Then we need to address that and be communicating clearly with us about the impact of the request, and how we can better Work Together. If it is the latter, then you will just be dragged into this committee, and subcommittees until the end of time. Because it is disrespectful not to address congress is right to have information. So, we need to figure out which one of these things it is. In the department of Human Services there was a request regarding secret service misconduct. There were a number of issues which were already addressed. My understanding is there is one more issue that is outstanding. Im not quite show what it is, are you aware of it . It is one of 16 issues that have been identified and have been responded to. With regard to the secret Service Request, were dealing with two different documents. One was the february 18 letter, that contained 16 requests. Complying with the request as a matter of fact. The process worked as it should. The request was very broad. So we went back to the committee and asked the committee to prioritize and that we could prioritize. Which, in fact, the committee did. You prioritize for lines of information which we were producing. In the course of that production, ultimately the july 9 subpoena came forward. It also had 18 requests. Most of which were overlapping with the february 18 letter, but it brought in the aperture. As a result, we have been producing on both of those documents. We continue to produce, even last night be produce documents in response to the federal every 18th request. February 18 request. If there is an outstanding do you have any idea or any estimate of the time that it would take to have that request answered . We are continuing to comply. Letter,ebruary 18 to there were 16 requests. 12 of them are closed. For remain open. We produce last night for two more. That means there is to that remain open on the request. On the july 9 subpoena to 18 requests. Wee remain open, and continue to produce some of those. Give you a definite timeline, but we have been producing and continue to produce. We will continue into such time as we can close these out. The department of justice issue is a little bit different. Versus our committees perspective. What form and the great we are entitled to information. But for the rest the department, are we in agreement there are outstanding requests that have waybeen responded to and a that this committee deems appropriate . We do about sending requests for the committee. But we are working to meet those request. Yes, my answer would be the same. Sometimes a think youre talking what apples and were talking what oranges. There remains one request which we will produce documents for. I simply want to echo our desire to Work Together to have the information we need to represent the people that sent us here to represent their interests. We are equally engaged in making americans are safe and secure end of the benefit of all the services. It seems to me what we are trying to accomplish as the oversight committee. I would hope that it would be reasonable you could tell us which one to think are closed in which one to think us to open. When i hear from staff that if we make it does requests and you say it or close we dont know which ones are still open. I hope that is a reasonable ask. Is that fair . Anybody want to actually say that and be recorded as saying yes . Lets go down the line and ask that is a reasonable request. We can give you the status of each of your request. Kadzik . That ismart, i get it, good lawyering. Were asking a direct question. Mr. Kadzik i think we know im asking you will you tell us on the outstanding requests moving forward will you tell us that . Have, and i think we will continue to do so. Ms. Johnson when we produce, we tell you what we are producing. The production last night when it is completed, tell us it is complete. Son yes and we said this is the requested document number four this is what we found. Or one outstanding request remains open. Will he tell us in the future when you have completed the request. Ms. Fucile yes, as i just said it is still outstanding. Will, we can indicate when it is closed. We believe we will let you know when things are close. Optimism that is come with five requests. We just need to know which are close within the body letter. In august of 2014i wrote to the attorney general. I expressed serious concerns about alterations made to prosecutorial guidelines that requested information about this decision from empress becton agency. A respected agency. Operation streamline was being terminated and that the u. S. Attorneys office will no longer be prosecuting first time undocumented immigrant. Guidance is of great concern because it undermines the mission of local Law Enforcement agencies throughout the county for 100 prosecution of those entering the United States illegally in order to curb the entries. The chairman also stated during an interview with a defendant from a recent smuggling case the subject told investigators that sense he had been in jail he and other partners are moving to other areas due to the hard stance on smuggling and the fact that if you are caught you go to jail. The federal governments failure to address Immigration Crisis and forcing cities in my district to step up and prevent the massive flow of illegal aliens entering the country. Of no5 a combination tolerance owned and increase manpower drawn the down a number of apprehensions in the region by nearly 95 . Just over 6000 and 2013. Despite this remarkable success unilaterally crippled Law Enforcement and terminated operation streamline as well as other worthwhile border programs. Tooctober 10 the doj replied my letter from august 28 about operation streamline being terminated. While i appreciated the prompt response, frankly im shocked that it took that long. Considering it essentially resembled a simple copy, cut, and paste. With such generic basic language that in no real terms could be considered an actual response. Rather than answering my question or providing any reasoning as to why it had been terminated, the department of justice responded with a letter it is ated longstanding practice not to provide specific information regarding criminal Law Enforcement policies. That is just of the outrageous. I dont think i am really anybody special. Im just a dentist impersonating a politician. I dont expect any special treatment from anybody. But i was elected. In accordance to the constitution of the United States, to have to Service Representative for the people of arizona. Including government oversight, before i asked the question i would like to add these three letters into the record. Chairman chaffetz so ordered. Centura both here, i will ask you one more time, which one of your agencies made the call to terminate operation streamline . Congressman, within the last two months we conducted briefings with respect to the status of immigration enforcement. I apologize if your staff was not invited to that briefing. But i would be happy to have that briefing provided to members of your staff give you the current status of immigration enforcement. I ask you a specific question. Who in your agency decided to terminate operation streamline . Mr. Kadzik i cant tell you that it has been terminated. I would say that as it letter unitedes the local states attorneys intimate prosecution policies. But those company doj directly. If asking you this question, he dont know the answer simply state the answer that you dont know. Mr. Kadzik i cant say i dont know because i dont believe that it was terminated. It has been terminated, you dont know the answer, ms. Johnson how about you . Ms. Johnson operation streamline is not department of Homeland Security operation. Dont have confidence to stick to that. Speak to that. Does the department of homeland to carry shrug off information requests of individual numbers of congress performing oversight duties . We johnson no caucus meant, do not shrug off requests that we received. Documentsproduce the that have been requested. Doesnt make a difference if theres more than one . Maybe 30 or 40 members writing a letter . As i can more attention . Does that get more attention . Ms. Johnson we do have to prioritize when youre subject to 92 to committees and subcommittees. Have to prioritize. Requests, we task them out to the appropriate components to search for the documents. As a doctor, it seems to me a problem has been misdiagnosed. If you cant keep up with congress, i understand that congress is a thirdparty. If you cant keep up with a document requests a view should reevaluate your conduct. Quit abusing the laws and follow the law. Mr. Kadzik we do recognize the gentleman from california. Thanked the Ranking Member for forgive me for being naive. Both theeem that committee and the department should be less pull and tug and gray areas. It strikes me that public documents are public documents. The sooner you have the documents i think it does is all well knowing there was some political latitude. My question is specifically to i had a specific letter that i sent to the department of justice and the attorney general. Let you just have it on the record. It was visavis the ability to enforce the Clean Air Act versus potentially or going to the Due Diligence when it comes to volkswagen. I have read interpretations that said this gap there was the letter that we said recklessly got a response. I will give that. If you could go back and let our office now what i was asking is there a possibility because it seems to me that is ,he only motivating factor having spent a long time in california. When it comes to break the date regulative agencies my question would be, can you pursue criminal acts. Given that as a pacific specific requests cap me. Is there a tactical reason why dont want to respond. It would be helpful for me to understand type can communicate that. With that, i give you the opportunity to respond. Suit did file a civil against volkswagen. Im not familiar with what criminal authorities we may have. I yield back. Mr. Kadzik thank you for a much. Chairman chaffetz they give her much. How long you been in your position . Mr. Kadzik about three years. Chairman chaffetz what to do before that . Mr. Kadzik i was in private law. Iq geomet to what mr. Lynch said i keep going back to what mr. Lynch said what appears to be never certain situation. It does appear to be that for some i dont care how you look at this. Thought youve been there longer than that. When you all of you this, do you view it as adversarial . Mr. Kadzik we dont. I think weve had a good working relationship with this committee during the past year. And we look forward to continuing to cooperate with you and the chairman to continue as much information as we can consist in with how lawenforcement responsibilities and confidentiality in the executive branch. I dont want it to be adversarial, i dont view it as adversarial. Expect and you require cooperation, and we hope to provide it. I dont think it should be adversarial. I worked on capitol hill for over 20 years. I have seen it for both sides. I think it can work invested we have a collegial relationship we can sit down and go over priorities and sequencing. Problem, we have to grapple with that income to the solution. I think it would be less frustration if we could just sit down and say these are the priorities. Where the document all the documents, we need all contracts. Then canthere and build on that later. We can continually talk to the staff. I feel like i have had Good Relationship with your staff. They can call me at any time, i can call them. I think that is the way that it works best. Not having a sort of confrontational relationship. Information as opposed to having a blanket kind of request would help. Mr. Kadzik yes. Chairman asked for, notification various Embassy Construction projects. That was a very clear direction from the chairman. We were able to respond to that in a few weeks. Then if anyone wanted more or different we can go on from there. I feel like that is the constructively to work with this committee. Not that we are balancing many requests. Many more than we frankly can deal with in a very constructive way. We will get the better. We are getting better. They will be less frustration if we can go over the plan. I recognizeffetz the gentleman from new york gentlewoman from new york. Prophetess, my apologies, we now recognize for five minutes. I want to visit with you about the waters of the u. S. When you give your testimony, you called it clean water rule. That was a new moniker that was given to that rule. Over the christmas holiday. In full knowledge that it was always called that rule and has been so thoroughly rejected by the people of this country. That caused the new name. One of the reasons you are here today is because even though your agency is exhausted from the work you had to do. Smallit, you are a agency, and that was an enormous legislation. But they would not even speak to congress about the omnibus until the first agree to strip from thatbill all of the riders had to do with policy including our decision to not fund the waters of the u. S. Rule. This is the Position Administration took on that rule. Easily one of the top 10 worst rules that has been adopted during the course of this administration. In fact, so bad that a Federal District court blocked the rule in 13 states, calling it an exceptionally expansive interpretation of federal jurisdiction. That would irreparably diminish the state power over their waters. Thes so serious that covercircuit expanded to the whole nation. This rule has the whole nation up in arms, which is why we want more information about it. We ask forand may 12 information about this rule. 4th, no documents were produced. Signed notter documents were produced. Subpoenaedittee these documents. We requested all documents and communications referring to the rule. A few documents were reduced produced, many of which were a printed copy of the rule. October 28, a letter was signed by this chairman, and others, and there has been no response. That is the reason youre here today. When afrustrated that rule that is this expansive and this provocative of statess promulgated, and the administration would even talk to us, to congress. And the, having all of those stayedsue to have it that we can get the information we are requesting but how this rule came about from the get go. Question, has it searched those whoof all worked on this rulemaking . Ms. Fucile as part of our search process we are in the process of going through all of the documents related to the review of the orders of the u. S. And we are in process of that. As the request came in it was for a nine year. 2014 so we6 until are going through that. How many custodians have you identified . Ms. Fucile i dont have that information. Would like to request, how many have you identified today . That is a request for information. Asked all staff to produce copies of documents related to the waters of the u. S. Rulemaking . Processle the search has gone through identified custodians, i dont know exactly who those are. I can find that out. I am requesting that. Irawant to know whether the o toff has documents related the rulemaking. We want to know if they have produced all potentially responsive documents for review. Ms. Fucile as i said before, we are continuing we certainly have not produced all documents. Pursuant to those earlier requests, i renew those requests. Chairman chaffetz you committed to providing all of those documents . Ms. Fucile we committed to providing the committee the issue that the information they need. Chairman chaffetz we decide what we need. Will he provide all the documents . Why isnt that a simple yes . You cant say yes to that . We are committed to getting the committed the information you requested and going through all of these documents. That is a process longstanding practice between this administration and other administrations to make sure the documents are relevant and make rere that these documents adhe to privacy concerns. Also come all the information you have given you so far has been complete without redaction. We are committed to this process. Chairman chaffetz i want to know if youre committed to giving us all the documents, yes or no . Ms. Fucile we are committed to giving you the information you need, and continuing to produce documents. Chairman chaffetz why cant you just say yes or no . Part of the problem is i personally dont know what all the documents are. We are committed to getting you the documents. Chairman chaffetz when . We have increased our production responsive rate, i expect chairman chaffetz you had enough information to actually peruse a rule, why cant you bring those underlying documents to congress . As the congresswoman pointed out, there is litigation that increases the amount of work that needs to go down and be done in terms of producing documents. We are committed, i expect we will continue to produce documents that will continue this month and next month. When is itaffetz reasonable to give us the documents . Im looking for a date. Ms. Fucile i cant give you a date because the breadth of the request is so broad. Wow, this isfetz what were up against. I do recognize the gentlewoman from new york. About to thank the chairman and the Ranking Member and all the panelists today. I think we can all agree on a bipartisan way that congress has a right, and is essential that access to all the information it needs to provide proper oversight. I think we can all agree to that. But todays hearing seems to be focused on production delays by a few agencies for a handful of documents. Although these agencies have produced large numbers of information to this committee. Thatld like to suggest rather than suggesting that executive agencies generally do not comply with congressional oversight requests, the facts show the exact opposite. And assistant secretary frifie ld, in your testimony you said in 2015 the state department 3000ded more than briefings and responded to more letters and appeared at 168 hearings. That is a Staggering Amount of response. Its almost amazing are these numbers correct . Ms. Frifield yes, they are correct. You also said the state department is responding to dozens of investigations again by a staggering nine different committees. Is that correct . Ms. Frifield yes, it is. Then you said this is twice as many as it was in 2014, is that correct . Ms. Frifield yes. According to our records come out Committee Held