his wife, not his wife at the time, is now a member of parol limit. i sat through what happened in 2002 when was -- there was a real effort by one individual from the northern part of the ivory coast charging against him. it's kind of interesting because it is one country, but up in the north, you have primarily the muslim area. in the south and east, primarily the christian element, and so there's been a real effort for quite some time for the chosen one up there who as i was saying to defeat the president. now, here's the problem we have. there was an election that took place a few months ago when it

appeared that -- that awatra actual beat the incumbent president, president bagboa. and so we were all concerned about this in terms of was it a straight election -- and i'm going to tell you here in a couple minutes why it was not -- but also tried to -- to call this to the attention of the administration. way back in january after the election took place, i wrote a letter to secretary clinton, and i said, i'd like to have you reevaluate -- i'm going to have that letter at the conclusion of my remarks as a part of my statement to be printed in the record. but to look at this and evaluate this as to what actually won't in that election and how it was -- it was rigged. otarra tried to deny the involvement in a mass slaughter that took place just a couple of days ago. that was in a town called

duquae. duquae was in a town called -- in the southern part of -- an area that was very strongly in favorite of president bagbao. and somewhere between 300 and a thousand people in that western town of duquae were slaughtered, were with guns and machetes. and mr. watara and his people tried to deny their involvement in the mass slaughter but the forces took place in the town days earlier and the bagbao forces were not even near the town. they had left the town a week before this happened. and so don't believe me but the guardian, which is a british newspaper, reported last nigh night -- just last night, they said -- and i'm going to quote now from the newspaper -- it said, "the u.n. mission said traditional hunters, known as dozoes, fought alongside awatra's forces and took part in killing 330 people in the western town of duguea. the international committee for the recor red cross said at lea0

people were killed in the -- in the violence" -- and i'm still quoting from the newspaper -- "last week." what we don't know is that 800 plus the 330, so roughly it's a thousand. "william a.haaifa, who's the head of the united nations mission in the ivory coast, blamed 220 of the deaths on the pro-pro- awatra forces." the full article goes into a lot of detail. also, the bbc reporter wrote that -- quote -- "in the last 24 hours, i spot four pigs eating something dark in a charred courtyard standing by a newly dug mass grave. a u.n. soldier from more rock psychochowinging -- morocco is choking from wage and grief. i asked him if some of the dead are children and he begins to

sob. the massacre was done by the watara forces who took over the town. president bagbao called for a cease-fire repeatedly." i called that. he's called for a cease-fire because the awatra forces have denied it. why? this cease-fire could have been established if they would accepted mediation through the african union. in march 27, the african union sent former cape verde foreign minister jose brito to mediate between watara and bagbao. bagbao accepted mediation, watara did not. i've been watching the events in cote d'voire and there's a

serious question as to whether watara is the legit mallee -- legitimately elected president of cote d'voire. i've sent the evidence to the secretary of -- secretary clinton on two occasions, spanning the last few months. one of them is where we actually have the evidence of the number of votes that were stolen. in one letter, i pointed out, the last letter, which i'll make a part of this record, to the evidence which shows that watara received $94,87 -- 94,873 votes that were listed on a tally sheet for one of -- of the five regions in the rebel-held north. times this by four and it comes to very close to the margin of victory from -- that allegedly president gbagbo lost. that's 400,000 votes. so if, indeed, a similar amount of voter fraud exists in these

four regions, gbagbo is the actual winner of the november 28 presidential election. but if that's too complicated, look at it this way. in those five regions -- they don't call them precincts -- well some they do so it's a little confusing, but in the first letter i sent in, i commented that gbagbo during what we would call the primary had won thousands of votes in each one of those five prei think it sinks up north. however, in the primary runoff, he got zero. and i suggest to you, mr. president, that is a statistical impossibility. you can't get zero, tookly after you've already had thousands -- particularly after you've already had thousands of votes. in my letter for secretary clinton, i called for the united states to support new elections there but thus far these efforts have received an inadequate response. based on the news that awatra has murdered some 1,000 people in duquae, i hope that the lust reconsider its position and call

for a new election. this wednesday, april 6, will mark the 17th anniversary of the 1994 rwanda general side. i went back for the anniversary of that genocide. i've been there many times before. we know that the u.n. general secretary -- secretary-genera secretary-general -- secretary-general, kofi annan, and others knew the extent of this violence early on but did nothing to do it. well, now we know there could be another genocide occurring and we do know in advance. and that's why the united states is going to have to call for an immediate cease-fire to prevent quattra an from slaughter and te who are protecting president gbagbo at the present time around the presidential palace. you've got to get this mental picture. they've got these kids, young kids, they don't have any weapons, they're carrying baseball bats and two-by-fours.

and i have also been told that within the last half-hour, that the united nations helicopters, the u.n. peacekeeping helicopters, are firing on gbagbo's military camp, causing massive explosions. now there, could be some confusion on this because two of the articles that came out in the last half-hour, one of them was talking about the french who are kind of behind in supporting, of course, quatara. the other says the u.n. i'm not sure. one of the two in. lastly, i've sent a letter to senate foreign relations committee chairman john kerry -- and by the way, i talked to him personally about this. he's very concerned about it. i've requested that i convene a hearing as soon as possible into the atrocities committed by forces loyal to the rebel lead leader, quatara, as well as into what i believe were flawed elections that gave legitimacy to his claim of the presidency. so i do ask unanimous consent that now, at the conclusion of these remarks, placed in the record immediately following my comments would be the -- the two

letters sent to secretary clinton along with a letter sent to senator kerry and with the calculation -- or the miscalculation of the election that i honestly in my heart believe was stolen. this is what we're asking to be put in the record. this is the tabulations of the precincts. and you add up the precincts, in just one precinct, there were -- there was a mistake of over 8 80 -- 85,000 votes just in one precinct. so i ask unanimous consent those be made a part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection.

darrell issa chaired this meeting.

i hope we will find it was not but is now. it is the policy of the committee to have our mission statement in our opening. with that, the oversight committee, we exist to secure to fundamental principles. first, americans have a right to know the money washington takes from them is well spent. second, americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. our duty on the oversight and government reform committee is to protect these rights. our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers because taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their government. we will work tirelessly in

partnership with citizen watchdogs to deliver the facts to the american people and bring genuine reform to federal bureaucracy. this is the mission of the oversight and government reform committee. today's hearing follows an eight month investigation into what we believe were abuses of procedures of department of homeland security. this matter could have been resolved in july 2010 when dhs first was confronted with allegations of political interference with foia process. the came from the associated press and others to look into this. the chief privacy officer we believe misled committee staff in 2010 briefings. if not for whistleblower, the truth of the matter may never have come to light. that whistle-blower was asked to clear her office, lost her job,

and title and responsibilities and was moved to a smaller narrower th you responsibility the day after she testified. that concerns us the department is not taking their responsibility to the hard- working men and women in the department to this day. the truth of this matter is the secretary's political staff did approve significant releases. they delayed responses, they withheld documents, they conducted weak searches. nonprofessionals searched their own documents using their phone keywords and did not avail themselves of career professionals who were there long before them and know the system. documents in witness testimony shows that she privacy officer of's statements from september

2010 are indefensible. yet several of them appear in her testimony at this hearing today. she continues to insist policy implemented in september 2009 was intended to make political staff aware of significant releases. the bottom line is, responses could not go out the door until a political appointee said so. the problem at the department has -- that the department has not accepted accountability for. the disparity between the promise is stark. the committee is committed to getting to the bottom of the abuses of dhs and making sure the politicalization of the transparency issue does not metastasize throughout the federal bureaucracy.

the chair is concerned further that there was a requirement we discovered through whistleblower and documents that one of the most important issues that came was not just the document related to foia but who was sending it? whether it was a political individual or the press. that reeks of nixonian enemies list and this committee will not tolerate that. >> think you for calling this hearing. i've said it again and i will say it again -- before and i will say it again. let me start with what we agree on. i think you and i agree with president obama's decision on his first day in office to reverse eight years of previous administration policy. to adopt the presumption in

favor of disclosure and to renew the federal government's commitment to foia. the process to review certain responses in 2009 and two dozen town was not efficient. sometimes led to delays, and cause confusion about roles and responsibilities that resulted in interoffice tension at dhs. i think we can agree that since then, dhs has made significant improvements but it must continue to take additional steps to fully address these concerns and i am convinced we can always do better. despite some areas of agreement, we part ways when you make extreme accusations that are not supported by the documents. not supported by the interviews. and not supported by the investigation conducted by dhs.

over and over again, you claim that dhs officials are making decisions based on partisan political considerations. in july, you claimed dhs ignore the intent of congress and politicized the process. in august again, you claimed political appointees at dhs had inappropriately injected a person -- partisan considerations into the process. you continue to make these accusations even though the committee has concluded interviews -- conducted interviews and gathered documents that show the opposite to be true. the report released yesterday accused dhs officials of illegal politicize asiaation. it claimed political considerations were important in the process. without requesting a single document from the previous administration, the report

concluded the process is more politicized than when president obama took office. these extreme accusations are and substantiated -- not substantiated. staff reviewed the documents to the committee as well as transcripts of interviews conducted by committee staff. we found no evidence that dhs withheld any information for partisan political purposes. we found no evidence that requests received different treatment based on their political affiliation. we found no evidence dhs officials implemented a process to advance partisan political objectives. in every instance we examined, information was withheld only with the approval of either the or councilice 's office. this is the conclusion of the

dhs inspector general. which they published yesterday refuting these allegations. this is what the investigator said. after reviewing information and interviewing experts, we determined the significant request review process did not prohibit the eventual release of information. it goes on to say none of this information demonstrated the office of the secretary prohibited the release of information under foia. obtained creditsttemp this assessment. no officer said the request is for disadvantaged because of their political party or area of interest. our committee has the great opportunity to help federal agencies as they strive to achieve president obama's high

standard. we also have an obligation to conduct oversight that is responsible and fair. i and the long run, as i have said many times, we are just as concerned about government running well as you are. it is just as important to us as it is to you. because we are americans also. we want our constituents to be served well. that is what this is about. this is the all-american way. it is not about the republican way or democratic way. it is about the american way. with that, i will thank you again for holding this hearing and with that, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. members may have seven days in which to submit opening statements and include extraneous information into the record. pursuant to khomeni rules, all members are to be sworn.

would you please rise to take the oath? do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the trutruth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? both witnesses are in the affirmative. in order to allow time for discussion, this committee has a longstanding policy of asking you to -- that you're opening statements be placed in the record. please stay within five minutes. i do not cut people off midsentence. if i think you get to the end of a paragraph, i will. we expect to have only one round of questioning unless there is a specific request for second round. our goal is to make this factual and succinct. i will be pretty heavy-handed with people on this side. if someone runs to where you see

a red light and they still have not gotten to the question, you may see a gavel. it will not have to answer. fair warning to both sides. we want to keep you within your time. what members to ask questions so you have the proper time to respond. -- we want members to ask questions so you have the proper time to respond. we're not permitted from having votes. if we have boats, we will wait five to 10 minutes after the vote has been called. if the first one is 15, we will recess. as soon as there is a two-person working group, we will reconvene. even if i am not back here, whoever the senior republican is will commence a weekend the, of your time and schedule. one second.

i did not want to make any mistakes on the name even though they are in front of me. the chair recognizes our first panel. mary ellen callahan, mr. ivan fong, the general counsel to the department of homeland security. these first. >> thank you. the morning. -- good morning. i am the chief foia and privacy officer. my office and the minister's policies, procedures, programs to ensure the department complies with the freedom of information act and the privacy

act. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the department's freedom of information act processing and policies, past and present. two years ago, the department faced a backlog of more than 74,000 requests. we began to work to address the issue and have had success. under this administration, we have reduced the backlog by 84%. more than 63,000 requests. in fiscal year 2010 alone, the judge reduced the backlog by 40%. eclipsing the government instruction to reduce the backlog by 4% as well as the goal of a 15 s -- 15% reduction for the fiscal year. less than one-half of 1% of the 138,000 foia request processes were deemed significant.

the requests include those relating to ongoing litigation, but it too sensitive topics, requests made by the media, and requests related to presidential or agency priorities. in these few cases, department management was provided an opportunity to become aware of the contents of the release fought -- prior to its issuance. to enable them to respond, to enable them to respond from -- and to engage the public on the merits of the underlying policy issues. the significant requests -- review process came after several significant foia's released without notice to senior management. there were related to ongoing litigation, records from the previous administration, and records from other departments.

that basic lack of awareness of significant responses hindered the department's abilities to manage and oversee the department. the transition of where we were then and where we are now was not seem less. there were management challenges in implementing the awareness process initially. however, we recognize these problems at the time and have taken significant actions to address them. i believe that transitioning to the share point system last year represents a significant step forward and i believe it is now a system that works effectively and efficiently for professionals in my office and the department. at the same time we were implementing this process, the average number of days it takes the department to process a request has decreased significantly. from 240 days to 95 days. there have been allegations that

political appointees redacted foia's and restricted their release. to my knowledge, no one other than a foia professional or attorney made a substantive change to the proposed release. further, to my knowledge, no information deemed replaceable by the foia office or -- general counsel has been withheld. documents have near the been abridged or edited. i would point the committee to the analysis that makes critical findings including the significant review process did not prohibit the release of information. no requestors were disadvantage because of their party or area of interest. the office of the secretary is responsible for overseeing dhs

operations and is within its right to oversee the process. and dhs has made important progress in sharing openness including through proactive disclosure. we concur with all six of the i.t. recommendations. i am heartened to see the inspector general sees the progress we have made. we're committed to doing more and we look forward to working with the committees on these issues. i would be happy to take questions. thank you. >> thank you. mr. fong. >> i am ivan fong, i am the general counsel for the department of homeland security. i appreciate this opportunity to appear before you and discuss the department, securities freedom of information act policies. as general counsel, i lead and oversee a lot department of more than a tree hundred lawyers --

1800 lawyers. i and my leadership capacity, i emphasize the important role dhs lawyers play in advising on and in ensuring compliance with the law. and setting high standards for professional and personal integrity across the department. in the course of performing their duties, headquarters attorneys as well as lawyers in our offices may be called upon to interpret the statute and to apply its provisions to records collected and processed by the office of privacy for possible disclosure in response to foia requests. foia establishes a mechanism that makes records held accessible to members of the public access to the extent the records or portions thereof are protected from disclosure from -- by one of nine statutory exemptions or by one of three special law enforcement record exclusions. the nine exemptions included

reflect congress's recognition the goal of an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, must sometimes be balanced against other important societal goals such as protecting the confidentiality of sensitive personal, commercial, and government information. this administration has taken significant steps to increase openness in government. in january 2009, president obama issued to important memoranda to the heads of executive apartments -- departments and agencies concerning transparency. in his memorandum, he committed this administration to unprecedented levels of openness in government. and in his freedom of income act -- information act memorandum, he stressed the importance of foia, saying it was a commitment to ensuring an open government. to reinforce this commitment, the attorney general in march

2009 issued a guidance memorandum that among other things, reiterated the president's call for a proactive disclosure in anticipation of public interest. required agencies to consider making partial disclosures whenever full disclosure is not possible, and urged agencies to create and maintain effective systems for responding to requests. against this backdrop, department lawyers provide day- to-day level of vice to the chief officer, staff, and others in headquarters and components for -- who are responsible t responding to requests for it will provide legal advice on specific request and they do so based on their understanding of the facts and best legal analysis and interpretation of the statute, developing a case law and guns. with respect to the involvement of the office of the secretary and other senior department leaders in being informed of

significant offense, including the release of information, the secretary and her staff have clear statutory authority to ask questions of, review, and manage the operations of all parts of the department, including the privacy office and its elements that handle the process. similarly, the attorney general's 2009 guidance statement said the responsib ility belongs to all this. it is not only legally permissible but sound practice for the office of the secretary to be informed of, and in coordination, to oversee the process. as my colleague has just described, a significant foia review process has become more streamlined and more efficient. despite challenges in the early

implementation of the review, and those problems have been acknowledged and remedied, the office of the general counsel will continue to engage with the chief foia officer and staff to make sure we disclose properly and promptly in the spirit of cooperation that adheres to the letter and spirit of the president's direction. thank you. >> thank you. i will recognize myself for five minutes. is ap on your enemies list, ms. callahan? i will take that as an know unless you want to answer. there has been this talk in your opening statement about political, there were members of d'sress who have r's and after your name. you wanted days to pre release if ap wanted something or to spin or to decide to take

information that was sensitive or embarrassing and get it out in some format you wanted days before the associated press would have what they waited weeks or months for. let me understand this. the words you used because i want to make sure the words are careful. what you said to the committee turned out not to be completely accurate some time ago. you used the word eventual repeatedly. the eventual means that -- eventual means that a right delayed is not denied. do you stand by that position, three or six or 90 days, they are ok as long as you eventually comply? yes or no, please. his eventual good enough? is away of three days, 30 days, or 90 days ok and compliant with foia in your opinion? >> the initial process -- the initial process --

>> is this acceptable as compliant? you use the eventual but there were clear delays produced by this policy of pre-alerting so political appointees could do what they wanted before i got out in some other way. is three days, 30 days, or 90 days and acceptable to lay and complying with foia? yes or no? >> it did not. >> you were causing delay and eventual should not be a with a word in your statement. the fact is, there were delays. the ig said it did not change the fact you were delaying and if the if were doing -- ig were doing their job, you'd have to stop the bench will and make a prompt. you were aware there were

delays produced. did you do anything about it? did you consider it a problem that three days, 30 days, or 90 days occurred because political appointees were evaluating the sensitivity of a piece of may be embarrassing information or politically sensitive information becoming public? >> i believe it is important for foia responses to be promptly disclosed. i believe also the secretary's office has a legitimate interest. >> you believe a delay in order to evaluate the political ramifications and potentially release something someone has waited for 90 or 100 days, release it before you give it to them is ok under foia? that is what was possible as a result of this policy, wasn't it? >> that is not what i said. it is important for releasable

records to be released. i believe also, the secretary's office has an interest in knowing what is -- >> i asked about the interference. i did not ask about the interest. nobody on this dais will assert that as a request was going out, simultaneously, even the evening before the morning, it was sent to the offices so they would be aware and be able to develop appropriate responses if it appeared on the front page of "the new york times". your offices have them days or weeks or months before hand and in some cases could have spawned the store before the facts were given out. let me move to one other thing. put up slide number one. there will be more slides today. this one -- is hard to read that. do we have a copy?

would you give the witness is a copy? -- witnesses a copy? you have a exemption. on the left, you will see the redacted version. on the right, you will see, and this was the type of information the ap was looking for they felt this policy confound it. -- confounded. this is for you, ms. callahan. were you concerned that the forwarding of a request to political staff would burden the staff? that is one of the things redacted or more specifically, not sure what the confusion is. please note this request is coming directly from the front office. noaa is brief.

-- briefed. could you could you please have them forward the reports so they are needed. that was redacted, so basically you have made a decision. the decision was to forward it. a newspaper agency wants information. what i read here is we are redacting -- it is not about a pre-decision process, but a decision was made. the ap wanted to know and had the obligation to know under freedom of the press if you were doing exactly what you were doing, and that information was redacted. you have a copy of that. please respond. >> with regard to the ap request about foia, my office was

recused, as is the normal process if my office is the direct subject of the foia request. >> mr. fong, the redacted actual substantive information that was clearly exactly what the ap was looking for, you redacted it when they tried to get their information. it was not executive privilege, but it clearly was what they had a right to know and we're finding about here today. would you explain why? >> i was not personally involved in making the decision. my staff, though, has expertise in this area. i cannot speak to this particular redaction or other reductions that were or were not made. i can say there is an administrative appeals process that exists precisely to correct such issues and such mistakes. my understanding is these records are going through such

an appeal, and i believe it would be premature to a pine. -- to opine. >> my time has expired, but i will have copies of all of this delivered to use the you could look through them and know them in advance. i think the ranking member would agree that, quite frankly, it is hard to appeal a reduction because you don't know what you don't know. i yield to the ranking member. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. one of the things i have seen in this committee before, and it is something i am very concerned about, is when people come before us, you don't allow them to you answer the questions that have been asked. i will go to you, mr. callahan. i realize this is not an easy process. -- i will go to you miss callahan. i realize this is not an easy

process, and you are probably a little more of this and people are watching this, and there is a lot after this moment, and you have a reputation. i want to give you a chance to answer the question, tried to, but you were not permitted. you stated that the delays did not meet your high standards, and during the delays that were discussed, or officials weighing partisan political concerns? -- were officials when partisan political concerns, to your knowledge? >> to my knowledge, they were not, and that was confirmed by the inspector general's report. >> what were they doing, to your knowledge? >> the front office wanted to know about significant foia activities and the underlying merits of the debate. they may not have had an opportunity to review them in a

timely fashion. >> was the general counsel reviewing documents for legal sufficiency? so they could meet the standards? >> there were at times some documents that had been identified as being insufficiently or inappropriately processed, and for that they went to the office of general counsel for review as is the typical process. >> were you taking your time in order to "spins stories" prior to the release of documents? >> no, sir, they just wanted awareness of the underlying issues in the foia releases. they just wanted to know what was in the documents. >> i want to thank you, and i know you mean it, that you have high standards.

we understand that you are one person and you have people who work with you, correct? >> that is correct. >> it has been repeatedly said that these individuals make decisions on partisan political factors. last summer he said political appointees were injecting partisan political considerations into the process. in his report yesterday, he said political considerations were an important factor in your foia decisions. these are serious, very serious allegations. but based on our reviews, we could not identify any instances where this actually happened. let me ask you directly, are either of you aware of any thing in the way that dhs withheld information from foia. quaestors based on partisan considerations? -- from foia requests based on

partisan considerations? >> no, sir. >> i am not, either. >> the inspector general said after reviewing information, we determined that the significant request review process did not prohibit the eventual release of information. he also said this, no foia wasicer said request youors disadvantage because of their political party or interests. are you familiar with that? >> i am familiar with that, and i agree with them and i appreciate their injection into this matter. >> our review found that your two officers were not working together as efficiently and effectively as they could. we found there was real tension between the foia office and the

general counsel office. let me give you an example. on march 3, we interviewed a captain to works in miss callahan's officer. -- in ms. callahan's office. she said she had serious concerns about an attorney who handles foia requests, and when she was asked to describe the problem, she said this, "i do not consider him to have expertise in foia. there have been several times i have had to educate him on basic concepts." mr. fong, how the respond to that? -- how do you respond to that? >> i disagree with the view that this attorney in question was not qualified to respond to her request. as you know, foia is a technical

and complex area. it is true that she does not practice in this area full-time, but she oversees a group of lawyers who does, and they have very good judgment and applied his best understanding of the statutes and exercised good faith and reasonable judgments to the questions he was presented with. >> this has nothing to do with political issues? these are two career employees who seem to have difficulty working together, which we see all the time, even on the hill. ms. callahan, how can we expect the process to work when career officials cannot work together? >> we are working to address what are reasonable disagreements among others, and i think it is important to make sure that we put personalities aside and try to work to solve this problem. we recognize it could be a

concern and we are working diligently on it. >> as the leaders of your two offices, it is it your job to get these employees to rise above this and rebuild the trust level? and what is the plan to do that? and how you plan to resolve substantive disputes between the offices in the future? >> i strive to be sure i am a good manager and make sure these issues do not impact the effectiveness of our offices, and i will work diligently to attempt to address that through individual consultations as well as perhaps collective ways to resolve personality issues not dealing with substantive issues. >> mr. fong? >> those who work with me know that i take my leadership and management responsibilities very seriously. i have spent a lot of time in my almost two years at the department ensuring that our lawyers to work well with their

clients and others around them. i have taken specific actions to remedy issues that have arisen. and as you said earlier, this is not unusual for career professionals who care deeply about what they do and are very dedicated, hard-working professionals who disagree at times. and as you said, i believe they should try to rise above their disagreements. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. for the record, we have been informed that the ap's 9-month- old application under the administrative objection has not yet been heard. with that, we recognize the gentleman from utah. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will refer to the associated press reports, read statements from that, and get your reaction to them. tell me if you believe they are

true or false. if a member of congress sought such documents, employes were told to specify a democrat or republican. >> sir, that is how congressmen are referred to. >> this is a new policy, correct? >> actually is not. it was a policy established in 2006. it is during the weekly report in which we report these elements. >> to the white house? >> actually, to the department, and they may or may not report specific elements to the white house. >> i want to clarify this report. the second sentence of the july 7, 2009, from you, the privacy office foia leadership integrates this into the white house liaison. >> and by integrating it, i don't know what goes on with the

integration process. it may or may not include it. house?was for the white o >> that is a front office process. in the two years i have been here, i believe a member of congress has been listed on it once. >> first paragraph, for at least a year, only security d quarter requests for political records -- be toward requests for political records. >> i disagree with that assessment, as demonstrated in my written testimony. it was a process to provide awareness to the senior leaders. >> probing for information about and deemed itoors, too politically sensitive. >> as i discussed with the ranking member and in the inspector general's report, there were management challenges with the initial way we tried to do this awareness process.

political affiliation, parties of interest but not play a factor. it was logistical issues rather than management challenges, and that was demonstrated. >> it seems to be inconsistent with your directive of july 7, 2009. "the department abandon the practice after the associated press investigated." is that true? >> it is not true. >> let me keep telling, thinking. you have answered the question. i have a short amount of time. "career employees were ordered to provide secretary janet napolitano's political staff with information about people who asked for records, such as where they live, whether they were private citizens or reporters, and the organizations were they worked." true or false? >> this is a process since 2006 to provide awareness into significant issues that may be going into the public domain. >> "two exceptions require white

house review -- spending under the $862 billion stimulus law and the calendars for cabinet members." is that correct? >> anything that has white house equities requires white house review. >> white house equity, what does that mean? >> to the extent the secretary was in the white house, disclosing some sort of the element, this is a typical process of referring foia requests to different departments. that is a standard process. >> "under the e hundred $62 billion stimulus," was that part of it -- under the $862 billion stimulus," was that part of it? is that correct? >> ithat is correct. >> why? >> i am not a policy person in

this area. >> is that a directive from the white house? >> i believe i was instructed by the office of the secretary to do that, and we processed it. >> who directed you to do that? is that a document that you can provide? >> i believe is the deputy chief. >> if it is not in the record, would you provide that? >> certainly, but i think it is in the record with the deputy chief of staff, and we did so. >> my time has expired. >> would the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> who was that one member of congress? >> it was not sent to the white house. >> who was it? >> i believe it was senator grassley when he was asking for a request. we modified it and answered it

three different process. members of congress did not often file foia requests, so it is a relatively moot point. >> we now recognize the former chairman of the full committee, mr. towns, for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. at the meagan, -- let me begin, first, ms. callahan, think fee- for-service. -- thank you for your service. you have asked many questions about the laser responding to foia. can you please explain to this committee what circumstances, with situations might delay you in responding to foia? >> yes, sir. as you know, we take our responsibility seriously. at the same time, there are several steps that i detailed in

my written testimony that describe the process that every foia -- of the 130,000 we received last year, each foia must go through the steps to identify the federal records, the parties who may have information, that we have applied the appropriate exemptions, we have looked at legal issues, and the process has been reviewed to make sure that there is not any information that is inappropriately disclosed or redacted. despite having high standards, the average processing time for foia's in the department is 95 days. that is right now several days more efficient than the department of justice, at 113 days, but it is a standard that we are trying to achieve and surpassed. delays are not appropriate for any foia, and we are trying to mitigate that problem. >> are any of these delays

called by -- caused by political involvement? >> as i described in my initial testimony and written testimony, there were some processes that were involved in the awareness review for the department, but did not involve political activities or instigations as the inspector general indicated. the initial way we started to give the front office of the secretary awareness into some of the significant foia that may make media attention were not up to my standards and we have modify that process. i believe now we have a best practice in terms of providing awareness not only to the front office but also to the other foia officers if there are requests that may impact their equities. >> ms. callahan, can you explain the 2006 directive in which foia requests are referred to the secretary's office? can you explain that?

>> sir, i cannot explain that, because i was not here in 2006, but i understand it is the ordinary process of all administrations to have awareness into significant activities each component. my privacy office provides two weekly reports, one on the activities of the entire office and separately on foia's that may meet the standards for awareness for the front office. but i understand it is typical practice, not only across the administration but the federal government. >> thank you. mr. fong, what can be done to eliminate the delays? >> i think a lot of what can be done has been done in terms of the significant review process, having it on the share point system one day gives time for awareness, but does not add to the delay of the process of

releasing the documents. i think in general, if we were more coordinated as a department, we spend a lot of time as a relatively new department trying to figure out who may be relevant components program individuals, what documents need to get to whom for the foia professionals to review. our lawyers are very busy, hard- working, but their plates are full. it takes time to do an analysis, to gather facts, make judgments. i would also said that while i agree it is important to be prompt, there has been much made of the 20 business days time line, which, in my view, is a misnomer. if one thinks of it as a violation, it merely provides

that the agency must make a determination within 20 business days, after which a requestor may appeal or seek judicial redress if such a determination is not made. there are provisions that permit an agency to request an extension, and, as miss callahan indicated, many agencies take on average longer than 20 business days to respond to a foia request. while we have an interest in releasing promptly, this is a process that courts and others have recognized as the federal government has become more complex, it's inherently takes time. >> thank you very much and thank you both for your service. i yield back. >> i think the former chairman. >> thank you both for your

appearance here today before the committee. ms. callahan, thank you for your service. if you do not have an easy job. it is a complex job, with a great scope of information associated not just with the free flow, but also, at times, information that may relate to investigations or other kinds. it is not an easy job. but the ap has reported that in december, 2009, you found a level of scrutiny that we have had the base established through prior testimony. you understand what i am talking about in terms of the oversight of political appointees. you say this level of attention is crazy. i really want somebody to foia holddamn process. what did you mean? -- i really want somebody to foia this whole damn process.

>> that was to my staff. the initial review was not sufficient, and it had its management challenges. at the time, -- therefore, that is why we had moved to the share point system that mr. fung referenced an i.d. tell that my testimony. we were not technologically able to do that in december of 2009. share point did not come into my office until march, 2010. at the time, i was discussing not the awareness review, because i continue to believe the sector has important equities and having awareness into this -- the secretary has import equities and having awareness into this, but the level of detail and paying attention to what was perhaps not where i would have put my emphasis. >> is it your testimony that was purely process? >> yes. >> it is just a question of process? >> not questioning the review

itself, but the level of detail. >> we have established there is a level of review that goes on in the form of responsibilities for political appointees to have to affirmatively indicate as to whether or not inflation is to be released? >> let me be clear, that process has been modified and we no longer have that at all. that was the initial process, and that has significant management challenges. that did not meet my standards and that is what the process was modified. >> this does not happen at all now? there is no affirmative review? >> absolutely not. barry a fyi -- there is a fyi review. previously, we had no way of sharing them between the front office and through the components through e-mail. >> are you making the calculations as to sensitive information?

let's assume there is no politics but there is a security interest. are you responding to this based significantly on the issue from a foia perspective, or reduction or other issues? at the current system, it may help explain it. -- the current system, let me explain. we have an internet-based system where we up loaded. then the people's with equities review it and other foia officers review it, so it is accessible in a centralized base. in that way, we send out notification and say the request has been made. >> it is a notification process. there is no more thumbs-up, or affirmative, but any kind of person above you? >> that is correct, sir, and that was changed in july of 2010. this is a notification process. people can look at the

underlying documents. that has happened a couple times were people have caught the their decision information that may have -- people have caught decision information that may have been sent out. it has only happened a handful of times since july. that is a better process. >> there is no longer any delay as there was in the past or something would have been prepared for release by you and would have taken an additional amount of time to go up the chain before you got the affirmative approval by the political appointee? >> the new share point system has the documents but loaded the next day -- one day, and then it is moved on the next day. that is to make sure that we did not disclose all enforcement sensitive or other decision information inappropriately. >> mr. fong, what level of training or engagement do you have with those political appointees about their responsibility and their

obligations under the freedom of information act who participate with you in the review of these documents? >> i just want to be clear what your question this. when you refer to the political appointees. >> those who in the past had to affirmatively indicates. it is a complex. and you appreciate that. they were doing affirmative indication, and now, presumably, that is no longer the case. my concern with moving forward, notwithstanding if you are still participating, to what extent do those individuals have any say, may be able to reach back and say, do not release that yet? >> of course, that is part of the process then and now that the attorneys in our office who have experience and expertise in

this area stand ready to be consulted at any time, whether it is the foia professionals or the political appointees or program managers to have a better sense of the impact of the disclosure as is required be assessed under the attorney general's guidance manual. all of that information is relevant to making a legal determination, and our lawyers are involved in making those determinations. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am a little surprised where we have allegations of politicization being made, and i see nothing but pure politics and nonsense. i would hope to be taken seriously as a committee that the majority would begin to act that way and take down that material and approach this with a degree of seriousness with which it deserves. that said, ms. callahan, i think

you and mr. fong for your testimony. i know eventually the ap story said they were not able to substantiate the most serious allegations made in the story are subsequent comments. just to put that in context. but i was concerned what i thought at one point in the ents involvingevtn the recovery act. i asked the interview, and she basically said at one point she thought she was advised that all requests needed to be sent to the white house, but was advised that was not the case. does that conform with your understanding? >> thank you for that, and that reflect -- that refreshes my recollection that is indeed the case, thank you. >> last year you receive 130,000 freedom of information act

requests. is that accurate? >> that is correct. >> about 6 under were significant enough to require additional review? -- about 600 were significant enough to require additional review? >> 85 of the responses had passed the processing deadline before there were submitted to the office of the secretary. he also said about the delays the one that were under the review process were short, one to four days. it still caused delays. have modified that process to make it a notification only system. we have mitigated the inspector general's concerns in that way. >> also, when this administration took office, they

already had a backlog in the department of more than 74,000 requests. >> is that correct? >> the highest in the federal government's history. we have done it down to 11,000 foia requests. >> it strikes me at a time of fiscal austerity, you had to hire 40 more full-time positions to do with this enormous number of requests for an affirmation. >> i believe that in case the department's commitment to foia, to increase the number of hires. >> we have a lot of challenges to make and a lot of choices to make with respect to the budget and there seems to be a commitment there to take 40 full-time positions allocated.

the thing that strikes me is the bill put forward by the majority would make across-the-board cuts to the office of the secretary, significant cuts. 9%. the president was going to raise it and h.r. 1 would make more cuts. what will that do to get to the transparency issue? >> it could significantly hinder it. i have been able to double the size of my staff since i have been there. the department has shown commitment around foia across the board. i am concerned these cuts will significantly impact our processing. the foia officers discuss that with me. do you agree?a >> i concur with ms.

callahan's judgment. we're trying to make processes as efficient as possible but there is an inevitable draft of reductions. >> thank you for testimony. i yield back. >> mr. langford is recognized for five minutes. thank you for being here. the sheer point system seems like that is working and you're comfortable. i understand it will be better than the mailing documents back and forth. you'll be able to review them there. does that increased and efficient -- efficiency help in the budget? you have seen an increase of efficiency. is there an increase anywhere else? >> have not thought about it but

because it is a centralized system and labor is disbursed because the component officer will upload the information and my office will do the notification to across the department. it probably does make it more efficient for labor as well as for awareness. >> you mentioned before there was a one day that -- the day before from office gets it and they can have this applauded before it gets sent out to the request your. have you had any moment once the notification has been made there is a contact back and saying hang on to that, we need to check it for for whatever reason, have those slowed? >> yes. the share point system started in july 2010. it was a three day notification system. we had moved to a one day notification system. since july, we have had a handful of times including one i caught last month that involved

international equities that were inconsistently redacted. i said wait a second, this needs to be reviewed and check for consistency. i did a reply oil and set the stage to be checked and i instructed my director to have it reprocessed and it has been a handful of times by my recollection since the share point system started. each time, there has been good catches and we have confirmation that would have been inappropriate to disclose. >> none of the times it was caught and slowed down, it was not for political reasons or we need to get our story straight before this goes out issue. >> absolutely not. >> the issue you brought up about catching up. people want to request information and it is great to start getting caught up on the backlog that has been there. the document i have received, talking about a report to dhs and the annual freedom of

information reports makes a comment about the length of time it takes in 2009 against 2010. are you familiar with that and the timing? >> i issued the report. i am not familiar with that except quotation. >> it talked about the medium number of days. it is now to 93 in 2010. in 2009, the average number of days was 74 days and 2010 was 120. it is processing through where the share point system is coming on line. there's a lot of the backlog. in 2010, it is catching up and getting better. you mentioned we are getting faster. it looks like it is slowing down somewhat. >> if i could clarify. with regard to the awareness review. it was a small number of requests that were impacted. they should have no impact on

the processing. the number of days you quoted is not -- that does not -- that is not consistent with my recollection. perhaps there was some numbers i am not familiar with. >> we will share this with you. we can get a response back. you can give us a written response and say here is what the actual numbers are, that would be terrific. >> i would be happy to clarify that. >> what is the decision on making a significant request? what is the criteria that is set? >> the criteria for a significant reporting has stayed the same since 2006. it is issues that will be discussed in the media so we know they are going on. as has been discussed several times, we received an extraordinary amount of requests.

weekly report is sent to the firstfront office. this component of the same request as another. it is for awareness purposes. sensitive topics, priorities, and litigation. >> if a private citizen made that and handed it over, that may not rise up. some of it is the request your or the topic. >> it is the topic that would be of interest. if the media requested it, it is assumed it is a topic of media interest. the media is included for notification purposes. >> we will recognize mr. welch for five minutes. you arrived at the correct time. >> thank you. this question of transparency is an important one. mike understanding is you get

overwhelmed with requests and to position is you are transparent, you are doing your job as best you can, is that right? >> i tried. >> i want to give you an opportunity to explain why you believe you are meeting that standard. let me share in what you have been doing and what your responses are to the assertions that have been made about your failure to do that. >> thank you. the department and the professionals there have made herculean efforts to get the backlog down from its high of 98,000. they are under amazing pressure and they do amazing work all the time. in addition to reducing the backlog, in addition to providing -- >> i will interrupt you. here is what will be helpful for us and you. to explain -- the backlog was x

and now is it is x-minus. all of us respect and appreciate the hard work that you and your fellow workers are doing. the more concrete you can be with us, the more hopeful it is for the khomeni to be able to come to the right conclusion. >> as i indicated, in fiscal year 2009, we had a backlog of 74,000 requests. that has been reduced to 84% in the past two years to an 11,383 backlog request. in addition, we have received 102,000 requests in fiscal year 2009 while processing 160,000

foia requests. that is the work of the u.s. citizenship and immigration service. in addressing and getting more efficient. this accounts for 70% of foia's that process. received between 8010 thousand foia requests and have been able to commitment by uscis to reduce that. >> there are some allegations in the report that the front office that dhs was interfering with requests by correcting errors without going foia -- with outgoing foia responses. i wanted to have you tell the committee what type of specific errors to the front office to review how to correct? >> as i have detailed, the front

office reviewed the cover letter as well as the underlying response. they did not make any changes to the responses, but they did identify several times where there were typographical errors and other elements that were not consistent with professionalism standards i would like. they have caught those in their awareness review of the documents. >> ok. according to the inspector general's report, the ig provided -- stated, we were not able to substantiate the most serious allegations made by the ap story or subsequent comment. we determined the review process lead to inefficiencies and slower processing of certain responses. what were some of the inefficiencies you observed and

what steps were taken by dhs management including your front office, general counsel's office, and your office to reduce these inefficiencies and has the response time improved? >> absolutely. we take these issues seriously. we had identified these problems and have self corrected it. the initial original awareness process was done via e-mail and it was a relatively cumbersome process. as soon as we had a technology solution we could provide an internet based system where everyone could access, we move from the e-mail system to the internet based system and that process has been more efficient. i believe it is a leader in the federal government. >> think you. -- thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. >> i wanted to point out to my colleague, he questioned the posters behind the chair and

the and he said why are there political statements on the back wall? if the tillman read the briefing document, he would know that political statement is the title of the hearing. i wanted to point that out so folks who are in the audience have looked at the title of the hearing and see it on the wall and that is not a coincidence. although some of my colleagues may think it is. i would be happy to yield the balance of my time. >> thank you. ms. callahan, what is the purpose of foia? >> to inform the public of the elements of the federal government. >> tell me whether or not something where discoverable or not. >> discoverable is not quite the right term. >> this administration applies a

presumption of disclosure unlike the previous administration. >> i was not asking for political comment. i'm asking for the elements. that you applied to determine not which administration is better than another, the legal elements you applied in determining whether or not you should turn something over. >> foia applies to all federal records and we seek to find all responsible records and we look at them as -- those records in case there are specific exemptions. there are nine exemptions that may need to be applied to documents or alamance. >> it should be turned over unless there is an exception. >> yes. >> why with the employment of the person seeking the rec

matter? >> it does not matter. >> what what that have been part of the calculus that was used? >> it was not. the weekly report that summarizes anything that may be of media interest -- >> how do we know that it was not part of the calculus that was used? >> the inspector general's report indicates political calculations were not part of the process. >> i am asking about residency and employment. what does it matter if they are private or a reporter? >> it does not matter. >> can be both? >> yes. >> why would you track that information? >> it is only summarize because it may become part of media interest or tension. >> why? why keep whether or not it is a private citizen that is requesting the information or a reporter? >> it is a requirement to

disclose who is requesting. the log say the name of the person who is requesting it unless it is a privacy act request. >> the employment of the person is part? >> sometimes the media affiliation may be part of a lot. -- log. >> what about the political affiliation? why is the part of the calculus? >> it is not. >> you do not track whether it is a republican or democrat requesting the information? >> under foia, we hvave gotten only one request during my tenure. >> you said when senator grassley, when his had gone to the process, it was delivered to the political review system in the office of the secretary, you took care of his request your

other fashion. >> i am sorry if that is what you interpret it. >> that is what you said. you said you took care of it to another system and you did not know about it until you were rough -- informed that a republican senator had a request that was ready to go up. >> the initial in coming. the weekly report summarizes the incoming requests that come in so they are summarizing what the request is. senator grassley may or may not have been on the report. we never processed his response pursuant to foia. >> i apologize. i yield back. it is clear that you take care of politicians differently in the one case. >> if a member of congress -- that is inaccurate. >> we are supposed to indicate which is that democrat or republican. >> ?

>> that is the way that you are addressed. i do not know what it -- why it was a recommendation of my career staff. the standards from 2006 were modified slightly based on your recommendations. >> my time has expired. >> we now recognize the distinguished gentleman from illinois. >> mr. connolly. >> i thought the report found that there was a lot more

transparency at dhs than in the previous administration. is that true? >> i believe that is one of the conclusions by the inspector general. one of the things my office established in august 2009 is a policy of proactive disclosure to attempt to put up the frequently requested documents and elements that may -- people may want to seek. the chairman saw foia logs for many departments. >> i continue to find offensive and propagandist and one of these is framed in an offensive way.

the testimony and the report of the inspector general suggests the answer to the question. what that the previous administration had been so transparent. some have been equally as concerned about transparency and backlog and politicization. what was the backlog? how high it reached? was it true that the backlog from the previous administration had 98,000? >> that is correct. >> by the time they left it was down to 74,000. >> that is correct. >> what is it now? >> 11,000. one-ninth of its previous high under the previous administration. the idea that someone's political affiliation, when did

the practice began? >> it was a recommendation from my career staff to added. i do not think it is material. we do not usually differ for requests from members of congress. >> that is correct. in terms of notifying political leadership if that is what you can call it. the non-career political appointees leadership picked by the president, often confirmed by the senate, notifying them of the status of requests, when did the practice began? >> in terms of notifying when responses one out, that has been a longstanding process. >> it began in the previous administration? >> the awareness review and having a systematic process started in this administration. >> this administration. >> we have a state of their solution to it. >> i was the chairman of fairfax county, one of the largest counties before i came here. the va has one of the most open

sunshine laws and vigorous laws in the united states. e-mail, phone logs, and the correspondence, all memos are subject to foia and strict time lines in terms of getting requests fulfilled by the media or others. i was the chairman of the county. it was routine practice our legal counsel would notify the political leadership of pending requests so we were not surprised. i find it shocking that some of my colleagues think that is done -- and on toward development. i think that is responsible management. is there any evidence and maybe this is the nature of their concern of political interference once made aware in responding to requests? >> i have no knowledge of any political interference with regard to the awareness review. i believe the inspector general

made the same conclusion. >> thank you. are you aware of any such political interference? >> i agree that the report which took a close look at this issue did not find any evidence of improper interference. >> would it be fair, looking at the backlog of progress and the policies regarding transparency and a lack of political and your ferrets, one could conclude the transparency of dhs in this administration has improved over the previous? >> that is a fair statement. >> thank you. we have answered that question of the chairman's head. i will yield back. >> thank you. if i can summarize this. there is a presumption in favor of disclosure. there are exemptions.

you do not believe there has been any political interference. would you concede that slow walking are taking your time in complying with an otherwise legitimate request could be interference? >> there are many steps and that could create delay. >> including slow walking something. taking your time and reviewing it and deciding when to disclose it? >> i hope that would not have happened but that could be one of the many possibilities of delays. >> that would constitute interference, you would concede. >> our professionals take their responsibility seriously. >> that was not my question. is even simpler. is slow walking or delaying the disclosure of information interference? >> it is delayed. -- delay. >> what about an overuse of

exemptions in the reduction process? >> that is also something that would give me pause. the inspector general's report raises an issue i had not previously identified. the department has been using the exemption b-5 perhaps -- increasingly starting in 2006. >> perhaps. >> it has been increasing. >> where do you find an exclusion or exemption for the phrase, this is bananas. >> b-5 is for delivery to live -- >> can you see anywhere that an exemption would apply to an e-

mail that said, this is bananas? >> we provided documents to you. i would ask the agility be given the opportunity to review the document. >> do you know where in the package it is? >> slide 3. i do not have slides here. if the question is about the production, this looks like the production to the associated press. my office did not process this

request under a typical process, typical standards. we were recused. >> you are still an expert. can you possibly find an exemption for the phrase, this is bananas? >> part of the purpose is to have a vigorous and reasonable dialogue and perhaps it was the determination of the office that was part of a deliberative process rather than a final decision. i was not involved in this reduction. >> what about the note, spoke confirm.dan and he will confe is that part of an exception? >> that was part of the request from the associated press. the office of the secretary had made some recommendations to

modify our boiler plate responses to make them more streamlined and they did not understand that several of the paragraphs were required by law. therefore, after consulting with the office of general counsel, we decided to use the same standards. that was a predecisional document. i did not make the determination but an exemption would be appropriate. >> you do think it would be appropriate. for that phrase. >> the response was not changed. >> for those that may not be familiar, what is the process if you are redacting an impermissible way, who gets to review that? >> how do we know what we do not

know? if you are redacting something, who gets to decide whether or not the reduction was appropriate? >> a detailed the entire process including the possibility of consulting with counsel. once the requests are received, they have several appeal options and going to court. >> i cannot see. why would that be an exception? >> i am concerned about the overuse in this department. we have discussed it and we're going to look at a systemic solution to the issues the inspector general raised. >> we know it was coming. they're trying to substantially edit our letters. why is that an exemption? >> i do not have knowledge of the processing for this element.

i will not able to continue to enter these questions. >> would you agree that is not appropriate use? >> this was not my processing. >> the agilent time is expired. now we go to the distinguished the gentleman from illinois for five minutes. >> thank you. i sit next to the other gentleman from illinois. i was not certain. since both have testified that neither are aware of political interference in responding to requests, i will yield the balance of my time to the ranking member. >> thank you. i want you to -- i think you admit and the inspector general will agree. things are not perfect.

note -- none of our offices are perfect. we have great people but they are not perfect. i am concerned about this. recommendation #five. it says that the secretary issued a written guidance. you just said you were working on addressing the issue of exemption no. 5. tell me what you are planning to do. what do say -- what do you say? how do you address that? one of my colleagues say how do we go forward? when you said you had reduced by

90% the backlog. that is phenomenal. now we want to do better. this president said he wants to do better. i want you to address that issue. >> i want to do better as well. i had not identified this as a systemic problem until the inspector general brought it to my attention. we have not had a chance to do a thorough plan. i think it will look at the specific elements of b-5. training and materials and education will make sure when the exemption is used it will be used properly and it should not be used to -- for embarrassment

purposes. >> how long have you been in that position? >> two years. >> have you been in the department before then? >> i was in the private sector. >> referred back to 2006 to three times and i was looking at some guidelines dated august 4, 2006 create it says select requests for submission in one of the following criteria is a four congressional -- that has been a policy since 2006. >> without change, yes, sir. >> when you came in and trying to do this transparency, an

effort to make things more transparent. i take it you review these things so you know what the guidelines are? >> i did. i relied on my career foia professionals. we looked at the guidance and decided to issue it as a memorandum to show its importance but also added some ministerial and formatting elements to be more professional and consistent with how we refer to things. the substance of the submission guidelines have not changed. >> there was nothing in between 2006 and when you came in? >> that is correct. >> that is where you have to go back to. >> yes sir. >> is it safe to say that during the bush years, 2006 through 2008, these were the guidelines. >> that is correct. there remained the guidelines essentially today. >> the attorney made some

complaints about your departments such as the commitment to producing documents and questions about resources. the made a number of allegations. since you will not be here to enter those, we would benefit the committee with your responses. they were rather serious. >> to clarify, you may have been referring to the inspector general. the republican staff report. >> i have not had an opportunity to read the entire report. i did carefully reviewed the allegations made concerning

attorneys in my office, including career attorneys who worked there with great success for some time. when i first saw the section heading, my initial reaction was one of concern. as you indicate, that makes serious allegations about lawyers i know well. i take seriously as i should any allegation of wrongdoing by my staff. upon further examination of the portion of the report dealing with the lawyers, my concern turned into indignation. i believe the report paints an unfair and irresponsible portrait of certain people and events. the report reads more like an advocacy peace rather than a sober, a substantive, this passionate investigative report. the portion of the report that focuses on the office of the general counsel is quite unlike the inspector general's report which resulted from a serious

fact-finding effort and makes six constructive recommendations, all of which the department has concurred with. >> thank you. i think he has fully answered his opinion. we now go to the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you. ms. callahan, in your written testimony, you state two years ago, the department faced a backlog of 74,000 requests. under this administration, used to reduce the backlog by 84% or more than 63,000 requests. in his interview with the committee, a member of your staff pointed out that 30,000 records were transferred to the

department of state. literally boxes on pallets were dumped on the state department when we had done our portion of the processing. do you feel that it is fair to take credit for backlog reductions that have simply been transferred to another agency and the record to remain in the federal government? >> if i could clarify what the process is. i am familiar with the incident as i had testified earlier. the u.s. citizenship and immigration services has done an amazing job of processing their files. they received between 8010 thousand requests a month for alien and immigration files. each department processes their own records. once uscis had processed the documents, they refer.

because the u.s. cis was getting their backlog down, the department of state was the beneficiary of that. some of those records that were not only of dhs documents the department of state documents. we're attempting -- that is a one time circumstance. one way we could mitigate this is for cis to sign an mou to process department of state documents and i believe that is in discussion. >> this backlog was not reduced by your department. by your office. >> it has been reduced by all the professionals. the 420 that work hard every day. >> the credit seems to me and a different spot.

according to recent report, a portion of the reductions achieved was the result of the federal contract signed under the previous fenestration. in light of the fact a private company completed this work under contracts signed under the previous administration, is a not somewhat disingenuous for you to credit these reductions to this administration? >> the reductions further reductions. uscis has made an incredible effort and they have done so in coordination with contracts. i applaud them for applying such a significant priority to getting that backlog down. they have done an amazing effort. >> credit where credit is due. politics where politics is due. let me ask another question. during their interviews, the officers stated the front office

approval was needed before they could release responses. your deputy chief officer testified, from office were reviewing and approving. absolutely. if we could not send something out the door, until they gave the thumbs up, that is approval. do you agree -- disagree that policy was in place? >> the original park was an affirmative acknowledgment they have received the foia and reviewed the foia. we attempted to mitigate that. we move to a notification system and is more efficient. >> thank you. ayyub. >> just to review. you took credit for a big reduction that $7.6 million

worth of bush era money paid for the contract and reduced. you took credit for records transferred to another workload of other people. you have some hard working people and i appreciate that. how to those people feel about the day after our whistle blower and others giving testimony, the whistle-blower gets taken out of her office, moved to an inferior office with inferior title and has her job narrowed in scope and i am told she is on health leave. i am listening to all of this and i am saying, isn't that the most chilling affect anyone could have to see that if you tell the truth to congress, the next day, your job is reduced enter offices changed and it is not called a demotion but it sure as hell looks like one? >> there are several elements of the process that i cannot speak to hear.

i would be happy to have a non- public briefing about certain personnel issues. >> my time is expired. we do not do nonpublic issues when a whistle-blower is penalized and hundreds of hard- working people see the effect of testifying honestly under oath before congress. i yield back. >> we will have a second round. i will began. in.bega ms. callahan said she was recused but you are not. you are in political appointee. the counsel's office does redacting. isn't that true?

>> i am not familiar with the specifics of the process. >> i will make it simpler. you are a political appointee. other people are political appointees. your department as redacting. -- it does redacting. >> we may adjudicate or interpret the statute. quick to add thing -- you at things. >> determinations made by the office of privacy. >> in the case of the ap's sensitive request, they found you doing the reduction of the material delivered. your office headed by a political appointee did the reductions that are being talked about. your office, people under your control. yes or no is all we need to

know. >> no. >> who did the reduction we're talking about today? we're seeing some upsurge reactions here. who did them? >> i do not know who made the specific reductions. qassim year career lawyer was involved in giving legal advisor to those who made the reductions. i cannot speak to the specifics. >> i will ask you a closing question. the president said and was unambiguous he wanted to err on the side of disclosure. if you had a recused department on a particular request, the ap request, why would it not have been appropriate to meet the spirit of the president's own words to simply say to the career professionals, we're not going to second-guess this one. we will err on the side of

openness. we will not have a further review by those in your office and others who might have suggested further reductions, some of which look like covering up embarrassments for deliver to of cover up conversations. the meaning of these items which we are releasing his a small part of the discovery, has never been given to the ap. why is that it would not have been appropriate to have erred on the side and take your chances that it once, something would get out. it would not be perfect, even though it was done by the career professionals? >> it would not have been appropriate because the president's memorandum did not say to ignore the law. the law includes exemptions. we are duty bound. >> i have heard enough of a political appointee who

interfered clearly with career professionals. we have a whistle-blower who your organization has punished that was part of an overall disclosure we have become aware of. let me close because my time is limited. we're not done with this. the minority may think this is not right. our expectation is from this day forward, we what the rest of the documents that were requested. we want to see the mall. additionally, i am putting you on notice that as we view the ap request, which is nine months delayed, they have not had their day in court to get some of the things we're seeing here today. we're going to have additional hearings so that we fully understand why an item by line item introduction that they are waiting to see nine months later and have not seen. i would ask that you do what you

need to do to ensure that we do not have another hearing. make an expeditious decision on this appeal. nine months, the associated press to want to know something that have led to material changes in how you do business. nine months later, capias to winning on responses to these and the only answer we got here is, i did not review them, i was recused. i did not work on it. "it isot explain why it i bananas" gets redacted. the foia statute is unambiguous. it is through narrow exemptions and if they are abused once, and it is delivered, they have been abused. i yelled to live ranking member. >> thank you. -- i yield to the ranking

member. >> thank you. i used to represent lawyers when they got in trouble. i know that license to practice law is very important. we're held to a very high standard as officers of the court. when i asked you about the allegations in this report, i could tell that you got a little bit emotional. you share what i share. i know the feeling. i want to give you a chance to respond to some of these allegations. there is something that while the chairman is concerned about people being demoted, i am concerned about that but i am concerned about people's reputations. and lawyers, we have a high standard to set. mr. talking about the lawyers in your office. there have been allegations that may have been made that could

possibly lead down the road to some serious problems for those lawyers. i want you to respond and most of lawyers i would guess could be making more money if they were in private practice are doing something other than government work. they're dedicated employees and the refuse to allow them to have a blanket of - allegations be placed on them without giving you a chance to respond. >> thank you for giving me this opportunity to supplement my answer to your earlier question. it is, as you indicate, truly unfortunate that the attorneys who are the subject of the majority report are in fact career attorneys, a line attorney in one instance and a senior attorney for the

department, to have their names dragged into a public report support -- for performing their duties as attorneys. i have reviewed their performance and continued to do so. i have not found any indication of unethical activity or improper practice of law. dhs attorneys i know are hard- working, dedicated professionals. the report has hemlines but this report does not describe the attorney i know -- attorneys i know and work with. i believe we have cooperated and acted in good faith. thank you for this opportunity to respond. >> i would like you to finish what you were saying. the chairman talks about

fairness and people's reputations and demotions. there have been serious allegations made here. i do not know what the truth is. i would like for you to able -- be able to answer the question. >> thank you. she competed for a promotion, a new position i was given by the department demonstrating the importance of foia. it was a laborious and detailed process. she was not selected and that was confirmed by the office of personnel management. >> where was that decision made? >> the initial selection of the proposed ses was december 17.

she was informed she was -- had not received a promotion on january 10. we were working on him on board -- working on onboarding. it was not released from her department until march 2. we received notification that her department had released her. we were informed by the office of the chief human capital officer that her start date would be march 14. we took the first opportunity to notify her on march 4 which would have been the day after testimony. it was in order to give her notice this was happening. she was aware it was coming on board and she did not know the date certain. we were attempting to tell her

with as much time as possible so she could move offices. the office moves are comparable. i had made a decision to have the new ses closer to me. they're one of two people who report to me. >> will take a five minute recess to set up for the next panel. did you want a second round? i apologize. >> i did and i appreciate the opportunity. >> and you do. i want to go to exhibit 7 if you could have that shown. in this e-mail, the deputy chief of staff, you explain why the office must repeat the request

ears language verbatim to minimize legal liability. she responds by saying or writing, we have to repeat allegations in foia's. can we get a reading prior to tomorrow? what did she mean? >> i am not sure. i was not copied on this portion of the email. >> you responded to it. >> i was the original e-mail. she forwarded it on to colleagues asking for their response. >> what do think she might mean? >> hsu was asking whether or not my summary was complete. >> you are the chief privacy officer. and a liar. >> i am not a lawyer in this

position. i need to clarify that. >> i am a minister and i am always the minister. why did she have to go to the office of general counsel? >> as with any office, there are reasonable disagreements and she was confirming what i have said. she was making sure that was accurate. she received that confirmation. >> do you believe the staff had an appropriate understanding or appreciation of statutes and processes? >> they have a much more robust understanding then when they first arrived. >> that is changing. >> i hope so. >> i yield. panel will be different. this hearing has never been about the reduction in the

backlog. whether that was produced by contractors, paid over $7 million, buy new equipment or by transferring to other departments. this has been about somewhere north of 1000 requests that were politically sensitive that involved the press in most cases. a member of congress in one case. those are the ones we have never really talked about. the receive them and make decisions and send them out. those are the ones this committee received.

i want to make clear in closing, this is not about the reduction or increase. it is not about the very great and positive towards the president obama said on day one when he wanted to make a statement there would be more errness and effectively weer on the side of disclosure. hopefully we will understand that we want to limit this to only the portion which is by definition controversial. sharepoint is a great piece of software supporting it so someone can make a decision which we can only know in their minds, there process, has to be scrutinized by this committee. we are the committee of all the questions of abuse and we are

the overseer of the hatch act and other laws designed to keep politics out of the policy of the executive branch. thank you for yielding. we will take a five minute recess. recess.