes. A no is a no. There's a lot of space in
between. That was no/yes answer by anybody's imagination.
You also wonder why it came to the point that Chair Jordan
was asking for all these documents. Because, quite frankly, we
don't know the answers. We want to know what's really going on.
This isn't really complicated. The American people want to
know what's going on. I want to know what's going on. This
Committee wants to know what's going on. Saying that we'll work
with you and we'll talk about some things and it will take some
time, but we're not sure, that doesn't tell us what's going on.
So, let me just be very candid about that.
Let me talk about this a little bit, though, too. On August
8, 2022--and I'm sure you all remember the date--Federal agents
executed an unprecedented--and it was unprecedented--raid on
the residence of the former President, Donald Trump.
Since then, we've seen several current instances of
classified documents belonging to our current President,
President Biden, and they have been acquired from a number of
locations, from Boston to D.C.
Yet, no raids, no heavy media presence, no large team of
Federal agents digging through all his personal effects, going
through his wife's clothing and into her closet and her
drawers, none of that.
We still have no idea who had access to these classified
documents, which is a grave concern considering reports on
anonymous donations to China being made to the Penn Biden
Center where some of these documents were found. It's weird. I
don't care what anybody says. It doesn't make sense.
How is it that the FBI can treat President Trump as a
criminal when sending raids of dozens of Federal agents there,
yet with President Biden, for what would seemingly be a similar
issue, there is no sense of urgency?
Remember, he had his own secret police there. They had
their own people there. Literally, were we afraid of them? Did
we think President Trump was going to come out with an Uzi? I
don't know why such a show had to be made of it, but it sure
was.
This is unfair treatment. It's unfair treatment between two
citizens, one Republican and one Democrat. As Republicans, we
get used to it, but it doesn't mean we like it, and we don't.
American people have begun to question trust in Federal law
enforcement. They have. Don't believe me. Look at every poll
that has come out recently. Not the folks working, actually
doing the job, but the people at the top, the people who are in
administration.
American people right now, if you would ask the average Joe
or Jane, they'd say: Man, I don't know. I don't know what to
think. I don't know whether to trust them.
If the FBI can go after a former President of the United
States, unprecedented, as they did, who's to say they couldn't
do this to any American? Well, I guess the answer is they
could.
Attorney General Merrick Garland went after parents and a
former President of the United States, yet he failed to
investigate individual firebombing of pro-life centers. I guess
he doesn't like pro-life centers, but that isn't his job. There
were firebombings there, and we really needed to investigate,
and we really needed to protect.
He failed to go after BLM. He failed to go after Antifa in
the riots in 2020. Is it a coincidence? Is it a coincidence? I
think it's intentional.
The House Judiciary Committee plays a role in the oversight
of ensuring that this current administration is not trampling
on the constitutional rights of our American citizens and
strongly enforcing the laws on those they see fit. That's why
Chair Jordan is sending subpoenas. He can't get the
information. None of us can. Excuse my voice. I have been doing
a lot of talking.
So, I have questions, and I know I only have a little bit
of time, but I'll try to get through the first one.
These letters requesting documents and communications
relating to the execution of the search were sent in August
2022 and again in January of this year. So, it's not like we
only had a day, week, month, and year.
When will the DOJ--and I want a specific answer, I want a
specific answer--when will the DOJ be providing these documents
to this Committee?
Mr. Uriarte. Congressman, thank you for the question.
As I said earlier, you know what guides us in responding to
oversight requests--
Mr. Van Drew. Forgive me for one second. You don't have to
say thank you for the question every time, because I know you
don't like a lot of these questions. So, you can go right into
the answer, at least with me.
Go ahead. Thank you.
Mr. Uriarte. I appreciate that, Congressman.
So, as I said earlier, we are committed to working with the
Committee to help get them the information they need.
Certainly, in this instance, as we have referenced previously
in letters to the Committee, the matter that you're talking
about is an ongoing matter. There are a number of ongoing
matters at issue there. Protecting the integrity of those
investigations is something that is incredibly important to the
Department of Justice.
Now, we have a long history of working with Congress in
those instances to answer their questions, provide their
information, even when there are those ongoing investigations.
We must find a way to do so that protects the integrity of that
work.
So, happy to engage with you and the team, the staff, to
find a way to meet that informational need, but there are
significant equities at issue in those matters.
Mr. Van Drew. I'm going to yield back in a second. Mr.
Uriarte, I'm sorry, I don't agree with you. We can answer these
questions, and we can answer them in a timely way. This is not
timely, it's not appropriate, and that's why we're at wit's
end.
I yield back.
Mr. Cline. All right. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Ivey.
Mr. Ivey. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Let me say that this has been timely, actually.
So, the gentleman from New Jersey and the Chair have made a
number of comments. I want to try and deal with them in
categories, and I would need more than five minutes to correct
all the misstatements that were made.
Just broadly speaking, on the one hand, we've got parties
who have shown how to comply with subpoenas, and they're the
ones testifying in front of us today. Department of Education
has done a rolling production, a thousand pages; the Department
of Justice just under 500. The term ``rolling production'' is
standard in not only Congressional investigations, but in the
Federal courts.
The type of conduct that was done by the Department of
Justice, which is to reach out to the people who sent the
subpoena and try and engage in a conversation--what are you
looking for, how do we want to try and have a discussion about
how to comply--not only is that standard practice in Federal
courts--and in Congress, by the way, at least going--I was in
the Whitewater hearings. So, going back, what is that; 25, 30
years. We were doing it then, and I know there's a memo in the
Department of Justice about the accommodation provision that
dates back to 2000.
In Federal court, if the parties had refused to respond,
like the Republicans did, for civil or criminal discovery or
subpoena responses, a judge might impose sanctions, including
attorneys' fees.
I would say that your conduct has been great, the
Republican Committee staff not so great.
Then, with respect to my colleague from New Jersey's
comments about Donald Trump and the Chair's response about Mr.
Jordan, I think it's clearly that's why they're on the opposite
side of our two witnesses here today, because they refused to
comply.
Donald Trump, even worse than just refusing to comply,
pretended to comply and actually made false statements about
complying. That's under investigation now. We'll let that go
forward with the Department of Justice.
As is standard practice with the Department of Justice, if
you lie about producing documents, they go get them. They don't
sit there and let you lie and just move on. They go get the
documents. That's exactly what they did there.
That's not surprising or targeting Republicans because they
treated Pence the same way they treated Biden. You got
voluntary compliance by Biden and Pence. They didn't go into
their houses because they were providing the documents.
I think that's the same issue that arises with respect to
the points Congressman Swalwell was making about Chair Jordan.
There were others as well who have refused to comply. The
Speaker is another one, Congressman Perry.
Multiple people received subpoenas from the January 6th
Committee, refused to comply with them, made no attempts to
figure out how to comply. In fact, Chair Jordan sent a letter
back, not only was he not going to comply, but he said he wants
all the materials referencing him in the Select Committee's
possession and all internal legal analysis related to the
constitutionality of Member subpoenas.
Now, imagine if every time this Committee sent out a
subpoena they got an answer back from the target demanding
information about the investigation that they're conducting. I
guess you could have done that as the Department of Justice,
but instead of doing that--and the Department of Education--you
complied. You turned over documents to the best you could
discern what they were asking for, and you did it in a timely
manner. You said it was a rolling production. I think you've,
what did you get it, like 30-45 days ago, something like that?
So, I would think, under most circumstances, it looks like
a reasonable effort to comply and actual compliance actually as
well.
So, I actually commend you for what you've done there. I
join Congressman Swalwell in raising concerns about those who
haven't complied with producing subpoenas getting up on the
high horse and complaining about people who are actually
complying with the subpoenas that they're issuing now.
I've got a couple other things that I want to raise and
that go to the direct issue with respect to the subject matter
of the subpoenas. I'm running out of time, but I'll come back
and deal with that on the next round.
I do want to say this too. The Chair raised heavy
redactions as a concern. That's another point where I would
think there would be conversations between the majority staff
and the Department of Justice. What did you redact? Why did you
do it? They could make a decision about it. They have to
respond to your answers and your information for that dialog to
move forward.
The comment about longstanding requests that the Chair made
I think ignores the fact that the new Congress just started a
few weeks ago.
So, again, I commend you on the work that you've done in
trying to comply with these requests. I apologize to you for
being in the crosshairs of an obviously politicized effort to
attack the Biden Administration and to try and score political
points when we've got real work we could be doing on behalf of
the American people.
I yield back.
Mr. Cline. I thank the gentleman.
I think it's important to clarify that the Chair of the
Full Committee never indicated that he would not comply and
that he responded--
Mr. Swalwell. Did he comply?
Mr. Cline. --and that he responded and that he was awaiting
further statements from Chair Thompson.
Mr. Swalwell. Still waiting.
Mr. Cline. As I recall, the subpoena for the President was
withdrawn.
Mr. Ivey. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Cline. The gentleman from Texas is recognized, Mr.
Moran.
Mr. Moran. Thank you.
Mr. Ivey. Point of order. If the Chair is going to make
comments out of order, you should at least give us a chance to
respond to them.
Mr. Cline. Go ahead.
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Secretary Graham, my question is going to be for you. Thank
you for your attendance here today. I want to focus my
questions on process-specific topics.
You received the request, the subpoena for the two sets of
documents through the subpoena, on February 2nd. About a
thousand pages were produced. Were you in charge of the
responsive effort in that regard?
Ms. Graham. Congressman, thank you very much for the
question.
I was part of a team that worked very hard from the moment
we received this request to respond, and the thousand-plus
pages that we responded with are reflective of the hard work
that went into getting it to all of you.
Mr. Moran. You noted in your letter that there's going to
be some supplemental requests, I believe, or supplemental
documents produced. Where are you at in that process? When
should we expect those documents to be produced?
Ms. Graham. Thank you for the question.
Actually, our teams have a meeting scheduled for Tuesday
and look forward to that being part of the conversation, the
ongoing conversation that we're having.
Mr. Moran. You don't have any timeline for us at all, 30
days, 14 days, that you can give us when another batch of
documents will come through?
Ms. Graham. That's part of the process that we'll be
continuing Tuesday, I believe. Hopefully, we'll be able to come
back with those timelines through the process of our teams
discussing.
Mr. Moran. I noticed in this batch of documents that were
produced there was no assertion of privilege or no assertion of
objections to the requests.
Have you asserted any objections or withheld any documents
as a result of any objections or assertions of privilege?
Ms. Graham. No, sir.
Mr. Moran. Do you anticipate that this will be the case
based on the two requests made under the subpoena to the
Department of Education?
Ms. Graham. What I would appreciate is if we could take
that question back. I don't anticipate it, but certainly would
like to have an opportunity to have a conversation about it.
No, sir, I do not.
Mr. Moran. In a number of those documents there was heavy
redactions. I want to talk to you about the redaction process
and what you do to determine exactly what you're going to
redact and what you don't.
I presume, at the end of the day, you're the one that makes
the final determination about what gets redacted. Is that
accurate?
Ms. Graham. The redactions are a result of either the--let
me see if I can get the word out correctly--deliberative
process or attorney-client information or personal information
which is protected because of those reasons.
Mr. Moran. Other than the deliberative privilege, is there
any other reason why you would have redacted, or the agency
would have redacted, the Department would have redacted
anything from these documents?
Ms. Graham. Attorney-client privilege and personal
information that we want to protect from the public.
Mr. Moran. I want to show you a couple of these documents
back here that you see behind me. You'll notice that probably
about 99 percent of those documents have actually been
redacted.
Do you recall actually looking at these documents and
approving the redaction on these documents?
Ms. Graham. Congressman, in terms of the production of the
documents, that's a conversation that I hope can be part of the
accommodations process that's ongoing. The good news is the
opportunity is going to come up next week on Tuesday.
Mr. Moran. When you go through the process of gathering the
documents--these were very specific requests, they weren't
overly broad requests, they were very narrowly tailored--how do
you go through the process of determining within the Department
what documents would or would not be responsive?
Ms. Graham. It's a technical process. Happy to take that
question back and provide a response.
Mr. Moran. Do you guys do an email search with query words
that you use for emails or documents within the electronic
system?
Ms. Graham. As I understand the process, yes, that's what
is conducted. Again, happy to take that question back to the
teams that are working on it and provide a response.
Mr. Moran. Who determines what words or phrases are
included in that?
Ms. Graham. That's a technical question. I prefer to have
the teams discuss it in the next meeting on Tuesday.
Mr. Moran. I presume that at some point, though, you review
those words and determine whether or not it's actually going to
meet with the request or somebody from your team is going to do
that.
Ms. Graham. I want to be very accurate in providing you
that information, Congressman. So, again, certainly look
forward to having that conversation and getting you the
information you seek.
Mr. Moran. I understand that there have been some requests
for the production of some employees to appear and give
testimony or to speak with the staff.
Do you guys intend to produce those individuals?
Ms. Graham. We have been engaged with the Committee on this
topic for over a year and continue to do so, and those
conversations are taking place through the accommodations
process.
Mr. Moran. One of the things that Mr. Uriarte mentioned
earlier was this idea of good faith efforts. I'm genuinely
concerned. I'm new to Congress. I have practiced law for 20
years, and I was a judge for six years. I'll tell you, as I
look at the redaction here, it concerns me about whether or not
good faith is being exercised by the Department of Education in
its production.
Can you commit to me that good faith is actually being done
to ensure that there's transparency in the production of these
documents?
Ms. Graham. Congressman, let me assure you--and welcome to
Congress--that the incredible team at the Department of
Education, of which I am so proud to be a member of, has worked
very hard to make sure that we produce the documents as
requested under the subpoena, and we will continue to do so,
Congressman.
Mr. Moran. You mentioned about this team that you've put
together to respond to these documents. How many people are on
this team?
Ms. Graham. Congressman, it's a cross-agency effort. If you
want the specific number, I'm happy to get you that number.
Mr. Moran. Can you give me an approximate number?
Ms. Graham. Congressman, I'm here to talk about what we did
produce, but happy to answer any questions you have and will
certainly get back to you.
Mr. Moran. All right.
Mr. Cline. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Moran. I just want to understand the process because,
really, this is a process, a set of questions, and ongoing for
me to be able to understand why you're producing things and why
not. I need to understand what is going on behind the scenes.
So, when you leave here and go back and talk to folks,
besides your attorneys, who else are you talking to saying:
What have we produced? What else is left to produce? How can we
get this gathered and get this to the Committee?
Mr. Cline. That was a rhetorical question. No.
The gentlelady is recognized to answer.
Ms. Graham. Congressman, it is my responsibility--and I
take it very seriously--to get the answers that you're seeking
and look forward to taking that question back and providing you
a response.
Mr. Moran. I apologize, Mr. Chair. I went way over time.
Sorry about that.
Mr. Cline. No, that's all right. We've got a second round,
so save some for the second round.
The gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Following the May 2022 unprecedented leak of the draft
Dobbs opinion, the Justices of our Supreme Court have been
subjected to harassment and intimidation campaigns, not only in
the vicinity of the Supreme Court, but in public and also at
their private homes where they reside with their families.
This unlawful and insidious conduct culminated in June 2022
when a man attempted to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh at
his Maryland home.
To be clear, when the intent is to interfere or impede the
administration of justice or to influence or intimidate a
judge, this is not protected First Amendment conduct. This is a
crime.
To date, the efforts by the Department of Justice and the
FBI to prosecute and convict the individuals responsible for
this criminal effort and intimidation outside the private
residences of Justices and their families is wholly inadequate.
As a former judge, I will tell you this failure is an
affront to every single man and woman across the United States
who is serving in the judiciary.
At the same time, the Federal Bureau of Investigation saw
fit to begin investigating what it deems radical traditionalist
Catholics as an extremist group.
Taken together, we have a Department of Justice that has
failed to prosecute violent extremists threatening the lives
and safety of our Supreme Court Justices and their families but
has instead devoted resources to investigating Catholics and
their religious traditions.
Congress must engage in oversight to ensure that Americans
are not being targeted for investigation and surveillance by
our government for practicing their religious beliefs and that
our judges and our Justices are not being left vulnerable and
in danger due to a failure to enforce the law.
It is imperative that the Department of Justice and the FBI
promptly and completely respond to our requests so that we may
ensure the rights and freedoms of Americans are protected and
there is complete transparency to the American people.
With that, Mr. Uriarte, I would like to direct my first
questions to you, and specifically related to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, a February 16, 2023, letter to
Director Wray.
On January 23, 2023, the FBI's Richmond Field Office
published an official document that linked ``racially or
ethnically motivated violent extremists'' with a ``radical-
traditionalist Catholic ideology.''
We made a request to allow this committee to assess the
extent to which the FBI has misused its Federal law enforcement
resources to target Catholic Americans for their religious
beliefs. That document request requested all documents and
communications referring to intelligence products about this
subject for a period January 20, 2021, to the present.
Can you tell me, sir, how many documents have been provided
to this Committee that are responsive to that request?
Mr. Uriarte. Congresswoman, thank you for the question.
I want to start by just making very clear, as the Attorney
General said last week--and I know the Director has spoken to
this as well--that product did not meet our standard at all. It
was offensive to me personally, and as the Attorney General
said last week, it was offensive to him.
What I can tell you is that the FBI took steps immediately
to withdraw that memorandum and are doing aggressive analysis
to understand how that even came to be. Part of that will be,
of course, responding to this committee, which we expect we
will do in the coming weeks.
That is a really important issue, I completely agree, and I
expect that we will have good faith back and forth on that
topic so we can get the Committee the information it's looking
for.
Ms. Lee. To this point, have any documents been produced
that are responsive to this request?
Mr. Uriarte. My understanding is that there have not at
this point been any documents produced, but that we have
responses to those requests in the queue, and we hope to get
them to you shortly.
Ms. Lee. Do you have a timeline or an approximation about
when you will be able to get us the documents that are
responsive to this request?
Mr. Uriarte. Congresswoman, I appreciate your interest in
this issue. As I said, it's something that is important to me
as well. I know that we have something that is forthcoming
soon. I don't want to overpromise and underdeliver, so we will
get back to you shortly on that.
Ms. Lee. I certainly appreciate your acknowledgment that
this is a serious issue and your acknowledgment that there is
an intention to comply in the future with this document
request. However, I would just note that our efforts here, that
our endeavor here is to ensure that we are actually receiving
and reviewing these documents so that we can provide
transparency to the American people about the contents therein.
So,with that, Mr. Chair, I'll yield back.
Mr. Cline. I thank the gentlelady.
All right. We'll start the second round. I yield five
minutes to myself for questions.
Mr. Uriarte, I'm looking at a list, and I want to go back
to the question I asked during my last round. Your policy or
the policy of the Department regarding responsiveness to
Republican requests or Ranking Member Jordan's requests when
the Republicans were in the minority, is it your statement
today that you provided documents to Ranking Member Jordan in
the 117th Congress?
Mr. Uriarte. Congressman, what I was saying earlier, just
to clarify, was that my understanding is that in the last
Congress we provided 34 letters to then Ranking Member Jordan
in response to his various requests.
Mr. Cline. OK. It's my understanding that, just regarding
the school board issue, over 100 letters were sent to DOJ
components over the course of the 117th.
Does that reflect your recollection of the situation?
Mr. Uriarte. I don't have that number in front of me, but
I'm happy to take that back.
Mr. Cline. OK. Beginning back as early as October 13, 2021,
when a letter was written to Attorney General Garland, there
have been letters to U.S. attorneys requesting documents dated
November 1, 2021; to FBI Director Wray, November 3, 2021,
requesting documents on the FBI's role by November 17, 2021; to
Attorney General Garland on the completeness of testimony
regarding the whistleblower disclosure on November 16, 2021.
I can go on, but you essentially see that over the course
of 2021-2022 they weren't just requests for a letter. They were
requests for documents. They were responded to with generally a
single sheet letter saying: We will not comply, essentially.
So, now that we are in the majority, these same requests
were given to you on January 17th--first, actually, after
November's election, November 18th, Attorney General Garland
was given a letter stating Republicans will pursue the matter
into the 118th and requesting not only testimony but
responsiveness to previous requests; and then January 17th,
another letter reiterating not only past requests but
outstanding requests in the new Congress.
So, when we say these requests just came in, we've just
gotten these requests this year, I think it's important to
provide some context about the timeline over which Republicans
have been asking for information, asking for documents, and
receiving very little.
Your testimony is that, while you responded with letters,
were any documents provided before Republicans took the
majority?
Mr. Uriarte. Not to my knowledge. What we were endeavoring
to do is to, again, begin the process of informing the
Committee about the answers to their questions, was to do so
through a narrative format. That's oftentimes the first step
that is taken here.
Yes, we of course are happy to, whether as a Ranking Member
or now as Chair, engage in the accommodation process. Of
course, everything has started anew with the new Congress and
we have endeavored through these processes and through the
letters that we have sent to have that voluntary discussion
about your priorities.
Mr. Cline. Were you accommodating the majority at the time
during the 117th Congress, providing them with document
production?
Mr. Uriarte. I don't have that number in front of me, but I
can tell you that, whether it has been the majority or the
minority, we work through various requests consistently.
Mr. Cline. That wasn't my question. Did you ever provide
documents to the Democrats when they were in the majority in
the 117th?
Mr. Uriarte. I am confident that we provided documents to
this Committee in the last Congress in response to requests
from then Chair Nadler.
Consistent with the constitutional role the Chair of the
Committee plays and that they speak for Congress, the
Department has taken the position that there are additional
authorities that are granted to the Chair, and, of course, that
does inform our responses to the Committees.
Regardless of the role of the individual Member, we do
endeavor to be responsive to all Members and to treat them as
constitutional officers, which we recognize.
Mr. Cline. I'm pleased at that last statement respecting
that the majority should receive some response and some action
on the part of the Department. So, that now that there is a
different majority, your responsiveness to the majority now
should be similar to your responsiveness to the majority then.
It's disappointing to hear that there was essentially a double
standard where the majority was getting those documents and the
minority was getting nothing during the last Congress.
You knew about them, and that's the important thing. You've
known what we were asking for, so it shouldn't come as a
surprise, and we should be seeing results by this point.
The gentleman from California is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Swalwell. Well, now we know why we're here after a
round of questioning. It's clear why we're here. We haven't
heard one shred of evidence that any parents were unlawfully
targeted by the Department of Justice, but we did hear a lot
about Mar-a-Lago.
That's why we're here. Because when the Republicans went
into the majority, they formed the largest law firm in
Washington, DC, who would advocate on behalf of just one
client, one very, very small man with a lot of grievances that
they're going to carry out.
We're living through today a corrupt bargain, a corrupt
bargain that will have installment payments week after week, to
fight the grievances for that one small man to harbor an
international wanted criminal; to put a January 6th sympathizer
on the Homeland Security Committee; to defund the troops by $75
billion; to make sure that honest brokering journalist Tucker
Carlson gets his hands, and only his hands, on the January 6th
footage; and, as we just saw today, to attack the cops who
protect our kids and volunteers at our schools.
Again, we didn't hear any evidence of any parents being
unlawfully targeted. We also didn't hear any condemnation of
the three threats; of many threats that were put up there.
I will condemn the violence that the gentlelady from
Florida referenced. I'll condemn violence by Antifa, any
threats made toward any judge, whether it's Judge Kavanaugh or
any other judge. I'll condemn the violence that took place in
Portland. My colleagues and I do that over and over. There
hasn't been one condemnation of the threats that were made to
parents.
So, if you don't condemn it, then you're condoning it. If
you're condoning it, it's going to fester, and more and more
threats are going to be made to parents. What they're asking is
that you don't investigate that at all, that because these
parents share their political beliefs that are making these
threats, you shouldn't investigate them. That's what's being
asked of you at this hearing today.
I do want to ask, though, with regards to the redactions on
those documents, Ms. Graham alluded to it, but am I right that
anyone who is below what's called an SES level in the Federal
Government, which is a senior government employee, any
employee's information, their name, contact information, et
cetera, would be redacted just to protect those civil servant
employees.
Ms. Graham. Yes, personal information is redacted.
Mr. Swalwell. I want to ask, Mr. Uriarte, you've referenced
over and over that you're willing to meet with the staff.
You're here. You've got your team here behind you. Ms. Graham's
here. She's got her team behind you. I see the staff of the
majority is here.
Are you still willing to sit down with them and meet with
them to be a little more specific? When I say be more specific,
in the definition section of what they sent over to you, the
term ``document'' has about 20 lines that define ``document.''
They're asking for documents of 118,000 employees.
So, are you willing to still work with them so that they
can be more specific, and then you can be more responsive in a
manner that suits the needs that they have, Mr. Uriarte?
Mr. Uriarte. Absolutely. We'd welcome that.
Mr. Swalwell. Great.
Ms. Graham?
Ms. Graham. Yes, absolutely, and look forward to having
that opportunity on Tuesday.
Mr. Swalwell. Great. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Cline. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you.
Well, first, and please don't take this the wrong way, but
that was wonderful theatrics. Let's really talk about fact.
The fact is that we do have information that relates to
parents being harassed and parents having problems because of
their beliefs and wanting to be involved in their child's
educational process.
I have that information here, Chair. I ask that it be
entered into the record, so my colleagues can all see it.
Mr. Cline. Without objection.
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you.
It makes some interesting reading. Parents should never,
ever have to go through that. The relationship between a parent
and a child is extremely important, and I think the parent
always has the ultimate say.
Second, there was some discussion that the Republicans
won't take yes for an answer, and I want to correct that.
No, the deal is we're not going to take no for an answer.
We're going to go over this over and over and over and over
again, no matter how long it takes, to get the information.
Because I know no more now, than I did when we started this
meeting. Anybody that's honest and candid knows no more now,
than when they started the meeting.
The amount of time it has taken to try to get information,
the reason for the subpoenas, because we can't get accurate
information, the fact that--and, yes, the Trump issue is an
issue, because why is it that in one case you have dozens and
dozens of individual law enforcement, FBI, and others, coming
down and in the other case you don't? That's just not fair and
not necessary.
Again, whatever you think of Donald Trump, you don't think
he's going to be coming running out with a squad of his own
Secret Service and Uzis and God knows what else. There was no
need to do that. They were having a conversation. Again, it was
theatrics.
You know what American people are tired of? They are tired
of theatrics. I'm tired of it myself. We want answers. We won't
take no for an answer. We want the answer to be yes, and we
want the information.
So, have you or your department been actively looking for
these documents, and how many have been gathered so far? I
mean, have you actually been looking for them? Have you lost
some of them? Where are they? What's going on? Because it's
taken just an endless amount of time.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you, but today we
just learned that, well, we're willing to talk about it some
more, we'll get together over coffee.
We don't need the coffee. We don't need to get together. We
want the answers.
Mr. Uriarte. Congressman, I hear your frustration. As I
mentioned earlier, I've been a Congressional staffer. I've been
on the side of these investigations. I worked with Chair
Chaffetz in investigating misconduct at the Department of
Defense that uncovered hundreds of millions in dollars in
waste, fraud, and abuse.
So, I completely understand the value of your oversight,
and I bring that ethos with me every day to the Department of
Justice.
What I'll tell you is that in talking about specifically
the searches at Mar-a-Lago, President Biden, and former Vice
President Pence, that we are happy to work with you and your
staff on those matters.
Mr. Van Drew. Well, no, tell me now. I mean, you're a smart
man. Obviously, your great credentials, you're here. Why would
you need 30-some people to go into somebody's bedroom, to go
through their house, and use all kinds--and have all kind of
arms when it's a former President, unprecedented? Yet, in
another case, very similar situation, definitely documents that
shouldn't have been out there, there is hardly anybody.
Everything is slow, relaxed, easy, and smooth.
I want to know why. I want to know why there's a
difference. That's all I want to know. It's a simple thing. You
did one thing one way in one place; you did something else
different in another place. Why?
Mr. Uriarte. Congressman--
Mr. Van Drew. Did you really think it was that dangerous to
go in there with the Secret Service being there? Tell me. Do
you have a problem with the Secret Service?
Mr. Uriarte. Congressman, the Attorney General has spoken
directly to this and said there are not different standards for
Republicans or Democrats.
Mr. Van Drew. It sure was.
Mr. Uriarte. He has endeavored to approach each of these
instances consistently. That's why we appointed special
counsels in both the Trump matter as well as in the Biden
matter. We are working with Congress, and Congressional
leadership specifically, to discuss potential oversight of the
documents that are at issue there. We're committed to that. We
also are committed to handling those three matters in a
consistent manner.
Mr. Van Drew. Mr. Uriarte, in all deference, and to be as
polite as I can--you know, I'm from Jersey, so it's a little
tough sometimes--just to say to you, that means nothing to me.
I just want an answer.
You ask me a question, I will give you an answer, yes or
no, and is this why. One place you did it this way, another
place you did it radically different. Why?
Then the second question, another question, what was done
with the request we provided the last Congress? Why was that
request ignored? Nothing happened with that. You had a lot of
time. You had time to at least start on it. What happened? Yes?
No? Give me an answer, something, please.
Mr. Cline. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman
can respond.
Mr. Uriarte. Thank you, Congressman.
In response to that request, we did send letters back to
the Committee. Again, I recognize your interest here.
I will say what we have prioritized in our responses to
this Committee are the documents and information that were
subpoenaed related to the Attorney General's October 4th
memorandum.
Of course, if there is additional information you want to
share today about your priorities, that is helpful information,
and we'll absolutely come back.
Mr. Van Drew. I yield back. I just want to say what you
just said means as much to me as this does.
[Chart.]
Mr. Van Drew. By the way, I want everybody to look at this
and tell me what they gleaned from this substantive information
that's up there.
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Cline. The gentleman from Maryland for five minutes.
Mr. Ivey. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If I heard you all correctly, the Chair and the gentleman
from New Jersey, I think the point you're trying to make is
that when you made requests when you were in the minority, you
should have gotten productions from the government. In other
words, the minority has rights to seek and compel the
production of documents without the assistance of the majority.
I certainly hope that's the case. We're in the minority
now, and I would love to have the ability to do that. So, we
can discuss whether that's what you actually meant or not later
on.
I did want to address a couple of things, too. I certainly
share the view about the threats against the Supreme Court
Justices, the protests against them, to the extent violent
threats were made those people should be prosecuted. My
recollection without--I could be corrected--I thought one of
the individuals, the one who had made threats, had been
arrested and is in the middle of being prosecuted now, I
believe in Federal court. So, I think that's exactly what the
Justice Department is supposed to be doing.
I would note, too, to the extent we're talking about
threats to public officials--and we can make these documents
available--but school board members in Loudoun County and
across the country have been subjected to these kinds of
threats, death threats.
[Chart.]
Mr. Ivey. We've got some up behind us. I'll submit a couple
more for the record.
One was a school board member, actually from Florida, I
believe, who wrote about it. The school board member, she
mentioned that they burned ``F U'' on her yard; that they--
We're coming for you. We're going to make you beg for mercy. If
you thought January 6th was bad, wait until you see what we
have for you.
I'll submit that for the record.
The threats against the Georgia Secretary of State, Mr.
Raffensperger, who is still getting threats, by the way, for
taking the courageous stand to refuse to submit to Donald
Trump's demands that he lied about the election returns in
Georgia. He's getting death threats for that.
We don't have to go all the way down to Georgia either,
cause they're getting death threats in Loudoun County, too.
[Chart.]
Mr. Ivey. As a matter of fact, they sort of peaked. They
jumped at the time of the January 6th event, and then they came
back up in the following summer, which is, I guess, what the
point of these subpoenas are about, because that was some of
the time when the rhetoric ramped up.
[Chart.]
Mr. Ivey. Oh, here's the chart right here.
So, you see the big jump coming there in November-December
2020 into January 2021, that was the raid on the Capitol. The
dotted line is the total numbers. The blue line, which you can
see peaks around there in October-November 2021, that comes
during the time when Republicans started making efforts to go
after school boards. The Proud Boys--I've got an article we can
submit for the record on that.
We've got an audio tape, I don't have time to play it now,
but from a group in Virginia that explains they targeted the
Loudoun Public County School Board in an effort to ramp up
opposition to certain policies that they disagree with.
Roughly, at the same time that they were ramping this up, as
you can see there in the graph, the threats jumped up against
these officials.
Mr. Cline. Without objection, the article from The
Washington Post and the article from, what was that, CNN, are
entered in the record.
Mr. Ivey. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I do want to close with this. The gentleman from New Jersey
said he didn't know more now than he did before the hearing.
I'll say this--
Mr. Van Drew. Maybe less. It was a brain freeze.
Mr. Ivey. The parties submitted over a thousand pages,
almost 1,500 pages of documents, and they go directly to the
issues that were requested by the subpoena. To the extent
there's some kind of subtle accusation about an attempt for the
Department of Justice to go after parents, I would just draw a
contrast between the Attorney General's document, October 4th,
which goes to this issue.
Basically, he said: I want you all to convene meetings,
U.S. attorneys, Federal officials, meet with local officials
and have meetings, ask them if they think there's a problem.
If you go to the document production, you can see on DOJ
HJC155 that the head of EOUSA, in following up on that, sent
instructions out telling people, quote, ``Convene a meeting by
November 3, 2021.''
Then if you go back further, in the documents that have
already been produced to the Committee--so we have these in our
possession right now--so, if you go to DOJ HJC144, this is from
the feedback they get. It says: We received feedback after a
meeting from the chief of Richmond PD. The meeting was the
Western District of Virginia. It wasn't the whole State. That's
how the U.S. attorneys divvy it up in Virginia. There's an
Eastern District and a Western District.
So, the chief of the Richmond PD says that he has assigned
uniformed officers to attend Richmond school board meetings,
which has been well received by the school board president,
despite initial hesitance. With the officers present, meeting
attendees were able to calm down, and the board conducted its
business effectively.
Then, with respect to the issue of weaponization, I would
draw the contrast between the memo from the Attorney General--
and I know I got one extra minute like my colleague had there--
and I would ask you to draw the contrast between the Attorney
General's memo with respect to these school boards and the one
that goes out with respect to the attacks on airplane flights.
I think that was one on the graph there, too, where that jumped
after people got upset about the masks and they started losing
their minds and getting violent on planes.
In that memo the Attorney General says,
I am directing United States attorneys to prioritize
prosecution of Federal crimes occurring on commercial aircraft
that endanger the safety of passengers, flight crews, and
flight attendants.
Now, when the Attorney General wants them to prosecute, he
said it. The one with respect to the school board, all he says
was convene meetings. Based on what we've seen in the documents
that have been produced so far, that's all they've done. No
attempts to go after parents, no threats, even though threats
have been made against school board members. Nothing of the
sort.
I yield back.
Mr. Cline. I thank the gentleman. I think you've done a
good job of pointing out that we have different crimes, one of
which is Federal, one of which is primarily handled at the
local level and is better handled at the local level.
The gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Moran. Secretary Graham, I'm going to come back to you.
Thank you for your time once again. I want to revisit the
notion of how this process begins.
Is it customary for the Department of Education to sit on
requests by letter from this Committee and wait until they
receive a subpoena to respond with documents?
Ms. Graham. Thank you, and I actually left my light on this
time.
The Department has been engaged with this Committee for
over a year with responsive documents that culminated in our
March 1st response to the subpoena, which was over a thousand-
plus pages, over 300 documents. We will continue to engage in
that process working with the Committee and look forward to
that opportunity.
Mr. Moran. So, going forward, I hear your commitment to
respond to informal requests, but we don't have to get to that
point of a subpoena request. Is that your commitment?
Ms. Graham. We look forward to working together with the
Committee, which we have been doing for over a year now, and
very glad--
Mr. Moran. That really doesn't give me a good, fuzzy
feeling when you respond like that. I think that was a fair
request for your commitment to respond to requests by an
informal manner, as you indicated earlier you would do, in good
faith, through the process of accommodation to accommodate the
requests of this Committee. Would you commit to that.
Ms. Graham. The good news, Congressman, is that we have
another opportunity to do that on Tuesday. I'm thankful for the
opportunity to work together with your team.
Mr. Moran. As part of the good faith process to, in
particular, look at the redacted documents that we see back
here and others that are redacted, how do you foresee that is
going to happen moving forward to determine whether or not
these redactions are appropriate, and which ones should or
shouldn't be redacted, and which ones should be more fully
disclosed?
Ms. Graham. Well, that's part of the ongoing accommodation
and compromise process that we've been engaged in and look
forward to continuing to be engaged in.
Mr. Moran. Forgive my ignorance. Again, I'm brand new, and
I'm new to the game of producing documents in Congress. I would
assume in the judicial process you're going to have an in-
camera review and somebody's going to say, yes, this should or
shouldn't be redacted, or, yes, this should or shouldn't be
produced.
So, is that what's going to happen when we leave here
today, you are going to allow somebody from the Committee or
somebody from the staff of the Committee to look at what's
behind the redactions and to work through whether or not that
should or shouldn't be redacted?
Ms. Graham. The technical aspects of our more than a
thousand pages of substantive documents pursuant to the
subpoena is certainly something that could be discussed during
the accommodations process.
Mr. Moran. Well, certainly, I have to believe this is not
your first time to go down a production of documents issue. How
does it normally work? I'm just curious. How does it work when
you say, ``Well, we're going to work with the Committee in good
faith to determine whether or not these redactions are
appropriate or not?'' How are we to determine that if we can't
see what's behind the redaction?
Ms. Graham. It's part of the ongoing conversation that we
are having, and--
Mr. Moran. I'm trying to figure out what the conversation
is going to be. Are you going to tell us what's behind there?
Am I going to get to know? Is some Member of the Committee
going to get to know? Or are you just going to say, ``Trust us,
it should be redacted?''
Ms. Graham. We will continue to have those conversations
about any of the issues that have been raised today by Members
of this Committee on both sides of the aisle. That is my
commitment as the Assistant Secretary for the Office of
Legislation and Congressional Affairs.
Mr. Moran. I read into your answer that I'm never going to
know what's behind those redactions, and neither is the
American public, and that really concerns me.
Again, I want to go back to the good faith accommodation
issue that you guys have both talked about today. All this
stuff is redacted, and it seems to be unilaterally decided on
your end of the spectrum. I want to know what's behind the
redactions and whether or not the American people should see
that. In fact, they should see that.
Ms. Graham. Congressman, again, the redacted components of
our production are deliberative process, attorney-client
privilege, and/or personal information.
Mr. Moran. Do you have any employees--let's talk about
supplementation. I just have a minute. Do you have any
employees specifically dedicated to the continued production of
these documents?
Ms. Graham. Congressman, we have a team that is working
very diligently to meet the requests that we receive from this
Committee, and we will continue to do so.
Mr. Moran. In the Department of Education, in your segment
of the Department of Education, you have somebody you are going
to go back to and say, ``Look, you're responsible for figuring
out if there's any more to produce.'' Is there somebody else
that we need to have here to answer questions?
Ms. Graham. That process will continue. Again, I look
forward to having the opportunity next week and following weeks
to answer any questions you have. I'm happy to take anything
back.
Mr. Moran. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Cline. The gentlelady from Florida is recognized for
five minutes.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll begin by noting that I believe the gentleman from
Maryland is correct that the man who attempted to assassinate
Justice Kavanaugh in his home, my understanding is, was
ultimately prosecuted.
However, unfortunately, that horrific incident is just part
of a much broader, more pervasive ongoing threat to our courts
and to our Justices that has been the subject of requests for
production of documents and information by this Committee.
Specifically, there were several instances in which Supreme
Court Justices were threatened because of their previous
judicial decisions and incidents--these fit into a larger
campaign that is designed to threaten and intimidate, to
frighten and dissuade Justices from issuing opinions.
One group published the home addresses of six Justices and
has organized harassment at their personal residences, where
they live with their spouses and their children. This is
clearly an effort to intimidate and threaten these Justices and
to attempt to affect their decisions.
In a letter dated June 23, 2022, to the Attorney General,
this Committee noted these actions appear to be attempts to
intimidate and influence the Justices' rulings in violation of
Section 1507 of Title 18 of the U.S.C. which prohibits pickets
or parades in or near a building or residence of a judge when
done with the intent to interfere, obstruct, or impede the
administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing
any judge in the discharge of his duty.
While protesting is a protected and fundamental First
Amendment activity, courts have distinguished conduct that is
intended to obstruct or pervert the course of justice. That
conduct does not retain such protections.
This letter went on to request two categories of documents.
First, all documents and communications between or among the
Department of Justice and the Executive Office of the President
referring or relating to the harassment and intimidation
campaign outside of Justices' homes.
Mr. Uriarte, to date, have any documents been produced in
response to that January 23, 2022, letter?
Mr. Uriarte. Congresswoman, thank you for the question.
I want to start by saying, as you know, this issue is
something that is incredibly personal to the Attorney General
as a former judge.
As you may remember, after the Dobbs' decision leaked, he
took the unprecedented step of having the U.S. marshals to
protect the homes of the Justices. We've had as many as 70 U.S.
marshals in place to protect those Justices' homes, and their
mission there is focused on the life and safety of the judges.
That is something that is incredibly important to the AG and
incredibly important to all of us at the Department of Justice.
Now, in terms of the document request that you're referring
to, of course I'm happy to take that back and see if there's
additional information that we can provide.
Again, part of the value of these conversations, I think,
is to understand the priorities of the Committee. If this is an
issue that is a high priority for the committee, as I
understand you're saying now, that will definitely inform our
ability to produce those documents or to get you information
sooner.
Ms. Lee. So, would it be correct to say, Mr. Uriarte, that
as of today no documents have been produced in response to
request No. 1?
Mr. Uriarte. I don't have that request in front of me, but
I'm happy to take that back.
Ms. Lee. Request No. 2, all documents and communications
between or among employees of the Department of Justice
referring or relating to the harassment and intimidation
campaign outside of Justices' homes, including those sent or
received by employees of the United States Attorney's Office
for the District of Maryland and the United States Attorney's
Office for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Mr. Uriarte, same question. To this date, have any
documents responsive to request No. 2 been produced to this
Committee?
Mr. Uriarte. Again, I'm happy to take that back. As I said,
my commitment to you was that we will work with you and your
staff to be as efficient and effective as possible and respond
to your requests.
Again, the more we understand about your priorities among
the various oversight requests, the more effective I think we
can be at helping to meet your informational need.
Ms. Lee. To the best of your knowledge, as you sit here
today before this committee, to this date, no documents
responsive to this request from this Committee have been
provided?
Mr. Uriarte. That is consistent with my understanding, but
I want to get back to you on that.
Again, that request is from the prior Congress. Starting in
this Congress, we have taken steps to respond to the
Committee's requests, including the production of 448 pages
earlier this month on a different topic to which were the
subject of the subpoena.
Again, if this is a priority for you, we will certainly
take that into account as we continue to work through the
various requests.
Ms. Lee. I will note that this letter concluded with a
request that this information be provided as soon as possible,
but no later than 5 p.m. on July 8, 2022.
With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Cline. I thank the gentlelady.
That concludes our second round.
I want to thank our witnesses for appearing today. I have
to say I'm disappointed in many of the answers. I'm not
disappointed in the commitment to continue the conversation.
It's a shame that it reached this point, because these
conversations between staff, you spoke to great staff
conversations that go on, you spoke to a knowledge of previous
requests, but unfortunately it has come to this.
So, hopefully, we will see additional progress being made
over the next month. Otherwise, we will plan on seeing you here
again very soon, probably in three weeks.
Mr. Ivey. Mr. Chair, would the gentleman yield for just a
moment?
Mr. Cline. I'll yield.
Mr. Ivey. I certainly agree that it's disappointing that it
got to this stage. We may feel disappointed for different
reasons, but I share your disappointment.
Mr. Cline. I thank the gentleman.
Without objection, all members will have five legislative
days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses
or additional materials for the record.
Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:37 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=115443.
[all]